CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00 Andrew Chad

Design of Slab-On-Girder Highway 1.0 Introduction..................................................................2

2.0 Limit States Design Method........................................2
Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00 2.1 Load Combination Procedure.........................4
3.0 Design Example............................................................5
4.0 Simplified Method of Analysis....................................6
4.1 Dead Load Simplified Method of Analysis....6
4.2 Live Load Simplified Method of Analysis......7
4.2.1 Bending Moment Det. SLS & ULS.........8
4.2.2 Bending Moment Det. FLS......................9
4.2.3 Shear Determination SLS & ULS.........10
4.2.4 Shear Determination FLS......................11
5.0 Loads...........................................................................11
5.1 Dead Loads.....................................................12
5.1.1 Formatted Spreadsheet: Dead Loads....13
5.2 Live Loads.......................................................13
5.2.1 Formatted Spreadsheet: Live Loads.....16
5.3 Wind Loads.....................................................17
5.3.1 Wind on Structure..................................17
5.3.1.1 Wind Application...........................17
5.3.2 Wind on Live Load.................................18
This design summary has been prepared by Andrew. This paper acts is
5.3.3 Formatted Spreadsheet: Wind………...18
meant to act as a guide and summary and should be read in conjunction
with CAN/CSA-S6-00 or the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.
5.4 Earthquake Loads..........................................18
6.0 Conclusions.................................................................20
References
Appendix A: Formatted Spreadsheet

Table of Contents

377436623.doc 1/25/2018 PAGE 1 OF 21

CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00 Andrew Chad

1.0 Introduction Topics included in this code include: Durability, Loads, Seismic
Design, Methods of Analysis, Buried Structures, Movable Bridges,
Fiber Reinforced Structures, etc (CSA Website, 2006).
The construction industry in Canada is booming. Large Road and
bridge projects are especially prevalent in coastal British Columbia
This paper provides a synopsis of common loading and load
as it prepares for the 2010 winter Olympics. The Sea to Sky
combinations applicable to the design of a new slab on steel girder
highway upgrade as well as the expansion of Highway 1 due to the
bridge according to the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code,
Gateway Project, specifically offer many opportunities for new
hereafter referred to as the CHBDC or the code.
bridge construction in the immediate area. The design of bridges
can be quite an involved and arduous procedure. The Canadian
A formatted spreadsheet is also provided which acts as a tool for
Highway Bridge Design Code or CAN/CSA-S6-00, issued in 2000,
bridge designers and engineers to organize and summarize the
provides comprehensive and up-to-date requirements for new as
multitude of loading cases, conditions and actual loads required by
well as existing highway bridges. It combines and replaces two
the code for the design of new bridge structures.
previous publications: Design of Highway Bridges (CAN/CSA-S6-
88) and the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (1991). The use
of its “Simplified Method of Analysis” provides designers and
2.0 Limit States Design Method
bridge engineers with a very practical and useful method of
analysis, which greatly simplifies the overall procedure.
In most general terms, bridge failure occurs when the structure is
According to the CSA, the CHBDC’s underlying principle is to: no longer able to fulfill its primary function, that is, to transmit
“support the implementation of a national transportation system primary loads comfortably across an opening. Building codes
with uniform minimum standards and design loads for bridges on attempt to minimize the possibility of failure primarily through the
interprovincial highways. The consistency makes it easier and use of three primary design philosophies, namely, Design at
more cost-effective to design, construct and maintain Working Loads or Allowable Stress Design, Design for Collapse
interprovincial highways, and to transport goods between and Limit States Design. The Canadian Highway Bridge Design
jurisdictions.” Code is based on the Limit States method.

377436623.doc 1/25/2018 PAGE 2 OF 21

CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00
The Limit States Design Method, as currently used in the CHBDC
has two basic characteristics:
1. It tries to consider all possible limit states
2. It is based on probabilistic methods.
The chief advantages of this probability-based, Limit States Design
Method are:
1. The recognition of different variabilities for various
loads, such as the dead load versus the live load. This
differs from the working stress method in that it would
encompass both loads into one factor of safety.
2. The recognition of a range of limit states
3. The promise of uniformity by the use of statistical
methods to relate all to the probabilities of failure.
As amazing as it sounds, the limit states design method is not
without its flaws. This method’s chief disadvantages, deals with
the necessity to choose an acceptable risk of failure. Quantifying
risk is a fine science, as how does one put a number to a chance of
collapse that involves only structural failure versus one that leads
to a loss of life? Also, this probability of failure must be delegated
to events and loading conditions that may or may not occur during
the lifetime of the bridge (O’Connor, 2000). In the CHBDC,
default bridge design life is set at 75 years, there is an inherent
377436623.doc
Andrew Chad
difficulty in predicting a loading condition or event that may not
occur until this time has almost elapsed.
The Ontario Highway bridge design code (OHBDC) was a pioneer
in the use of this Limit States design philosophy for bridges; it has
also influenced heavily the American AASHTO (American
Association of Highway Transportation Officials) specifications.
The AASHTO Code has changed its primary design philosophy
from ASD to LRFD and as of May 2005, 17 states have fully
implemented this procedure, with many more close to full
implementation (AASHTO Website, 2006). A major advancement
of the OHBDC code was the linkage of design loads to the legal
capacity limits for trucks in Ontario. Theoretically though, these
limits spread beyond Ontario as one cannot drive through Canada
without passing through the province. The truck geometry, wheel
placement and overall length for the 1979 OHBDC were also of
major importance, both with regards to the development of the
limit states format and in its methodology for the choice of a
design vehicle and associated legal limits (O’Connor, 2000).
The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code Limit States Design
philosophy involves the satisfaction three limit states criteria;
Ultimate Limit States (ULS), Fatigue Limit States (FLS) and
Serviceability Limit States (SLS).
The Ultimate Limit States deals with the overall strength of the
structure. This criterion ensures that the overall and component
1/25/2018 PAGE 3 OF 21
CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00 Andrew Chad

factored bridge strength and stability is able to withstand

statistically significant loading conditions over its design life.

The Fatigue Limit States deals with strength degradation with

sustained cyclic loading. It can be seen as the imposition of
repeated cycles that cause repetitive and reversed plasticity at some
point in a material. This eventually causes a crack, initiating at an
internal defect or notch, that spreads and in worse case causes
failure through either a brittle mechanism or ductile.

The Serviceability Limit State outlines maximum deflections and

vibrations for safe use and pedestrian comfort among others.
Acceptable vibration criteria, deflection vs. first flexural frequency
is outlined in the code in Clause 3.4.4 and shown below in Figure
1. Further serviceability requirements to be met include acceptable
crack widths, stress and deformations.

Figure 1 – Deflection Limitations for Highway Bridge

Superstructure Vibration

2.1 Load Combinations

As stated earlier, there is a multitude of loads that must be taken

into account for the design of a new bridge structure in Canada.
According to limit states theory, these loads are combined in a
manner for ULS, SLS and FLS that is statistically significant. The

377436623.doc 1/25/2018 PAGE 4 OF 21

CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00
CHBDC outlines twelve of these appropriate load combinations in
table 3.5.1(a) shown below as table 1. Further, load amplification
or de-amplification factors are given for the individual load cases.
Table 1 – CHBDC Load Factors and Load Combinations
3.0 Design Example
Before proceeding any further, due the nature of this report, a case
study bridge is defined in this section. For the purposes of
illustrating load and analysis characteristics and explaining the
formatted spreadsheet which accompanies this paper a 4 lane
highway bridge was chosen as an aid.
377436623.doc
Andrew Chad
The bridge consists of a 9” reinforced concrete deck on 5 steel
girders spanning continuously over two 20m spans. Spacing
between girders is 3.5m with deck overhangs of 1.0m on either
side. This type of structure is representative of a typical highway
overpass structure. A cross section is shown in fig. 2. The bridge is
to be idealized as a beam as shown in figure 3.
1m 3.5m
Figure 2 – Design Aid Bridge Cross Section
20m 20m
Figure 3 –Idealized Beam of Design Aid Example
1/25/2018 PAGE 5 OF 21
CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00
4.0 Simplified Method of Analysis
Prior to summarizing the loading conditions, it is important to keep
in mind the methods of analysis that will be used by engineers to
practically design the bridge described in above. Section 5 of the
CAN/CSA-S6 provides guidance as to what types of analysis
should be performed and when.
It is not coincidental that the bridge described in section 3.0
appears to fall into the category where one could apply the
“Simplified Method of Analysis” as specified by the code. For both
dead loads and live loads, if a structure satisfies the criteria
outlined in sections 5.6 and 5.7, the method is available for use.
Outlined below is a summary of the necessary criteria and the
method of analysis to be used should the criteria be met.
4.1 Dead Load Simplified Method of Analysis:
The benefits of being able to use the simplified method of analysis
for dead load takedown and calculations are substantial. If the
criteria are met, bridge designers have the ability to employ the
“Beam Analogy Method” as outlined in Cl. 5.6.1.2. As is stated in
this clause, “it is permitted to the whole of the bridge
superstructure, or part contained between two parallel vertical
planes running in the longitudinal direction, as a beam, for the
purposes of obtaining the longitudinal moments, longitudinal
377436623.doc
Andrew Chad
vertical shears, and deflections due to dead load. The dead load of
a cast deck and superimposed dead load shall be distributed using
engineering judgement and in such a manner as to satisfy overall
equilibrium”. The use of the “Beam Analogy Method” is permitted
if the following conditions are met:
 The width is constant
 The support conditions are closely equivalent to line
support, both at the ends of the bridge and, in the case of
multispan bridges, at intermediate supports
 For slab and voided slab bridges the skew parameter ε does
not exceed 1/6 and for slab-on-girder bridges built with
shored construction, the skew parameter does not exceed
1/18. For slab-on-girder bridges built with unshored
construction, no limitation on the value of skew parameter,
ε applies (see Cl. 5.6.1.1 for definition of ε).
 For bridges that are curved in plan and that are built with
shored construction, the radius of curvature, span and width
satisfy the requirements of A5.1(b)(ii)
 A solid or voided slab is of substantial uniform depth across
a transverse section, or tapered in the vicinity of a free edge
provided that the length of the taper in the transverse
direction does not exceed 2.5m
 For a bridge having longitudinal girders and an
overhanging deck slab, the overhang does not exceed 60%
of the mean spacing between longitudinal girders or the
1/25/2018 PAGE 6 OF 21
CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00
spacing of the two outermost adjacent webs for box girder
bridges, and, also, is not more than 1.80m
The code also provides an escape clause in the case that all of these
conditions are not fully met. Engineering judgement may be
employed to judge whether the bridge meets the criteria of the
simplified method sufficiently closely. If, according to the
designers judgement, the bridge sufficiently meets the criteria, the
“beam analogy” method may be employed.
If a short to medium span bridge does not meet the criteria for
simplified analysis, a more refined method than the beam analogy
method is required. These analysis techniques are defined in
section 5.9 and include:
Grillage analogy
Orthotropic plate theory
Finite element
Finite strip
Folded plate
Semi-continuum
These methods fall beyond the scope of this report but would be
useful in the iteration and refining of the results from the beam
analogy method.
4.2 Live Load Simplified Method of Analysis
377436623.doc
Andrew Chad
Although somewhat more involved, the simplified method of
analysis for live loads also provides a relatively easy method for
determining longitudinal shears, moments and deflections.
The simplified method criteria closely parallels that of the dead
load method and requires:
 The bridge width is constant
 The support conditions are closely equivalent to line
support, both at the ends of the bridge and, in the case of
multispan bridges, at intermediate supports
 For slab and slab on girder bridges with skew, the
provisions of A5.1(b)(i) are met
 For bridges that are curved in plan, the radius of curvature,
span, and width satisfy the relative requirements of A5.1(b)
(ii)
 A solid or voided slab is of substantial uniform depth across
a transverse section, or tapered in the vicinity of a free edge
provided that the length of the taper in the transverse
direction does not exceed 2.5m
 For slab-on-girder bridges, there shall be at least three
longitudinal girders that are of equal flexural rigidity and
1/25/2018 PAGE 7 OF 21
CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00 Andrew Chad

equally spaced, or with variations from the mean of not

more than 10% in each case For slab-on-girder bridges, Fm and Fv factors are functions of:
 Girder Spacing
 For a bridge having longitudinal girders and an  Girder Span
overhanging deck slab, the overhang does not exceed 60%  Number of Design Lanes
of the mean spacing between the longitudinal girders or the  Lane Width
spacing of the two outermost adjacent webs for box girders,
 Multilane Loading Reduction
and, also, is not more than 1.8m

Figure 4 provides an illustration of this variation showing extreme

 For a continuous span bridge, the provisions of A5.1(a)
variations in truck placements on bridge.
shall apply

 In the case of multispine bridges, each spin has only two

webs. Also, the conditions of Cl. 10.12.5.1 shall apply for
steel and steel-composite multispine bridges.

The live load simplified method differs from that of the dead load
in that there is possibility for transverse variation in the load
placement. As such, longitudinal bending moment and shear
diagrams are obtained, treating the bridge as a beam and
subsequently adjusted with amplification factors, Fm and Fv, to
account for the transverse variation in bending moment and shear
Figure 4 – Transverse Moment Distribution Simplified Method of
values respectively. This method differs from the previously used
Analysis ULS & SLS
method of Load Fractions to determine each girder’s share of
moment and shear forces.
For slab-on-girder bridges, Mg, or adjusted bending moment per
girder is obtained from the following equations as outlined in
4.2.1 SLS and ULS Bending Moment Calculation:

377436623.doc 1/25/2018 PAGE 8 OF 21

CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00 Andrew Chad

clause 5.7.1.2 “Longitudinal Bending moments in shallow

superstructures”. For ultimate limit states and serviceability limit
states, procedure for ULS and SLS is outlined below:

Mg = FmMgavg
Where:
Mgavg=nMTRL/N
MT = max moment per design lane
RL = modification factor for multilane loading
Fm = Amplification factor for moments
Fm = SN/F(1+ mewCf/100) greater than or equal 1.05
S = Girder Spacing Figure 5 – Transverse Moment Distribution Simplified Method of
N = Number of Girders Analysis FLS
F = Width dimension given in table A5.7.1.2.1
(1+μCf/100) = lane width correction factor For fatigue limit states:
Cf = given in Table A5.7.1.2.1 Mg = FmMgavg
Where:
4.2.2 FLS Bending Moment Calculation Mgavg=MT/N
MT = max moment for one truck at the point of the span
For fatigue limit states, Fm and Fv also account for Truck Location that creates the maximum result. This load is then shared
in a travel lane; as well, Dve, a reduction for wide girder spacing, is equally among all girders.
applied. Figure 5 shows truck placement with respect to bridge Fm = Amplification factor for moments
edge to achieve maximum design moments and shear for the Fm = SN/F(1+ mewCf/100+Ce/100) greater than or equal
fatigue limit state. 1.05
S = Girder Spacing
N = Number of Girders
F = Width dimension given in table A5.7.1.2.2(a)

377436623.doc 1/25/2018 PAGE 9 OF 21

CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00
(1+μCf/100+Ce/100) = lane width correction factor
Cf = correction factor given in Table A5.7.1.2.2(b)
Ce = correction factor for vehicle edge distance from table
A5.7.1.2.2(a)
This simplified method of analysis is demonstrated in the design
example formatted spreadsheet in appendix a.
4.2.3 Simplified Method for Vertical Longitudinal
Shear ULS & SLS
The determination of longitudinal vertical shears is very similar to
that of longitudinal vertical moments. Longitudinal shear diagrams
should be obtained treating the bridge as a beam for two load
cases. The first load case comprises one truck, consisting of two
lines of CL-625 wheel loads, the second load case comprises the
CL-W lane load to be specified in section 5.2 of this report and
3.8.3.2 of the code. Each of these load cases includes the
multiplication of the dynamic load allowance factor where
applicable to be discussed in section 5.2 and Clause 3.8.4.5 of the
code. For slab-on-girder bridges meeting the criteria of the
simplified method of analysis, the longitudinal vertical shear per
girder, Vg, is obtained form the following equations:
Vg = FvVgavg
377436623.doc
Andrew Chad
Where:
Vgavg = the average shear per girder determined by sharing
equally the total shear on the bridge cross section among all
girders in the cross section.
Vgavg = nVTRL/N
VT= the maximum shear per lane at the point of span under
consideration
n = number of design lanes in accordance with Clause 3.8.2
RL = the modification factor for multilane loading in
accordance with Clause 3.8.4.2 or 14.8.4.2
N = the number of girders or longitudinal wood beams in
the bridge deck B
Fv = an amplification factor to account for the transverse
variation in maximum longitudinal shear intensity, as
compared to the average longitudinal shear intensity.
Fv = SN/F
S = center to center girder spacing
F = a width dimension that characterizes load distribution
for a bridge. For bridges having up to four design lanes, F,
shall be obtained from table 5.7.1.4.1 according to the type
of bridge and and the number of design lanes in the bridge.
For girder type bridges and voided slabs, where the spacing
S of longitudinal girders or longitudinal web lines in voided
slabs is less than 2.00 m, the value of F obtained from table
5.7.1.4.1 shall be multiplied by the following reduction
factor (S/2.00)0.25
1/25/2018 PAGE 10 OF 21
CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00
4.2.4 Simplified Method for Vertical Longitudinal
Shear FLS
The simplified method for longitudinal vertical shear for fatigue
limit states shall be calculated in the same manner as that of the
ultimate and serviceability limit states. The value of F however
shall be obtained from table 5.7.1.4.2 and VT shall be calculated
using a single truck on the bridge, in one lane only.
5.0 Loads
There are a multitude of forces that bridges built in Canada must
now be built to withstand. In the CHBDC these are separated into
three categories; Permanent Loads, Transitory Loads and
Exceptional Loads. Permanent Loads include:
 Dead loads (D)
 Loads due to earth pressure and hydrostatic pressure
including surcharges other than dead load (E)
 Secondary prestress effects (P)
Transitory Loads should only be included in an analysis if there is
a possibility that their inclusion increases the total factored load
effect. They include:
377436623.doc
Andrew Chad
 Live load including dynamic load allowance when
applicable, based on CL-625 Truck or Lane (L)
 All strains, deformations, displacements, and their effects,
including the effects of their restraint and those of friction
or stiffness in bearings. Strains and deformation include
those due to temperature change and temperature
differential, concrete shrinkage, differential shrinkageand
creep; but not elastic strains (K)
 Wind load on structure (W)
 Wind load on traffic (V)
 Load due to differential settlement and/or movement of the
foundation (S)
Exceptional loads, appropriately named, involve lower probability
higher consequence loading. They too should only be included if
they increase the total factored load effect.
 Earthquake loads (EQ)
 Loads due to stream pressure and ice forces, or debris
torrents (F)
 Ice Accretion Load (A)
 Collision load arising from highway vehicles or vessels (H)
For the purposes of this report, due to its focus on the bridge
superstructure, and the case-by-case specificity required for several
load types, five of the aforementioned load types will be discussed
1/25/2018 PAGE 11 OF 21
CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00 Andrew Chad

in further detail in this. These are: Dead Loads, Live Loads, Wind
load on Structure, Wind Load on Traffic and Earthquake Loading.

5.1 Dead Loads

Dead loads are defined in CSA/CAN-S6 as “the load from material

that is supported by the structure and is not subject to movement.”
This loading includes the weight of all components and
appendages affixed to the structure including wearing surface,
earth cover and utilities. With the absence of more precise
information, table 2 as defined in the code as table 3.6, provides
the unit material weights for use in design.

The CHBDC’s approach becomes quite thorough with respect to

Table 2 –Unit Material Weights Specified in the Code
the load factors associated with dead loads. Through calibration of
an annual reliability index, Β, of 3.75 and a service life of 75 years
for a new bridge, minimum and maximum load factors have been
provided as shown in table 3 (Table 3.5.1(b) in code). Minimum
and maximum values of α have been calibrated according to the
relative confidence and variability of the load in question. For
instance, factory produced components, with a greater degree of
quality control, and a lesser degree of variability have an α load
factor which varies by only 14% vs. wearing surfaces which vary
by 57%, ranging from 0.65 to 1.5. Wearing surfaces are a special
case dead load, in that, they are expected to vary in weight over the
life of the bridge.

377436623.doc 1/25/2018 PAGE 12 OF 21

CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00
Table 3 - Maximum and Minimum Alpha Load Factors for ULS
Loading
5.1.1 Formatted Spreadsheet: Dead Loads
Dead load inclusion in the attached formatted spreadsheet is fairly
straight forward. The program assumes that the bridge is qualified
to use the “beam analogy method” as outlined in section 4.1. By
entering bridge geometry, deck, barrier and sidewalk thicknesses
the spreadsheet provides design values for interior and exterior
girders and associated range in alpha load factors through the beam
idealization of the structure. The program calculates the tributary
width for interior girders by taking the area between two vertical
planes between exterior girders & the first interior girders. See
377436623.doc
Andrew Chad
attached program in Appendix 1 for example calculations and
further explanations.
5.2 Live Loading
Live loading and analysis, which includes, traffic, maintenance and
pedestrians makes up a large portion of the CHBDC. It is vehicle
loading though that typically governs the design of a highway
bridge in Canada. Live loading of highway bridges in Canada is
based on the CL-W truck load as well as the CL-W Lane Load.
These loads provide designers and engineers with the minimum
analysis values for design. Loading of lesser or greater magnitude
may be stipulated by provincial authorities or appropriate localized
traffic conditions.
A CL-W truck is the idealized five axle vehicle as shown in figure
6. Load values, wheel placement and lengths as shown in this
figure have been specifically calibrated for a 625kN truck, the
current legal limit in Canada. This truck is encompassed in a 3m x
3m clearance envelope with 1.8 m wheel to wheel spacing as
shown in section in figure 7.
Originally, the design of bridges in Canada was based upon
loading prescribed by the AASHTO. By 1978 these prescribed
loadings were changed to the legal limits observed by all
provinces. In 1998 a 600 kN load was assigned as the legal truck
1/25/2018 PAGE 13 OF 21
CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00 Andrew Chad

load limit for inter-provincial trucking routes. This was raised to

625kN in 2000, as well, the associated live load factor was raised
to the current 1.7. Canadian values differed originally from those
of Ontario, in that, the latter were based on MOL (maximum
observed loads) versus preset legal limits in Canada. In today’s
code, although a 625kN weight is used throughout the country,
there still remains a discrepancy between Ontarian truck wheel
placement and axle weight distribution compared to that a CL-W
truck prescribed for the rest of Canada. The CL-625-ON truck can
be found in appendix A3.4 of the CHBDC and is to be used for the
design of bridges in Ontario.
Figure 7 – CL-W Truck Section Envelope

Figure 6 – CL-W Truck Load Layout and Distribution
The CL-W lane load consists of a CL-W truck load with each axle
reduced to 80% of the values given in figure 6 superimposed with
a 9kN/m lane load applied over an area 3m wide. It is important to
note that this load need not be applied where it reduces the overall
load effects. For example, where bridge girders are continuous
over supports, applying the lane load over the entire superstructure
would result in lower maximum positive bending moments at
midspans; not unlike the technique used for snow or live loading in
buildings, pattern loading yields the critical results. This 9kN/m
lane load is based on work done by Taylor based on observations at
the Vancouver Second Narrows Bridge (O’Connor, 2000). This
loading also dictates the informal lane load for the design of an
ASCE bridge.

377436623.doc 1/25/2018 PAGE 14 OF 21

CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00
Figure 8 – CL-W Lane Load Distribution
Both the truck and lane load cases shall be factored according to
the 12 load cases stipulated in table 1. Further, a dynamic load
allowance factor shall increase loads where applicable. While these
factors would typically produce higher critical results on smaller
components such as manhole covers and deck joints, a designer
must remain fully aware of their presence for overall bridge
superstructure design. Dynamic load allowance factors, in percent,
are stipulated in Cl. 3.8.4.5.3 as:
a. 0.50 for deck joints
b. 0.40 where only one axle of the CL-W truck is used,
except for deck joints
c. 0.30 where any two axles of the CL-W truck are used,
or axles 1,2 and 3 are used; or
d. 0.25 where three axles of the CL-W Truck, except for
axles 1,2 and 3 or more than 3 axles are used.
These factors need not be applied to the CL-W lane load nor to its
associated reduced wheel loads, these provisions essentially
377436623.doc
Andrew Chad
stipulate that where a full truck or more than 3 axles are used, the
wheel and axle loads shown in figure 6 be increased by at least
25%.
The application of live loads is subject to the provisions of clause
3.8.4., this clause stipulates:
 Truck Axles that reduce the load effect shall be
neglected
 The uniformly distributed portion of the lane load shall
not be applied to those parts of a design lane where its
application decreases the total load effect
 For fatigue limit state, and for the superstructure
vibration serviceability limit state (combination 2), the
traffic load shall be one truck load increased by the
dynamic load allowance or the lane load, whichever
produces the maximum load effect. The truck width
shall not project beyond the design lane except as
specified in clause 3.8.4.3(d). The lane load shall not
project beyond the edge of a design lane, nor shall the
CL-W truck clearance envelope, except as specified in
clause 3.8.4.4.
Multiple Lane loading is taken into account in the CHBDC through
the application of a modification factor which adjusts for the lesser
probability of having more than one lane loaded with full CL-W
truck or lane loading. These factors are shown in table 3.8.4.2 of
the code, table 4 below
1/25/2018 PAGE 15 OF 21
CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00 Andrew Chad

It is interesting to note that snow loads have not been included in

Number of Loaded Design Lanes Modification Factor
1 1.00
2 0.90
3 0.80
4 0.70
5 0.60
6 or More 0.55
Table 4 - Modification Factors for Multilane Loading
the code as it was assumed that the occurrence of a considerable
snow load would cause a compensating reduction in traffic load.
Organization of all possible live loading conditions is of utmost
importance. For the most part, there are no reduction factors for
live loads which occur at the same time, aside from the lane
reduction factors from table 4.

Since this report focuses on the design of multilane slab-on-girder 5.2.1 Formatted Spreadsheet: Live Loads
highway bridges, several live load categories and load types have
been omitted from this paper. While truck loading remains the The attached formatted spreadsheet requires users to input general
forefront load of concern for this relatively simple structure, where bridge geometry and location. The program then outlines the loads
applicable, the following loads must be applied: to be input into an analysis program idealizing the bridge as a
 CL-W Truck wheels on sidewalk beam as described in section 3.0. With the results taken from this
 Centrifugal Force on curved bridges analysis program, users then re-input values into the formatted
 Braking force sheet which adjusts the values accordingly to account for
 Curb Load transverse variation. The final values are then available for the
 Traffic Barrier Loading designer to input into and factor according to the load
 Pedestrian and Bicycle barrier loads combinations of table 1.
 Pedestrian Loads
 Maintenance Access loads
 Maintenance Vehicle Loads

377436623.doc 1/25/2018 PAGE 16 OF 21

CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00
5.3 Wind Loading
5.3.1 Wind on Structure
Dynamic wind loading has the ability to impart massive forces
unto a structure. Section 3.10 of the CHBDC stipulates wind loads
for all highway structures, with specific requirements for bridge
substructures and superstructures. Since this report is concerned
with the superstructure design, this section will focus on that
feature. Clause 3.10 also provides guidance as to the level of
superstructure aeroelastic instability a designer can expect per span
length, bridge type and reference wind velocity.
5.3.1.1 Wind Load Application:
Clause 3.10.2.1 of the CHBDC states that the “Superstructure shall
be designed for wind induced vertical and horizontal drag loads
acting simultaneously”. These wind loads shall be applied
uniformly and non-uniformly over the entire structure. The non-
uniform load portion shall comprise 75% of the uniform load over
any portion of the structure with 100% of the uniform load over the
remainder. The horizontal drag load, defined below, is to be
applied over the exposed frontal area of the superstructure. In the
case of a slab on steel girder bridge, this would be represented by
the span length multiplied by girder height, deck thickness and
solid barrier height if present.
377436623.doc
Andrew Chad
The vertical load is to be applied over the exposed plan area and
taken to act either upward or downward. Possible eccentricities in
this load application are taken into account by applying total
vertical wind load as an equivalent vertical line load at the
windward quarter point of the transverse superstructure width.
Vertical and horizontal drag loads are defined as:
Fh=qCeCgCh
Fv=qCeCgCv
Where q,Ce,Cg,Cv, Ch are defined below:
q = Reference wind pressure:
The reference wind pressure, q, mandated by the code is a
1/100 year wind for bridges spanning greater than 125m,
and a 1/50 year wind for structures less than 125m. Also, if
site topography can cause the wind to funnel, reference
wind pressures are to be increased by 20%.
Cg = Gust Effect Coefficient:
For bridges that are not sensitive to wind action, which
includes most bridges less than 125m, the gust effect
coefficient, Cg, shall be taken as 2.0. For lighter and more
slender structures such as pedestrian bridges, this
coefficient shall be taken as 2.5. The gust effect approach is
1/25/2018 PAGE 17 OF 21
CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00
to be replaced with a detailed analysis of dynamic wind
action for structures that are sensitive to wind action.
Ce = Exposure Coefficient:
The exposure coefficient is proportional to reference
height, H, of the structure. It shall not be less than 1,0 and
can be calculated from the equation below or taken from
table 3.10.1.3 of the code.
Ce = (0.1H)0.2
Ch, Cv = Drag Coefficients:
Ch and Cv for use in design equations above are to be taken
as 2.0 and 1.0 respectively.
This code section also includes a clause that enables a designer to
use representative wind tunnel tests or other more detailed methods
of analysis to establish loads and design criteria. This would be an
appropriate approach for longer slab-on-girder structures or those
built in areas where continual high winds are expected.
5.3.2 Wind on Live Load
The wind load on traffic is calculated in the same manner as the
horizontal wind load calculation. The load is applied to the
exposed area of traffic or any portion thereof which produces
377436623.doc
Andrew Chad
critical results. For a highway bridge this area is represented by a
solid height of 3m representing truck traffic across the span of the
bridge. The area of solid highway barriers is to be neglected in this
calculation. Also, a value of 1.2 is to be taken for horizontal drag
coefficient, Ch.
5.3.3 Formatted Spreadsheet
Given the proven aeroelastic stability of slab-on-girder bridges, the
calculation of wind loads is a relatively straightforward procedure;
relatively few variable calculations are required. See formatted
spreadsheet in Appendix A for example design calculations,
references to the corresponding code clauses and further
explanation to the use of the procedure outlined in section 5.3.1.1.
5.4 Earthquake Effects
Earthquake loading is described in substantial detail in CAN/CSA-
S6-00 Section 4. A detailed seismic loading summary is slightly
beyond the scope of this report. However, a synopsis of the
procedure is provided in this section.
Effectively, the horizontal seismic forces acting upon a bridge are
dependant on the elastic seismic response coefficient, Csm, as well
as the effective weight of the structure.
1/25/2018 PAGE 18 OF 21
CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00
The minimum analysis required for specific bridge types is
specified in Clauses 4.4.5.2 and 4.4.5.3 of the code. While no
seismic analysis is required for single span bridges (except single
span truss structures), the multispan analysis consists of one of:
 None
 Uniform Load Method (UL)
 Single Mode Spectral Method (SM)
 Multimode Spectral Method (MM)
 Time History Method (TH)
The exact analysis procedure is based on the importance category
of the structure as well as the seismic performance zone in which it
lies.
The importance categories as outlined in the CHBDC are: Lifeline
bridges, Emergency-Route Bridges, and Other bridges. Lifeline
bridges are those which must remain open to all traffic after a
seismic event with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years
and a return period of 475 years. These bridges must also remain
usable by security and emergency vehicles after a larger 1/1000
year return event. Emergency route bridges are those which should,
at a minimum remain open to emergency vehicles immediately
after the design earthquake.
Bridges are assigned to one of four seismic zones based on this
importance category and in accordance with the zonal acceleration
377436623.doc
Andrew Chad
ratio, taken from environmental data, and table 4.4.4.1 of the code,
for the location the bridge is to be constructed.
Based on the seismic performance zone, importance category and
whether the bridge is defined as “regular” or “irregular” according
to Cl. 4.4.5.3.2 of the code, one of the aforementioned minimum
analysis requirements is specified in table 4.4.5.3.1. This table
shown is below as table 5.
Table 5 – Minimum Analysis Requirements for Multispan Bridges
According to Cl. 4.4.9.1 of the code, the structure is to be analyzed
in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. The two load
cases shall consist of 100% of the absolute value of the analysis
load in one direction combined with 30% of the force effects of
analysis in the other direction. An interesting note is that the
vertical earthquake motions are taken into account by not
eliminating the use of a dead load factor. For Canadian building
design, the National Building Code of Canada requires that the
vertical motions and forces be calculated using a similar procedure
to the horizontal motions.
1/25/2018 PAGE 19 OF 21
CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00 Andrew Chad

Conclusions
With respect to the design example outlined in section 3, assuming
this is a “lifeline” bridge located in an area with a zonal
With respect to load, load cases and load analysis, the CHBDC
acceleration ratio of 0.2, table 5 defines the minimum analysis as
provides a comprehensive, realistic and procedural outline to be
multimode spectral.
followed by designers and engineers.

This multimode spectral analysis would then bide by the same

The CHBDC was based on the original OHBDC which was
linear dynamic analysis principles as any multi degree of freedom
revolutionary in its use of Limit States Design and the use of a
structure. Cl. 4.5.3.3 of the code stipulates that the number of
design vehicle based on prescribed legal limits. Outlined in this
modes required for analysis shall be such that 90% of mass
report is the general procedure for load summation, determination
participation in the direction under consideration be achieved.
and simple analysis for bridges meeting the criteria of the
These modes and associated forces shall then be combined using
CHBDC’s “Simplified Method of Analysis”; specifically, detailed
an accepted modal combination procedure. For closely spaced
procedures were provided for Dead Loads, Live Loads, Wind on
modes, less than 10% difference with respect to the natural
Structure and Wind on Traffic. With that said, the CHBDC is
frequency, the Complete Quadratic Combination or absolute sum
nonetheless a complicated but well written code. Many loads were
of the modal quantities methods shall be used.
omitted for the relatively simple bridge example discussed in this
report, as well as the attached formatted spreadsheet and only a
Keeping the above in mind, the majority of publicized steel bridge
very basic analysis was performed. Even with this “simple” bridge,
failures during seismic events tend to be localized near or around
the author found much room for confusion and the inclusion of
the supports or bearings. With that said, improper design and
“small” mistakes. The Simplified Method of design provides the
detailing of a slab-on-steel girder system certainly has the potential
designer with an excellent base procedure and organization but
for failure during a seismic event. With proper detailing, the
vigilance is still required on their part. An interesting study would
concrete slab has the ability to perform extremely well as a
involve the vigilance of the current practice of bridge design in
transverse stiffening element; focus should be applied to the proper
Canada and its general compliance with this procedure, especially
detailing of connections and bearings.
given the volume of new bridges to be designed in the immediate
area in the near future.

377436623.doc 1/25/2018 PAGE 20 OF 21

CIVL 511 Design of Slab-on-Girder Steel Highway Bridges According to CAN/CSA-S6-00 Andrew Chad

References

AASHTO Subcomitee on Bridges and Structures. 2006.

Information Retrieved from:
http://bridges.transportation.org/?siteid=34&pageid=229

CAN/CSA-S6_00. 2000. Canadian Highway Bridge Design

Code, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

CSA Website. 2006. Information retrieved March 1 from:

http://www.csa.ca/products/construction/Default.asp?
articleID=4422&language=english

NBC- National Building Code of Canada. 2005, National Research

Council Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

O’Connor, C., Shaw, P. 2000. Bridge Loads:

An International Perspective, Taylor and Francis Group, London,
England.

Lwin, M. Myint.1999. Why the AASTHO Load and Resistance

Factor Design Specifications?. Transportation Research Record.

Appendix A
Formatted Spreadsheet see attached electronic version.

377436623.doc 1/25/2018 PAGE 21 OF 21