Aashto Standard Specifications For Highway Bridges

[Latrina Mosely]

Thispublication provides comprehensive Load Resistance and Factor Design or LRFD specifications for highway movable bridges, including structural, seismic, vessel collision, mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical details, plus establishes requirements for movable bridge operation and control.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) welcomes the republication in whole or in part of any original content from The AASHTO Journal with proper attribution to the association and publication. This includes a link to direct visitors to the AASHTO Journal website.

TxDOT has established standards and specifications for the construction and maintenance of highways, streets, and bridges. Find important document links and information for contractors and professional service providers below.

The Office of the Federal Register publishes documents on behalf of Federal agencies but does not have any authority over their programs. We recommend you directly contact the agency associated with the content in question.

Choosing an item from citations and headings will bring you directly to the content. Choosing an item from full text search results will bring you to those results. Pressing enter in the search box will also bring you to search results.

This content is from the eCFR and may include recent changes applied to the CFR. The official, published CFR, is updated annually and available below under "Published Edition". You can learn more about the process here.

The eCFR is displayed with paragraphs split and indented to follow the hierarchy of the document. This is an automated process for user convenience only and is not intended to alter agency intent or existing codification.

A separate drafting site is available with paragraph structure matching the official CFR formatting. If you work for a Federal agency, use this drafting site when drafting amendatory language for Federal regulations: switch to eCFR drafting site.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the official legal print publication containing the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) is a continuously updated online version of the CFR. It is not an official legal edition of the CFR.

To designate those standards, policies, and standard specifications that are acceptable to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for application in the geometric and structural design of highways.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor Design code (AASHTO LRFD) guides modern highway bridge design. The code includes prescriptive criteria for vehicular live load covering individual truck loads, lane loads, the likelihood of multiple lanes of traffic containing high truck loads simultaneously, and impact loading. Additionally, state-specific codes allow for special permit vehicles based on local conditions and needs. The current AASHTO live loads were put into practice in 1996, the latest in a series of updates developed to represent modern traffic and design practices.

Few changes were made from the mid-1940s until the development of new live load models for the AASHTO LRFD code in the 1980s. Current bridge live loads and design are based on the 1994 AASHTO LRFD code and remain basically unchanged since then.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, it became clear that the HS20 vehicle used in design was not a good representation of current highway loading and that a new design model was needed. Five candidate loads were developed and modeled using influence line analysis to look at the maximum positive bending moment, maximum shear at supports, and maximum negative moment. Representative bridges consisting of simple spans ranging in length from 10 to 200 feet and two-span continuous structures with equal spans, also ranging from 10 to 200 feet, were modeled. The goal was to determine which of the candidate vehicles would produce the most consistent results so that a single live load model could be utilized for all structure types and lengths.

The selected and current AASHTO live load vehicle is designated HL-93, and loading consists of a combination of the design truck or design tandem with the design lane load, specified to produce the extreme force effect. The total vehicle weight is 72 kips with the axle weights and spacing of the design truck as shown in Figure 2. The spacing between the two 32.0-kip axles varies between 14.0 feet and 30.0 feet.

The design tandem, representing two trailers in series attached to one truck, consists of a pair of 25.0-kip axles (50-kip total vehicle weight) spaced 4.0 feet apart, with the transverse spacing of wheels set as 6.0 feet. The design lane load consists of a load of 0.64 klf uniformly distributed in the longitudinal direction. See Figure 3 for the loading diagrams. Transversely, the design lane load is assumed to be uniformly distributed over a 10.0-foot width. The force effects from the design lane load are not subject to a dynamic load allowance.

Additionally, many states have designated Permit Vehicles required for design, which place higher loads on the structure to account for common local industry needs. The maximum legal load is the same for all states at 80 kips, while permit loads vary quite a bit with maximums up to 110 kips. Application of the permitted load varies by state with some requiring permit loads to be analyzed similarly to the HL-93, and others allowing them to be a separate load case, assuming no or limited other traffic will be on the structure at the same time.

When adapting the developed loading to long-span and multi-lane structures, it was recognized early on that the likelihood of a bridge completely packed with trucks was low, so factors were necessary to account for multi-lane traffic and the expected percentage of truck traffic on the structure. Two traffic conditions were considered in this development:

Truck behavior was taken from survey data from the Michigan Interstate Highways and combined with engineering judgment to develop additional influence surface models. For example, limited observation suggested that, with two lanes of traffic flowing in the same direction, about every 15th truck is on the bridge simultaneously with another truck in an adjacent lane. Based on the modeling, the multiple presence factors in Table 2 were developed and are to be applied to the live load.

These factors were based on modeling that assumed an Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT) of 5,000 trucks in one direction. For low traffic structures with an ADTT between 100 and 1,000, 95% of these values may be used. For extremely low truck areas with ADTT less than 100, 90% of these values may be used.

Modern live load analysis for bridge structures typically utilizes design software to determine the worst-case loading. Thousands of individual load cases can be considered on a structure to calculate the worst possible force effects on the bridge. The analysis will include load cases with the lane load covering single lane loading, multiple lane loading, single-span loading, and multi-span loading. For each condition, the truck point loads are moved throughout the loaded area to determine the location causing maximum shear and maximum positive and negative moment in the component being designed. No single load case will control the overall design of the structure.

As it has now been over 25 years since the live load truck models currently used in design were developed, the question arises if these models are still applicable to modern traffic patterns and vehicle designs. To investigate this, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has started to collect data on vehicle weight, frequency, and axle arrangements in various parts of the country. By looking at representative samples of Weigh in Motion (WIM) data obtained as part of the ongoing studies, one can start to get a sense of how current conditions compare to design standards.

Looking individually at the data from Georgia would imply that the current design criteria fit observed traffic reasonably well. Only 3% of the vehicles observed are over the design GVW, which could easily be explained by state permit loads. Additionally, the approximate lane load is well below the 0.640 k/ft used in design. However, looking at the Oregon data is less reassuring. With up to 9% of the observed vehicles over the design load and an additional 7% over the design tandem load, it appears that a more substantial design load may be called for. The lane load observed in this data set also approaches or exceeds the design lane load, again implying that higher design loads may be justified.

Traffic loads are likely to change significantly in the not-too-distant future as autonomous vehicles, both cars and trucks, become more common. The possibility of driverless, long truck trains, moving in close formation and high speeds, and the significantly higher load potential they present, has not yet been considered. As this becomes a reality, both codes and existing infrastructure will need to be carefully reevaluated.

Support:

01 Traffic control signals for movable bridges are a special type of highway traffic signal installed at movable bridges to notify road users to stop because of a road closure rather than alternately giving the right-of-way to conflicting traffic movements. The signals are operated in coordination with the opening and closing of the movable bridge, and with the operation of movable bridge warning and resistance gates, or other devices and features used to warn, control, and stop traffic.

02 Movable bridge warning gates installed at movable bridges decrease the likelihood of vehicles and pedestrians passing the stop line and entering an area where potential hazards exist because of bridge operations.

03 A movable bridge resistance gate is sometimes used at movable bridges and located downstream of the movable bridge warning gate. A movable bridge resistance gate provides a physical deterrent to road users when placed in the appropriate position. The movable bridge resistance gates are considered a design feature and not a traffic control device; requirements for them are contained in AASHTO's "Standard Specifications for Movable Highway Bridges" (see Page i for AASHTO's address).

3a8082e126