A practical multi-lane factor model of bridges based on multi-truck presence considering lane load disparities

Abstract

Many bridge design specifications consider multi-lane factors (MLFs) a critical component of the traffic load model. Measured multi-lane traffic data generally exhibit significant lane disparities in traffic loads over multiple lanes. However, these disparities are not considered in current specifications. To address this drawback, a multi-coefficient MLF model was developed based on an improved probabilistic statistical approach that considers the presence of multiple trucks. The proposed MLF model and approach were calibrated and demonstrated through an example site. The model sensitivity analysis demonstrated the significant influence of lane disparity of truck traffic volume and truck weight distribution on the MLF. Using the proposed approach, the experimental site study yielded MLFs comparable with those directly calculated using traffic load effects. The exclusion of overloaded trucks caused the proposed approach, existing design specifications, and conventional approach of ignoring lane load disparity to generate comparable MLFs, while the MLFs based on the proposed approach were the most comprehensive. The inclusion of overloaded trucks caused the conventional approach and design specifications to overestimate the MLFs significantly. Finally, the benefits of the research results to bridge practitioners were discussed.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

bridges / multi-lane factor / traffic load / lane load disparity / multi-truck presence / weigh-in-motion data

References

[1] Zhou J Y, Shi X F, Caprani C C, Ruan X. Multi-lane factor for bridge traffic load from extreme events of coincident lane load effects. Structural Safety, 2018, 72 : 17– 29

[2] Fu G, Liu L, Bowman M D. Multiple presence factor for truck load on highway bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2013, 18( 3): 240– 249

[3] Zhou J Y, Li T, Ye X J, Shi X F. Safety assessment of widened bridges considering uneven multilane traffic-load modeling: Case study in China. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2020, 25( 9): 05020008–

[4] Zhou J Y, Caprani C C, Zhang L W. On the structural safety of long-span bridges under traffic loadings caused by maintenance works. Engineering Structures, 2021, 240 : 112407–

[5] Wu H, Zhao H, Liu J, Hu Z. A filtering-based bridge weigh-in-motion system on a continuous multi-girder bridge considering the influence lines of different lanes. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2020, 14( 1): 1– 15

[6] Algohi B, Bakht B, Khalid H, Mufti A. Design loading for bridges with traffic flowing in multiple lanes in the same direction. In: The 10th International Conference on Short and Medium Span Bridges. Quebec: Curran Associates, Inc., 2018

[7] van der Spuy P, Lenner R, de Wet T, Caprani C C. Multiple lane reduction factors based on multiple lane weigh in motion data. Structure (London, England), 2019, 20 : 543– 549

[8] Zhou J Y, Chen Z X, Yi J, Ma H Y. Investigation of multi-lane factor models for bridge traffic load effects using multiple lane traffic data. Structure (London, England), 2020, 24 : 444– 455

[9] Zhou J Y, Hu C M, Chen Z X, Wang X M, Wang T. Extreme value modeling of coincident lane load effects for multi-lane factors of bridges using peaks-over-threshold method. Advances in Structural Engineering, 2021, 24( 3): 539– 555

[10] Bakht B, Jaeger L G. Bridge evaluation for multipresence of vehicles. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1990, 116( 3): 603– 618

[11] Jaeger L G, Bakht B. Bridges and Transmission Line Structures. New York: ASCE, 1987, 47–59

[12] Bao W G, Li Y H, Zhang S T, Zheng B Q, Ning P H. On the reduction coefficients of traffic loading laterally and longitudinally on bridges. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 1995, 8( 1): 80– 86

[13] Nowak A S. Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code. NCHRP Report 368. 1999

[14] Gindy M, Nassif H H. Multiple presence statistics for bridge live load based on weigh-in-motion data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2007, 2028( 1): 125– 135

[15] Committee on Loads, Forces on Bridges of the Committee on Bridges of the Structural Division. Recommended design loads for bridges. Journal of the Structural Division, 1981, 107( 7): 1161– 1213

[16] Prat M. Traffic load models for bridge design: Recent developments and research. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 2001, 3( 4): 326– 334

[17] OBrien E J, Enright B, Getachew A. Importance of the tail in truck weight modeling for bridge assessment. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2010, 15( 2): 210– 213

[18] Anitori G, Casas J R, Ghosn M. Methodology for development of live load models for refined analysis of short and medium-span highway bridges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2018, 14( 4): 477– 490

[19] Zhou J Y, Liu Y Y, Yi J. Effect of uneven multilane truck loading of multigirder bridges on component reliability. Structural Concrete, 2020, 21( 4): 1644– 1661

[20] Kwon O S, Kim E, Orton S, Salim H, Hazlett T. Calibration of the live load factor in LRFD design guidelines. Report No. OR 11–003. 2010

[21] Caprani C C. Lifetime highway bridge traffic load effect from a combination of traffic states allowing for dynamic amplification. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2013, 18( 9): 901– 909

[22] OBrien E J, Enright B. Modeling same-direction two-lane traffic for bridge loading. Structural Safety, 2011, 33( 4–5): 296– 304

[23] Ministry of Transport of China. General Code for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts, JTG D60–2004. Beijing: China Communications Press, 2004 (in Chinese)

[24] Ministry of Transport of China. General Code for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts, JTG D60–2015. Beijing: China Communications Press, 2015 (in Chinese)

[25] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004

[26] CAN/CSA-S6–06. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Toronto: Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2006

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51808148), Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (No. 2019A1515010701) and Guangzhou Municipal Science and Technology Project (No. 201904010188).

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2021 Higher Education Press 2021.