Advertisement

Dynamic Load Allowance Provisions for Box Culverts with Low Fill Depth

  • A. Wells
  • H. W. ShentonIII
  • K. N. ManahilohEmail author
  • G. Wenczel
Technical Paper
  • 92 Downloads

Abstract

It is well established that vehicular traffic traveling over bridge-like structures can impart a dynamic load effect that is greater than vehicles’ static weight alone. In order to account for this increased load, bridge design codes use a factor known as the dynamic load allowance (IM) to amplify static vehicular live loads. In the current version of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE), reductions in IM are allowed for bridges having span lengths greater than 12.2 m with road surfaces in good condition. In addition, the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications allow for a reduced IM for culverts with higher fill depth. However, many culverts have neither span lengths greater than 12.2 m nor higher fill depths and thus are not eligible for such IM reductions. This paper investigated whether similar IM reductions can be considered for culverts with smaller span lengths and fill depths. The field experiments conducted suggest that culverts having span lengths less than 12.2 m and fill depths less than 0.5 m could be considered for similar IM reductions allowed by the MBE.

Keywords

Dynamic load allowance Load amplification Buried culverts Load rating Fill depth 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors of this paper gratefully acknowledge the support of the Delaware Department of Transportation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Delaware Department of Transportation.

References

  1. 1.
    AASHO: The AASHO road test. Report 4, Highway Research Board, Special Report 61D, Washington, D.C. (1962)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    AASHTO: Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 2nd Edition, with 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 Interim Revisions. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    AASHTO: LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 6th Edition, with 2012 and 2013 Interim Revisions. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beben, D.: Dynamic amplification factors of corrugated steel plate culverts. Eng. Struct. 46, 193–204 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Billing, J.R.: Dynamic loading and testing of bridges in Ontario. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 11(4), 833–843 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cantieni, R.: Dynamic load testing of highway bridges. Second bridge engineering conference, pp. 141–148. Transportation Research Board, Minneapolis (1984)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, S.S., Harik, I.E.: Dynamic effect of a moving truck on a culvert. J. Bridg. Eng. 17(2), 382–388 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Csagoly, P.F., Campbell, T.I., Agarwal, A.C.: Bridge vibration study. Downsview, Ontario (1972)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    FHWA: Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the nation’s Bridges. United States Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hwang, E.S., Nowak, A.S.: Simulation of dynamic load for bridges. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE. 117(5), 1413–1434 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manko, Z., Beben, D.: Dynamic testing of a corrugated steel arch bridge. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 35(3), 246–257 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McLean, D.L., Marsh, M.L.: Dynamic amplification factors for bridges. Synthesis of Highway Practice 266. Transportation Research Board, Washington (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nowak, A.S.: Calibration of LRFD bridge design code. NCHRP Report 368. Transportation Research Board, Washington (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paultre, P., Chaallal, O., Proulx, J.: Bridge dynamics and dynamic amplification factors—a review of analytical and experimental findings. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 19(2), 260–278 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spangler, M.G., Mason, C., Winfrey, R.E.: Experimental Determinations of Static and Impact Loads Transmitted to Culverts. Iowa State College, Ames (1926)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tilly, G.P.: Dynamic Behaviour of Concrete Structures: Report of the RILEM 65 MDB Committee. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wekezer, J., Taft, E., Kwasniewski, L., Earle, S.: Investigation of impact factors for FDOT bridges. Tallahassee, Florida (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wells, A.: Analytical and experimental investigation of dynamic amplification factor for the load rating of reinforced concrete box culverts. Master of Civil Engineering Thesis, University of Delaware (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Wells
    • 1
  • H. W. ShentonIII
    • 2
  • K. N. Manahiloh
    • 2
    Email author
  • G. Wenczel
    • 2
  1. 1.Collins Engineers, Inc.Port ArthurUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations