Investigation of the Impact of Dual-Lane Axle Spacing on Lateral Load Distribution, 2016

The spacing of adjacent wheel lines of dual-lane loads induces different lateral live load distributions on bridges, which cannot be determined using the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) or Load Factor Design (LFD) equations for vehicles with standard axle configurations. Current Iowa law requires dual-lane loads to meet a five-foot requirement, the adequacy of which needs to be verified. To improve the state policy and AASHTO code specifications, it is necessary to understand the actual effects of wheel-line spacing on lateral load distribution. The main objective of this research was to investigate the impact of the wheel-line spacing of dual-lane loads on the lateral load distribution on bridges. To achieve this objective, a numerical evaluation using two-dimensional linear elastic finite element (FE) models was performed. For simulation purposes, 20 prestressed-concrete bridges, 20 steel bridges, and 20 slab bridges were randomly sampled from the Iowa bridge database. Based on the FE results, the load distribution factors (LDFs) of the concrete and steel bridges and the equivalent lengths of the slab bridges were derived. To investigate the variations of LDFs, a total of 22 types of single-axle four-wheel-line dual-lane loads were taken into account with configurations consisting of combinations of various interior and exterior wheel-line spacing. The corresponding moment and shear LDFs and equivalent widths were also derived using the AASHTO equations and the adequacy of the Iowa DOT five-foot requirement was evaluated. Finally, the axle weight limits per lane for different dual-lane load types were further calculated and recommended to complement the current Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) policy and AASHTO code specifications.

Evaluation of Bias in the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device, RB00-010, 2013

As the list of states adopting the HWTD continues to grow, there is a need to evaluate how results are utilized. AASHTO T 324 does not standardize the analysis and reporting of test results. Furthermore, processing and reporting of the results among manufacturers is not uniform. This is partly due to the variation among agency reporting requirements. Some include only the midpoint rut depth, while others include the average across the entire length of the wheel track. To eliminate bias in reporting, statistical analysis was performed on over 150 test runs on gyratory specimens. Measurement location was found to be a source of significant variation in the HWTD. This is likely due to the nonuniform wheel speed across the specimen, geometry of the specimen, and air void profile. Eliminating this source of bias when reporting results is feasible though is dependent upon the average rut depth at the final pass. When reporting rut depth at the final pass, it is suggested for poor performing samples to average measurement locations near the interface of the adjoining gyratory specimens. This is necessary due to the wheel lipping on the mold. For all other samples it is reasonable to only eliminate the 3 locations furthest from the gear house. For multi‐wheel units, wheel side was also found to be significant for poor and good performing samples. After eliminating the suggested measurements from the analysis, the wheel was no longer a significant source of variation.