ROUGHNESS AT THE PAVEMENT-BRIDGE INTERFACE
by
Y!-Chin Hu Tsu-Long Wu Clyde E. Lee
Randy Machemehl
Research Report/Number 213-1F
Roughness at the Pavement-Bridge Interface
Research Project 3-8-76-213
conducted for
Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
in cooperaticn with the U. s. Departme~t of Traosportation
Federal Highway Administration
by the
CENTER FOR HIGHWAY RESEARCH
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
August 1979
'.
PREFACE
This is the first and final published report on Research Project
3-8-76-213, "Roughness at the Pavement-Bridge Interface." It includes sum-
maries of pertinent literature, methodologies for measurement and analyses of
surface roughness, and recommendations for precluding and minimizing approach
surface roughness.
Two unpublished theses based on various phases of the study have been
submitted to The University of Texas at Austin in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the ~Bster of Science degree in Civil Engineering. These
are:
"A Study of Roughness at the Pavement-Bridge Interface," June 1977, by Y. C. Hu, and
"Roughness at the Bridge-Pavement Interface," August 1979, by T. S. Wu.
Copies of these are available for interlibrary loan from The University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712.
111
ABSTRACT
Road surface roughness in the proximity of the pavement-bridge interface
may lower riding quality and induce excessive dynamic wheel loads on highway
structures. Twenty-one bridge sites in four Texas State Department of Hir,h
ways and Public Transportation Districts, Lubbock, Houston, Austin, and San
Antonio, are selected for study. The Surface Dynamics Profilometer is uti
lized to measure roadway profiles. Dynamic vehicular tire forces induced by
three types of vehicles at two specified speeds are estimated using a computer
simulation model. Possible causes and typical patterns of surface irregular
ities are identified and classified and various treatment methods are exam
ined. A dynamic load index is developed to assess ride quality and predict
subjective ratings.
iv
SUMMARY
An extensive study of surface roughness along and adjacent to bridge _.
approaches is presented. A survey of literature indicates that various as
pects of the generalized problem have been investigated by a number of re
searchers. Most research efforts have recommended design and construction
methodologies which have been incorporated into current practice.
Field data collection efforts have consisted of gathering design, con
struction, and maintenance histories and surface profile descriptions for
bridge approaches in four SDHPT Districts. Computer simulation of vehicular
tire forces for measured approach profiles indicates that dynamic tire forces
induced by typical approach roughness may reach as much as 4.5 times their
static values.
A large number of factors suspected of being related to approach rough
ness could not be identified as causative. These include traffic volume,
bridge function, bridge type, bridge age or height of embankment fill. Rigid
pavements could not be identified as being generally superior to flexible
pavements; however. CRCP generally provided better performance than JRCP.
Type of material utilized in approach embankments was found to be the factor
best correlated with roughness problems. Timely performance of maintenance
activities was, likewise, identified as having a strong relationship to the
development and progression of approach problems.
v
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT
A concise summary of courses and manifestations of pavement surface
roughness on bridge approaches is provided. Information presented may be
utilized as a guide to design, and construction techniques which may be
utilized to help preclude approach roughness problems. Data regarding sur
face maintenance may, likewise, be utilized as a guide to practices which may
help alleviate roughness problems. Simulation based prediction of dynamic
vehicular tire forces induced by specific roughness types, can be used to pre
dict magnitudes and locations of dynamic loading on bridge approaches and
bridge surfaces.
.-TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
ABSTRACT
SUMMARY
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT •
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Roughness Indicators Objectives Scope of the Report
CHAPTER 2. CAUSE EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT STUDY - A LITERATURE REVIEW
Traffic • Climate and Environment Material Design Construction Maintenance Summary •
CHAPTER 3. SITE INVESTIGATIONS
District 14 (Austin) Sites District 15 (San Antonio) Sites District 5 (Lubbock) Sites District 12 (Houston) Sites • Roughness Patterns
CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC WHEEL LOADING
Surface Dynamics Profilometer • DYMOL • Data Analysis and Result Presentation • Dynamic Loading Index •
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions • Recommendations •
vii
iii
iv
v
vi
1 2 2
6 7 8
15 23 24 25
29 36 41 47 50
57 58 62 71
79 82
APPENDIX. 84
REFERENCES 155
viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Road surface irregularities adjacent to highway bridges have long plagued
highway users and highway maintenance agencies.' These bumps, dips, and rolls
not only create an unpleasant ride when a vehicle passes onto and off the
bridge but also, in severe situations, may present a hazardous condition to
fast moving traffic. The deterioration of both pavement and bridge structures
is accelerated as a result of increased dynamic wheel loading caused by sur
face irregularities. Moreover, in order to correct these surface faults,
costly repair work is often required. Under a heavy traffic flow situation,
this maintenance operation may seriously disrupt the normal flow of traffic
and thus significantly increase total user costs.
There is no general agreement on the specific longitudinal boundaries
of bridge approaches. Many parts of the roadway may contribute to poor rid
ing quality, such as the bridge deck and abutment, pavement structure, sub
grade, embankment, and foundation. Though the physical condition of the pave
ment-bridge interface often provides an indication of the problem, the source
of the problem usually lies somewhere else. For instance, the local climate
could be a contributing source. In fact, the problem is so complicated that
almost all aspects of design, construction, and maintenance are involved.
These factors will be examined more closely later.
ROUGHNESS INDICATORS
Pavement distress is an obvious concern of this study. It includes at
least three modes: fracture, distortion, and disintegration. A summary of
1
distress manifestations, with possible distress mechanisms, is shown in
Fig 1.1.,
2
One prevalent indicator of an unsatisfactory bridge approach is displace
ment of the pavement. As depicted in Fig 1.2, this may be either settlement
or uplift of the pavement at the abutment or at the pavement end of an ap
proach slab. Also shown in Fig 1.2, although not a frequent cause, is settle
ment or rotation of the abutment.
OBJECTIVES
This study is a continuing effort to examine roughness problems at pave
ment-bridge interfaces in the State of Texas. An number of representative
cases in four districts, Austin, San Antonio, Lubbock, and Houston, are se
lected. The objectives are to locate and characterize the types of roughness,
to identify their possible causes, and to suggest possible solutions or treat
ment techniques.
SCOPE OF THE REPORT
Chapter 2 includes a literature review in which causative factors and
common treatments are classified and examined. Results of investigations at
a number of selected field test sites are presented in Chapter 3. Data col
lected through questionnaires and on site studies form the basis of this anal
ysis. Typical roughness patterns are identified and schematically illustra
ted.
Road surface profile measuring hardware and techniques are presented
in the first section of Chapter 4. The second section describes a simulation
model, which is used to predict dynamic vehicular tire forces which occur as
the result of surface profile irregularities. The measured profiles are com
pared with rod-and-level elevations, and the applicability of profilometer
'.
Distress Mode
Fracture
Distress Manifestation . 'Examples of DiStress Mechanism*
Cracking _____ ..
Spalling
Permanent deformatio~n-----I
Loading Fatigue Thermal changes Moisture changes Slippage (horizontal forces) Shrinkage
changes Moisture changes
Loading Time-dependent deformation
(e.g., creep) Densification (i.e., compaction) Consolidation Swelling
Distortion ---I
Disintegration
Faulting
Stripping
--0001 Raveling
Loading (pumping) Densification (i.e., compaction,
consolidation) Swelling Erosion
TAdhesion ----------I~emical reactivity
Abrasion by traffic Degradation of aggregate
----------~ Durability of binder Insufficient asphalt
Scaling ~emiCal reactivity
__________ ~ Abrasion by traffic Freeze-thaw action
* Not intended to be a complete listing of all possible distress mechanisms.
Fig 1.1. Categories of pavement distress (from Ref 1).
3
"
Fig 1.2.
."Uft of Approach Sl.1> - Iz'panl1oll fl'. _Ubi Solb 01' ".""iDi
... Uill S .. ttl .. llt 111101 .. nulbl. rn •• ", or Ap,roach 3l. .. b .... t M.'1""tely Supported
at Al>ut:M1lt
AI>u~ .. t Sntl .. llt (1.f •• o ... "t)
t lotation or wteral ~_ftt o~ AII~t""t (l"fraqu.llt)
Typical bridge approach problems (from Ref 2).
4
5
records to dynamic load prediction is analyzed. The vehicle simulation
. analysis is presented in the subsequent section. Dynamic wheel load diagrams
of simulation results are included in the appendix. A dynamic loading index
is developed to permit quantitative expression of the potential for creation
of dynamic vehicular loading by given surface profiles.
CHAPTER 2. CAUSE EXAMINATION AND TREA'nIENT STUDY
- A LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to develop necessary understanding of previously completed
study efforts, a review of available literature was made. Factors affecting
the riding quality of bridge approaches were examined and treatment methods
that have been used were studied.
Factors which influence the performance of the pavement bridge inter
face are very complex and are interrelated with one another. There is no
consensus about the causes and effective treatments of the problem. In this
study, related factors are assembled into the following six groups:
(1) traffic
(2) climate and environment
(3) materials
(4) design
(5) construction, and
(6) maintenance.
TRAFFIC
Among the important factors to be evaluated for damages by traffic to
highway pavements and bridge decks are the effects of vehicle characteristics,
traffic volume, and speed of vehicle operation.
Major vehicle characteristics include weight and weight distribution,
number of axles, axle arrangement, tire spacings, tire pressures, and elas
tic suspension system. One means of expressing the effects of vehicle axle
weight upon pavement life is through the AASHTO equivalency factors (Ref 3).
--- ----- - - - .. --- -- -. ------- - -----" - -- -- - --- --~
These relationships can be utilized to numerically express the relative
damage effects of any vehicle axle. The AASHTO equivalency factors indicate
that the damage per pass by light passenger car axles is very small as com
pared with that by those of a heavy truck.
7
Most investigators agree that the magnitudes of dynamic loads increase
with increasing speeds (Refs 4 and 5). Higher speeds increase the excitation
of vehicle suspension systems when pavement roughness is present; however, the
variation of dynamic wheel forces with speed depends heavily on the type of
vehicle and the type of road roughess.
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT
The most important factors under this category are temperature and mois
ture. Freezing temperatures in the presence of moisture directly induce
frost action (Ref 6). In a broader sense, frost action means both frost
heave and loss of subgrade support during frost-melt periods. This phenom
enon is one severe cause of pavement roughness. Sometimes, structural dam
age during the spring thaw is so great that heavy loads are prohibited
(Ref 7). Economic loss to the public resulting from selective shutdown of
roads under such conditions may be very high.
For rigid pavements and bridge decks, temperature variations of the
slab may affect the condition of the interface. With a rising temperature,
the slab will expand and push against the abt:.tment, causing displacement of
the abutment if there are no well-maintained expansion joints and a properly
installed anchorage system (Ref 8).
The effect of precipitation on pavement performance has not received
the same attention as effect of frost action. However, since the load-bear
ing capacity of a pavement is determined considerably by the strength of the
8
subgrade, increases in water content due to rainfall or poor drainage
conditions may lead to pavement breadup. Rainfall also provides part of the
mechanism by which pumping of rigid pavements and shrinkage and swell of some
subgrades may occur (Ref 9).
The presence of a water source near bridge abutments affects the poten
tial for approach roughness. A study made in Kentucky (Ref 10) shows that a
bridge over a river is more likely to have rough approaches than a bridge for
a grade separation. Embankments near water sources have a tendency to absorb
moisture, and the excess moisture often adversely affects material properties.
In general, the extent of damage at a bridge approach due to climate var
iables depends on the type of pavement, the amount of traffic, and particular
ly the type of embankment and foundation materials. For those areas with
swelling clay or frost-susceptible soil, frequent moisture changes and freeze
thaw cycles will create roughness. Elaborate preventive measures are often
warranted for such cases.
MATERIAL
Materials considered here include (1) original foundation soil, (2) em
bankment fill, (3) abutment backfill, and (4) swelling clay.
Foundation Material
It is believed that the post-construction settlement of foundation mater
ial is a common cause of roughness at bridge approaches (Ref 2). Subsurface
exploration at the abutment site is utilized to predict the total amount of
consolidation that can be anticipated in the embankment foundation and the
time required for it to take place under imposed loads. Highly compressible
foundation material at the bridge approach can be treated using several com
mon methods as discussed below.
9
Removal by Excavation. This treatment can be adopted when soft material
is reasonably shallow, required borrow is readily available, and embankment
stability must be achieved in a relatively short period. Typical sections
for various cases of excavation are shown in Fig 2.1. The cost of excavation
is very high, and non-uniform post-construction settlement may occur if the
undesirable material is not completely removed.
Removal by Displacement. As an alternative to excavation, displacement
of soft materials by deliberate overstressing with the weight of the embank
ment, perhaps combined with a temporary surcharge, is sometimes employed
(Ref 12). It is essential for this operation to have sufficient weight to
force out the underlying soil, and the mudwave created before the leading
fill front should be excavated to a sufficient depth, so that the displace
ment direction can be controlled and pockets of displaced soil will not be
entrapped within the embankment. The method may result in the intrusion of
fill into the area outside the boundary of the roadway, requiring more fill
and more surcharge, thus adding to the cost of the project. In some cases,
removal of the subsoil may be excellent; however, pockets of soft soil some
times remain to produce differential settlements, which are intolerable for
major highways. This method would therefore be more suited for secondary
roads with low traffic volume.
Surcharge. This may be the most commonly used methrod for accelerating
the rate of settlement. The embankment fill is placed to a height above the
required for final elevation so that more settlement will occur during a
given time period (Ref 13). The thicker surcharge will induce more and
faster consolidation, but this benefit is partially offset by the high cost
of placing the fill and subsequently removing the unneeded portion by the
need for berms if the heavier surcharge is used.
'.
~~~~ __ ~ ________ ~L-~ ____ ~~~~~~~ __ _
Ortof\lt "01f'lol ,.'M 101.,.".1 Pey"""t 41ft. •••• cl •• lIIouow
UNSUITABLE MATERIAL EXCAVATION SHALLOW OEPTHS (0 TO 5 FT.)
t
U"t ..... 1IIe O'90fti C •
~I-,.,m l-"o ••• iOl
l I
... ' ..... ,1 Ii". MleCI ....... .
UNSUITABLE MATERIAL EXCAVATION DEPTHS GREATER THAN ~FT.
IIIOIS.d .,ee 10 IN i ... I"d.d ill .,cOYIIlio" .... boeU,1t Quonhti., to .rOWlf. tOt _,bl. tlo,,;hi,,; of •••••• Iio" slOp .. . PG' .... "I 10 IN bo •• d ... a.,,,.1 .... . IIOtto! ... " .... il"i~ Ihi .110 •• II ... "
UNSUITABLE MATERIAL EXCAVATION CASE OF SURFACE FILL OVER ORGANIC SOIL
Fig 2.1. Typical sections for excavation of unsuitable material (from Ref 11).
10
11
Vertical Sand Drains. Layers of soft soils 10 to 15 feet (3 to 4.5 m)
thick can often be stabilized by consolidation under surcharge only. For
thick deposits of soft materials, however, stabilization can be attained more
economically through installation of vertical sand drains, combined with pre
load fills (see Fig 2.2). Sand drains are pervious sand columns and are usu
ally installed in a grid pattern. A blanket of pervious sand is placed on the
tops of the drains to allow the water moving out of the drains to flow later
ally from under the embankment. Sand drains can reduce the length of the
water drainage path and, thus, the required surcharge thickness, the surcharge
time, and the size of the berms, if any. There are many successful field
experiences with this design (Ref 14), but the closed-end displacement-type
installation may induce too much soil disturbance and reduce soil stability.
Hence, nondisplacement types of drains, for which the hollow shaft flight
auger is used, are often preferred to displacement types (Ref 15).
Embankment Material
The volume change of a roadway embankment is generally assumed to be
less serious than that occurring in foundation material. It should be noted,
however, that this assumption is valid only when good materials and good con
struction procedures are used (Ref 16). Since vertical stress beneath the
centerline of the embankment decreases slowly with the depth (see Fig 2.3),
high pressure, especially that associated with large fills, may induce severe
settlement in the foundation and the embankment itself. Special select mater
ials and increased density for the bridge approach embankment are specified by
some agencies to ensure good performance (Ref 2).
Several experiments using lightweight material, instead of common borrow,
for the embankment have been reported to be successful (Refs 18-20). Light
weight fill will reduce the embankment weight and the foundation stress
SETTLEMENT PROBES
WATER DRAINAGE ~TTERN
J~S'ND DFtAIN
Fig 2.2. Design information for sand drain installation (from Ref 12).
12
--.. ... ~ D. .~
.. ~. , .. " ,." .. ' .. :,
EMBANKMENT -Foundation Contact Pressures:
h· 20', w· 200'; q. 2.5 ksf h • 40', w· 280'; q. 5.0 ksf
BRIDGE PIER -Footing Contact Pressure
q • 4 ksf (Total load· 4000 kips)
VERTICAL STRESS (kips/ft2 )·
o O~----~~--~~~~--~~-----.
2 3 4 5
20
Earth Embankment
40
60
80
l00~--~--~~----~----~--~
Fig 2.3. Comparison of vertical stresses beneath center lines of bridge pier and earth embankments.
13
14
considerably. As a result, the settlement is reduced and the berms are either
reduced accordingly or eliminated completely.
So-called lightweight material includes sawdust, sewage ash, and fuel
ash. Although costs for such materials are low, their properties differ
greatly, and care must be exercised when they are used in the field. In some
cases, frost susceptibility and deterioration in air of such materials may
cause trouble. Precautionary actions should be taken, such as lime or cement
stabilization to reduce frost heave and asphalt sealing to minimize air de
terioration.
Abutment Backfill Material
Good condition of the abutment backfill is vital in bridge approach con
struction. Use of unsuitable backfill material, combined with poor compac
tion, has been a serious cause of roughness at bridge approaches.
In many instances specially graded granular material, such as sandy
gravel, is specified for abutment backfill. It is not practical, however,
to specify use of such high-quality material in all locations. The Road Re
search Laboratory (RRL) in England has experimentally compared the performance
of sandy gravel and other materials (Refs 21-25). In the RRL experiments,
well-graded sandy gravel was used as the abutment backfill at one side of a
bridge, and another material was used at the other side. This arrangement
eliminated the complicated variations of environment and traffic, and hence
the performances of these two materials could be easily compared. It was
found that (1) lightweight pulverized fuel ash, (2) a medium clay, (3) a
uniformly-graded fine to medium sand, and (4) a stony-clay fill were very
good or quite satisfactory as a substitute for sandy gravel. On the other
hand, a silty clay turned out to be unacceptable and therefore should be
avoided as abutment backfill.
15
Swelling Clay
Most highway agencies are concerned with settlement problems at bridge
approaches, but those agencies located in areas of expansive clay are also
concerned with swell. In these areas, special backfill is used on some occa
sions as a buffer to protect the bridge abutment and the approach slabs
(Ref 2). Other treatments include removal of swelling clay, lime stabiliza
tion, and preswelling of the soil before construction through ponding. Plas
tic sheets and bituminous membranes have also been used to form moisture bar
riers above expansive clay (Ref 26).
DESIGN
Design factors discussed include (1) type of pavement, (2) type of
abutment, (3) type of abutment support, (4) embankment slope stability, and
(5) approach slabs.
Type of Pavement
Pavement is usually classified as either rigid or flexible. The major
difference between them is the manner in which tire forces are distributed
upon the subgrade. The load-carrying capacity of flexible pavements develops
from the load distributing characteristics of the layered system. Such pave
ments consist ~f a series of layers, generally with an asphalt concrete sur
face at the top. The thickness design of the pavement is influenced appre
ciably by the behavior of the subgrade. Rigid pavements, including both
JRCP and CRCP, because of their rigidity and high modulus of elasticity,
tend to act as rigid plates; thus certain weak spots in the subgrade can be
bridged over by the pavement. For this reason, a rigid pavement, at least
for a short period of time, may allow better performance at bridge approaches
(Ref 10).
TYpe of Abutment
A pointed out in Chapter 1, the condition of the bridge abutment is
sometimes a factor in causing irregular approach surfaces. Such conditions
include rotation of abutments on ~ile groups and settlement of abutments on
spread footings.
There are three general types of abutments which are frequently used.
(a) Closed, or retaining wall, type abutments (Fig 2.4) usually con
sist of a central pier to support the bridge deck and two wing
16
walls to retain the backfill. This type of abutment is treated as
a retaining wall in structural design. One objectionable feature
is the inherent difficulty in placing and compacting material
against the wall and betweeL wing walls. Vertical alignment of the
abutment may be disturbed if heavy equipment is permitted to work
near the wall. In addition, placement of the embankment after con
struction of the abutment may cause excessive foundation settlement.
To overcome these problems, backfilling is not started until the
first bridge span is in place and as much of the adjacent embankment
as is practical is placed before abutment construction.
(b) Stub, or shelf, type abutments (Fig 2.5) are constructed after the
embankment has settled to ,the final elevation. It can be supported
on spread footings, drilled shafts, or piles. Since the difficulty
of compaction is eliminated, many engineers believe that this type
of abutment provides the best bridge approach performance.
(c) Spill-through, or open, type abutments (Fig 2.6) consist of two or
more vertical columns extending from the natural ground to carry
a beam that supports the bridge seat. Proper compaction of the fill
around the columns and under the abutment cap is nearly impossible
17
Fig 2.4. Typical closed or retaining wall abutment (from Ref 2).
Fig 2.5. Typical stub or shelf abutment (from Ref 2).
/-~'" - . , . .
, ,
Fig 2.6. Typical spill-through or open abutment (from Ref 2).
to attain. It is believed, therefore, that this type of abutment
may be highly susceptible to bridge approach problems.
Type of Abutment Support
18
Regardless of the abutment type adopted, there are only two principal
types of abutment support. These include spread footings (shallow foundation)
and piles or drilled shafts (deep foundation).
Abutments on spread footings may have less differential settlement be
tween abutment and approach slab than abutments on deep foundations (Ref 2).
The total settlemtns of abutments on shallow foundations may, however, be
intolerably large. Many agencies, therefore, strongly recommend use of deep
foundations at all abutments in embankment fills (e.g., Ref 27). Moreover,
drainage for abutments on shallow foundations can be very critical. Some
special granular material has to be used to offset possible settlement or
erosion (Ref 2).
Embankment Slope Stability
Approach embankment slope failure is a serious cause of surface roughness
near the interface area. Several methods used to maintain slope stability
are summarized here.
Drainage System._ Along with paved surface drains, provision for the re
moval of subsurface water is an essential part of the abutment design. Infor
mation concerning area ground water conditions in association with abutment
type and backfill materials is utilized to choose among the several alterna
tive drainage schemes shown in Fig 2.7 (Ref 2).
Membrane. Various types of asphaltic membranes are often used to reduce
changes in moisture content for sites with highly plastic or expansive soils.
Three types commonly referred to as surface, buried, and envelope membranes
are shown in Fig 2.8. Envelope type membranes used on the Gulf Freeway in
;
Cranular Kateriel
fabanlallllnt
DraiDAg. Carried to Either Side or ThrouRh Abut .. nt We.phol.a
I'l'D'II 011. sm., ASU"l'HEIITS
Embanbent
Drainage Carried to lither Side or Through Abut .. nt Weephol ••
Fig 2.7. Typical methods used to provide abutment drainage (from Ref 2).
1
Fig 2.8. Functional types of membranes (from Ref 28) •
• -: HAV SECTION AT FILL
LONG. SECTION AT ,P,'DGE. END
lig 2.9. Typical embankment sections with envelope-type membranes, Gulf Freeway (from Ref 28).
19
,
20
Houston (see Fie 2.9) provided excellent stabilization of the plastic abutment
fills and the strength of the fill did not decrease significantly during a
l4-year monitoring period.
Stabilizing Berm. When the weight of the embankment causes shear stress
es greater than the shearing strength of the foundation soil, the underlying
soil may be displaced laterally. The purpose of a berm placed against the
outer embankment slope is to offer some counterweight to resist the overturn
ing moment on the failure arc (see Fig 2.10). It can also be used to correct
failures which occur during or after construction.
Benching. Because even small movements of the embankment may create
problems at bridge approaches, benching of the natural ground is sometimes
employed to provide a stable horizontal foundation with a larger contact
plane. A typical section is depicted in Fig 2.11.
Approach Slab
Many agencies consider the use of reinforced portland cement concrete ap
proach slabs to be the most satisfactory means for controlling surface irreg
ularities at bridge approaches. However, in regions of serious swelling clay
problems, approach slabs sometimes become so troublesome that they have to be
removed.
Approach slabs are designed in a wide range of shapes, lengths, widths,
and depths. Some frequently used types are shown in Fig 2.12.
In many cases, the use of approach slabs may shift the bump to the pave
ment end of the slab (see Fig 1.1). This shifting, in fact, does not solve
the roughness problem. Therefore, special joints for use between roadway
pavement and approach slabs have been developed to correct the condition.
Figure 2.13 illustrates five examples.
21
Z' ABOVE PROFILE GRADE
" .:. FIRST CONSTRUCTION STAGE
r' .. ' .. ..'
r~~~.~~iJJ,~T~:~ '. , . ,"
Fig 2.10. Typical half-section of stabilizing berm (from Ref 12).
. .
Fig 2.11. Abutment end section with natural ground benched (from Ref 2).
20' 0" ----~I
........ u'o ... ,,_3 1111.10
/1--------- 24' 0" ab.--------ll
·····Fj ] lrid," _
20' o·
fl
~r~'_'_'_'_' __ ' _'_'_'_, ________ i_2 __ , ___ , __________ ..JI~· .... b Co.oU ...
Fig 2.12. Commonly used bridge approach slabs (from Ref 2).
20'0" ,. tr.foraed J017
20'0"
1/2" 'r.foraeel J01Dt rU1.r
Wada. (Ml ..... ) ,. JoLDt (La.) r Joint
Cr ...... teel 'U.
c.) (11110010)
10'
") ~t" Carol1u)
{""""""'r I------"I"-------r--'I J LJ- ~. JJ L )' (La.L.J ea.pactad Aa.re.at. r,. QIiu---=>I st11 010.)
C-nta 1111
(c)
(d)
T , G rith Dovel
, CoDtractlota \Jolt
(a)
Fig 2.13. Joints used between roadway pavement and approach slabs (from Ref 2).
22
23
CONSTRUCTION
Two construction techniques which are sometimes helpful in precluding
roughness are discussed here: (1) slow rate construction and (2) compaction.
Slow Rate Construction
This is probably the most economical construction technique because it
involves no additional construction material. The only requirement is suf
ficient time.
Slow rate construction is employed where the foundation soil would under
go shear failure if the embankment were constructed under normal procedures.
However, due to its relatively rapid consolidation characteristics, such a
soil might become strong enough during a controlled or partially delayed con
struction period to prevent such a possibility.
In case of slow rate construction, an elapsed time of three to six months
between embankment construction and paving operations is common. A ~aiting
time so:·long that it extends into the next construction season is common for
major structures (Ref 2).
COmpaction
Improper placement and compaction of material in approach embankments is
one primary source of surface roughness. Therefore. stringent specifications
and inspection of soil compaction are extremely important. Some state high
way agencies require the compactive density be as high as 102 percent of the
maximum density specified in the ASSHTO T-99 test (Ref 27). On the whole.
most agencies believe that their current specifications for embankment con
struction are satisfactory (Ref 17). However, as noted earlier. special
difficulties may be associated with the abutment backfill. Thus. a special
quality control program may be required for this critical area.
24
MAINTENANCE
Timely and proper maintenance of bridge approaches can smooth the road-
way surface, decrease dynamic wheel loads, and reduce the deterioration rate.
Depending on the problem and its cause, maintenance may be simple and inex-
pensive, such as slab jacking or heater planing, or it may entail complete
rehabilitation through an overlay (Ref 1). Illustrated in Fig 2.14 are the
routine bituminous leveling techniques. Settlement is corrected by adding
additional asphalt to the approach pavement; however, when swelling has
lifted the approach, additional asphalt is added to the first span of the
bridge.
Correction
f ~ J ~ J Settlment
Correetion
f @j 1 f . .... 11~1II
Fig 2.14. Use of bituminous leveling to correct settlement or swelling (From Ref 2).
i
•
25
SUMMARY
The above review indicates that there are many causative factors which
can create roughness in the p'roximity of the bridge-pavement interface. A
study sponsored by the Ohio Department of Transp'ortation concluded that the
correlation between bridge approach performance and design/construction param-
eters was very poor and that differential approach settlement had no general
correlation with the embankment height (Ref 27). However, it seems appro-
priate to emphasize four major causes:
(1) excessive settlement of the embankment and its foundation,
(2) embankment slope failure over a soft foundation,
(3) volume chan~e of the expansive chay due to moisture variations, and
(4) horizontal movement of a concrete slab due to temperature or moisture variations in the slab.
These four major factors, together with various treatment methods, are
summarized in Table 2.1. Remedial treatments should be considered in design
and appropriately implemented in construction processes. Heavy trucks may
worsen the problem, while maintenance can help alleviate the problem. The
environment may have either positive or negative effects on' the overall
situation.
26
TABLE 2.l. SUMMARY OF BRIDGE APPROACH PROBLEMS AND TREATMENTS
Excessive Slope Swelling Slab Treatments Settlement Failure Clay Movement
Drainage X :x :x
Membrane X X X
Berm X
Benching :x
Approach slab X
Anchorage system X
Lightweight fill X X
Lime stabilization X ·X X
Good subbase X X material
Granular fill X X X
Removal of bad X X X foundation material
Surcharge X X X
Sand drain X X :x
Compaction X X X
Water ponding X
CHAPTER 3. SITE INVESTIGATIONS
In order to characterize surface roughness in the proximity of the
pavement-bridge interface site, investigations were conducted in four SDHPT
Districts. The conditions of District 14 (Austin), District 15 (San Antonio),
District 5 (Lubbock), and District 12 (Houston) were sampled. Engineers in
those areas were asked to select about a dozen representative bridge sites
in their districts and provide general information by filling out specially
developed questionnaires. Personal opinions and experiences with the pave
ment-bridge interface problems were exchanged through informal discussions
between engineers and researchers.
The overall riding quality of each site was evaluated subjectively by
SDHPT engineers and was categorized into either "good" or "bad" subgroups.
Based on such information, several locations of interest; i.e., those with
either typical or special design features or those in quite good or quite
bad condition, were chosen in each district for road surface profile meas
urements. Roughness p~tterns were identified for further analysis of their
potential for inducing dynamic vehicular tire forces.
QUESTIONNAIRE
Based on the literature review of roughness problems at bridge approach
es, two questionnaires were designed to obtain data which might enable objec
tive analysis of approach problems. Questionnaire A (Fig 3.l), which was a
form listing general information about site conditions and history of bridge
and pavement performance, was developed and used in District 14. Initial
27
28
BRIOOE "BUMP" CHECK LIST A
Dist. No. __________ _ Highway ___________ _
Location _____________________________________________________ __
lnservice Date: ________________________________________________ ___
Traffic Description:: % Trucks _________________ _
No. of Bents ---------- Span Lengths __________ _
Type of Footing: ______________________ _
Bridge Deck Description: ______________________________________ _
App,roach Slab: ______________________________ _
Joint Connection Type: _________________________________________ ___
Fill: _____________________________ _
Height of Fill: ___________________________ _
Fill or Cut Soil, Description: ________________________________ _
Soil Borings Available __________________________ _
Roadway Pavement Type __ ..=J..:,:R=:CP::..J!'-=C::.R:.,:C;:..PL..:,!FP:....:..L!..=O..=t:.:,he::..::r==--____________ _
Maintenance Performed.
Date ________________ _ Description _______________ _
Date ________________ _ Description __________________ _
Date ____________ _ Description __________ _
Resident Engr. During Construction ________________ _
Comments ___ --------________________________________ _
Ma1nt. Engr./Foreman _______________________ _
Comments ______________________________________________ __
Fig 3.1. Questionnaire A
•
29
experience with this format indicated the need for more detailed information,
and Questionnaire B (Fig 3.2) was thus developed for use in Districts 15,
5, and 12. Information on representative bridge sites was hence collected so
that both successful and unsuccessful practices ,could be evaluated.
DISTRICT 14 (AUSTIN) SITES
Table 3.1 summarizes basic information about selected bridges in Dis
trict 14. All the bridges have asphaltic concrete pavements on the adjacent
roadways. Settlement in the fill material on the bridge approaches appeared
to be the most prevalent cause of roughness problems. Drilled shafts were
commonly adopted to support bridges; spread footings were used only with low
fills (e.g., 5 feet). Approach slabs are seldom used in this area because
of the difficulties in maintenance, especially where swelling clay is in
volved. Heavy and light traffic are observed in both subgroups.
The following observations seem to indicate that many problems are re
lated to bridge age, depth of fill, and quality of backfill materials:
(1) All the problem sites have been in service less than 10 years while
all the sites in good condition have been in service for more than
10 years. Two of the four sites in good condition have been under
traffic for more than 20 years.
(2)
(3)
Four out of five problem sites have fill heights of more than 15
feet (4.5 m) while only one out of four in the good subgroup has a
fill above that height.
Clayey fill material was used for all the problem sites while three
out of four sites in good condition were built on rock or certain
other stable material. The only site with high PI fill in the good
subgroup had very goo~ backfill material. The relatively low fill
30
I :.
BRIroE "BUMP" CHECKLIST B
Dist. No. __________ _ Highway __________ _
Location ------------------------------------1 • Bridge Approach Condition: good bad - -2. Roadway Pavement Type. _JRCP _CRCP _ACP _Other _____ _
J. Bridge:
Function. _for grade separation _for crossing major river
_other ________________________ _
Type of Footing: ____________________ _
Bridge Deck Description : ______________________ _
Joint Connection Type : ____________________________ _
4. Climatic Condition: ------------------------------------s. Traffic Description. Artr
% Truck
Speed Limit ______________ _
6. Abutment Types retaining wall abutment (closed type)
_stub or shelf type
_open column or spill-through type
_other ______________________________ _
7. Embankment Slope Stability Experience and Treatment
Slide :---.Jes _no Description;....: _________________ _
Sufficient Drainage :-yes _no
Asphaltic Membrane for Stabilization :-yes _no
if yes. ~envelope type _buried type _surface type
(Cont:inued~
Fig 3.2. Questionnaire B.
Stabilization Berm: --yes _no
Benching of Sloping Ground:--yes _no
Other Treatment: ____________________________________________ __
8. Embankment Material:
Fill or Cut Soil, Description: _______________________________ _
Soil Boring Available: ______________________________________ _
Height of Fill: _____________________ _
Swelling Clay: ---yes _no. treatment: ________________________ _
9. Backfill Material:
Description: ________________________________________________ _
Lime or Cement Stabilization: _______________________________ _
Other Treatment: ___________________________________________ __
10. Foundation Material:
Description: _______________________________________________ _
Boring Available: __________________________ _
Vertical Sand Drain: --yes _no
if yes, spacing ________________ _
method of installation ____________________________ _
Removal of Bad Material:_none _dredging _displacement
Other Treatment: ____________________________________________ _
11. Construction History:
Date of Start of Emabnkment Constructlon: ____________ _
Date of End of Embankment Construction: -------------------------Waiting Period: Inservice Date: -------------
(Continued)
Fig 3.2. Continued
31
32
12. Compaction:
Specification Used: __________________________________________ _
Moisture Content Controls ___________________________________ __
Lift Thickness Controls ___________________ _
Type of Equipment Used: ____________________ _
Dry Density Requirement: __________________________ ___
Comment: ----------------------------------13. Special Design:
Approach Slab ~es ___ no
Other:~ _______________________________ ___
Comment: _______________________________________ ___
14. Maintenance Performed:
Date
Date
Date
Date
Description ___________ _
Description _________ _
Description ___________ _
Description ________________ _
Difficulties Encountered: ________________________________ __
Comment: ________________________________________________ ___
Resident Engineer During Construction _________________ __
Comments _________________________________ _
Maintenance Englneer/Foreman ________________________ __
Comments ___ ----------------------------____________________ _
District Contact Man _________________________ _
Fig 3.2. Continued
TABLE 3.1. BRIDGE INFORMATION, DISTRICT 14
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Condition
Location
Pavement Type
Bridge Type
Bridge Function
Type of Support
Joint Type
ADT (1973)
% Truck
Height of Fill (ft.}
F11l Matedal
Backfill Material
lad
US 290 over !!KT RR
AC1'
PC
Grade separation
Drilled shafts
11%
8,33Q
6.7
20
Yellow clay
Years in Service (to 19J5} 8
Maintenance Performed Patching and leveling
Approach Slab Yes
Bote Premix patch over approach. slabs
lad
Loop 427 over Mustang Creek
AC1'
Simple P..C
River crossing
Drilled shafts
F1%
10
Righ PI yellolo1 clay
Highly plastic material
3
Leveling up
No
Lime 6" sub grade
\.
Bad
US 1835 over Loop 343
ACP
PC
Grade separation
Drilled shafts
Open
15,680
17.5
15
Yellow clay
9
Leveling \Jp bridge ends
No
Settle1!lent observed
33
34
TABLE 3.1. (Continued)
Condition lad lad Bad
tDcat1011 US 183S aver 11S 290 over IB 35 over lollY Creek. Loop 360S Chandler Creek
Pa~t Type AtP ACP ACP
.ridge Type PC PC Si1llPle RC
addge Function liver Grade lUver croning .eparation crossing
Type of Support Drilled Drilled Spread ahafts .hAfts footings
Joint Type 71:z 71Jr. F1Jr.
.AM (1913) 16,010 24,45<1 19.,350
:: Truck 16.1 5.3 11.6.
Hdght of Fill (ft.) 24 1.5 .5
Fill Katerial tellow Clay Rock. clay
Backfill Material Granular sate-rial
tears in Service (to 19]51 9 6 40
Kaintenance Pe-rformed Patching Bot m1Jr. flddse ends overlay
Approach. Slab 110 .0 Mo
Iote Settlement Settlement oll.ened ob.e~d
35
TABLE 3.1. (Continued)
Condition Good Good Good
Location S'B 29 over San US 290 over SH 71 over Cabrid liver MPRR Bie Creek..
:rave_nt Type ACP ACP ACP
Bridge Type Continuous PC Simple RC I-bUlll
Bridge 1!"UIlct:l.on f..1ver Grade liver crossing separation crossing
Type of Support Drilled Drilled Drilled shafts shafts shafts & spread footing
Joint Type Open Fix Fix
AM' (1973) 1,390 35,600 2,690
% Truck 9.0 3.4 6,8
Height of Fill 10 20 8.:t
Fill Material I1gh PI Stable lock ... terial _terial
Backfill Haterial Base .. terial
Year. in Service {to 19]5} 16 14 28
Maintenance Performed !fo patching in No patching la.t 3 years a1nce 1970
AppToach Slab 110 110 110
lote
and light traffic of that section might also have helped decrease
the potential for creating surface irregularities.
DISTRICT 15 (SAN ANTONIO) SITES
36
Generally speaking, the sites in District 15 exhibit problems which are
different from those in District 14. Since the soil containing montmorillo
nite and illite of high swelling potential is dominant in this district, the
roughness problems generally result from large volume changes in the expan
sive soils, rather than settlements as encountered in District 14.
From informal discussions with engineering personnel and from an on-site
inspection of the sites in San Antonio, it was revealed that the joint be
tween adjacent rigid pavements and one bridge approach slab had opened as
much as 4 inches (Fig 3.3). The gap enabled water on the pavement surface
to penetrate into the fill material and increase the potential for swelling.
At another site, pressure of the expansive soil had moved the abutment and
caused the rocker supporting the bridge to tilt (Fig 3.4). The curb near this
bridge end was also lifted about 3 inches (Fig 3.5). The vertical curvature
in the pavement surface can be easily seen by referencing the lane markers
and the curb to the guardrail shown in the background.
Engineers in District 15 feel that approach slabs are necessary, but
that special designs which keep moisture on the roadway surface from pene
trating into the fill material are needed. Finger joints with a lateral
drain have been effective at several sites (Fig 3.6) and the expansion joint
has been eliminated between the pavement and the approach slab with good re
sults at other locations (Fig 3.7). Granular backfill materials have been
used for drainage at some sites.
Fig 3.3. Gap between the approach slab and the pavement, IH 37 over Fair Ave., San Antonio. Texas.
37
49 62
Fig 3.4. Tilted rocker, Southcross St. over IH 37, San Antonio, Texas.
.38
Fig 3.5. Lifted curb, Southcross St. over IH 37) San Antonio) Texas.
Fig 3.6. Finger joint and drain, IH 10 over H. to1. lilhite Blvd., San Antonio, Texas.
39
Fig 3.7. Joint deletion between the pavement and the approach slab, IH 37 over Durango St., San Antonio, Texas.
40
Information about bridge sites in the rural areas of District 15 is
summarized in Table 3.2. The sites are all on IH 10 east of San Antonio
and have asphaltic concrete pavements on the approach roadways.
The following observations are made based upon on-site visits and col
lected data (see Table 3.2):
41
(1) All sites are located within 30 miles of each other on the same
highway. The concentration of the sampled sites makes the traffic
volume, several design factors, and, sometimes, geological condi
tions considerably uniform. No bridges have been in service more
than 10 years; most of them are only 4 years old. Little mainte
nance work has been applied up to this point.
(2) Washed river gravel was used as the backfill at all locations.
Though swelling clay is common, the riprapped embankment slopes
generally exhibit good stability. At one site, the approach slabs
were removed due to excessive heaving.
(3) The use of stub-type abutments, deep foundations, approach slabs,
and Hyster compactors are common practice in this district. All
three sites in the bad subgroup incorporate lime stabilized fill
to a depth of 6 inches. The original foundation materials in the
bad subgroup are all clays while those in the good classification
are sand or sandy clay.
DISTRICT 5 (LUBBOCK) SITES
Information about selected bridre sites in District 5 is summarized in
Table 3.3 In this area, four sections were designated as having good ride
quality and two as having bad. Some observations can be made as follows:
TABLE 3.2. BRIDGE INFORMATION, DISTRICT 15
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
Condition lad lad
Location 11£ 10E over IE 10E over 1M 725 Gu.ada11.1pe River
Milepost 604.4 605.1
Pavement Type ACP ACP
Iridge Type ItC
Bridge Function Grade :aiver Separation CrOSSing
Type of Support Drilled shafts Drilled s~afts with bells vith bells
Joint 'type Open Open & Hn~e.r
ADT (1974) 9.000 8.610
% Truck 15 15
Abutment Type Stub Stub
Embankment Slope Good Good Stability Stability Stability
. Height of Fill (ft.) 10 13-17
Fill Material Clay cliche Black sandy 11' ave 1 clay
. Backfill Material Washed river W .. shed river Iravel lrave!
Foundation ~Aterial Yellov & Itlue shaley lray clay clay
Svelling Clay Yes
Years 10 Service 9 9 (to 1976)
Compaction Equipment Ryster By.ter
Malotenance Performed Hone lIone
Approach Sla& Yea (VBL ret'lOVt!d) Yes
1I0te time 6" .ubarade L1IIe 6" subgrade
42
lad
III 10 over PlUIII Creek
631.8
ACP
River Crossine
Open
6,770
15
Stub
Good Stability
22-28
Gray sandy clay
Washed river gravel
Blue clay
4
Ilys"er
1I0ne
Yes
Lime 6" sub grade
TABLE 3.2. (Continued)
Condition
Location
Milepost
Pavement Type
Bridge Type
Bridge Function
Type of Support
Joint Type
AD! (1974)
ZTruck
Abutment Type
Embankment Slope Stability
Beight of Fill (ft)
Fill Material
Backfill ~~teria1
Foundation Material
Swelling Clay
Years in Service (to 1916}
Compaction Equipment
Maintenance Performed
Approach Slab
Bote
Good
IB. 10E over Allen Creek
623.2
ACP
ac
River crossing
Drilled shafts with. bells
Open
7,750
15
Stub
Good Stability
10
Cray landy clay
Washed river gravel
Bllle sandy clay
110
4
IIyster
ICone
Y ..
Good
m 10E over lash Creek
619 .• 2
ACP
ItC
River crossing
Cene:rete piles
Open
7,670
15
Stub
Good Stability
15-20
Red undy clay " gravel
lI'ashed river gravel
Cray & brown sand
10
4
Ilyater
Bone
Yas
Good
m lOll' Over San Marces River
626.9
ACP
River crossing
Steel B piles
Open
6,770
15
Stub
Good Stability
20
Gray sandy clay
lo.'ashed river gravel
Brown " gray sandy clay
4
lyater
Rone
Yas
43
TABLE 3.3. BRIDGE INFORMATION, DISTRICT 5
LUBBOCK, TEXAS
Condition
Pavement type
Bridge type
Bridge function
Type of Support
Bridge deck condition
ADT (1977)
% truck
Speed limit (mph)
Abutment type
Embankment slope stability
Beight of fill (ft)
Swelling clay
Backfill material
Years in service (to 1978)
Compaction Equipment
Kaintenance performed
Approach slab
IIcte
Spur 326 over AT & SF RR
Good
ACP
Continuous steel I beam
Grade separation
Drilled shafts
Linseed 011 treatment
8080
10
30
Stub
Good stability
25
No
Sandy loam
23
Pneuma tic and sheepsfoot
Bole patching
tes
Nev overlay on approacb slabs
US 87 at 98th St.
Good
Simple PC girder
Grade separation
Drilled shafts
Linseed 011 treatment
9960
10
55
Stub
Riprap moved
18
Yes
Sandy 10a.'11
8
Hyster and pueumatic
Rone
tes
Approach slabs rnaoved
US 84 at Brazos River (Southbound)
Good
Concrete box girder
River crossing
Drilled shafts
Asphalt overlay
1860
13
55
Stub
Good stability
No
Sandy loam
so
No special equipment
Overlay
tes
Old bridge over Brazos
44
Condition
Pavement type
Bridge typ~
Bridge function
Type of support
Bridge deck condition
AM' (1977)
% truck
Speed limit (mph)
Abutment type
Embankment slope stability
Beight of fill (ft)
Swelling clay
Backfill material
Years in service (to 1978)
Compaction equipment
Maintenance perfo~d
Approach dab
Ilote
TABLE 3.3. (Continued)
US B4 at Brazos River (northbound)
Good
ACP
Concrete slab (pan form)
River crossing
Drilled shafts
Asphalt overlay
1860
13
55
Stub
Cood stabili ty
No
Sandy loam
20
Overlay
Yes
Rev bridge over Brazos
FH 1065 at Los Linguish Creek
Bad
Tvo-course surface treatment
Concrete slab (simple span)
River crossing
Concrete piles
Rough
150
9.7
55
Stub
Good stabi~ity
9
Yes
Sandy gravel
27
Sheepsfoot and pneumatic
Approach slabs removed
Loop 289 at US 87 South
Bad
ACP
Concrete slab (arch shape)
Grade separation
Drilled 'shafts
Epoxy overlay
21020
10.9
55
5.tub
Good stability
19
No
Sandy loam
13
Byster and pnewnatic
Epoxy overlay and asphalt patching
Yes
Epoxy is _arin~ off
45
46
(1) It is interesting to note that the bridge surface condition has a
definite correlation with the subjective ride quality assessment.
Pavement surface distress has been corrected to some exte~t through
various types of surface treatment. The decks of good bridges were
virtually all treated either by linseed oil or asphalt. One bad
bridge had no surface treatment at all, while the other had one
epoxy overlay, which was wearing rapidly.
(2) Average daily traffic counts on the two bad sections were both the
highest (21,020) and the lowest (150), indicating that traffic
cannot be identified as a critical factor. A similar conclusion
can be drawn for bridge function, bridge type, and bridge age.
That is, the number of bridges examined in this analysis is too
small to imply, for example, that approach sufrace conditions for
bridges at grade separation are less troublesome than for those at
river crossingB.
(3) Use of the stub-type abutment, which is believed to be the least
likely to cause roughness problems, is common practice in Lubbock.
Sandy loam or sandy gravel, with no special stabilization, was gen
erally used as the backfill material for both good and bad sub
groups.
(4) The predominant soil in this area is windblown cover sand. Swell
ing clay is encountered in some locations but has not been identi
fied as a predominant problem. Approach slabs are commonly used
and serve well in general, although in some sections of swelling
clay they have been removed because of excessive movement.
(5) Deep foundations, either piles or drilled shafts, are utilized
for all bridges considered. Embankment slopes, protected by
47
concrete riprap, are quite stable for most cases. Asphalt concrete
pavement is used on all sampled roadways with the exception of one
farm-to-market road which has a two-course surface treatment.
(6) The approach performance has no general relationship with height
of fill. A 25-foot high embankme,nt falls into the good subgroup,
while a bad case has a fill of only 9 feet.
(1) Lubbock is located in northwestern Texas and has an elevation of
above 3000 feet. The average temperature during the winter months
is about 40°F. Extended periods of subfreezing temperatures are
rare over the whole State of Texas, and therefore, the problem
of frost action is not critical.
DISTRICT 12 (HOUSTON) SITES
Basic information about the bridge sites in this district is tabulated
in Table 3.4. Due to insufficiency of data, this table is not so detailed
as Tables 3.2 and 3.3. Nevertheless, based on the summary table and on-site
inspection, overall observations can be made as follows:
TABLE 3.4. BRIDGE INFOPY~TION, DISTRICT 12
HOUS TON, TEXAS
Condition
Pavement type
Bridge type
Bridge function
Type of support
AD! (1977)
Abutment type
Approach slab
Condition
Pavement type
Bridge type
Bridge function
Type of support
ADT (1977)
Abutment type
Approach slab
Condition
Pavement type
Bridge type
Bridge function
Type of support
ADT (1977)
Abutment type
Approach slab
lH 610 (S. Loop) at Calais St.
Good
CRCP
Continuous concrete slab
Grade separation
Drilled shafts
129,180
Stub
Yes
IH 45 at S. Belt
Bad
JPCP
Simple PC
Grade separation
Piles
81,390
Stub
Yes
IH 10 at W. Belt
Bad
JRCP
Simple PC
Grade separation
Piles
132,210
Stub
Yes
IH 610 (S. Loop) at SH 288
Good
eReP
Continuous concrete slab
Grade separation
Drilled shaf ts
129,180
Stub
Yes
sa 225 at Shell over;,ass
Bad
JRCP
Simple PC
Grade separation
Piles
35,810
Stub
Yes
IH 610 (N. Loop) at HB & ! RR
Bad
JRCP
Sblple PC
Grade separation
Drilled shafts
73,550
Stub
Yes
IH 610 (N. Loop) at McCarty Rd.
Good
JRCP
Simple PC
Grade separation
Drilled shafts
73,550
Stub
Yes
SH 225 at Scar-borough Lane
Bad
JRCP
Simple PC
Grade separation
Piles
74,790
Stub
Yes
48
49
(1) Eight bridge sites were selected and five of those were categorized
as bad. The pavement type is rigid on all sections (either CRCP or
JRCP). Data suggest that CRCP provides better riding quality,
because the two sections with CRCP ar~ in the "good" classification.
(2) The use of approach slabs, stub-type abutments, and deep foundations
(piles or drilled shafts) is common to all. All bridges under
study wer~ constructed for grade separations. The common height of
fill ranges from 15 to 20 feet. Traffic is heavy for both subgroups.
Since Houston is a port, a higher percentage of trucks (17 percent)
is present. The speed limit is 55 mph, and in some sites there is
a posted minimum speed of 40 mph.
(3) The predominant soil in this area is Beaumont clay. Hence found a-
tion and embankment materials are generally not good. High PI
fills are sometimes used because only small quantities of sandy
material are available and the quality is not remarkably better
than the clay.
(4) The normal annual rainfall here is about 46 inches. A large por-
tion of the rainfall occurs within short periods of time, providing
an important source of moisture variations in subsoils. The rather
frequent wetting-drying cycle, together with the Beaumont clay,
easily induces soil volume changes. This is likely one critical
reason why movement of the approach slab was observed in almost
every case. Virtually all approach slabs, though designed in
different ways, have translated up or down relative to the bridge
abutments. Envelope-type asphaltic membranes used with success ,
for stabilization on the Gulf Freeway (Ref 28) were not applied
to bridge sites under examination in this study.
50
(5) All the bridges were constructed during the 1960s. Modern compac
tion equipment, such as the sheepsfoot and pneumatic-tired rollers,
were extensively employed during construction. Sandy material,
stabilized by lime/cement, was used in abutment backfilling.
Presumably such procedures would improve bridge approach perform-
ance.
ROUGHNESS PATTERNS
The road profile of each section in the four districts was measured
using the Surface Dynamics Profilometer. Profile data thus obtained include
the whole bridge and extend on both ends about 200 feet from the structure.
After examining all the in-hand road profiles, some typical roughness
patterns were identified and are schematically illustrated in Figs 3.8 through
3.12. These patterns include the following components:
(1) roughness on the bridge -
(a) camber or sag formed by bridge span (Fig 3.8),
(b) opening at the bridge joints (Figs 3.9,3.12), and
(c) discontinuity between the bridge and the pavement/
approach slab (Figs 3.8, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12);
(2) roughness in the bridge approach area -
(a) long wave profile (Fig 3.8),
(b) tilted or distorted approach slab (Figs 3.10,
3.11, 3.12),
(c) gap between the approach slab and the pavement
(Figs 3.10, 3.11),
(d) hump or sag near bridge end (FifS 3.8, 3.9), and
(e) gap at pavement joint (Figs 3.10, 3.12).
1.00 -. c: -..4 -'" ,t:: r...
-..4 Q) 0.00 :I: Q)
.-4 -..4 \w 0
"" ~ -1.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285300 t Horizontal Distance (ft.)
TRAFFI~ I ( BRIDGE .. I.. PAVEMRNT
A. Sag formed by each span C. Hump near bridge end
B. Discontinuity' at bridp.e-pavement interface D. Long waves on bridp.e approach
Fig 3.ff. Bridge profile, ~ 1065 over Los l.inruish Creek (Lubbock), end of brid~e. . VI
'""'
2.00i~--------------------------------------------------------------~
-c: ...t -u
1.00
~ 0.001 .. ...t I ' ~ J = ' u-N ".,-.,. r
U
~ .. 1.00 ...t ~ o J.I
Po. .. 2.00
o 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240255 270285 300 Horizontal Distance (ft.)
TRAFFIC
I.. BRIDGE
A. Discontinuity between approach slab and bridp.e
B. Open joint between bridge decks
C. Sag near bridge end
....
Fig 3.9. Bridge profile, Loop 289 over US 87 South (Lubbock), start of bridge. VI NI
-t: '" -.u ..c C(j
"r'4
3.00 ..
... A
2.00
~ cu
.-I .... 1M o ~ o,oo'~~~~~~~===:~;f~~--~--=-~~~~~~~~==~~::~~~~:)~~~~ \:X-? " V'I } ::"'t ~ ft <- ~ ~I
1.00
c
C ...-1.,1
• "I -1.00 b 15 3'0 4'5 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270285 300
Horizontal Distance (ft.)
TRAFFIC --, -- BRIDGE ................
A. Gap at pavement joint
B. Tilted or distorted approach slab
C. Joint between approach slab and brid~e
D. Joint between approach slab and pavement
Fig 3.10. Bridge Profile, SH 225 over Scarborough Lane (Houston). VI W
1.00
-• c: ~ -..., .c: 00
~ 0.00 tr: III
..-4 ~ loW 0 ... p..
-1.00 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225240 255 270 285 300
Horizontal Distance (ft.)
TRAFFIC ~ W~ WJ1J SLAB I.. BRIDGE ... 1 SLAB
A.
B.
C.
Discontinuity between approach slab and pavement
Distorted approach slab
Discontinuity bet,.,een approach slab and bridy.e
Fig 3.11, Brid~e profile, South Loop over Calais Street (Houston). VI 4:'-
- 1.00 . c:I
'" -.u ,J: bO .~
G.I ::r: G.I 0.00 ..... '" "-t 0 ~
Po.
-1.00 t-I --r--~---r-"""T""-~-r-----r---r--~-~---r---r---r----r-------r---r---r---.....------'r------4 o 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270285300
TRAFFIC If Horizontal Distance (ft.)
-I WA BRIDGE .. I SLAB
A. Openinr, between bridge decks
B. Tilted approach slab
c. Discontinuity between approach slab and bridge
D. Gap at pavement joint
Fig 3.12. Bridge profile, IH 10 over West Belt (Houston), end of bridre. \I' \I'
56
The potential for those patterns to produce dynamic vehicular tire forces is
assessed in later sections.
•
57
CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC WHEEL LOADING
As noted earlier, roughness in the vicinity of the pavement-bridge
interface may lower the riding quality of the roadway and induce excessively
large dynamic loads. In this study, the Surface Dynamics Profi1ometer was
the fundamental tool used to measure and record longitudinal road profiles
in each wheel path and thus provide the basic data for assessing riding
quality. A computer simulation model called DYMOL was used to predict the
magnitude of dynamic vehicular tire forces created by specific types of
vehicles moving at specified velocities over the defined profile. Critical
types of roughness encountered in Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and Lubbock
were identified in each section and the interaction of vehicles with these
roughness patterns was analysed. However, certain inherent characteristics
of the profilometer may distort road profile measurements. Therefore the
effect of this distortion was analyzed before using the profilometer measured
profile records for DYMOL simulations.
SURFACE DYNAMICS PROFILOMETER
The profilometer (Fig 4.1) is a specially instrumented two-axle van-type
vehicle which measures variations in the elevation of each wheel path along
the roadway. The profile is detected by two small sensor (feeler) wheels
at the center of the test vehicle. The relative vertical movement between
the sensor wheel and the vehicle body is measured by a linear potentiometer.
An accelerometer, mounted above each potentiometer, senses the vertical
acceleration of the vehicle body at these locations. An analog computer in
the vehicle immediately double integrates the acceleration to produce
vertical displacements. These displacements, combined with the movement
measured by the potentiometers, yield an estimation of the roadway profile
in each whee1path. The results are written onto a 4-track analog tape, and
a strip chart depicting the profile is produced. Interested readers are
ANALOG COMPUTATION
r-'---=---;::J.--ACCELEROMETER
w
Fig 4.1. Principle of the high speed Surface Dynamics Profi1ometer (from Ref 9).
referred to the related reports for details and some inherent problems
(Ref 29-3]).
DYMOL
58
DYMOL is a FORTRAN program developed at the Center for Highway Research
at The University of Texas at Austin (Ref 32). It simulates the behavior of
vehicles interacting with a road profile in each wheel path and can be used
to predict the magnitude, duration, and location of the induced dynamic wheel
loads.
The DYMOL program can be used to simulate five typical types of vehicles,
as shown in Fig 4.2. Specific vehicle configurations, including weights and
axle spacings, can be selected by the user. Each vehicle model consists of a
series of masses, springs, and dashpots which are connected with one another • •
In a statistically designed validation program, the simulation model predic-
ted maximum dynamic wheel forces within about + 10 percent of measured
values (Ref 32).
59
Closs DesiO notion
J 2-0
II 2S-1
III 3-A
IV 2S-2
V 3S-2
Fig 4.2. Five representative types of vehicles (from Ref 32).
_.---. --- -.-• 0- ~ _. __ •
60
In this study, the vehicle was assumed to be initially at rest on a
level surface with elevation equal to that of the start of the pavement
section under analysis. Vehicles were "driven" at specified velocities over
the section profile. Output included listings and plots of dynamic loads
applied to the surface by the moving wheels of the modeled vehicle.
Analyses of Profilometer Measurement Capability
The Profilometer-measured road profile data are sometimes distorted
due to slight phase shifting characteristics. In order to examine the
effect of this distortion, rod-and-level measurements of the roadway surface
profile at three bridge sites were made to compare with those measured by
the profilometer. These sites were (1) Loop 427 over Mustang Creek, Taylor,
(2) IH 10 over Plum Creek, San Antonio, and (3) Test Section No.8, Austin.
Emphasis was placed on the bridge and areas where more intensive readings
were made.
The measurements were plotted to scale, and after examining the general
trend of the whole section, the grade was corrected to a straight, sloping
line. This slope was subtracted from the measured elevations and the
results were compared with the profilometer-measured profiles.
Observations and Explanations
Though the rod-and-level measurements and the profilometer measured
profile did not agree exactly, it was found that the high-frequency (short
wavelength) bumps and dips were represented quite consistently in both
profiles. The phenomenon can be explained by the following facts:
(1) Vertical curves in an actual profile cannot be adequately
approximated by a straight line.
61
(2) The dynamic response of the profilometer filtering cannot be
corrected exactly by a simple slope adjustment technique.
(3) Most importantly, distortion of the profilometer measurements is
more apparent in long wavelength than in short wavelength rough-
ness, due to the inherent characteristics of the instrumentation.
As a result, the profilometer can measure high frequency roughness on
the roadway with acceptable accuracy and with great consistency.
Vehicular Response to Long-Wave Profile Roughness
It is understandable that a vehicle will respond differently to road
profile waves of the same amplitude but of different wavelength. The
dynamic loads produced by a wave 10 feet long and of I-inch amplitude will
be much greater than those loads resulting from a lOO-foot wave of the same
amplitude. Since the profilometer is able to record short wavelength rough-
ness fairly accurately but distorts the long waves, it is important to inves-
tigate the relative effects of different wavelengths on dynamic wheel loads
which result from a wheel interacting with a rough road profile. If the
effects of the profilometer distortion are not significant, the profilometer
records can be used as input to DYMOL, and an adequate analysis of dynamic
loading by traffic at the pavement-bridge interface can be made.
Filtering and Phase-Shift Correction
Several techniques for obtaining a corrected profile record that repre-
sents the actual roadway section have been used. None of these has yet been
wholly successful. However a profile analysis program was utilized to correct
the phase shift by moving long waves various distances computed on the basis
of the frequency response curve of the profilometer.
62
Comparison of the Dynamic Loads
The original profilometer profile of a test section and a phase-shift
corrected profile are plotted in Fig 4.3. It can be observed that the short
wavelength bumps and dips agree while the long waves disagree greatly. For
predicting dynamic wheel loads, a simulated two-axle dump truck was "driven"
at 55 mph on both the measured and the adjusted profile. In Fig 4.4, the
light solid line represents the dynamic loads produced by the measured
profile, and the dark dotted line, those produced by the adjusted profile.
Most of the time, discrepancies between the predicted dynamic loads from the
two profiles are less than 10 percent of the static weight. The maximum
discrepancies do not exceed 15 percent of the static weight. Considering
that the simulation model was found to predict dynamic wheel forces within
about 10 percent in the validation experiments of the DYMOL program, errors
of this range are quite acceptable.
It is concluded, therefore, that the errors created by the distorted
long waves are within a tolerable range. And the DYMOL program can be a
satisfactory tool for predicting dynamic wheel loads that result from profiles
containing long-wave roughness even though the profilometer distorts these
waves somewhat.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT PRESENTATION
In this study, three representative types of vehicles. a two-axle dump
truck (2-D). a three-axle concrete mixer (3-A), and a five-axle tractor
trailer (3S-2). were modeled at speeds of 40 and 55 mph. Two general types
of dynamic loading oscillations were observed. These include high frequency
oscillations. with frequencies from 8 to 12 Hz due to movements of the
unsprung mass of the vehicle undercarriage, and low frequency oscillations,
{
z
... C') II:
'.50
I.eo
o.!oO
~-..... ~~-
.t.!or.
1--3.1 Hz I
Uncorrected
• BRIDGE
r
' ........ ~./ " " 1 J :
, •• lof t " -.,. "LO' Nt'. o 205 ,do !ido eoo ______ u IO,:i. _ u ___ I~Q::L. 140::' ,do:! Ido!l
Fig 4.3. Phase-shift corrected and uncorrected profile,l SH 71 over Bee Creek, Slf. of Austin.
CI'\ W
-• ~ '-'"
~ 0
...:I
('
\2000 r 8000
·000
I"'ILI 2
11000
.000
~('cr r
_:J I VLM:l. .. f .• .(1.,; ar", Ut.JIU""' JU" ~ _
R~ll ~US~ S'I~ SUSP 8R"P . liRE 5TI' I 535 LBS 5.0 4000 LBS
.,2~OINT3~8~lbeSAVERaCpoO' PRO'?~PO LSS
_ • ;',;).00 MetH I IRE. DR"P
2·00 2.00
Uncorrected 3.1 Hr-J ~ ~~~ "'----'corrected
IAy,.1 . c~:---------~.~i~~:l----------~.rn~~e----------'"rl'----------'~;o"'ii;;r;~~iS"","CE-'~r.~;-----;i,,---------,t.,1!C~~'-~~~'-600 e~ d HORlll'NTR~ ott. .d j~\lo \40t J 29"l1li"76 ~lC'·NO.1 1600 I !lOll .
Fig 4.4. Dynamic wheel loads resulting from phase-sh1ft corrected and uncorrected profile, SH 71 over Bee Creek, SW. of Aust1n.
0\ ~ ...
with frequencies from about 1.5 to 3 Hz associated with movements of the
sprung mass of the vehicle. Dynamic wheel loads exercised on the road
surface are the combination of these two types of oscillations.
65
To examine the dynamic wheel loads which result from vehicles traversing
the bridge-pavement interface areas, high and low frequency oscillations are
treated separately. The amplitudes of the wheel force curves for both
frequencies are measured and expressed as percentages of the static weight of
the axle considered. A graphical presentation is designed to show the load
variations by the thickness of a line. Class limits for categories of wheel
force amplitude are set at 0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80, and more than 80
percent of the static weight. If amplitudes of wheel force curves vary less
than 20 percent from the static weight, no line is plotted. A line of
one-unit thickness is used for 20-40 percent, two-unit for 40-60 percent,
three-unit for 60-80 percent, and four-unit for 80 percent or more. The
profile of the roadway over which the vehicle travels is attached at the top
of the graph. The seriousness of the dynamic loading over each section can
be judged by the overall "blackness" of the graph.
Graphical analysis of simulation results is presented in Figs A4.1
through A4.35, in the appendix. Twenty-one bridge sites including three in
Austin, four in San Antonio, six in Lubbock, and eight in Houston, are
presented. The length of profile for each case is' approximately 300 feet.
If the bridge is long enough, the start of the bridge and the end of the
bridge are shown separately. Otherwise the entire bridge is presented in
one figure. As mentioned earlier, the high and low frequency load variations
of each section are shown in two graphs, noted as A and B. The types of
vehicles are shown on the left. "V" is used to designate velocity in mph,
66
and "An indicates the axle number of the simulated vehicle. The location of
the peak loading, as directly read from the DYMOL output, is identified with
a small triangle, and its magnitude is recorded as a percentage of the
static weight on the far right end. The shaded area on each graph represents
the range appreciably affected by dynamic vehicular loading. Significance
of the shaded area is discussed later.
Table 4.1 provides an overview of roughness patterns and induced dynamic
loads for the selected sites. High and low-frequency dynamic loads are again
separated. An X indicates the load classification when the dynamic variations
of the specified amplitude are induced anywhere in the section. The maximum
peak load and the mean peak load for each site are also tabulated as a
percentage of the static weight. The standard deviation is calculated by
where
N I: (X
i-X)2
C1" i-I ---------
X .. i
X ..
N ..
N - 1
the peak load induced by each axle in the section (%),
the mean peak load of the sampled axles (%), and
total number of axles, equal to 20 in this study.·
The next two rows give the values of ~-1C1 and ~-2C1. Assuming the peak loads
induced by different axles are normally distributed, these two numbers are
the approximate values that 84 percent and 98 percent of the induced peak
loads will exceed. For instance, the mean peak load created by the roughness
of the section of PM 1065 over Los Linguish Creek (Lubbock), start of bridge
.(see Fig A4.l3), is 203 percent. The standard deviation is 35 percent. With
Subjective Rating
Site
(Lubbock)
Referenced Figure
Main Roughnesa Pattern
Class --
Amplitudes, o - 20 % of Static 20 - 40 Weight
40 - 60
60 - 80
80+
Haximum P('ak Load, %
~ean !'eak Load ..
I.
Standard Deviation, %
u - la, %
Il - 20, %
TABLE 4.1. ROUGHNESS PATTERNS AND DYNAMIC LOADS
Dad Dad Good Good Dl1d
PH 1065 over PH 1065 over Spur 326 over Spur 326 over Loop 289 over Los Linguiah Los Lingubh AT & SF RR, AT & SF RR, US 87 South, Creek, start Creek, end of start of end of brid~e Rtart of of bridge bridge bridge bridge
A4.13 M.14 M.15 M.16 All. 11
Sag formed SAr. formed by Ipen joints witl Tlltf"d ;01': approach by each sf'lIn ('ach span approach "lab approach "lab "lab and brtdg('
Frequency
Ilil!:h Low IIlph Low III r.h I.ow IIlAiI Low 1111''' J.ow
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
294 312 280 211 214
203 210 204 171 181
)'; 44 40 19 18
168 1(,6 164 15R 1('9
In 122 124 139 151
Dad
Loop 289 over US 81 South, end of bridp;e
M.18
Open joint: bddge decks
IItS!:h Low
X X X
X
X X
271
215
34
181
141
\
0---..J
Subjective I.tln~
Site (Lubbock)
Referenced Figure
Main Roughness Pattern
£lass
~ .. "'.d •• '\0 -20 % of Static 20 - 40 Weip,ht 40 _ 60
60 - 80
80+
~Inx imuftl Peak Load, %
~lean resk toad. %
Standard Deviation, %
IJ - la, %
J' - 20, %
Good
US 81 South over 98_t!! St.
M.19
Long wave ."rofUe neor brillg.. end
TABLE 4.1.
Good
US 84 oveT 8raz08, old stTucture. staTt of bridge
M.20
Open in/,:, lIt brldgE' . joint
CONTINUED
Good
us fI4 over 8razos, old structure, end of hridge
114. 21
Tilted 81"I"rooch IIlab
Good
US 84 oveT IIT8zos. new structure. start of bridge
AI,. 22
Tilted first 81'"n
FreqlJt'llcy
Good
US 84 over Brazos, new structul'e. end of bridge
114.23
!Ii11conttnul ty: hridj:!e and sp
lProach slnb
• Utgh Low 1_~'.!~. __ I.()V_I_"~'_~ l--1I1,:'!.. I.ow I IUJ!h Low I X X X X X
X :It X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
264 11,6
180 132
38 R
142 121,
104 116
X X
X X
X
256
161
34
127
93
172
145
110
131
117
x X
X
X
165
145
11
134
123
x X
.1.
0'\ CO
Subjective Rating
Site (Houston)
Referenced Figure
Haln Roullhne88 Pattern
Claaa
Bad
1H 45 over S. Belt, start of bridge
A4.24
TABLE 4.1.
Bad
IH 45 over S. Belt, end of brtdRe
11.4.25
Discontinuity: hrtdlte and lopenlng at approach slab pave_'lt joint
CONTINUED
Bad Bad Bnd Good
SH 225 Shell SH 225 Shell overpass., startloverpas!I, end of bridge of bridge
SH 225 over Scarboroulth J,ane
South Loop over Calais St.
11.4. 26
TUted approach Illab
FreqlJen('y
1\4.21 11.4. 28 A4.29
I.on~ wave on lopenfng at I DiscontinuIty hridge approtl(~h pavement joint approach slab &
pavement
.,..!!.~h I,ow IIlfl;h T,o~_J!.!.~-,~I~_ tow .. ~I.!!'.!~ _. _~lW _I!~.&!, 1.01/ IIlfgh Low I Amplitudes,
% of Statie Weight
o - 20
20 - 40
40 - 60
X
X
X
"0 - 801 X
80+ ( X
tlax illlUm Peak Load, %
tlean Peak Lo.ttl. %
Standard Deviation, %
lJ - la, %
IJ - 2a, %
434
254
91
If,J
12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
358
233
51,
179
125
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
314
201
32
169
131
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
351
222
42
lRO
DR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
449
310
55
255
200
x X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
256
196
30
166
136
x X
X
X
(7\
""
Subje~tive Rating Good
S. Loop over
Site SH 288
(Roullton)
Reference~ Figure /1.4.30
01scont inlli ty: Main Roughness approach slab
Pattern and pavement
ClaS8 IIlgh Low
Amplitudes, % of o - 20 X X
Static 20 - 40 X X Weight
40 - flO X X
60 - 80 X X
80+ X
tlaxilllUIII Peak Load, % 303
Mean Peak 232 Load X
Standard 34 Deviation, %
U-la,% 198
U-Zo,% 164
TABLE 4.1. CONTINUED
Gond Bad Bad
N. Loop over 1M 10 over W. 1M 10 over W. tlcCarty Pod. Belt, start Belt, end of
of brldy.e bridy.e
.M.31 11.4.32 .M.33
Upen1ng betweel upen1n~ betweel Tilted approach slab approach slab
~pproach sll1b nnd b ridj;tC nnd brfdp.E' Freq.uenry
lItr.h 1.0101 II t,'h t.nw Hir.h I.ow
. X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X
X
213 203 239
181 165 192
III 21 25
163 144 161
145 123 1/.2
Bnd
N. Loop over RR, !!tllrt of bridl!;e
11.4.34
TUted approach slab
IUgh Low
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
297
217
39
178
139
Bad
N. Loop over RR, end of brid~e
A4.3S
Tilted apprO<!ch !!lab
IIIgh Low
X X
X X
X X
X X X X
301
180
46
134
Ill!
t. ... /
....., o
71
the assumption of a normal distribution, 84 percent of the induced peak loads
will be higher than 168 percent of the static axle weight, and 98 percent of
those loads will be higher than 133 percent of the static axle weight.
The section of SH 225 over Scarborough Lane (Houston) is another example.
The major roughness is due to a large opening at a pavement joint. The
induced maximum dynamic peak load for one axle is almost 4.5 times its
static weight. The mean peak load is 310 percent and the standard deviation
is 55 percent. As a result, 84 percent of the dynamic loads are higher than
2.55 times the static weight and about 98 percent of those loads are twice
their static weights.
At this point, it seems worthwhile to emphasize the significance of
approach slabs. There are thirty-five sections, presented in Figs A4.l
through A4.35 respectively, and twenty-eight sections have approach slabs.
Among those twenty-eight about 80 percent (twenty-two sections) have primary
roughness problems related to approach slabs, which are tilted or distorted
or have a gap between the approach slab and the bridge/pavement. As noted
already, the use of approach slabs is common in San Antonio, Lubbock, and
Houston. Great care in choice of design and construction processes may
improve performance in the vicinity of the bridge-pavement interface.
DYNAMIC LOADING INDEX
Though Table 4.1 provides useful information, it is not adequate for
identifying the most critical types of roughness inducing dynamic loads.
For example, the X shows the induced load class, but it does not show where
and by how many axles the loads were created. Therefore, in order to better
quantify the dynamic loading problem, a dynamic load index was developed.
It is the sum of the products of the mean of each load classification and
72
the number of axles which induce the dynamic load in that classification.
The index includes all dynamic loads within the influence range of the
roughness under consideration. If, for a total of 20 axles, the roughness
creates oscillations with amplitudes less than 20 percent of the static
weight, this index is 10% X 20 = 2.0 (10 percent is the mean of that class
ification). On the other extreme, if all axles are excited and large loading
oscillations with amplitudes greater than 80 percent are induced, the index
will be 100% X 20 = 20.0, where 100 percent is the assumed mean value of
that classification since the upper bound is not set. The index is bounded
by these two limits.
The proper choice of the length of influence range is vital for devel
opment of the index. The area of most severe roughness itself must be
included. It was found, however, that the range must extend beyond the
end of the most severe roughness a distance of at least one dynamic load
cycle. The cycle length varies with vehicle speeds and loading frequencies.
The lowest frequency in each load category was selected for use so that the
longest cycle length could be included. When the speed is 40 mph, the
rounded cycle length is 8 feet for high-frequency oscillations, and 40 feet
for low-frequency oscillations. When the speed is 55 mph, the rounded cycle
lengths are 10 and 50 feet for high and low-frequency oscillations respec
tively. The ranges thus developed are marked on the graphs (Figs A4.l
through A4.35 with light shading.
A combination of several types of roughness, not an isolated discontin
uity, normally creates maximum dynamic loading. The section of Scarborough
Lane (Houston) exemplifies this statement. A detailed analysis of that
site is shown in Fig 3.10. Besides the previously mentioned gap at the
pavement joint, there are at least three other types of roughness present.
73
These include (1) a tilted or distorted approach slab, (2) a discontinuity
between the approach slab and the bridge, and (3) a discontinuity between
the approach slab and the pavement. The dynamic loads induced by one rough
ness pattern will often influence the loads by another. Therefore, dynamic
wheel loads are, quite often, the composite result of several types of
roughness.
Numbers of axles in each load classification for major roughness
patterns, with references to analysis figures, and derived dynamic load
indices are summarized in Table 4.2. These indices are useful for identify
ing the potential for creating large magnitude dynamic loads. Small index
values indicate little tendency to produce excessive dynamic tire forces.
The smaller the indices, the smoother the roadway. It is interesting that
these indices may be correlated with subjective ratings and can be therefore
useful for indicating a measure of ride quality. For the cases examined in
San Antonio, Lubbock, and Houston, an index value of 9.0 is an appropriate
division between good and bad riding quality. If one of the indices for a
site is greater than 9.0, the overall rating for that site is almost certainly
bad. This is true for 16 out of 18 sites in those three districts, with
only two exceptions. The site of Spur 326 over the AT & SF Railroad
(Lubbock) has an index equal to 13.8 for high-frequency oscillations but is
rated as good. Another exception is the site of South Loop (IH 610) over
SH 288 (Houston) which is rated as good although the largest index value
for that section is 9.5. However, in general, the index seems to be well
correlated with subjective ride quality ratings for those three districts.
In Austin only three sites (two bad and one good) are considered and all
the index values are lower than 9;0. The Austin data is simply too limited
in quantity to make significant statements about the correlation between
TABLE 4.2. DYNAMIC WHEEL LOAD INDICES
Subjective Rating Bad Bad Good Bad Good
Mustang Creek Boggy Creek Bee Creek Hackberry St. Durango St. Site Location (Au!! tin) (Austin) (Austin) (S.A.) (S .A.)
Hump near Dropoff at Sharp rise GAp between Distorted Description of bridge ends. bridge end. at bridge slab & pVIAt. approach slob.
Roughness Patterns end.
Predicted Dynamlc Vehicular Loading
End of Bridge Start ~:nd Enrl Start Stllrt End Start End
Referenced Figures A4.1 M"2 M.) fIIl.4 fil,. S fII •• 6 114.7 M.8
Dyllomic Numher of Ob",ervattons Tire Forces
(%) : o - 20 8 1 1 2 0 0 IS 16 lIigh 20 - 40 11 15 12 14 8 10 J 2
Frequ.,~
OsciI llitlon 40 - 60 I 3 6 2 8 6 2 0
60 - 80 0 1 1 1 2 3 0 2
80+ 0.· 0 0 1 2 1 0 0
I.oading Index 4.6 6.8 7.4 7.1 9.8 9.1 3.4 3.6
o - 20 11 7 12 9 1 4 4 4 Low 20 - 40 9 11 6 9 IS IS 13 11
Frequen.£I. Oscillation 40 - 60 0 2 2 2 J 1 3 3
60 - 80 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
81}!· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loading Index 5.0 4.0 1,.6 6.8 5.4 5.8 6.6
Good
W. W. White Blvd. (S .A.)
Finger joint with drain between PVOIt. & slab.
Start End
114.9 A4.10
5 6
14 14
1 0
0 0
0 0
5.2 4.8
9 3
7 12
4 4
0 1
0 0 5.0 6.6
Bad
Plum Creek (S .A.)
Tilted slab and hump near bridge ends.
Start End
M.l1 A4.12
2 0
15 14
2 2
1 1
0 3
6.4 8.9
0 0
11 8
2 6
4 4
3 2 to.l 10.2
:
I
i ,
!
....., ~
~lIhjective R"t In" &ad Cood
~tte '-ocation .os Un~u"h I<T (. SF RR (I.llhhn .. k) Creek
Description of So. forl!ll!d by Poor jolntR RouRhness Pattern each lipan with
apr roach slab
End of Brld~e Start t:nd Start End
(S) (N) (S) (N)
('(erenced Figure M.13 "".14 A4·15A4.16
Dyna .. i.: rire rorce o - 7.0 1 4 e 10
(%) : 20 - 40 5 HI 1 7
Hieh Frequenc,!
60 - 60 B 1 '! 1
!!.8dlla- 60 - 110 5 1 5 2 tion 80+ 1 4 (, 0
LOl1dinr. Ind .. x 10.1 Ii. (, U.B 5.0
Dynamic Ire Forcp., o - 20 5 1 ](I 4
(%) : 20 - 40 0 8 ; I,
Low 40 - 60 5 2 1 5
!~e~~I.!.I!S~ oscillA· 60 - /10 4 2 ~ 7 --t-l~;--
!I(l+ 6 7 n f'
LOlldlnr. Index 11. II 11.9 5.'0 9.0
TABLE 4.2. (!ONTlNUED
B .. d r.OClli Good
US 117 S 9~t! St. BrnEo" Ct,ld)
Gap betveen Open joint Lonp, \lave Open In" at rilted .. pproach appro .. ch 81ab betveen bridge pr"fllp. brld"e joint lIl .. b
on" hridr.e deck .. near brld!,:" . end
rre-tllr.tl'd D)'no1mic \'chit'.'];'!r I.Il:u!~""
~tart End rnd Start End (E) (II) (N) (NIl) (SF.)
A 4.17 AI,.18 ,,~. 19 "4. 20 M.21
- Numb"r 01 l'bsl'tvatin,,:,
4 0 10 16 8
5 2 6 4 8
8 (, 0 0 2
2 5 3 0 0
1 7 1 0 2
8.3 14.1 5.9 2.11 6.~
13 20 7 20 11
5 0 4 0 i
0 0 3 0 2
0 0 4 0 (I
0 0 " n II
l.O 2.0 ~.:! :'.0 4 . .!
Coo"
Bra .. o. (n"v)
Til ted I)(sc"ntlnult~·
Hut bet ..... en lipan "prro .. ch .lab
.. nd brld!!e
~tart En.1 (SE) (NIl)
AI,.22 A 4. 23
13 15
7 5 . 0 0
0 0
0 0
3.4 J.O
II 11
12 OJ
0 0
0 0
0 0
4.4 l.1I
I
I I
I
I
i
!
...... VI
SubJective Ratin~
Site Location (Houston)
Oesct'iption of Roughness Pattet'n
£nd of Bdefl'll!
Referenced Fif{\lt'p
\J~'l1al:1ic
ire Forces o - 20 (X) :
20 - 40 Higb
40 - 60 FreguencI OscUla- 60 - 80
tion 80+
Loadinf{ Yndex
Dyna1llic Tire Forces o - 2(
(%) : 20 - l,(
Low 40 - 6f Frequency
Osci11a- 1)0 - 8( tlon
80+
loading Index
TABLE 4.2. CONTINUED
Bad Sad
S. Belt Shell Overpass
Discontinuity Opening at TUted Long \lave on between bddf{e pavel!!ent joint appt'oacb slnb brld!!:e 1'Ipproacb and approach
slab
Predicted Dynamic Vehlr.ular Loadin!!:
Stat't End Start End (NW) (SE) (W) (F.)
A4.24 M.25 AI,. 26 A4.21
Number of OhservntJons
3 0 '2 10
7 6 10 2
3 11 5 5
4 0 1 2
3 3 2 1
9.7 10.3 8.4 6.5
8 5 3 5
2 8 4 1
2 3 10 2
5 3 3 5
3 1 0 7
8.9 7.5 8.6 12.3
Bad
~cat'bornUJll.h Lane
Opening at pavel!!ent
joint
Stat't (W)
A4. '28
3
0
1
3
13
15.9
6
4
5
2
3
8.7
I
I
..... 0\
Subj.ctive R3tln~
Site Locat Ion (Houaton)
Dese drt 1(1" of Rou~hness Pattern
End of l!Irid,e
Referenced F1 ~l1n~
DynamIc rire Forces o - 20
(%): 20 - 40 High 40 - 61) Freguenc)!
08c111a- 60 - BO tion
80+ --
Loading Index
Dynamic: Tire Forces o - 20
(%): 20 - 4( Low
40 - 61 Frequency Oscilia- 60 - 811
tion 80+
loading Index
TABLE 4.2. CONTINUED
Good Good Good Rod
Galais St. SH 288 HcCarty Rd. W. !lelt
IHscontin- .Jlscon t In- Of>eninR be- 0rcning betweel tllty uity tween op- aprroacb slab Tilted arrroacl
between ap between ap- proach slal> and bridge slab pro.,ch proach slah Ilnd hridge and pvt. and pvt.
Pn.dlcted lJyn:tmlc Vehl culor I.oadl"~
End Start End gtart End (W) (W) (51':) ( F.) (W) -14.29 II 4. 31) 114.31 11.4.32 A4·33
Numher of Ob""l'vatlonl'l
J 0 2 0 0
8 11 <) 12 6
S S 7 7 9
1 1 2 1 3
3 3 0 II 2
A.9 9.S 7.8 7.8 10.4
4 4 9 6 4
8 Ie <) <) 6
4 3 2 S 8
4 3 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 -7.6 7.0 4.6 S.8 7.6
Bad
R.R.
Tilted approach
slab
Start End (NIl) (5E)
114.34 114.35
3 IS
10 3
6 0
1 0
0 2
7.0 4.4
4 4
4 10
6 3
4 2
2 1
9.4 7.3
" "
78
ride quality and loading index.
\ \
79
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this study, roughness problems in the vicinity of the bridge-pavement
interface are examined. Information on representative bridge sites in the
Austin, San Antonio, Lubbock, and Houston districts of the State Department
of Highways and Public Transportation was obtained through a special survey
questionnaire. With the aid of on-site inspections, twenty-one locations
were selected for road surface profile measurements. A vehicle computer
simulation program was used to analyze the interaction of vehicles with
roadway profiles. The following conclusions and recommendations are based
upon study and analysis of these data.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Based upon observations of this study, the magnitude of traffic
volume cannot be identified as a causative factor of surface
roughness at bridge approaches. Since the temperature in Texas
is neither extremely cold nor extremely hot, frost action and
slab movement due to temperature variations are not serious. No
significant correlation was consistently found between the
performance of bridge approaches with bridge function, bridge
type, bridge age, or the height of embankment fill.
(2) While flexible pavement is dominant in Austin, San Antonio, and
Lubbock, rigid pavement is primarily used in the Houston area.
No obvious superiority of one type over another was found.
However, compared with JRCP, CRCP provides better performance.
80
(3) Stub-type abutments, generally recognized as most desirable, were
utilized at all sites investigated. Deep foundations are used
almost exclusively as supports for bridges and appear to be very
effective in minimizing total settlement. No special treatments
for slope stability have been applied; that is, membranes, berms,
or benching has not been utilized. There are no special treatments
for soft foundations. Though light-weight material offers promise
for use in fills, no such material is used in these four districts.
(4) The type of material utilized in the approach roadway structure is
related to the pavement-bridge interface roughness problem.
Highway compressible clayey material was used as embankment fill
for all problem sites in District 14. Expansive soil appeared
to be the major cause of roughness in District 15. Heavy rainfall
in conjunction with expansive Beaumont clay induced severe surface
irregularities in Houston. No similar cause can be identified
for the Lubbock area. However, based on those sites studied,
Lubbock seems to have a less serious situation than the others.
(5) Penetration of water through pavement joints or cracks, especially
when expansive soils are involved, may become a major creator of
roughness. Elimination of expansion joints and use of finger
joints with transverse drains has been effective measures for
reduction of the water intrusion problem.
(6) Timely maintenance and slow rate construction techniques certainly
offer promise for reduction of surface irregularities. Modern
compaction equipment, which has been extensively used since the
1960s, also offers promise for problem minimization. Stringent
specifications and inspections of soil compaction are essential
to obtaining satisfactory bridge approaches.
(7) Roughness at bridge approaches can occur either on the bridge or
81
on the roadway. A number of typical roughness patterns have been
identified. Except in Austin, the use of approach slabs as the
transition between the bridge and the pavement is a common practice.
However, for those sections having approach slabs, about 80 percent
of the identified roughness problems are related to the existence
of approach slabs. In San Antonio and Lubbock, approach slabs have
been removed in some locations, and the road profile has remained
relatively smooth following this modification.
(8) The Surface Dynamics Profi10meter provides a safe, convenient
means of obtaining the road profile information that is needed for
locating and identifying critical patterns of roughness at the
pavement-bridge interface. Rod-and-1eve1 measurements at three
sites in Texas have revealed that short wavelength roughness is
represented adequately by the Surface Dynamics Profi10meter but
that long waves in the profile are somewhat distorted. Dynamic
wheel loads can, however, be predicted satisfactorily by simula
tion from the profi1ometer records since vehicular response to
long-wave roughness is relatively insignificant.
(9) The DYMOL vehicle simulation program is a power tool for pre
diction of the relative effect of roughness in creating dynamic
wheel loads. The analysis process developed for DYMOL output
seems to be acceptable. The derivation of a dynamic load index
is useful for quantitative evaluation of roughness conditions.
The index is also useful for prediction of riding quality.
(10) The most serious case encountered in this study is SH 225 over
Scarborough Lane (Houston). The primary roughness pattern,
consisting of a wide gap at the pavement joint, induced peak
dynamic axle loads of 4.5 times static weight. If a normal
distribution is assumed for dynamic loading, about 98 percent of
the dynamic axle loads will be twice their static weights. The
importance of joint sealing or repair cannot be overlooked.
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) To avoid or alleviate interface roughness problems, generally
recognized good design and construction practices offer the most
promise. Stub-type abutments, deep foundations for bridges,
adequate investigations of the foundation site, appropriate
specifications and inspections of soil compaction, and sometimes
a slow-rate construction schedule should be considered. Benching
the natural ground to support the approach embankment is also
recommended.
82
(2) High-volume-change materials should be used with caution in embank
ment construction, and special attention should be given to the
drainage system. On the one hand, the surface water should be
prevented as much as possible from penetrating into the underlying
layers. On the other hand, water having intruded into the soil
should be removed quickly and completely. Select granular-type
material, probably with additives for stabilization, is always
desirable as the abutment backfill.
83
(3) Though in many cases bridge approach roughness is associated with
approach slabs, the banning of approach slab use is not considered
to be proper. The decision to use the specially designed reinforced
approach slabs should be based on traffic volume, soil condition,
construction cost, and an estimate of the possible problems if they
are not used. It is impractical, however, to specify any particular
design for approach slabs as being better than any other; local
past experience will provide valuable guidance.
(4) When undesirable surface roughness adjacent to the bridge-pavement
interface does occur, maintenance should be performed immediately.
Scheduled preventive maintenance may prove to be a more effective
and economical solution. Points of major concern include pavement
joints, bridge joints, and the joints between the approach slab
and the bridge-pavement.
(5) Even though the effect of a distorted profile from the Surface
Dynamics Profilometer is not critical in the simulation analysis
made by DYMOL, a good representation of the real profile is highly
desirable. More study should be devoted to defining the capability
of the Surface Dynamics Profilometer to measure long-wave roughness.
(6) Extensive soil exploration, along with detailed and accurate
information on the design, construction, and maintenance history
of the bridge site, is essential for determining the extent and
the specific causes of one particular interface roughness. Analyses
of this depth are beyond the scope of this study. Further in-depth
research efforts are surely warranted in the investigation of rough
ness problems in the proximity of the bridge-pavement interface.
84
APPENDIX
Dynamic Wheel Load Diagrams
VEHICLE
i L1
~ B
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) o 15 30 45 60 15 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 19!5 210 22!5 240 255 270
z
~ 1.001-C!
-.-- I T
= ~. -veu_ ~ O.ooE== '- ...... w ~ <:07.
6 I i -1.00 _4
Do
VIA
I
4°1~ 55 2
40rl
3
I
5512 3
I I--
2
40~ 5
M~ 5
~BRIDGE
, l
1 __ A
~I!i iJtl.-
i]!i!!i
, ,
I
~rl~l. ....
,
. 1'1" Fig A4.lA. Dynamic wheel load diL:l:;ram, high frequency oscillation,
Loop 427 over Mustane Creek (Austin). start of bridge.
, ';1
1
MAX. LOAD (%) -,~
122
118
131
133
121
137
130
132
143
149
119
117
126
124
136
138
133
139
130 135 -----0
00 VI
•
- o 15 30 45 60 15 90 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 210
z ... 1:
1.001-
, I I I I I"
~ O.OOt== i-'OO -- -,~- ~'~I "V" •
VEHICLE V I A I ~BRIDGE
I :: t Ill!lliiililill!I!!lllllillillllljill!I!~ill!I~!,:::::::::::: _ 11
d I
55~ 3
~~ 5 r1
B ~~ 5
l
II ~l~za mltl ~Laru
,
Fig A4.1B. Dynamic wheel load diar:ram, 10\-1 frequency oscillation, Loop 427 over Hush.np; Crel.1k (Austin), start of bridge.
j.
1 , ,
J
MAX. LOA 0 (0/0) --.,
122
118
131
Jll 121
137
130
132
143
149
119
117
126
124
136
138
133
139 130 135 ----'
(X) a-
o z ... 2: 1.001-. C!)
I~ HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT)
30 4~ 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 19~ 210 225 240 ~5 270 I
~ Ooot'- -e ~ eA.. ~.~. ~ -.. .. ~""""-- ........ ~~ l&J • .... ""'- .... ~$l 1~. *V ...J ii: ~ -1.001-a.
VEHICLE I V I A BRIDGE ~ LOAD(%)
d I
55~ 3
r1 ~~ 5
lJ ~~ 5
/
-~::::::~::i:::i:::i:C:':':':':':
Fig A4. 2A. Dynamic wheel load diaera.:n, hir;h frequellcy osc illation, Loop 427 over Nustang Creek (Austin) t end of bridge.
L
137
132
142
'~
125
158
186
131
148
148 -148
j 130
133
165
185
149
146 171
156 169
00 .....
VEHICLE
i d r1
~
- o z ~ a 1.001-· iii
IS HORIZONTAL DISTANCE eFT)
30 4S 60 7S 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 22S 240 255 270 I
l&I. ,....",.,..,.. A cn....- L.......... ......... -~ ~ L -' 0.00- • "-~'- -"..... .~ -1 ii: ~ ...... -
i Q. -1.00
IvTA BRIDGE lMAX. LOAD(%)
I
40\ ~ , 55 2
I
40n=
3
I
5S~ 3
~~ 5
M~ 5
Fig A4. 2B. Dynamic l-lheel load di3{';rrun, low frequency oGcillation, Loop 427 over Mustang. Creek (Austin), end of bridge.
,7 I~
I~ ,2
2
,5
125 158
186
131
148
148
148
130
133
165
185
154
146
171 156 169
00 00
0 15 z I
~ I.ool w -::r::: 0.001 w ~
ii: ~ -1.001-Il.
VEHICLE V A
I I
40 2
I 55
2
[I. 40 2
3
I
55 2
31 I
2
r1 40 3
4
5
1,-
U 2
55 3
4
5
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 ·210 225 240 255 270
~ ~ ..... -- ~ ~
~
BRIDGE
~
,
Fig A4.3A. Dynnmic wheel load diacr31ll, hlc:h frequency oscillation, US 18) over Bogey Creck (Austin), end of bridge.
/
A
MAX. LOAD (G/,,) ---,
133
136
153
148
130 147 163
144
·175
. 183
137
128
156
141
166
159
155 172 154
15L
00 \C
- 0 IS Z I i
... 1.00 :r <=)
w :r 000 w . ...J Li: i-tOO Q.
VEHICLE VIA -i
I 40~
I 557-I
40~ 3 I
SSn= 3'
L1 I
~~ 5 ~ -I
B ~~ 5
HORllONTAL DISTANCE (FT) 30 4S 60 15 90 105 120 135 150 165 IBO 19S 210 22S 240 255 270
i i I I I I I I I I I I I
l .. ,- :....r...;?
BRIDGE-==:!i
•
Fig A4 .3B. Dynn.m:lc wheel load d1:Jo~am, ION' frequency oscillation, US 1IJJ over DoG[';y CI·eeJ.~ (Aus tin), end of bridge.
/ j'tAX.
LOAD(%) .......,' 133
136
153
14B
129 147
163 , 144
175
IB3
137
128
156
141
166
159
165 172
154 , 162
---I
\0 0
o IS z ~ x 1.001-~ LLI X
~O.OO~
1£ -I.OO~ Do
VEHICLE I V I A
i L1
ri .3
I
4°1~ 55 2
III 40~
3
I
55~ 3
I I--
2
40
1 : 5
M~ 5
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE eFT) 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270
.-. "-" --- 7' -... -c;r' ~
~BRIDGE
icrL !
• jWI £~~L ,
jl~!l~~t : A • ·Al*'4~ ----.a::::::::::::: ~ t:·;.:·:··, n;,'wna,we HatE _
- f#4Allltlt* ;Z ;<.' lPW_ A t·::, ..... " ~ ; 0 ;'=:::;;aW'Cb r:=: ::r«t.fIwt_VW .: ..... !.~.:.:. B%I '';''('~I'" ~ ';'m,ZHi'tt:_._ _____ :.~: ........ '
n - " ;. , It:.:i::c:;;:...~ .. ~7':::L ________ IiiiiI~~~ & atiM: _ IM!Z!kSEct&6!Z*'"* '~: ..
J
-
.J t-j ::::::::::: 1 ~.-
IE Fig A4.4A. Dynamic wheel load diagram, high frequency oscillation,
SH 71 over Bee Creek (Austin), start of bridge.
j
MAX. LOAD(%) ---,
137 138
139
140
137
156
174
148
192
193
152
131
145
133
147
152 156 160
166 175 ----I.
\0 I-'
0 I~ Z i
~ 1.00 z: C!)
l&J z: l&J ~
iL ~ 1.00 Q.
VEHICLE VIA
i I
4°1~ 55 2
L1 .&
40m
3
11 55~
3 -I --2 i
----< 40
1 ~ 1
5 -fi I u Mff 5
30 i
j
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) 4~ 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255
i i i , i I I i • I i I I •
"---
I--BRIDGE
_______ .. 1 _______ I 111111111111111111 f
&
1
-------------ll~I!I!!!!I'!I!~II:
270
MAX. LOAD(%) - I 137
138
139
140
137 156
174
148
192
193
152
131
145
133
147 152
156
160
.66 175
------I
--------..... ---- ~ll!llilll: ;WD
Fig A4.4B. Dynamic wheel load. dia3ram, low frequency oscillation, SH 71 over Bee Creek (Austin), start of bridge.
\0 N
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT)
~ O.ooy I~ 3f' 4~ 6.0 TIS ~ 1~5 I~O '~5 '10 'f5 I?O 210~ I I I I I
-.... a-tOO \ iii :t: I.IJ -2.
S-300 Q.
VEHICLE I V I A PAVEMENT SLAB -,7 rzzz
BRIDGE
ti
r1 ~
~o I 2
2 1 I
55 1 2 1
I I--
~
40~ 5
I
Mff 5
4
2
2
2
2 1
1
1 2 3
3
m=
7Y.!~!"
,~;;:~bM'+ tl~~
Fig A4.SA. Dynamic "Theel load diagram, hir;h frequency oscillation, IH 37 over Hackberry :Jt., (S·.A.), start of bridge.
MAX. LOAD (%) --, 165
188
192
..lliL 161
192
195
142
233
~45
149
201
203
192
179
181 193
200
183
~
\0 W
VEHICLE
fi C1
.... o z l-%: -1.001-. (!'
iii %: ~-2.00[J,
~-3.00[ n.
VIA
I
4°1 ~ 55 2
, 40ttj
3
55~ 3
~~ 5
M~ 5
15 30 45 60 15 I I
90 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE eFT) 105 120 135 150 165
I
1\ ..... /
.-IBO ~'O 225
PAVEMENT SLAB
#
Fig A4 .5B. Dynamic Hhee1 load dia,'jrrun, 10.-1 frequency osc111ation, IH 37 over Hackberry st .. , (S.A.) ,_start of bridge.
~ I
MAX . LOAD (0/0) ...........,
165
IBB
192
179
161
192
195
142
233
245
149
201
203
192
179
IBI
193 200
IB3 I~
\0 ,c..
VEHICLE
i d ~
It
B
o I~
ZI.OO~ ... .
~ 0.00 lIJ %: lIJ -I.OO~ ...J
ii: ~-2.001-~
VIA
I
4°1~ 55 2
I
40~ 3
55~ 3
I I----
2
40
1 ! 5
~~ 5
30 45 60 15 T
~
-
•
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 210 285 300
I 1
--..r'
BRIDGE ::::::t'!rJ.LI1::zr.rr------~ MAX.
SLAB LOAD(%) :·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:··<:1::·:
,l;',~i·:.r .. :J"';.;;"i: ... i: __ _ 44.t))~. - -
189
183
168
185
I~j%~\~\~~ .. :~..,·: .. i~..,~~ .. ~ ........ ___ _ ::::~;::~::·:;:·::(:t:?::-S;;:
___ "'F~.;;::. :;:.~~.~.' ... ~ .. ~ .. '!l?~"";!"!. ;!'!o~."''' ___ '''''IIiIi_'' - 153
208
183
'$tz,W"M HM%" £SMS ~%%I{%)?!/~\~ 176
211 ~ "~~~~::.::".)7:~7:C~{:~::·_.I=_II' ___ -1. ___ .. ~ ...... ' ....... ~ : cew _ .. ~~~-;;.:;~:.:~~~J.~ .. ~:. __ .. _ ........... . 212
-
-:44.:~:~:~:\:~::::::::::: :::~~:~::~:~:~~::~:~:::~:~. ::~:.:':i:~::::::~:i:i:i:i:i
__________ :IIi:: .. :::,;,.i:.Or:i!::$i;:~J::::::::::;:.
.,:-ft.:~.~~:
162
203
213
204
169
191
181 205
184 210 -----'
Fig A4 .6A. DynaJT\ic wheel lna'i dla.,:ra.m, hiGh rrcqu!~ncy o::;cillutiJn, IH 37 over Hackberry st., (S ~A.), end of bridge.
\D U1
VEHICLE
i
r1 B
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) o IS 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
T :I z
-~ i~OO : ~ ~-IOO ~ ~-2.00~
.--.....
Q.
VIA BRIDGE
:~:~:~:! :!i!:!i !i~:!j!j!i~::t! i~:ljlj!:!j!i !:! ~;~; ~;~; ~;~;~ ;~;~; : : ~ I
4°1: ! ~! ~! j i j j i ~ i ~! ~ i i ~ ~ i I I ;st;:; i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i:; ~; ~ i ~ ~; ~! ~~ ~!! i i ill I! I! Iii! i ~ i i ~ 55 2
40~ 3
55~ 3
~~ 5
I
2
~~~~~~;;;;~~~~~;;;;;;;;;~;;i;;~;;;~;;;~;;:i:;:;:;:~:i~W
rrmffmrlr}rrrtWmt~ !~!!!!~i!i~i~I!!!i!i~t!lt~~~ili!ill~ili!~!lll!i!i!1!1!l)it~·
168
185
153
208
183
176 211
212
162
203
213
204
169
191
181 205
184 55 : - ;;~~;;;;;<.::;.j.1):h':Zi~i!!!~!:i!!!!!!!!i!i!!i
5 :::::::::::::::::::::~>'j.i,:E~j:::::::::::::::}:::;: ,~ -I~ Fig A4.6B. Dynamic wheel load. rii.;.{T.11::, Jow fn'(IL:!ollCY o:;r:;llJo..tior"
IH 37 over Hackberry ~;t., (S.A.), end of hridge. \0 0\
VEHICLE
i d fi
B
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270
Z 1.00(: --. •
... ::z: (.!)
l&.I 0.00 ::z: l&.I
~ -I.OOl Q.
~ --/\. /
~~ MAX,
V A ] LjAO(%) ==-=F-=+-------------------_,."".O ........... ~.~.~~.:.:.:::;:.:.:::.\;:BRIOGE 1 -; I
40 2
I 55
2
40~ 3
I
55P=
3
~~ 5
I
~~ 5
134
128
135
ill 124
.1 139
147 1 140
-1 ;;,..1 179 '. ---j
A , j
j 1
1
Fig A4. 7A. Dynamic wheel load dlD/rD.':J, h:lC:h frequency o:3cillation, IH 37 over Duranco ~t., (S.A.), start of bridge.
j
... :_.16 ..... _~ •. .M. ~~9 145
133
152
142
150
153
132
167 174 17~
\0
"""
0 15 Z I.OO~ l-X C> i&i 0.00 x
'" ..J
~-1.00L Q.
VEHICLE V A
11 I
40 2
55 2
L1 40 2 ,
:5
I
55 2
:5
2
r1 40 :5
4
5
I
~ 2
55 :5 4
5
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 2S5 270
• ,
./--' ~ ,.,-'"
~ 1LLA
SLAB -r--BRIDGE
j
.. Fig A4.7B. Dynamic wheel load diC4~17url' low frequency oscillation,
III 37 over DUr.J.nr:;o st., (S.A.), start of bridge.
1
• 1
...,.
!
""
LOAD(%) I~AX. 134
128 135
131
124
1 1139 147 140
179
189
145
133
152
142
150
153
132 167 174 179 --
\0 !XI
o 15 z
i IDO~. % 0.00 1&.1 -' iL ~ -1.001-Q.
VEHICLE rvrA -i 40~ 2
I 551--
2
I
40~ 3
1
55P=
[j 3
I
~~ 5 ~ I
~I ! r4 ~ r--
5
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270
~ ~
v
BRIDGE' J222Z!7ll~7J777777771~~~(%)
- , .a
.A
'- r::! :;:;;::::'::1$'. fh*9¥€
--..A--. .'363>1,+'9, s:C" ...... 4·i i'%iN .. ..
.a
- j
j ,
A
-Ci7iTI'" • J.
Fig A4.8A. Dyn;unic wheel ].~):l'; dl~'l~I~'r.;, hie;h frequency oscillation, IH 37 over Durar1[;o :;t., (S.A.), end of bridge.
128 135
139
n.e.. 126 175
182
142 175
169
159
138
150 140
147
186
160 178
166 178
----'
\0 \0
VEHICLE
i Ll
o z
... 1.00 :r <:)
lIJ :r .... ...J
~ -1.00 Q..
I
40~ , ,
55rt '3
~ 2 r'1 140
I--
~ S5~ t±
5
IS I
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) 30 4S 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270
I T
B~£" it-r!.:~ ~~X~!O{O) 12 •
Iliiiiii/111_ j
a
j
1
1
&
1
" :E:i:[~i£~:i:::i:i:::r:::::J
-~,,;,u;·:·;·:-:l: j
.I:,:,:,~:,,:,:,I, r:::::::::<~i.t:::::::::::i:;:i:i:i:i:~
.-~~ il= • 1 --f<i~;~;~;;Jjf;i~
...•.................. ::::::::::::;;.::.:.;.:.;;.:~ ,::t:'_~ffJ • ..b. ..... .,J~ .......
Fig A4. 8B. Dynamic wheel load. d.ia,-:;r.:un, 1m-I freq ucncy oscillation, IH 37 over Duraneo st., (S.A.). end of bridge.
135
139
138
126
175
182
142
175
169
159
138
150
140
147 186
160 178 166 178
--'
,.... 0 0
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) .... o 15 30 45 60 15 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 210 z ~
1.001-~
~ 0.00=-~- ~~ ~ t ~ ... OO ~ "'V7 0.
VEHICLE VIA 14=="BRIDGE
i 1
40
1: 55 2
1
Li 40~
:3
1
55~ j
:3
r1 I ~;I!;I~i;~~i ~ 2 -'o.k., .... ,.,.,., ........ ,.,.,.
55 3 .. ~'~~'~:,"",' .~. __ {:trltt~~(:lttt~
, j
Fig A4.9A. Dynamic wheel load diaGram, high frequency oscillation IH 10 overtf. W. \·lhiteBlvd., (S.A.), start of bridge.
A
.J-
l
&
j
MAX. LOAD(%) --,
130
132
126
131
127
146
148
124
157
148
142
135
133
154
ISS
146 137 165
136
158 ----'
I-' 0 I-'
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) .... o 15 !O 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 z I I I I r
... 1.001--::t: C)
iii ::t: 0.00 LLI
~ ~ -- ........
~ ,.J
~ -1.001-
a. MAX.
VEHICLE V A SLAB i---BRIDGE LOAD(%) ----,. .
ti I
40 2
55 2
130 132
126
131
127
1111111111111~!liil!ill!i!I!llIil---~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 .. ~ ... ~ .. ~ .. B'."~~.~~~~:~~~~:~, ...•. :~~~~~------------~------~
d 40 2
3
I
55 2
3
2
r1 40 3
4
5
~155 4
5
• j
Fig A4. 9B. DynamiC wheel load. dia.;-rtlJ,l, low frcq uency oscillation, IH 10 over \;. \-1. \·lhite Blvd., (S.A.), start of bridge.
";',
;~l\....fj .;'I:
146
148
124
151
148
142
135
133
154
165
146
131 165
136
158 ---'
\ .... 0 N
VEHICLE
11
c1
r1 U
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) ..... o 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 z I
~IOO~ ~ 0.00 ~ __ --......,... ~-=-
~ V Id ...J
~ -LOOt-
a..
V A
I 40 2
I 55
2
40 2
3
I
55 2
3
2
40 3 4
5
I
2
55 3
4
5
-BRIDGE ... , SLAB
...
&
,
j , j
• A
" , Fig A4.10A. Dynamic wheel load di3tiraJll, hie;h i"r:cquency o5cillatlon,
111 10 over W. W. Whi te Blvd., (S .A.), end of bridge.
--MAX. LOAD (0/0) --,
127
138
132
148
137
133
140
153
143
142
142
135
131
131
129
171
153
156 164
170 ~
.... 0 w
o z
~ 1.00 ~
LIJ J: &&.I ..J
~ -1.00 Q.
VEHICLE I V I A
ti I
4
°1 ~ 55 2
I
L1 40~
3
I
5Sn=
3
~ ~~ 5
B ~~ !5
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) IS 30 45 60 1~ 90 lOS 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 210
I -I
MAX. BRIDGE SLAB LOAD (0/0)
Ir~;;"~··ri··';''''''.'!i.',;:.;i:,"~,"·~':.' ______ .
----, 127
138
132
148
137
133
140
153
141
142
142
135
131
131
129 171
153
------... ::~:i$irJr:(~:~~~4;F::::::::? 5_ 156
164 :::::::::::::::::::X:::::::::::::::::>:::' ..... _--.:"'.,.. .. :-'-" .. ~, .. _- 170
F'ig A4.10B. Dynamic uhcel load d::';:{;r::1I:'.. 10:1 ~.r-qU(,II'-;'y v:.;..:.Hla.tlO:1. IH 10 over W. W. White Blvd., (S.A.). end of bridge.
--~ 0
"""
- 0r-__ ~ __ ~ __ ~~~~~T-~~~~ __ ~~~~~~~~ __ =r Z
f0-X ~ au x au
1.00
= -1.00
~ 0.-2.00
195 "T
210 T
225 240 255 270 I I I I
-~
I VEHICLE I V I A I SLAB i--BRIDGE ! _.* .... •. ~_!!,:,,;:o.~.~.,;:~t.~.·*· .... ~· ••
i L1
.
I
~ I
557
40 2
3
.o~ 5
~~ 5
FI~ A4.llA.
j
J , .I
Dynar.:ic ·.i; l(;c1 l:}.:l!i. i~ i,J,;;ra;n, hlr;h frQq u0ney o.:;cillation. IH 10 o'/or Flu.'n C:::-cd., (S.A.), start of bridge.
A. --
MAX. LOAD (0/0) --..,
r45
143
169
200
160
ISO
160
198
170
186
147
132
165
141
170
238
215 189
189
203
..... 0 \JI
z ... 2: c.!)
o I~ 30 4~ 60 75 90 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT)
105 120 135 150 165 180 I
~
195 210 225 240 255 270 I I 1
~ ~
I VEHICLE I V I A I ,.,.,.,.,.,;,!,~.~",~,!,,!,:t;;:;:;~~~'~i .. ,.,., :~"~.,;------I
11 4°1~ 55 2
,
d 40~
3
L
. ..- ... : ... ::;::-------------..• _- ----...---
'Ott , 55~
3
_____ ~I,:.jo: :.:.>:. ~.-: ', .. .: . ~: ,', ,'., ...... ' .... ,' .. ,', ,',
f{(f]i\r?:t:r}:>f:~~~:~~:~:~~~~~:~;:;~;:
____ rd[ .. igi'.:.;:;:,~~;;;;:;~':·!i~~.~ F'~g A4 lIB DV":\oric "hf;f'1 IC"'(l G.l<1."'Y'l·l '1"'1' 1 . ···t' '''c'' r,.-c·il-l·,tl'OIl • • oJ • , . - ~..... t. ,.J ... \. .... , .......... j " " '\. ..... _ .... 1 -..... .... ~ •
III 10 over PIU!'1 Creek, (S.A.), start of bridge.
~ ~~ 5 A
~~ 5
__ : : .... :: ;:::=::, ::;:;:;iE':cm:w
~ .":1
MAX. LOAD(%) -145
143
169
200
160
150
159
198
170
186
147
132
165
141
170
238
215
189 189
203 ---"
.... 0 (7\
o IS 60 75 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE eFT)
10!5 120 135 150 165 180 1\ 22!5 240 2!5!5 270 28!5 30 4!5 90 z I I I
2.00.-
'\ ~ \ ~ COl- ~ OJ I. '" i OCOL "'-~-I.OO
MAX. lOAD (O!c~)
-,. I VEHICLE I V I A I BRIDGE =+!.J.S~.t ........... s..e........ '» 1--140
147
160
166
~ 5512=1 - .{:::~:~~::~j~:::::::::::::::~}?~{:~:~:~:::~. 55 2 i
j 138
165
198
186
228 [J 40 2 _ -:'~::::::::::.:::.:::::{\::::::.:... .:.:;;:~ 2 _
227
151
133
157
170
173 F1 ~~ !5
l
~
l
183 137
224
175 - ~~ • B --
:5 211 -----'
~ 0 -...J
Fig A4.12A. Dyn~ic h"heel 10<:'.d. di;:.--;ra.r:J, htr;h fr(:(PJct·,,~y o:c;cll1otion, . IH 10 over PIUl'1 Cx-cck, (S.A.), end of bridge.
2! 3.00C:= If 30 45 j j
~ :z:: 2.001-C!)
'" :z:: 1001-
'" ...J i&: ~O.OO~ ~
VEHICLE V A
i I
40 2
55 2
d 40 2
3
I
55 2
3
2
r1 40 3
4
5
I
~ 155 2
3
4
5
Fig A4.12B.
60 75 , I
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT) 90 105 120 135 150 165 180A210 225 240 255 270 I iii I I J \ I I I I
~ ,-BRIDGE SLAB I ~
~ .. ~:::'I'j~~I.1r:
.................
~I¥.~.~ll~~~\\jiliillJ~lliT· ~Z£B235rQ,;::;·,.;;
-:-:-:·:-:·:-:·:-:-:·:-:-:-:-:-:-:··v·:-:·:::··:·· .. ~"!;;~:':':~ ... '~.a;. :~.' "" _.
;~::~~:::~:~~~~~~illi2~l~ .. ~.~._. :::::::::::::::::::::::~::':::::::::;~::i~:):~:::~ .,.,.~:. ".::.--:::::;~~~.~.~ ...
~Ti:~:~~::27:::"~~~~:~~:ir~1r~:~~ ";'.~ .... .,~~.t ............... ......,...Ai!.~ :::~:~:;~:~.~., '.:..:~:~ .. "~'~"':::::::::::::::::::: t~'f""t""",," ,., ........ ,.~.. I ...... .
DynaMic loTheel load. diac;rarn, low frequency oscillation, IH 10 over Plum Creek, (S.A.), end of bridge.
3
3 4
4
3
3'
MAX. LOAD(%J .......,
140
147 160
166
138
165
198 186
228
227
151
133
157
169
173
183
137 224
175
~ I-' 0 en
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 30 4~ 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 1-----' ,- ~-----. .----.--,--
j
~ lill!!i!!I::ll~~I~!,:: A A :I~ , . [A~ ~ r:=BR,JGE L'A'\;(%l
I
1!!~!,!!:!:!!!!]1~!l:I!~~;, A ~~; ,
-----------....... -----.J,~:~~:~:~:~:~:~:;~;:~::~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_t~~~~~1iij 185 Ll , I £~~:j:~:~:~:~!::~}Gliitt~lbm::~::im;:~ 187 I
e~H~tt;f{l~~~~~~f~~~~~~ff~~~r~~rll~ . , 281
1.~~~::~~~:~0;;:~:!1:1:1:1. A A ~:~ ~~:~:;::::/~:~:~~:::::;::~:::~~~:~::::::::.>;::~::~:;~:J j 199 r1 Ejt!,!:I~;;~i~~IIII.: A A
.~(~::i::: L~::: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~: ~:: ~ ~:::::: ~::::::: j: ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~: ~: ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I LJ
L-----L-----IL-....I...-______________________ .Jisll:·:Bi:~~:;~;:j;;:::;:;;;:;:;:;:;:;:;;;;;;:;:;:;:;:;:;:i:;:;:;
197 177
206
239 294
Fig A4.13A. DynaMic wheel ~_oCld diar,rC'll". hirh frc'1l1(>ney oseU b tj on. I'M 1065 over Los Linpuish Creek (Lubbock), Rtart of bridrc.
..... o \0
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.)
-- 0 ;i
30 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 45 60 15
I- 2.00 ::z::: C!)
1&1 1.00 ::z:::
~ 0.00 .... 0 g: -1.00
VEHICLErV I A BRIDGE -t ~ 55 ~ ,
I
Li 40 2
3
I
55 2
, ,
3
2
40~ 4
5 -I -2
55~ j
4 -5 L _____ ...I __ L:...L __________________________________ , _______ ;;l;L __ .... • .. b.;,· ... h ........... , ... ~ ........ h'. hn. ,9 ;,. hr' . .hie.o+',. 'b'
. .: ... -: ..... ~ .. ~:::.:-~. ::-::~::-::~~::.:>~ .. <~-::'o::::: :::: :':::'7~:':~ .
rip. A4.13D. Dynamic wheel loact diarrnrn, low freqt1ency osci Ilntion, Fr' ] 065 over Los J.in!!uish Creek (I.uhhock), stnrt of bridre.
MAX. LOAD(%)
====, 171
184
166
168
187
208
213
167
185
187
281
212
217
211
199
197
177
206
239
294 - .... ...... 0
VEHICLE
if Li A
)
- B
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) I!S 30 4!S 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 ISO 195 210 225 240 255 270 2S5 300
I I z o
.... x C)
w x W ..J
I.L. ~-0.50 Q.
MAX. BRIDGE ----l LOAD(%l
====, 169
174
152
'"'4
209
: I =-~'ll:l-i~:~;;:,~:~;~;~;:;~~~~ 217
It+- ~""""·."'.'''·'''·._.·I~:':'''' ............... , ... _ ... ~ ........... y.lj,.:..I ~
211
229
155 206
217
Fi~ A4.14A •.
j
j
j
j j
Dynamic wheel load diarxam, hiph frc(jIlCTlcy oscillation, I'M 1065 over Los Linguish Creek (Lllbhock), enl\ of hridrc •
312
219
21B
IB9
199
274
166
lSI
245
295 -~ ~ ~
VEHICLE
t Ll
i o~~~~~~r-~F-~F-~F-~~~r-~~~r-~r-~r-~r-~r-~~~~~~-=~-=~-=; .... I::r (!)
iii 0.50 ::r ~ 0.001~~~~~7'~~--+-~--~~---.~~--~----------------------------~----------
u.. 0-0.50 a:: Q.
V A
40 I
2
55 Z
I
40 2
:5
I
55 2 -:5
,
, . -"" ,l._ ..
BRIDGE~
.. _ ............ '!'II
• zw:;;atar MSMWj@i$l'iR'xG== -;~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::2:::~:~?:::::::::::::::::::::~:::::~;~:~~::::::::;:~~jlj~I~?\4* ; s;;;:!~ ~.
Fig A4.14B •. Dynamic wheel load diagram, 1m" frequency oscillation, FH 1065 over Los Linguish Creek (Lubbock), end of bridge.
.~-.~ ---... --..,: ....J....'_.liIIIIoI.I..
MAX. lOAO(%l
====t 169
174
152
174
209
211
229 155
206
217
312
219
218
189
199
274
166
181
245 29L
......
...... N
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) ~ 0 ,~ 30 4~ 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 _._ _ __ % 1.00. I 1 1
IQ~ ?ll"I ??~ ?4l"1 255 270 285 300
... :t:
~O.OOt· ~"Y
\.IJ -1.00C- • -J
I.L. o 0:-2.00 to..
......A ~,.~.
rrTT VEHICLE V A SLABF4= BRIDGE
~
I :;::~J:::::::::':::':;::::;';':::::::::::;;';':;:::::: 1i 40 r- -e~,,·~~,"~ ~ ___ _
~ ~.
MAX. LOAD (0/0)
==, 180
163
191 ______ a-__________________________________________________ ~
8
1:3 ~.;.;.. • ± .... __ , e,; ,.:.::;j,01I:l:!b
~ LJ3 I" ~ ~::::::::-::~;i~~~3:::~ .. -:=:=~Z:::~::~::,.::::::::::::!:: .. ::!~!..*H------------I
I 5 ::::;:11.0... ""-"""-"w;l~.-.-. __ .,' .
Fir. A4.lSA. Dynamic wheel load diagram, high frequency oscillation, Spur 326 over AT & SF Railroad (Lubbock), start of bridge.
134
207
214
152
251
263
166
166
204
208
220
205
216
260
238 280 - I--'
I--' IoN
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.)
i 1.000 I~ 30 4~ 60 15 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 210 285 300
I I I I I I I
~ ~ ..".-" ~O,OO~.,/\, 'V
w :r ~ I.&J -1.00 -' I.L.
~-2.00 a.
VEHICLE I V I A
i L1
I
'Ol~ 55 2
I
40~ 3
I
55~ 3
I '--
2
Ai~ I
LJ 55ff 5
Fir: A4.l5B.
SLAB~BRIOGE
ilf;!j'!I!t~=- - ·
Dynamic wheel lond diar-ram. low frequency oscillation. Spur 326 over AT & SF Railroad (Lubbock), start of bri.dge.
MAX. LOAD (°/0)
====, 180
163
191
168
134
201
214
152
251
~ 166
166
204
208
220
205
216
260
238 2§.£L
..... ..... J:oo
,... z o 15 30 45
I- 1.00 lx CJ w
I I I
~O.OO~~V ...J
~
~ ·'.00 l-n.
60 ,- 75 ,- 90 I
~
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.l 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
I I I I I
1
~~~~r:lr;1======================================;;~~=;~~~----------------------------~MAX. I , A LOAD (0/01
i :: : 1!!!;lli~ll:t!ii!I;II~i!llli~ L1 I::! ' I -1!1;!;!I~li;III!!!!~!illiilt·IJt[r;II;.·, ~-.Ji.Ji ••••• :~ •. -----I
3
r'-1 A
.o~ 5
A
I A
~i ! 5
A
j
Fig A4.l6A. Dynamic wheel load diagram, hir,h frequency oscillation. Spur 326 over AT & SF Railroad (Lubbock), end of bTjd~e.
A I
15Z
164
165
171
154
156
174
169
211
205
IB9
17B
163
156
167
Z03 174
203
196 19L
.... ..... VI
""': 0 IS 30 4S 60 7S 90 z
I- 1.00 ::t: CI W ::t: 0.00 W ..J iA: fi -1.00 a. I I I Villi' IMAX.
• U J\ ....... , ~~ ...~, A ~ LOAD (O/o) VEHIC~
40 ~
J
J
I 152
164
165
171
154
156
174
169
211
205
189 im:~f~}I))~~~~@j~~;;ijt~~:~ijt:~:~::~~::}}~:,t::\1:~:{2'-
401 ~ __ .__ ~!!~liillt~lllt::~~.~" •.. ":::".;..A:::.i.:"----I ~~;
551 ~ - ,- 1'j~iE~~ iii Fig A4.16B. Dynamic wheel load diapram, low frequency oscillation, Spur 326 over At & SF
Railroad (Lubbock), end of bridge.
,... ,... 0'\
~
Li 1
~
o I~ T
Fip. ft.4.l7A.
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 30 ,. 4!5 ,.- 60
T 1!5 T
90 T
105 120 135 150 165 ISO 195 210 225 240 255 210 285 300 I I I I
.~ ~
''".1;1
I .4-::;.:;td~; go--?;;;; ;"-i'~iJmiil
I
Dynamic wheel load diagram, high frequency oscillation, Loop 289 over US 87 South (Lubbock), start of bridge.
MAX. LOAD(%)
===t 206
157
213
ISS
161
IS4
194
lSI
177
179
IS8
208
208
158
169
214
202
178
197 lSI -
'""" '""" "
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) - 0 ,~ 30 4~ 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 Z I I I
~ 1.00 C)
~ O~O~------~~~------------------------~--~~----------------------------~--~------I
w ...J -1.00 LI.. o :i-2.00
I VEHICLE I V I A I ~f.~~~.~~} DGE
i :1t ~ ,
A
40~ 3 L1 I
55~ 3 ,
r'i .o~ 5 I
LB 155~ 5
Fie A4.17B. Dynamic wheel load dia~ram, low frequency oscillation, Loop 289 over US 87 South (Lubbock), start of bridge.
MAX. LOAD(%) .,
206
157
213
188
161
184
194
181
177
179
188
208
208
158
169
214
202
178
197 181 ----'I
..... ..... co
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.l
; 2.000 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
I I I
!~::~~ ..... ..,.,.." '-..::---------:;:0 .,..
o cr CI.
VEHICLE I V I A UIUIA
BRIDGE :::::;:'SLAB
~ 40:;:1i351 e; ,.i"n,.m·: " I------+--+-..,. ..... :!:"!'- .,.::.tI~·······
:~~~:~~~;;~;;~:J.)~~~l~t~ _ 40 .:::;~:::f::::)~;::::8::::::::::.~.~::::: :::Z:::J"e, AiM. UQi:I:&:JjtW ••
. ::. ::::8:::!f:~:~:~:~:::::~rtrt t * t n. M'M''';;:'.:>' .. ',. ".'rle"~:aJIiCtl
::.::.:.~.:::.·~.::~ .. :i.%.~~.:~.:.,.~.:rPi~; ::.;;.::: :=:t,:= :=~;::a M +ggeu , Ie :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::8 :_: :': ... :: J .:: : .,,'" ::-;. " ·~_·It·;;·:~;';~: *.1+.'.-' " *1t .. ,. Os,t;;MI·iWHH8Acw;aaw:i! i-I
,;'~~I" d
~:)\.:.,!::.~.!,~.~:~~
!~.l!':'-... _____ _ tr.-~' -
____ -L __ -J~ __ .·~~~·~·:~~~:~&~~~~::~~~:.~~~\~lIItmal~:.:.~:::.~~:~a.~(~~tJ~::~l~a ...................................... ...
Fir. A4.l8A. Dynamic wheel load diap.ram, hi~h frequency oscillation, Loop 289 over US 87 South (Lubbock), end of hridge.
VEH. __ _
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.)
i 2.000 I~ 30 4~ 60 75 90 105 120 135 ISO 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
I I I I I
~~~ :z: C) 100
;0.00 .. ,~ .. LL. o IX: D..
~ ~~--~-------::o .,.
,g 213
159
200
169
I m 'ZWIn IMAX 'r' < : V ::;...................... BRIDGE---ISLABLOAD(%1
40 ~~i~II:~'ll:1 I
I •
L1 , j
~, 1-'
8
fi~ A4.l8B. Dynamic wheel load diarram, low frequency oscillation, Loop 289 over US 87 South (Lubbock), end of bridp,e.
178
266
277
173
195
203
193
228
229
191
259
215 224
223
244 259
,... N o
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.1 """: 1000 15 30 45 60 15 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
~ . r, I ; 0.50 1
~ l&J ~~00~---r~~~~------------------~~~~~r.----z~~~--~--__ ~-7~-----------r-l&J ..J
~-0.50 o a: Q.
r,:;:~~r:lr;1----------------l===;;~~===============================;;;;;~~--------------~MAX. A BRiDGE BRIDGE LOAD (%1
i LJ A
>'
I 40
12
I 55. 2
1
40~ 3
I
5512
3
40~ 5
j ItZla~i£k7Eitl
l~iljL'll~. j
_________________________________ .. _ .. e ••• ;lll~;~fi~~i~~
•••••••• '.·.;i$ ... a:.·- - -=f4'~!iilii:iii!~1 • fi~~;ii;
.~. ~.:.:-........ .
,
UIM~ .................. .a .................. ~ .......................... ~.: ... :~:~:
................... ----.... ----.......... ~ 5 .... == ..... 1= .__ •• awWlllWWliJl.;VI
Fir A4.l9A. Dynamic wheel load diar:ram, hir-h frequency oscillr!tion, lTS 87 South over 98th street (Lubbock).
133
145
135
185
154
198
197
150
209
200
133
140
163
181
179 169
187
264
224 253
i
------ I-' N I-'
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 105 120 135 150 165 180 195
l-X 0 LIJ X 0.00 LIJ -' i:i:-0.50 0 IX
~T7.Ir~--------------,------------------------------------------.------------~IMAX. LOADt%)
Q..
VEHICLE I V I A
ti 140
12
155
j
j
Ll'40 1
55 r-
3 -I -2
40Q
j
4 -5 -I
2
55n 4 -5
Fig A4.19B. Dynamic wheel load diar:ram, low frequency oscillation, tlS 87 South over 98th Street (Lubbock).
133
145
135 185
154
198
191
150 209
200
133
140
163
181
119
169
181
264
224 253
I
..... '" '"
i
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) ~ 0 I~ 30 4~ 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 z 2.00. I
.... J: 1.00 C)
~O.OO -~~ u. -1.00 o a: 0...
Fig A4.20A.
, ,
,
,
, ,
Ili!li!~iil!!illlltllltl
Dynamic wheel lo~d diagram, hip,h frequency oscillation, US 84 over Brazos River (Luhbock), old structure, start of bridge.
123
128
122
125
114
137
141 123
140
139
131
146
139
128
132
131 127
143
130 132
-----A
l-I\.)
W
VEHICLE
i L1 ~
3
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.' . ~ 2000 IS 30 4S 60 7~ 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
- • I 1 I I I I I
LIJ ..J
i:i: -1.00 o a: 0.
V A
40
55
40ttj 3 -I
55~ 3
I
40~ 5 -I
tI 5513
E 5
SLAB
A
BRIDGE
A A
A A
A
A
A A
rl!III~llllririlil A
Fig A4. 20B. Dynamic wheel load diagram, low frequency oscillation, US 84 over Brazos River (Lubbock), old structure, start of bridre.
MAX. LOAD (0/0)
i 123
128
122
125
114
137
141
123
140
139
131
146
139
126
132
131
127 143 130 132
.... N' ~
30 T
45 T
60 I
----- -T
15 T
90 T
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 105 120 135 I~O 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
1 I :;;c 9 ~ I
"" r7777/J MAX. ,_nAO (%)
'=f -t=*"" ______ .... ______ ...... _ ..... ==B==R=I~D=G'='=E=~~l,.-A B -_.
128
127
165
157 -121
170
178 :~)~:h:;;::::;:::::::)::::::::{?::)\>:(:~:;)}; :.:-: ...... " .. ~ ...... , ........... , ..... ' ... ' ... ,~.t~)to:r:.::f'*':,=I!:ou'!""-----_----------___4 :::::;::::::;:J:::;:::::;:::::;:;::::;::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::;::;:::::::::;:: ~:t~:·~:~:·.·:: .. ~ ...... ' ~.~;:) .~.:~ ):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::: 149
' .. :~ 236
t1256
~C::)-IrI ____________________ "·· .. ··.··.II_II ..... ii~I-I.I"a:·i£i~::,;·p;~i:>;:;:::::::::::>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::f::?:-""''''''';'!"' ..... ~.:~ ..... "' .... ~-....... -.......... -."" ..... ~; .. -· .. " .. ·f!'" .. i .. ~5 '"' 4 d
A
Fir A4.2lA. Dynamic wheel load dia~ram, high frequency oscillation, l1S 134 over Brazos River (Lubbock), old structure, end of bridre .
A 131
137
172
160
138
171
150
153
156 160 -- ~
N V1
· 0 IS ~ S.OO~ I-
~ 4.00L~ w 3.00 I
~ 2.00t ~ 1.00
~ 0.00 a.
30 I
4S 60 I I
~ .......
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
I I I~ I I I I I
'" MAX. VEHICLE V A
g. 40 I , 2 i.
I 55 2
BRIDGE~LAB _.
- I _1~!~I]~~:I;111!!jl: " , I LOAD (0/0)
i 128
127
165 157 -
I
~ 40;
lJ3 55 2
3
I
2
r140
:' I
U3 55 ~ 4
5
A
Fir. A4.2lB. Dynamic wheel load diar,ram, low frequency oscillation, US 84 over Brazos River (Lubbock), old structure, end of bridge.
,
121
170
178
149
236
256
131
137
172
160
138
171
150
153
156 160 -----I
'""' t.,)
0\
VEHICLE
tE
Ll 4 Ll3
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.' -; 2000 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195
I 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
=. I~ ... l: C) 1.00t-w ::r w 0.00 ~ ..J
"""" Ia.. 0 a:: -1.00 J- . ~-
.... n.
ffi 40 ~ I
557
I
40~ 3 j -
ct: 55 2: j
3 , I
.o~ 5 -I
55ff 5
Fig A4.22A. Dynamic wheel loa~ diR~ram. high frequencY o~cillation, US 84 over Brazos River (Lubbock), new structure, start of bridge.
I I
MAX. LOAD(%)
==, 123
131
141
142
127 j I 141
145 135 154
160
139
128
141
134
167
157 144
172
151 162 - ....
N .......
i 2000 15 30 - . p::; .-:r CI 1.00 I-w :r w 0.00 ..J
Lt.. 0 a: -1.00 I-a..
IVl"A . 40~
2
I 551--
2 i I
40~ 3
I
55~ c1 3
I
40~ 5
A )
-1 ........, 2
B 05
1 : 5
Fig A4.22B.
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
~ I I I
~.~ --....
lTTTll -.J
j
j
Dynamic wheel load diagram, low fre<luency oscillation, US 84 ever Brazos River (Lubbock), new structure, start of hridpe.
, I
MAX. LOAD(%)
====, 123
131
141
142
127
141
145
135
154
160
139
128
141
134
167
157
144
172
151 162 ----'
..... N 00
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.)
i o 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
.... 1.00 lx (!)
. I I I I I I 1
I&J 0.50
; 0.00 ~ ~~ ~
LL 0·0.50 a:: Q.
MAX.
VEHICLE V A BR1DGE~SL.~_~. 1--
~ ::! 111!lliii!!!i!i!I!I,:.:;..:[ __________ +-_
IOAO(%) ...,
LJ
r1
I t--
40 2
3
I
55m
:3
I -2
4013,
4 -5' A
lJ 55[ oO""-_----'----''---I _______________ j~jjl~::~:~ll::~:~::~l:i:::::::j:~::~·~:-:·:~~::l~l::~l~:l::::::::jl::l~ll A 5
Fi~ A4.23A. Dynamic wheel load diarram, hirh freqllency oscillation, US 84 over Brazos River (Lbbbock), new structure, end of bridge.
132
133
138
135 -
122
156
165
137
157
157
133
143
158
140
143
154
138 151
151 155 ------I
..... N \0
~ ~
o z
~ 1.001-C!)
1!5 T
30 "T
4!5 T
60 T
75 T
~O"O~A ~ 0.00 1.1.. 0-0.50 a:: Q.
90 T
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 105 120 135 150 165 180 195
I I
~~L~ ~ I
'II
210 225 240 255 270 285 300 . I , iii ii' I I I I
,
Fig A4.:3B. Dynamic lo1heel load diagraM, low frequ<.>ncy oscillation, US 84 over Brazos River (Lubbock), new structure, end of bridge.
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.)
i 2.00° . 15 :-T
30 .- 45 T
60 -. 75 T
90 .- 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~ 1.00 C)
w O.OO~----------------------------~----------------~~--------------------------------~ ::J: w -1.00 ~
u: -2.00 o g: -3.00
VEHICLE I V I A
~ ..
~
Li ~
~ 5i. I
40~ 3
SlAB~8RIDGE
•
MAX. LOAD(%)
====, 155
160
192
188
137
219
226
167
264
284
354
332
427
182
188
m..:::' 356 340
434
213 "'55 -
.,.J'hlCM'W A
A
j'.> I I m _'N •• _'= ,',','~', , ., LB 155~" "---"2 ... .zc.x, • 4 :~:/:L",_ .. ~4 __ ..... _ ... _ ...... _ ....... 5
Fig A4. 24A. Dynamic wheel load diilgra!1l, hip,1I frefluency oscillation, IH 45 over South Belt (Houston), start ofbridre.
~ w ~
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 4S 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
I I I
~B~8RmGE ~~----------------~~~
I T 2 r' ' -~;;::'i;;§mG=:= M •
: .. ',',' .. "';':-~::8~: 4013 r:~: :;;;:;::;::: :::::::::;.._ ..... . ~
B 4
I--5
2 L.B 1551 3 i--t---
~ 5
Fi~ A4. 24B. Dynamic wheel load diarram, low frequency oscillation, 1H 45 over South Belt (Houston), start of hridge.
,~:
MAX. LOAD(%) =j 155
160
192
I§.8
137
219
226
167
264
284
354
332
427
182
188
356 340
434
213 255 -
""" IN N
o 15 z
2.00 l-X C)
L&J 1.00 x
30 I
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.l 45 60 15 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 210 285 300
I
~O.OO~--------~~~~~~~~----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--------------------~ La.. o g: -1.00
~~~~r:lr~================================~~~==~~~~----------------~------------------------------~MAX. I, A BRIDGE LOAD(%l
:: li:~!I~!~~!~~!!li:J;~----------------t i 214
194
172
186
40 ~ r~: •• ·.~~ •••• ~.!;~~;;~~l~t~"'---------------I 185
171
239
183
315 Li 358
221
55 i _iii:~I·e"i3i'~~: .. "_a:IIIi:I.:;_ ..•. _e._--------
242
332
245
259
233
268
249
~
I I 1- .. _ .,- · ·~:iJ,10.Jtlr~~f:;3t.1rJ~1;;_idf%$3&fBt'MCgd MWPtkA I ~ 189 16 -
~ Fir A4. 25A. Dynamic wheel load diC1pr:lm, high freqllency oscillation, IH 4.'>
over South Belt (Houston), end of bridge.
~ w w
..... 0 z r-~r-~r---~--~--~--~--~~~--~~~~-T~~~~~~r-~~~~~~--~~~~~
;2.00 :r: C)
W 1.00 :r:
~O.OO~----------~~~~~~~----~~~=:~~~------~~~~~--------------------~~I I.&. o g: -1.00
UlIlllA BRIOGE--tSLAB l~t:O(%l
jt(!1l~2~~(r~1~f!~~illi; ______ _ :.:««<-:-:.:-:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:. :':'~-:'>""» ..... .
j
j
j
::::::::::{::::::::;r::~:];:?r::::::: _~i",,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,~'.J.,;'\,,,,,,,,., ,,;:;#;~
. __ :1 ~;~~~i·;-:~l·!~';-!j;l ........ ~_. ____ ~~ F" :C;::,.::g:,gg*etn::v:, ::::;z::t:::: :t' :~ ft.:; :~.;; ..... ~~~:;.'~:Jj\.::~>:.: .. :~:.:.'(':::::'::::~':::':'):~."" .......... '=' _ ~~+:4 •• t'd ':.".'.
- ;:;:;:':;'::::;:':;;;::::;:::::::{::::;:;:::::::::-:::.:::::::
'~;""'IIC1jI*&.i!ifF '*".; V'" . .. .••.... ;. ",. j - ~::::::::::::8~~::::r;:::::~::{\:~:;~::::t::: -*, : i!t@et'*::!u:;::::;u;;¢z;;ueX;tU'lt\d:;;;;:·z;m i •• J ':~i1~~~~:~~·~::;';:~~;:j;f·;:;:.:i~;~~] :: :::
-_._.., '~"IT __ ~l:;:::::::::::;:::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::
Dynamic wheel load diagram, 10H frequency oscillation. IH 45 over South Belt (Houston), end of brld~e.
I
214
194
172
186
185
17\
239
183
315
358
221
242
332
245
259
233
268 249
189 196 - ....
I..J .c--
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 30 4!5 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 28~ 300
I T ~ I 1
_~rJ .........- '-l
MAX. LOAD (0/0 )
lE ===, 174
197
194
190
163
219
314
189
194
192
--U~:8::::··:::<::::::::··'-:::::-:::::-::-· ..... " .... :.:.:.;.: :::::::~~ • • ____________________ .. _._IIl"Ir. ... ~, : ... " : ... :,:::=t: ?r,<.~:;:r;t t::;:,t:c~.=:;; ~J
- .. ·~~.::~I~«::.~~."':' .• ~>· .. -:I .. _;,.I;.;'I .•. f •• : ..... ':' ..... 1" •• :.~ •••• I.::f~':_;·..., ..... ~-- - - _._-- - .. _- - •• - •. - --LlI
ill.II.I .. d 190
Ai 177
189
169
228
203
194
228
198
.,
~~,~];;:~{i;i1;~~~iil~t!li _k~ft~n~:@~:.r:t~~/~~[iilfi[[ffffff~f~~~~~f~fff~ff~·
~ , B
:::::::i::::::::::::::::::;:::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "14 -.... -----.... --..... -..L..----_________________________ ....Il_l:ll;io::il...i::~:-:~.;..Kri:;:;:;:-..:.:i·,,~,,:-:'_'-:_'-:·..:.;·.:..:·,,:·::.J·; ... · ____________________ ..... _.;:..;...
rig A4.26A. Dynamic wheel load diarrClm, hir,h frequency oscillation, SH 225 Shell Overpass (Houston), start of brjdre.
.... w V1
VEHICLE
Li ~
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 30 T
45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
~ _ _ /\J
I I I
~~ ~ ~
'.LlL SLAU~BR10GE
!) e ,II jlgo:¢i .. :: ............. ~ ... ": .. .,.~.'.~:.:.~::-:::::-:::::::~:::::: J . ltt:.·}.gW:~%r~~t ----------1
.:-:.
~( :-:: ,- :;·:!:r.":rathi:ig ... w. :~~~:::;::::~.... ,
FiF A4.26B.
~nj=])"~Z
-'-
-'-
Dynamic wheel load dinrrnm, 10\0' frc(1t1ency oscillation. Sit 225 Shell Overpass (Houston), start of bridre.
MAX. LOAD(%)
====, 174
197
194
190
163
219
314
189
194
192
190
177
189
169
228
203 194
228
198 214 - ....
W 0\
VEHICLE
g
Ll ~
B
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.' 4~ 60 75 90 105 120 1:35 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
I
__ f..ZZZZZZZ~ BRTDGt: ~SLAB
IMAX. LOAD(%)
'~.:.
195
220
196
219
202
204
251
208 j
... ~.:IOI:1:::l~~ ..... 189
~~.w...~" ~ . ., 194
245
183
209 187
237
218
181
263
288 • I HI' =_:.=." ':-:-:,:-:,:-:;:-:·:-:·:-:-:-;;:-:-:i:-:-:·:-:-:-:-:-:::-:·:,:-:,:-:;:::::::':::-:-:':-:-:1 ~.-' • "751 -Fig A4.27A. Dynnmic wheel lo"d uiaprnm, hir-h frequency oscillation, SH 225
Shell Overpnss (Hotlston), end of bridf!c.
, .... \..oJ '-J
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE CFT.)
i 2.000 IS 30 ,- 4S 60 75 90 I
105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
~ 1.00r (.l)
w 0.00 J:
~ -tOOt-iA: o-2.00~ a:: Q.
I I I I I
~- _A --"-~ -
\/ VEHICLE rvrA BRI DGE---a--I SLAB ...
I 40t-;-
•
1551 ~ I
40~ 3
I -55~
Ii ::::::::::::::~::~:::~i::~~·:.···r-·~~~:~~~~::~:,:~~~::0~
.----.. rft:::~ ~:-..... ~ ...... f""~.'rrl"!'"".,.l
I ' I ---"~~=;"
A Ll 3 , -2
40~ 5 -~
"'I .... r'I".y.~.:.:.'" .... ~~.N'.,.: ::t'~"" •. ..:.;.:::.;.:~ ~.t QFC.;;!&~22~2L~:::t:~:2E:~g:~:±~
')mG3ml&@ Wi 9*_.j __ # .. =!~~1,;;~~~1~;;!11t~ A II l) II V ~ w~~~"...,..;;.; .• ".=~ .. ~""" LD 55:; ~=:==:'==~~~f2:2~~:;ifi~"'~':~~;d
Fig A4.27B. flynamic wheel load diagram, low fr£'qu('ncy oscillation, SH 225 Shell Overpass (Houston), end 0:0 hridre.
MAX. LOAD (0/0 )
===, 195
220
196
219
202
204
251 208
189
194
245
183
209 187 237
218
181
263
288 351 - ....
w co
VEHICLE
j
LJ ~ lJ
. 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
§ 3.00 l= , I I I ... ::r ~ 2.00 ::r
~
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 10~ 120 135 150 165 180 19~ 210 22~ 240 25~ 270 28~ 300 I I I I I I I I I
UJ 1.00 oJ
LL. o O.OOl-----------"'or-...,-..-a: Q.
VIA SLAB~- BRIDGt: ~~t:';(%l - uIL
BRIDGE---.-.fSLAB
:: ~·lS~=· ~:rx:L'"
, 40~
3
I
55~ 3
+ ' .. :1£'11
~::~~:~~;.~~:~::;::t~~~~~] .' . f.-.... ...-. _.............. ..~ ... ::;!:qg:N4§4+i2i );BiJilllifti'!Uimll :.:.:-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.).:.:.:.:.:. ; ...
c=-------,. r-"I ~; .... ~~.' •. '"""",;,~~ dl .... « •• ' :c .. :w:&tcZC .... ZOiItlt .. :.i!':tJ:cIilU'l3!CW
E:· ~S:~:s=S:: .. .' .. ' -:.;.: ............ :: .. : ... :-.<: ... <-:.:.:-----------.... -- • pO.".; .4F,4 W;;;;; 7'! <f,ue;:." F -.~ .. - .... -~ :oJ
'" I , ,.,~ ... _.. * .... ~ 'rl 'ft '*1 MH ~~··, .... 1!ttt'8*,..··4. M ... ·i>ihtLQ "*+"" 'P' ...... _...... r» ee eril
1--~5;....j b .. ,,:. ,'.' :,.:, ..... ~:.:= , 551 ~
.~~
I': &lli:t::'...L.._, _~~,:",~~~"'".'!"'j~
~::Il
Fig A4.28A. Dynamic wheel lond diagram, hip-,h frequency oscillation, SlI 225 over
Scarborough Lane (lIflllS ton) .
, 307
245
305
257
217
322
302
230
324
321
271
449
348
337
300
294
351 410
305 295 -
~ I..J \0
~
~ 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 z l- I , I :; 3.00 t-:t ~ 2.00 LtJ
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 105 120 135 150 165 180
I I I I , 195 T
210 225 240 255 270 285 300 I I I I I
~1.00 ~ ~ ~ ~O.OO V .Jo.
SLABJ--- BRIDGE
~ ~MAX ~OAD(%)
I BRIDGE=---4 SLAB
307
245
305
257
217
!!jlj~~~:lll.:I~lll·il·l·:::I~·:I··ll:!~lll·!l.:·j·~::1'1:111 322
302
230 :~:~:~~jJj;~~~~i:~t~i~.S~}Jt~~tk.l..~!Ii:::"" _________ ---------------1 .;1~~··.~.· ... 1·1~1~:~·1;::1:"'1:.:.;.~:~""~~1:.:.~1------------------------4---::::..:::...:...-1
-:.:.:.:-:.~'.:-:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:-:-:-:.:-:.
324
321
2 b-.A . . . ;i.wr.. :{nr:?::::):::?}??/=??~ 401 3 ~:=:~~::~::::'~!:==~:_'::_::.;::':':::.:".::::.;.':::;:: .... :: .. :;.:"~':~=~::1IKII ... ::iIIai= ....... ___ -Ij
4 I--
5 A -an' 'S'.' d: ; .. ~~~::':~~:l~:~3:::~~::~:::~:~:.:::~·-~~::~:·~~::~~· .... ~D A &:iEL~~;:t::~::~::::::~:::~·::::-::~::::::~~::::~::::::·::~:~~~~C~lCRCSc:t +wi a:;:.::-=:;;:;-;:-~~~
271
449
348
337
300
lJ 55 ~ L ,,~~~~~]~~i~r;i~~,,:~~riii!?~~~~~=~::: , ,5 j """",,,"",.4< ... ~~ M,. ,,_.~ ",' .. ..,....E;~~~
294
351 410
305
Fig A4. 28B. Dynamic wheel load diapram, low frequency oscillAtion, SH 225 over Scarboroup,h Lane (Houston).
~95 - f-I ~ 0
VEHICLE
t Li
i 1.000 ..... ... ~ 0.50 w %0.00 w -' ~-0.50 IX 0..
V A
40 I
2
155
12
I
40 2
3
I
55 2
SLAB
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 105 120 135 150 165 180
BRIDGE BRIDGE
:?f:'J.'::~::::::_::;~:~}::~~:?~:\\
•• IiI ••••• Wi; ••• IIII·.s::I·I#IIl-II .. Ei;iI~aC;"l:IfwlZl.I'il'III-.;65&, •• _ ...... IIIH.III'.IIIIWS.iIII'lell-II:I-.III-···I1:"I::::~ili~~:'!'f~!~~!-:r~:~j~m~tam~~t~%:
---------~----------'.' •• <
MAX, LOAD (0/01
=====, 175
1!!i7
174
ill 154
195
233
193
237 . ) \~:~:::::::(:::::::::::::~:«~:~t-:
I - Hi"WEE i"'F&¥*Cw., ,. 5 "'! •• 'SIMi '18'1 ~J'l+r-Pl-t,...,,~.,.,~.fo1.~
A 1111 I":"! ?38
2
40t! 4
5 1
2
55n 4 5
~~~#~J.#:~:~:?~rf
______ tffi~l~~~~ll~jjll~~i~~jl
1~;I~~!~~im :.~~" ... ~ ................... ~ .• ~" ......... l :~w~:~:~::~:~#~:·::::;;:~:~:~:·::::
FigA4. 29A. Dynamic wheel load diar.r:11", h1"h f"e'1ut:!ncy oscillation, South Loop over Calais Street (Hotlston).
189
164
216
192
234
171 193 256
180 201 - ....
,t-. I-'"
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 105 120 135 ISO 165 IBO
SLAB BRIDGE BRIDGE SLAB ___ I1:11 _____________________ ... ______ Jtt::!);~M~:~in
175
----------------------------~r(ti~~~t~;;~~~~~~:I!l~l~I 157
174
-4----~--~---------------------------J----.............. --------~~-.. --.... ----.. --~-.. - .. --.. ~II..~;~.Ii;1!~Jlj:;:;it~~~1:~.:~------~ 171
154
. I~~t~~!~~];~~~:f.i.~ -+-_______________________ -.;l~jl!ll~~:ll~\!~
i 2.00°
~ 1.00 C!)
W 0.00 :r ~ -1.00 LL. ~-2.00 Cl.
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 10!S 120 135 150 165 180 300 --,
I I I r77"I"q'W~ ~J/77177ZZ2i IMAX.
"",:,:":::,,:,:,:,:,,,:;:;S":;%= 8RIDG~ BIiIDGE%~",.,.,:,:.,:~~ LOAD CYo1 VEHICLE 1 V 1 A
i 140
12
1 !S~
Ll,40 13
15!S~ 3
=B~r I~~~~;~;,~:~;:~~ !~~
Fi~ A4. 30ft.. Dynamic wheel lO<ld diagram, hip.h frequency oscillation, South toap over SH 288 (Houston).
204
169
273
303
17!S
242
270
J--I ~ w
i 2.000 .5 30 45 60
T 75 T
90 T
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
I • I 1 I I
~ IDO <:)
w~OOI-------------------------------'~----------------------------------~~--~------~ ::J:
~-I.00 ~ I&. 0-2.00 IX 0.
VEHICLE I V I A SLAB I--- BRIDGE BRIDGE----I SLAB MAX. LOAD (°/01 ====, 222
191
213
- D4
169
Ii ::t! 111illl~, j I" J....: ....... ----------------... ~tJf.;;~.~: ,l ... :: . ...,· ... ,'!.)::·,.:~~~:· .. ~; . .:·~~u
d ~
B
-j
":'j 401~
4 La 5 I
j
j
, 121,
55 3 ~~~i;f:~[i~;·~:E};::~i·~!~~~~~jfj:i~~ri~~~!t.L -:---- :/;.:~~;}=:~~ ~;: ~ i~ ;~;::~:;;':: ::~F>:':":'d:': ::-::-':::-.:::: ~ :-:a_ ,,- '-,
;... - ....... *b ... ~ ...... ____ ......... )...r.~ .... .a....;.--........"", ............................... ~f .... _.1M.d'MM u ,k ....
j 1
Fir, 1\4.3013. nynamic wheel load diaf!ram, 10\-1 frequency oscillation, South Loop over SH 288 (Hollston).
j 273
j 303
175
242
270
205
232
222
247
231
229 254
262
259 233
r-o J:'.t'-
VEHICLE
i LJ r'-1
B
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) ..... o 15
T 30 T
45 ,- 60 T
75 T
90 T
105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 z I I I
I-~ 0.50 LtJ ::J: 0.00 I-_~L-_____ ~
LtJ ...J
~-0.50 0: Q.
VIA = I
407-
-I
55~
I
40~ 3
2
40 3
4
5 I
~5m 5
SLA8 lOGE BRIDGE ---I SLAB
A
A A
Fir, /\4. 31A. Dynamic wheel load diagram, high frequency oscillation, North Loop over ~cCarty Road (Houston).
'MAX. LOAD (O/ol ----.,
167
164
163
178
146
180
201
179
165
174
159
171
179
207
195
191
177
194
211 213
~ .to\J1
HORllONTAL DISTANCE eFT.} .... o IS 30 4S 60 7S 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
VEHICLE
iE c1 fB
z I I I I I I
io.sot ~ft :x: 0.00 .... ~~~------~~~--~--~~~~~~--~~~~----------~~----,r----~~~~---------w -' ~ -0.501-a: Q.
V
40
55
3
I -2
.o~ I
SLAB 1-4-- BRI DGE
j
===-f1l1l1/J BRIDGS:;~SlAIi
lilillll'illllil !Ilii;il;illlllll~~ill f~lj·!:~·Ii1il:
...... '>."':".~ .. " •• ,,:.;.:.;.:.:.:.:-:.:.: i:~i:ili.Y1;~·:·
~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~;: ~~;~~~
~f:EDt~; ~ 150~j
5 .i_oi:iIi ••
Fig A4. 3IB. Dynamic whee] load dia~r<1m, low frequency oscillation, North Loop over t-fcCarty I{oad (Houston).
MAX. LOAD<%} =t 167
164
163
!1§.
146
180
201
179
165
174
159
171
179 207
195
191 177
194
211 21L
I-' l:'-CI'
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FTJ _ ' 0 30 4S 60 15 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 28S 300 Z O.SO I ,j i r 'I r I j , I I f 1
.... :r ~ 0.00 w :r w ~-0.50 lI. o a: 11.
MAX. T VEHICLE V A - sCAollIIIE3RIDGE . . , __ n
I nAO (%)
=. 154
151
136
,2
g I
4°1~ 55 2
:::::;:::::{:::::::{:::::::::;:t I~
U
0
18
0
,2 [j
I
40~ 3
I
55P=
3 0
il:I!!!~!II';l~ ::
,4
143
, 1
11
16
,3
18
~ ~
40~
~ 5
L ____ L---I'--....L. ____________________ --I.'* __ ...... _~·!I~!;li; 1~ 14
9 )3 --
LJ 155~ 5
Fig A4.32A. Dynamic wheel load diagrnm, high frequency oscillation, IH 10 over West Belt (Houston), stnrt of brldre.
I-' ,s:,.. .....
HORIZONTAL OISTANCE (FT.)
- 0 Z 0.50 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195
-I-:l: ~ 0.00 LrJ :l: LrJ
=-0.50 1.1.. 0 0:: 0-
MAX. VEHICLE V A
40 I
t! 2 .. , , ~ .".'
55 2
IOAO(O/o) '9
154
151
136
152
SLAB 8RIDtb. ,--==--- ;"."';r;.;" •• ; •. ,.r;.":"':" • ...-.:f'.l':':":r:r.J'.:::r ••••. ~.:'.~t:.,.
A
141
L140 · 155~
180
198
130 IG2 J
3 170 I - 164 2
40~ 143
171 4 - 157 5 186 I 163 2 - 158
55~ 4 -5 --I-
194
179
20L ___________________________ .l:;~,_t .. :!.,;,-_~~~i;;~;iji;It·;:~2tD,;~;;;;S~: LVv I
Fi~ A4.32'B. Dynamic wheel load di<lgra!11. low frequency oscillation, 111 10 over l\l'est Belt (Houston), st.1rl of hridp.c.
I-' .t"-eo
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) - o I~ 30 4~ 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 z I i I I I Iii iii iii iii i i
~ 1.00f-C)
~ 0.5°F __ _ ~ 0.00 "-
LL. 0-0.501-a: a.
. ~ • J\ .~ -~~v
VE HIClE V A B R I DG E ---I SL A ~''''':'====-==.::===='''''''''====='''''"''===-==-==I=='''''
, i :: t ~:lli~]I;!lli1ji!;J ,.
ri
40 ~ ~;~: •••••• • ••• ;.·.·· ••• ·.·'!.·.i~ __ ~~:::.."i:l::iI:!I!l~[Di:J,'Z5i2ilEJt'!ll __ .. __ .... __ ....j
~~~~;.~~~.1~;~:0~:-:.~: ____ :::.:::~t:.,r.:.......:..v ... :::~::l.~~'~~' :::t:imICI!IIZISal .. _______ -I
I
2
40 3
fig A4. 3:!A. Dynamic '~heel load diarr<lnl, hlf",h fn.'ollL'ncy oscillation, IH 10 over West Belt (Houston), end of bridge.
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) -::i o 15 30 45 60 75 90 10~ 120 135 I~O 165 160 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
~ 1.00 t!)
j I Iii I I I I I r I I I I J 1 i I
~ Q50~::::~~~~~~~==~ ____ ~~~~~~~~~~ ______ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=-______ ~ ~ O.OO~ LL 0-0.50 a: 0.
VEHICLE I V I A SRI DGE "IS~AB
I ~ :: t : I 11illl!I]llif~fl!:·~tjt,:---------------I Li ~
~ ...J~SiEili .. ,,:waz:ao;: ...... , .. , .•.. " ." .................... ".. -11
.o~ A -r:;!~:!:~~·!~.~~!~.~j!.~!I~"==--"----I!!1--"------1 A ~~~~f~~~~W~r~~!~ _ ..• --al:...c .. ·-----2<:.:.::>.::~:· E~_.~,~.~~:~~.; .. :·.·.;.:~.:·:.
::::::::::::::::::::. U31553
Fig A4. 33B.
",-"-, .. ~,,~,,," .. :~l~i:~E
Dynamic wheel load dia~ra~, low frequency oscillation, IH 10 over West Belt (Houston), end of bridge.
MAX. LOAD(%)
===, 186
152
191
164
155
194
228
158
206
'.)~I
192
179
187
184
181
187 214
228
203 239 - I-
VI 0
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.l ; OF I 5
30 45 60 15
T 90 -,. 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 210 285 300
1.00
~ 0.00
~ -1.00
~-2.00""
~-3.001-a: Q. -4.00 .....
1 I
~ I I
I ~
MAX. I -
I nAD (0/0) ..., VEHICLE V A SL48E]~tDGE 1--';;;
40 ~ 11'tt~';j,!~i),'i:;ilit~,~~ -= \1 I ~:f?;:::::::::::::;::;::;:;:::;::{:::::::r;{:t~:::: j 55 2
Li ~
I
40~ 3
I
5512
3
U ~5~ Fi~ A4. 34A.
, A
,
I
, ~
Dynamic wheel load diagram, hiRh frequency oscillation, North Loop over Railroad (Hollston), start of hridge.
116
113
164
119
IBB
213
213
115
191
211
225
291
2B6
191 216
256 210
200 23B
251 --- ..... VI .....
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 30 ..,.
; O~15 45 60 15 T
90 .- 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 210 285 300
1.00
~ 0.00
I&J -1.00 x ~-2.001-
~ -3.00 I-0: Q. -4.00 t-
I I I I I I I I ~I _ t
I
~
A
A
, ~ c. M'3 !','~:;':;!:~0i::~~~~-=::::::- ~
______________________ ...;·IIl,~~·~~·~.l~:J"'~~~ ......... ' .. .... c· &m,." ..... , ',.')\"0 ' .....
Dynamic wheel load dlagram, lov, frequency oscillation, North Loop over Railroad (Houston), start of brid~e.
MAX. LOAD (0/0)
==-, 176
173
164
179
188
213
273
175
197
211
225
297
286
197
216
256
210
200
238
257 - ..... V1 N
i 1.000 " T
~ O.OOr.:!
x -lOO~ ILl .J
li:-2.00 r o 0: Q.
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.) 30 4~ 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
I~III ~ -~ ~~-\ --
MAX. , I.
VEHICLE V A BRI DG~'":'"~"?_Lc.A~9_ -'7~. •• ,-
LOAD (°/0) =-,
, Ll '4012 I I"
155 tt
3
I
~ 40~ -I
B 155m A 4 -5
Fir. A4. 3SA.
.. ~-......... ~.--~ .....
A
.. i q, •. .1 ..... f •. ~ ... ~ .............. _.-..... ..... l-.:JW...-l-:. .....
.. .::-·~:H-~-::-~:;:,==~;.-:::;1m
l l
Dynamic wheel load diAtram, high frequency oscillation, North Loop over Rail road (Houston), end of hrldt;c.
145
168
162
174
133
151
163
166
271
301
160
155
172
136
148
183
165
176
209
2~ ..... I.n W
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT.)
i 1.000 15
T 30 45 60 15 90 10~ 120 135 I~O 165 180 19~ 210 225 240 255 210 285 300
~:f " ,
LJ Ai
B
.... l-
X O.OOp ~. w x .1.00 w ..J
ii: -2.001-o 0: Go
1 -5512 --3
1
2 I ----.
4013 i
] 5
i I I I
~I.~ ~
~~( .....,.
fl11l7/A
j
.&
LB 155E§~-:=:=~.d;~~;'::~~~,c. __ .=.: "':: :~;~::._;_::-::;~.::=-=::~~ 5: . ?OML~ WI
Fig A4.3SB. Dynamic wheel load din~rn~. low, frequency oscillation, North loop over Railrond (Houston), end of brlclre.
MAX. 1040 (0/0)
=-r 145
168
162
114
133
151
163
166
271
301
160
155
172
136
148
183
165
176
209 265 - I-'
\J1 J::-
-.~ ....
REFERENCES
, . 1: "Pavement Rehabi.1itation-Materials and Techniques," National Coopera
tive Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice (NCHRP SYN) No.9, Highway Research Board, 1972.
2. "Bridge Approach Design and Construction Practices," NCHRP SYN No.2, Highway Research Board, 1969.
155
,3. "AASHTO Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures - 1972," American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1972.
4. "Dynamic Studies of Bridges on the AASHTO Road Test," Special Report 71, Highway Research Board, 1962.
s. General 1'1otors Corporation, "Dynamic Pavement Loads of Heavy Highway Vehicles, '.' NCHRP Report 105, Highway Research Board, 1970.
6. Kaplar, C. W., "Phenomenon and Hechanism of Frost Heaving," Highway Research Record No. 304, Highway Research Board, 1970, pp. 1-13.
7. Jessberger, H. L., and D. 1. Carbee, "Influence of Frost Action on the Bearing Capacity of Soils," High\.;ay Research Record No. 304, High~.]8y Research Board, 1970, pp. 14-26.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
• " ,,!
McCullough, B. F., and T. F. Sewell, "An Evaluation of Terminal Anchorage Installation on Rigid Pavements," Departmental Research Report No. 39-4F, Texas High\.;ay Department, 1966.
Yoder, E. J., and M. W. Witczak, "Principles of Pavement .Design," Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
Hopkins, T. C., and R. C. Deen, "The Bump at the End of the Bridge," Highway Research Record No. 302, Highway Research Board, 1970, pp. 72-75.
Moore, L. H., "Summary of Treatments for Highway Embankments on Soft Foundations," Highway Research Record No. 133, Highway Research Board, 1966, pp. 45-59.
"Treatment of Soft Foundations for Highway Embankments," NCHRP SYN No. 29, Tran~portation Research Board, 1975 •
13. Johnson, S. J., "Precompression for Improving Foundation Soils," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 96, No. SMl, January 1970, pp. 111-144.
14 • .Johnson, S. J., "Foundation Precompression with Vertical Sand Drains,1I Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divisions, ASCE, Vol. 96. No. SMl, January 1970, pp. 145-175.
156
15. Landau, R.E., "Method of Installation as a Factor in Sand Drain Stabilization Design," Highway Research Record No. 133, Highway Research Board, 1966, pp. 75-97.
16. Hopkins, T.C., and G.D. Scott, "Estimated and Observed Settlements of Bridge Approaches," Highway Research Record No. 302, Highway Research Board, 1970, pp. 76-86.
17. "Construction of Embankments," NCHRP SYN No.8, Highway Research Board, 1971.
18. Nelson, D. S., and l-1. L. Allen Jr., "Sawdust as Lightwe:f ght Fill Material," Public Roads 39-2, Federal Highway Administration, September 1975, pp. 63-67.
19, Lea, N.D., "Highway Design and Construction over Peat Deposits in Lower British Columbia," Highway Research Record No.7, Highway Research Board, 1963, pp. 1-31.
20. Gray, D.H., "Properties of Compacted Sewage Ash," Journal of the Soil Hechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM2, Narch 1970, pp. 439-451.
21. ~!argason, G., and J. E. Cross, IISettlement Behind Bridge Abutments, The use of pulverised fuel ash in constructing the approach embankments to bridges on the Staines By-pass," RRL Report No. 48, Road Research Laboratory, Eneland, 1966.
22. McLaren, D., "Settlement Behind Bridge Abutments, The performance of a medium-clay fill used to form the approach embankment to a bridge on the M.1 Motorway," RRL Report LR 76, Road Research Laboratory, England, 1967.
23. McLaren, D., "Settlement Behind Bridge Abutments, The performance of a silty clay fill in an approach embankment on the M4 Motorway," RRL Report LR309, Road Research Laboratory, England, 1970.
24. Cross, J.E., "Settlement Behind Bridge Abutments, The performance of a uniformly-graded sand fill in an approach embankment on the M4 Motorway," RRL Report LR3l0, Road Research Laboratory, England, 1970.
•
..
25. Margason, G., "Settlement Behind Bridge Abutments, The performance of a stony-clay fill in an approach embankment to an overbridge on the M4 Motorway," RRL Report LR31l, Road Research Laboratory, England, 1970.
157
26. Wise, J.R., and W. R., Hudson, "An Examination of Expansive Clay Problems in Texas,lI Research Report 118-5, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 1971.
27. Grover, R., "Bridge and Approach Settlements Cured by Major Design Revisions," Rural and Urban Roads, July 1978, pp. 63-65.
28. Harris, F .A., "Asphalt Membranes in Expressway Construction," High1vay Research Record No.7, Highway Research Board, 1963, pp. 34-46:
29. Hu, Y. C., "A Study of Roughness at the Pavement-Bridge rnterface~" M.S.E. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 1977.
30. Spangler, E.B., and W. J. Kelley, "GMR Profilometer - A Nethod for Measuring Road Profile," Highway Research Record No. 121, Highway Research Board, 1966, pp. 27-54.
31. Hudson, W.R., "High-Speed Road Profile Equipment Evaluation," Research Report 73~1, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 1966.
32. l-lalker, R.S., F.L. Roberts, and W.R. Hudson, "A Profile Neasuring, Recording, and Processing System," Research Report 73-2, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 1970.
33. AI-Rashid, N.r., C.E. Lee, and W.P. Dawkins, "A Theoretical and Experimental Study of Dynamic Highway Loading," Research Report 108-lF, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 1972.
34. Wu, Tsu-Long, "Roughness at the Bridge-Pavement Interface," M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 1979.
