K.

Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

ECONOMIC LRFD DESIGN OF POST TENSIONED HPC/HSC BOX GIRDER BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURES
Kamal Mirtalaei, PhD, PE, SE Arizona Department of Transportation ABSTRACT With the Federal Highway Administration mandated implementation of the LRFD specifications by October 2007, many US Departments of Transportation have already started implementing the AASHTO-LRFD specifications. The preparation of such an endeavor has initiated a number of research investigations by the Arizona Department of Transportation, Bridge Design Group in several aspects of the LRFD Specifications. Apart from the new specifications, High Strength/High Performance Concrete is going to be selectively used by most USDOTs. This paper presents the investigation on several design aspects of post-tensioned box girder bridges designed by LRFD Specifications using conventional or High Strength Concert (HSC). A computer spreadsheet was specifically developed for this investigation. It is capable of analysis, design and cost evaluation of the superstructure for a cast-in-place posttensioned box girder bridge. Optimal design of a post-tensioned box girder is achievable by correct selection of design variables. Cost evaluation of superstructures with different geometrical and material configurations have led to the development of optimum design charts for these types of superstructures. Variables used to develop these charts include among others, span length, section depth, web spacing, tendon profile and concrete strength. The use of High Strength Concrete was also known to be a significant structural advantage in post-tensioned concrete box girder design. It was observed that High Strength Concrete enables the achievement of significantly longer span lengths and/or longer web spacing that is not achievable when using normal strength concrete. Keywords: LRFD, LFD, Superstructure, Box Girder Bridge, High Strength Concrete (HSC), High Performance Concrete (HPC), Prestressed, Cast-InPlace, Web, Flange, Strand, Tendon.

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

INTRODUCTION AASHTO standard specification1 has been the main well-recognized bridge design tool in the United States for almost 70 years. During the last two decades, there have been significant developments in concrete bridge design methods and utilization of new concrete materials. LRFD design method and the use of High Strength/High Performance Concrete (HSC/HPC) are among the most current interesting subjects of investigation. US Departments of Transportation have gradually started the use of HPC/HSC concrete and implementation of the AASHTO LRFD design specification2. LRFD is based on the latest developments in structural analysis and materials to assure desired serviceability and ultimate behavior, safety, aesthetics and economy. It benefits the valuable experiences of AASHTO ASD and LFD methods, which have been in use for almost 70 years. This new specification resulted in design procedures significantly different compared to the earlier methods. The new LRFD specification is based on a probability-based approach in which load and resistance factors are based on specific level of structural failure3. The changes in the new LRFD design methods are significant and challenge the bridge engineers working with standard specification for so many years. Arizona Department of Transportation, Bridge Group has already started the use of new specification for selected pilot projects and will implement the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications in July 2006, about a year before the mandated date (Oct. 2007) set by AASHTO and FHWA. The task preparation of such enormous undertaking has initiated a number of research investigations of different aspects of the LRFD Specifications. Several training courses and technical presentations are being held for the ADOT bridge engineers and designers in this regard. In the present work, a detailed investigation was performed on different aspects of cast-inplace post-tensioned box girder bridges. These include a general comparison of the two design specifications, utilization of high strength concrete and cost based design optimization of the prestressed box girder bridges. A comprehensive spreadsheet was developed which enables the user to input almost every necessary design parameter and perform the analysis, design and cost estimate of a post-tensioned box girder bridge superstructure according to both Standard and LRFD AASHTO specifications. DESIGN COMPARISON Different design parameters were studied for the comparison of two specifications. These include live load bending moment and shear force envelopes, service and factored bending

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

and shear envelopes, bending capacity, moment and shear distribution factors, prestressing losses, designed number of strands and superstructures cost. LIVE LOAD AND LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR MOMENTS LRFD HL-93 live load is by itself significantly heavier than standard HS-20 loading, but this difference will partly offset by the introduction of completely new live load distribution methods, service and ultimate load factors. Figures 1 shows live load bending moment envelopes for HL-93 and HS20 (plus their impact). For the geometrical condition explained, an approximate 70% increase is observed for LRFD HL-93 live load.
Live Load Moment Envelopes ( Ft-K)
30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

LRFD, HL93+IM Standard Spec, HS20+I

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Span Length, X/L

Fig. 1 Comparison of Moment Envelopes due to only Distributed Live Load plus Impact Values are for the whole section (180 ft single span box girder with 8 webs spaced at 9 ft.) When considering the combined effect of live and dead loads, LRFD uses two different service load combinations (service I and service II) when checking allowable compressive and tensile stresses in prestressed concrete members. Figure 2 compares all three cases and it is interesting that LRFD moments are very close to that of Standard Spec (approx. 9% and 4% for service I and II respectively). Following are the load combinations and approximate differences between the two specs. Standard Spec Service DL+(LL+I) LRFD Service I DL+(LL+I) 9% Increase in moments compared to Standard LRFD Service III DL+0.8(LL+I) 4% Increase in moments compared to Standard The reason is that live loads are much smaller than dead loads in a concrete bridge and also the distribution factor is smaller for LRFD. These will significantly offset the effect of large LRFD HL-93 live load. The ultimate moment envelope combinations for standard and LRFD specifications were compared and the result can be seen in Figure 3. Here are the load combinations and their comparison: Standard Spec LFD Combination: Mu=1.3(MD+1.67MD+I)=1.3MD+2.17ML+I LRFD load combination: Mu=1.25MD+1.75ML+I (Approx. 4% increase)

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

According to above formulas, standard spec gives higher load factors the distribution factor is less compare to LRFD. These will significantly offset the effect of higher LRFD HL-93 live load.

140,000

Service Moment Envelopes, K-FT

120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 0 0.25 0.5 Span Position, X/L 0.75

LRFD Service I LRFD Service III Std. Service

Fig. 2 Comparison of Moment Envelopes for Different Service Load Conditions Values are for the whole section (180 ft single span box girder with 8 webs spaced at 9 ft.)

Factored Bending envelopes Mu, (K-Ft)

180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 LRFD Standard, LFD

Span Position, X/L

Fig. 3 Comparison of Moment Envelopes due to Factored Loads (180 ft single span box girder with 8 webs spaced at 9 ft.). Strength I considered for LRFD and LFD LIVE LOAD AND LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR SHEARS Comparing the live load shears, it is seen that LRFD gives significantly higher shear force (up to 180% of those for standard spec) as in Figure 4. The reason is that LRFD shear distribution factor is significantly bigger than standard spec. Factored shears are compared in Figure 5, indicating an approximate 30% increase when using LRFD.

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

1,500 Live Load Shear Envelopes Kips 1,000 500 0 -500 -1,000 -1,500 Span, X/L 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
LRFD, HL93+IM Standard Spec, HS20+I

Fig. 4 Comparison of Shear Force Envelopes due to Distributed Live Load plus Impact (180 ft single span box girder with 8 webs spaced at 9 ft.).
6,000

Factored Shear Envelopes Kips

4,000 2,000 0 0 -2,000 -4,000 -6,000 0.25 0.5

LRFD Standard, LFD

0.75 1

Span, X/L

Fig. 5 Comparison of Shear Force Envelopes due to Factored Loads (180 ft single span box girder with 8 webs spaced at 9 ft.) DISTRIBUTION FACTORS Live load distribution factors are among the most significant changes in the LRFD specification. The new specification considers several structural properties of the bridge deck such as girder spacing, number of cells and span length: LRFD moment Distribution factor for interior girders (two or more lanes): S 1 13 (D.F)LRFD= ( ) 0.3 ( )( ) 0.25 Nc 5.8 L

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

Standard specification uses a simple formula: (D.F) Std=

Where L=Span Length, ft S=Girder Spacing, ft Girders (NG =Nc+1) Extensive research work exist regarding the live load distribution factors4,5,6,7,8. A comparison of the distribution factors variation with span length can be seen in Figure 6. LRFD predicts significantly lower values reducing with a span increase while standard spec gives a higher value independent of span length.
5.4 5.2 5 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 3.8
Standard LRFD

S 14 Nc=Number of Cells and NG=Number of

Moment Distribution Factor, Lanes

100

150

200

250

300

SPAN, FT

Fig. 6 Moment Distribution Factors for a Box Girder (7 cells spaced at 9ft) Given by Standard and LRFD Specifications.

PRESTRESS LOSSES Apart from the new formulation for prestressing loss due to elastic shortening in LRFDC5.9.5.2.3b2, other loss calculations remain unchanged. Figure 8 shows a comparison of final prestress losses with about 6% more final losses predicted by LRFD. PRESTRESSING STEEL COMPARISON As it was explained earlier, the LRFD live load (HL-93) is by itself significantly greater compared to the standard specification live loading (HS20). For the design of prestressed members, LRFD considers only 80% of the live load plus impact in its service III load combination (also refer to Figure 2). This load combination is specified only for the design of prestressed members when checking the tensile stress in the concrete. As an example, Figure 7 shows the designed number of strands for the same bridge using both methods. The number of required strands when using LRFD is slightly more than that of obtained by standard specification. This was examined for different girder geometries and span lengths. It was observed that the amount of extra steel strands required by LRFD is about 3 to 4 percent compared to standard specification.

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

NUMBER OF STRANDS

Standard LRFD

100

150

200

250

300

SPAN, FT

Fig. 7 Required Number of Strands for a Box Girder (7 cells spaced at 9ft) for Different Span Length

60

FINAL P/S LOSS, KSI

55 50 45 40 35 30 100 150 200

LRFD Standard

250

300

SPAN, FT Fig. 8 Comparison of Final Prestress Losses in Box Girder (7 cells spaced at 9ft)

MOMENT CAPACITY Moment capacities were calculated according to both standards. LRFD uses the same formulation of Standard Spec for rectangular sections. Other previously mentioned

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

parameters have minor effect and the resulting moment capacities are very close as it is seen in Figure 10.

Moment Capacity, K-FT

700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 LRFD Standard

100

150

200

250

300

SPAN, FT Fig. 9 Comparison of Moment Capacities for Box Girder (7 cells spaced at 9ft)

SUPERSTRUCTURE COST Superstructure cost for post-tensioned cast-in-place concrete box girder was calculated based on Arizona cost estimates of similar recent projects. Similar depth/span ratios, web and bottom slab thickness and reinforcements were used for both methods. Differences in design parameters appeared to be number of strands and deck reinforcement. LRFD introduces two design methods for deck reinforcement and here the traditional method was used with slightly lower steel reinforcement and the total cost is slightly lower when using LRFD (see Figure 10)
Superstructure Cost, $/SF

70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 100

Standard

LRFD

150

200 SPAN, FT

250

300

Fig. 10 Superstructure Cost, $/SF for a Box Girder (7 cells spaced at 9ft)

K. Mirtalaei
WEB SPACING

2006 CBC

Web spacing, S is an important parameter affecting almost all other design variables as follows: 1-Distribution factor, D.F is directly dependent on S value for both methods and as it seen in Figure 11, LRFD predicts smaller moment distribution factors. 13 S 1 S (D.F)LRFD= ( ) 0.3 ( )( ) 0.25 (D.F)Std= Nc 5.8 L 14 2-Top slab (deck) thickness and reinforcement are both dependent on web spacing 3-Superstructure weight is depending on number of webs and top slab thickness 4-Prestressing steel area 5-Superstructure cost
1.4

Moment Distribution Factor per Girder

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Standard LRFD

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

Web Spacing, FT Fig. 11 Distribution Factors for Box Girder (150 ft span, 100 ft width, varying web spaces)

To study the effect of web spacing on other parameters, a box girder with 150 ft span length and constant width (100 ft) was considered. Number of webs was changed from 6 to 17 feet. For each case, deck thickness, deck reinforcement and prestressing strands were designed. OPTIMUM WEB SPACING The optimum web spacing for the box girder was considered to be spacing for which the superstructure cost is minimum. Superstructure cost was determined based on recent similar project in Arizona. In the design process all design constraints such as maximum number of tendons and maximum number of strands per tendon were considered. Any other design limitation set by the specification was also considered as a constraint. Web and bottom slab thicknesses were assumed to be 12 and 6 respectively for all design cases. The primary variable is web spacing, which will affect top slab depth, top slab steel, overall weight, prestressing steel and shear reinforcement. As they are seen in Figures 12, 13, two span lengths of 150 ft and 180 ft were considered for optimization process. In both cases a

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

minimum point can be observed on the curve corresponding to optimum web spacing. For 150 ft span using LRFD method, the optimum spacing is about 11 ft (Figure 12). For the standard spec, the optimum distance is slightly more. Considering 180 ft span (Figure 13), it seems that the minimum point is not well pronounced as it was in the previous case. Although the curve is rather flat in this region, still an optimum spacing can observed which is about 12 ft.

Superstructure Cost, $/SF

47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20

Web Spacing, FT
Standard LRFD

Fig. 12 Superstructure Cost and Optimum Web Spacing (Span=150, Width=100)

52 50 48 46 44 42 40 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5
Standard LRFD

Superstructure Cost, $/SF

Web Spacing, FT

Fig. 13 Superstructure Cost and Optimum Web Spacing (Span=180, Width=100)

10

K. Mirtalaei
UTILIZATION OF HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE IN BOX GIRDERS

2006 CBC

The advantage of High Strength/High Performance Concrete (HSC/HPC) has been well documented during the past 25 years. Most of the researches in this area address the importance of HPC/HSC to improve the concrete durability and service life and also reducing its future maintenance costs. It is true that poor concrete quality and lack of durability rather than structural problems causes most damages to our concrete structures. Refer to J.J Myers et al 9 and their comprehensive reference list of research in this area. Several structural features can be improved and /or economized by utilization of high strength concrete12. These structural features are those which are significantly dependent on concrete strength. HSC EFFECT ON PRESTRESSING STEEL The required amount of prestressing steel depends on compressive and tensile strength of concrete. The allowable compressive stress is directly dependent on concrete strength fc while the allowable tensile stress is proportional to square root of concrete compressive strength. For this observation in the program it was assumed that the compressive strength of the concrete at transfer is 85% of its final specified strength. For LRFD service III load combination (applied for concrete in tension), using a higher concrete strength is very helpful and provides more flexibility for the design Engineer to control the stress limits within practical limitations (using specific girder geometry, web spacing, tendon profile etc.). Similarly, for the release condition when checking LRFD tensile and compressive stress limits, higher concrete strength is very helpful. Figure 14 shows how the number of strands decreases with an increase in concrete strength while the LRFD always requiring slightly more strands. For the special case considered, with every KSI increase in concrete strength, an approximate saving of 20 strands was observed.
920 900 880 860 840 820 800 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Concrete Strength, KSI 10 11
LRFD Standard

Fig. 14 Effect of Concrete on Designed number of Strands (180 ft Span, 8 Webs Spaced at 10 ft)

Number of Strands

11

K. Mirtalaei ULTIMATE BENDING CAPACITY

2006 CBC

Bending capacity of a flexural member is not sensitive to the concrete compressive strength. It is mainly dependent on the effective depth and the amount of steel used in the section. For smaller strength range (from 3.5 to 5 KSI) some increase in moment capacity can be seen (see Figure 15) in both methods. A jump in the curve is observed for LRFD within this range. Considering the calculation process, it was observed that for this lower strength range, the shape of compression zone (for moment capacity calculation) transitions from T to rectangle that makes this sudden jump. LRFD introduces a new formulation for the neutral axis depth of T sections to obtain the bending capacity. This type of behavior is not logical and authors believe that there is an error in the LRFD formula 5.7.3.1.1-3. For concrete strengths beyond 5.5 KSI, the moment capacity will not change significantly. It is interesting to see that there is even a little decrease (about 1%) in bending capacity with an increase in concrete strength from 5 to 10 KSI. The reason is that while the concrete strength is increasing, there is slight reduction in designed number of strands and that will reduce the moment capacity.

270,000 260,000 250,000 240,000 230,000 220,000 210,000 200,000 190,000 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5
Concrete Strength, KSI

Moment Capacity, K-FT

LRFD Standard

12

Fig. 15 Effect of Concrete Strength on Moment Capacity (180 ft Span, 8 Webs Spaced at 10 ft, Number of Strands According to Design)

Furthermore, the number of strands was kept to be constant and the effect of concrete strength was observed as it is seen in Figure 16. A change of concrete strength from 5 to10 KSI will increase the moment capacity of the box section by only 4%, which is still insignificant. The reason is that by increasing the concrete strength, the depth of compressive zone will slightly decrease to make the same compressive force (equal to the steel tensile force). As a result, we cannot solely rely on the concrete strength to improve the bending capacity of the section.

12

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

Moment Capacity, K-FT

235,000 230,000 225,000 220,000 215,000 210,000 205,000 200,000 195,000 190,000 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

LRFD Standard

10

11

Concrete Strength, KSI

Fig. 16 Effect of Concrete Strength on Moment Capacity (180 ft Span, 8 Webs Spaced at 10 ft, Constant Number of Strands)

It is worth noting here that by using higher concrete strength, in fact the compressive strain capacity of concrete will increase (say from 0.003 to 0.005). This is a very good advantage, which provides more rotation capacity (ductility) for the section even though with almost the same moment capacity. LOSS OF PRESTRESS Among several prestress losses, only elastic shortening and anchor set are dependent on concrete modulus of elasticity, which can be improved when using high strength concrete. The effect of concrete strength is not currently considered on creep and shrinkage of concrete, which are the two most important time-dependent parameters. It should be mentioned that a higher concrete strength may significantly reduce their effects in prestressed members. Figure 17 shows the effect of concrete strength on final prestressing loss.

Total Prestress Loss, KSI

46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

LRFD Standard

concrete Strength, KSI

Fig. 17 Effect of Concrete Strength on Final Prestressing Loss

13

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

CRACKING MOMENT Cracking moment depends on tensile strength of concrete, which is affected by concrete strength. About 5% increase in cracking moment may be predicted for concrete strengths changing from 5 to 10 KSI (see Figure 18).

152,000

Cracking Moment, K-FT

148,000 144,000 140,000 136,000 132,000 128,000 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LRFD Standard

Concrete Strength, KSI

Fig. 18 Effect of Concrete Strength on Cracking Moment

SUPERSTRUCTURE COST Superstructure cost will be affected by the use of high strength concrete. For high strength concrete the rate of cost increase is higher compare to conventional concrete (see Figure 19). Since there is not a high demand for high strength concrete at the present time, anticipated cost increase may be significant. Approximate cost increase can be at least $3 per square foot of superstructure for every 1 KSI higher strength. This cost increase may not be justified only for structural improvements. Considering the inherent durability improvements when using high strength concrete, there will be significant long term saving in the project. As it was also seen before, the superstructure cost for LRFD is slightly less than that of standard spec. The main reason was found to be smaller deck steel calculated with LRFD traditional Method.

14

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

Superstructure Cost, $/SF

65
Standard

60 55 50 45 40 4 5

LRFD

Concrete Strength, KSI

10

Fig. 19 Approximate Superstructure Cost Increase for High Strength Concrete

SPAN STRETCHING WITH CONCRETE STRENGTH In the process of prestressed concrete design, the most beneficial effect of high strength concrete would be its higher tensile strength when using LRFD service I and service III load combinations. In this part all the parameters were keep constant except concrete strength and the span length. Figure 20 shows the capability of concrete strength to stretch the bridge span. Table 1 summaries the span lengths, concrete strength and number of strands. The first two rows indicate that for 168 ft span length and 4 ksi concrete 850 strands are required. If we keep the same number of strands and increase the concrete strength to 9 ksi, the span length can be increased to 180 ft. Comparing second and third rows reveals that the design will need 60 strands less if 9 ksi concrete is used instead of 4 ksi. A reduction in strands number is very helpful for condition in which the maximum number of strands per tendon becomes a controlling factor.
Table1 Design Summary
Span Length

(Ft)

(KSI)

fc

Number of Strands

168 180 180 168

4 9 4 9

850 850 910 800

15

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

Design Span, FT

184 180 176 172 168 164 2 4 6 8 10 12

Concrete Strength, KSI

Fig. 20 Span Stretching by Using Higher Concrete Strength DEPTH TO SPAN RATIO

Conventionally, a depth to span ratio of 0.045 is used for simple span concrete box girders. Based on experiences, it seems that the use of this ratio will ensure the control of deflection. In this part of investigation, the superstructure costs were observed for different depth to span ratios. As it is seen in Figure 21, the lowest cost is associated with a ratio of 0.05. For this example (150 ft span), it means an extra 9 depth will lead to a saving of almost 100 strands.

42.5

Superstructure Cost, $/SF

42 41.5 41 40.5 40 39.5 39 0.030

Standard LRFD

0.035

0.040

0.045

0.050

0.055

0.060

Girder Depth as Span Multiplier

Fig. 21 Effect of Depth to Span Ratio on Superstructure Cost (150 ft span, 8 webs spaced at 10 ft)

16

K. Mirtalaei
CONCLUSIONS

2006 CBC

Single span cast-in-place post-tensioned box girders were analyzed and designed according to Standard and LRFD Specs. The main purpose was to compare all design parameters when using theses specifications and also to perform some other parametrical studies subjects such as geometrical optimization of the box girder section and structural utilization of High Strength Concrete. Comparison reveals that despite significant increase in live loads, other design parameters (distribution factors, load factors and design methods) are such that the following conclusions can be made: Comparison of Standard and LRFD Specs 1) The LRFD design needs slightly more (about 4%) prestressing steel compared to Standard Specification. 2) Predicted shear carried by the concrete is significantly lower when using LRFD method. This will lead to more stirrup requirement. 3) Final prestressing loss is about 7% more for LRFD method. 4) Superstructure cost is slightly lower for LRFD due to introduction of new traditional method of moment calculation in the deck slab. Optimum Web (Girder) Spacing 5) Cost analysis and comparison shows that when changing the girder spacing, there is always a minimum superstructure cost. The girder spacing associated with that minimum cost could be considered as the optimum spacing. 6) The optimum web spacing can be based on minimum cost. It was found that for box girders with span lengths 150 to 180 ft the optimum web spacing is 11 to 12 ft. Structural Effect of High Strength Concrete 7) Higher concrete strength provides great flexibility for designers to utilize the maximum service load capacity for the specific girder section. This advantage may result in larger span length, smaller number of strands or wider web spacing for the same section. 8) Using higher concrete strength will reduce final prestressing loss and the number of strands. Moment capacity is not sensitive to concrete strength, except for lower strengths (less than 4.5 ksi). 9) Anticipated cost increase for superstructure is about $3 per square foot for each ksi increase in concrete strength. Depth to Span Ratio 10) Compared to LRFD recommended depth/span ratio of 0.045, it was observed that slightly higher ratio of 0.05 is more cost effective.
REFERENCES

1. AASHTO, Standard Specification for Highway Bridges, AASHTO,17th. Ed., 2002, Washington, D.C. 2. AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, AASHTO LRFD Second Edition, 1998 and 2000 Interim Revisions, Washington. D.C. 3. Andrzej S. Nowak, Calibration of LRFD Bridge Code, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 121(8), Aug. 1995, pp. 1240-1251.

17

K. Mirtalaei

2006 CBC

4. Paul J. et al, Live Load Distribution Factors in Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges, ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, September/October 2001, pp. 298-306. 5. Bishara, A.G., Liu M.C. and El-Ali N.D, Wheel Load Distribution on Simply Supported skew I-Beam Composite Bridges, ASCE Journal Structural Div., 119(2),1993, pp. 399419. 6. Nutt, R.V. , Zokaie, T. and Schamber, R.A. Distribution of Wheel Loads on Highway Bridges. NCHRP Proj. No. 12-26, Nat. Cooperative Hwy. Res. Program, TRB, Washington, D.C., 1987. 7. Zokaie, T. AASHTO-LRFD Live Load Distribution Specifications. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, 5(2), 2000, pp. 131-138. 8. Zokaie, T., Osterkamp, T.A. and Imbsen, R.A. Distribution of Wheel Loads on Highway Bridges. Transportation Research Record 1290, Washington D.C. , 1991. 9. John, J. Myers, Yumin Yang. Practical Issues for the Application of High Performance Concrete to Highway Structures. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, November/December 2001, pp. 613-627. 10. American Concrete Institute (ACI), Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete ACI 318-99, Detroit, Michigan. 11. Song, Shin-Tai, Chai, Y.H and Hida, Susan E Live-Load Distribution Factors for Concrete Box-Girder Bridges.Journal of Bridge Engrg, Vol. 8, Issue 5, pp.273-280 12. Ahmad, S.H. and Shah, S.P. Structural Properties of High Strength Concrete and its Implication for Precast Prestressed Concrete. PCI Journal, 30(6), 1985, pp. 92-119.

18