Response of the Authors to Reviewers Comments

Manuscript Reference Number: OE-D-10-00106

Suitable Effective Strip Width of Continuous Bridge Deck Slabs

System over Flexible steel I-girders
Authors Remarks: After considering the reviewers comments, some modifications
have been made in the revised manuscript (Blue is the colour of the revised
manuscript). The modifications are marked in numbers and the specific answers to the
comments are listed as follows:
Reviewer B:
Comment
It will be appreciated if extensive discussion is included regarding to the reviewers
previous comment #2. If the proposed effect strip width of this study is derived based
on the numerical results in Table 1, the inconsistence should be discussed and the
limitation of this study should be clearly addressed in paper for clarification.
In page 12, it states that the ..BE is usually maximum at the midspan section,
where the structural flexibility of bridge deck is larges. On the other hand, the
minimum BE can be observed, where the bridge deck is rigidly restrained at the
support . This statement is not consistent with the data presented in Table 1 of
page 11.
Responses to the comment
Please see Modification (1) on page 13 for additional discussion on this topic.

Suitable Effective Strip Width of Continuous Bridge Deck Slabs System over
Flexible steel I-girders
Abstract. Applying existing design standard provisions or analytical solutions is typically
acceptable for the evaluation of slab negative moments subjected to moving traffic loads. As a
breakthrough in computer technology, the finite-element-based approach has become a
notably versatile tool used for the bridge deck analysis. In this study, a reliable finite element
modeling technique is employed to discretize the models of a continuous bridge deck slab
over steel I-girder system. The continuity between the girders and bridge slab has been
carefully treated to ensure the overall structural action of the bridge deck. The key parameters
affecting the deck slab moment such as slab system rigidity, girder spacing, patterns of
moving loads and number of loaded traffic lanes are carefully considered in this study. The
effective strip width concept has been used so as to take into account for the evaluation of the
slab negative moment. Based on the present numerical results, a set of reliable empirical
formulas are proposed to determine the effective strip widths used for the direct assessment of
the negative moment in bridge deck slab. The application of these formulas is then compared
with other provisions. Based on the suggested formulas, the slab reinforcement can be
moderated for a common range of bridge deck proportions.
Key words: Effective strip width; Slab-over-girder bridge; Finite element model; Negative
slab moment
1. Introduction to the Bridge Deck Analysis
Determination of the transverse bending moment in a composite bridge deck has been a major
concern of the design engineers for many years. In general, it is difficult to predict realistic
behavior of the deck slab system using hand calculations. The concrete deck on steel girders
with shear stud connection providing composite actions is the most popular type of bridges
used in service nowadays. In the bridge deck analysis, a major change in the positive and
negative transverse moments in the slab takes place along the span due to moving trucks. A
more realistic estimation of the slab deck moment can be obtained when the longitudinal and
transverse effects of the truck location are considered at the same time. To take into account

for the bridge deck analysis, current AASHTO design methods (Standard, 2002; LRFD, 2007)
have been widely used by engineers for their ease of use. AASHTO slab moment formulas
seem to inadequately reflect the actually moments due to the ignorance of moving truck loads,
girder deflection and other significant characteristics of the composite deck system. In
particular, more flexible girders will result in larger differential deflections among the girders
leading to a smaller negative bending moment in the deck and a considerable reduction of the
top reinforcing steel in bridge decks. A number of load patterns may increase the bending
moment in a deck slab and therefore a refined analysis may be required for this purpose.
Before the invention of digital computers, various methods based on stiffness approach
and specific assumptions such as the grillage analogy and orthotropic plate had been
developed leading these classical approaches to be excessively simplified. In the recent day, it
has been well recognized that three-dimensional (3-D) Finite Element Analysis (FEA) can
closely approximate flexural responses in the deck slab of such configurations. Based on FEA
approach, the limitation in analysis calculation has been overcome. As a result, all parameters
that influence the structural behavior of composite deck system can be incorporate in the
analysis model at the same time.
In the literatures, although the negative slab moment has been studied by several
reseacheres (Bakht and Jaeger, 1985; Fang et al., 1990; Cao, 1996), some discrepancies can
be recognized among the different approaches. In general, the effective strip width concept
(Standard, 2002; LRFD, 2007) has been widely used to take into account for the evaluation of
such negative slab moments. The present study performs several case studies on the bridge
geometries so as to investigate the parameters influencing on the maximum negative moments
in the deck slab by means of the effective strip width concept. The extensive parametric study
on bridge geometries and the locations along the bridge span where the negative slab moment
is of interest are conducted based on the refined 3-D FEA. The effect of elastic supports as
well as a number of lane loads, which has never been mentioned together in the literatures, is
also taken into considerations in this study. A general design guideline of the deck slab
moment is then proposed based on the effective strip width concept. In relation to the deck

slab design viewpoint, the reinforcement requirement evaluated from the present study is also
investigated by comparing with AASHTO design codes.
2. Effective Strip Width Approach
A slab on girders is a hybrid structures made up of concrete slab and steel girders so that this
unit responses as a composite action. Fig. 1(b) shows the primary deflection of the bridge
deck induced by truck wheel loads as the slab was supported by rigid girders. The effect of
secondary deflection of the bridge deck due to truck wheel loads is demonstrated in Fig. 1(c).
Therefore, the overall deflection in Fig. 1 (a) can be accomplished by separated analyses of
primary deflection in Fig. 1 (b) and secondary deflection in Fig. 1 (c). As a rule, primary
deflection appears to induce a significant influence on the live load negative moment in deck
slab (MLL) at the location where the girders are rigidly restrained while the secondary
deflection tends to produce the contrary effect. As a result, great reduction in the negative
moment but increase in the positive moment in the slab can be clearly observed in the vicinity
of mid span where the secondary deflection is predominant.

(a) Total deflection

(b) Primary deflection

(c) Secondary deflection

Fig. 1. Typical deformations of bridge deck under truck loading

The effective strip width (BE) concept has been studied for a long time to use as a
simplified method for the evaluation of MLL. The early well-known study on this topic was
conducted by Westergaard (1930). To be able to determine MLL, a so-called effective strip
width approach has been proposed by several researchers and design provisions (AASHTO,
2002; Tangwongchai, 2003; AASHTO, 2007) and adopted as a useful formula to compute the
maximum MLL per unit width of slab. The effective strip width BE was developed by assuming

that the moment was distributed uniformly over a certain width of a simple span slab in the
direction of perpendicular to the span of the slabs S as defined below:
PS
B
E 4M LL

(1)

A modification of Westergaards original proposal was performed so that BE for a twoedge simply supported slab can be determined as 1.90S+6.56c, where S is the center-to-center
spacing of the girders in meter and c is the diameter of the equivalent area of a wheel load in
meter as demonstrated in Fig. 2. It should be noted that BE was adopted to determine the
maximum moment per unit width in a simply supported slab even the last edition of AASHTO
Standard Specifications (2002). According to AASHTO Specifications (2002) on the
continuous slabs over three or more supported girders, a continuity factor of 0.8 shall be
applied to the simple span live load moment for both positive and negative moments. In
AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2007), BE used to compute MLL as recommended in Table
4.6.2.1.3-1 is equal to 1220+0.25S mm (48+3S inch) for cast-in-place decks where S is the
center-to-center spacing of the girders in mm.
x

P
c

S/2

BE

S/2

Fig. 2 BE and infinitesimal region (c) of a design load P

Instead using either Specifications (2002, 2007) or Westergaard (1930), the approximate
elastic method of analysis simulates the behavior of the bridge deck with transverse strips of
deck is provided to compute the moment MLL. The strip width for negative bending BE is
recommended in this study. The strips based on FEA modeling are run from edge-to-edge of
the bridge deck and are modeled as continuous beams supported at the centerlines of the
girders. When using the recommended strips, the slab moments MLL can be computed with an
equivalent one-way bending strip BE.

3. FEA Modeling of Bridge Deck

In this study, a refined FEA modeling technique is employed to predict MLL more closely to
the reality. The analytical models are developed using a well-known computer program
SAP2000 (SAP2000, 2002). Several concerns of the bridge deck configurations, i.e., the
diaphragm connection with girders, loading patterns which produce the most adverse effects
due to combined global and local loading, the eccentricity between the deck slab and the
centroid of girder, the eccentricity between the centroid of girder and the bearing supports, the
effect of longitudinal compressive force in the slab on its flexural behavior through effect of
Poissons ratio and the shear connection between the slab and girder are explicitly considered
in the present study.
To simulate FEA model of the bridge deck more accurately, many databases of bridges
(CAN/CSA-S6-06, 2006; Tangwongchai and Chucheepsakul, 2006; Lee and Yau 2002) are
reviewed to select the appropriate geometric parameters on the basis of applicable ranges for
bridge design practice. Based on the mostly construction frequencies, all possible
combinations of parameters that characterize the geometry of a composite steel-concrete
bridge are considered in FEA modeling so as to reveal those influences on BE under various
loading patterns of design trucks at the different span locations (y). In particular, the following
parameters are considered: S = 1.50 m (5 ft), 1.80 m (6 ft), 2.30 m (7.50 ft), 3 m (10 ft); y/L =
0 (at support), 0.25 (at quarter span), 0.50 (at mid span); L/H = 18 where L and H stand for

span length and height of I-girders, respectively; four flexible stiffness Dy/Dx (Cao, 1996) =
74.71, 65.29, 55.15, 44.09. It should be noted that Dy and Dx are based on an orthotropic plate
theory to account for the different bending stiffness of a deck in the longitudinal (Dy parallel
to the traffic) and transverse directions (Dx). For the finite element modeling, the authors use
the fixed values of the slab thickness (t), L and H to be constantly 0.20 m (8 in), 15.24 m
(50 ft) and 0.86 m (33.93 in), respectively, while the others are varied to obtain all values of
the parameters. The considered bridge deck configurations are demonstrated in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Typical bridge deck configurations

In this study, the bridge deck composite-action behavior is also taken into consideration in
the FEA model. The interaction between the deck slab discretized by shell elements and the
girder discretized by beam elements is simulated into the Eccentric Shell-Beam Model
(ESBM). Figs. 4(a) and (b) show the physical configurations and ESBM in FEA for a Slabon-Girder Bridge used in this study, where e2 is a distance between the neutral axis of the
composite section (T-shape in Fig. 4(a)) and the mid-plane of the slab, and e1 is distance
between the neutral axis of the T-section and that of the girder.

(a) 3D Physical T-Section

(b) 3D Physical T-Section

Fig. 4 Physical Configuration and FEA Modeling of a Slab-on-Girder Bridge: (a) 3D Physical
T-Section; 3D Physical T-Section

To take into account for the eccentricity between the deck slab and the centroid of girder
(e1 + e2), the shell elements are connected to beam elements by a so-called rigid link element
to resist shear and bending. The rigid link element is short in length and it connects the mid
plane of the slab with the centroid of girder-frame. The supports of girders are simulated by
using dimensionless beam elements to account for the eccentricity between the centroid of
girders and the bearing supports. In practice, ESBM (see Fig. 4(b)) has been selected herein
since it is usually reliable while retaining simplicity for the surface structure in transverse
analysis as well as in longitudinal direction (Chan and Chan 1999; Bapat, 2009). Throughout
this study, pinned-roller restraints are used for the sake of simply supported and continuous
supported conditions for 1-span truck loading and 2-span truck loading, respectively. Based
on the customary design practice of bridge deck, Poissons ratios of a concrete slab and steel
girders are designated to 0.20 and 0.30, respectively. The concrete slab has a 28-day
compressive strength fc of 35.58 MPa (5.16 ksi) resulting in the concrete elastic modulus Ec
of 28,270 MPa (4,100 ksi) according to recommendation of ACI 318-08 (2008). For steel
girders, the magnitude of steel elastic modulus Eg is selected to 199,950 MPa (29,000 ksi).
The integer number of the Modula ratio n (Eg/Ec) of 7 is used.
4. Loading Conditions
The bridge deck is loaded in different vehicle patterns which may occur during a real traffic
situation, a single and group of trucks are placed at a specific location along the longitudinal
span of the bridge and the trucks are then placed at different transverse locations for trial and
error. It is considered that a design truck (HS-20 design truck) can be placed anywhere within
a clear width w of a roadway for extreme effect due to different number of traffic lanes NL. It
is assumed that the wheels of a single axle are spaced at 1.83 m (6 ft) and the minimum
distance between the wheels of two side-by-side truck is 1.22 m (4 ft). Fig. 5 demonstrates the
schematic of possible patterns of truck moving laterally on a typical bridge roadway width for

the evaluation of M LL
.

(a) NL = 1

(b) NL = 2

(c) NL = 3

Fig. 5 Possible patterns of trucks in transverse direction for M LL

evaluation:
(a) NL = 1; (b) NL = 2; (c) NL = 3

In the loading analysis, bridge is divided into four sections for the purpose of result
processing and comparison. The maximum moment M usually occurs at either the middle or
rear wheel location. Near the abutment, as shown in Fig. 6(a), the critical negative moments
usually occur under the rear wheel (Y2). At the midspan as shown in Fig. 6(b), the maximum
moment M usually occurs under the middle wheel (Yc) and when the spacing between the

middle and rear axles (V) is equal to 9.14 m (30 ft). The variations of V are varied between
4.27 m (14 ft) and 9.14 m (30 ft) to produce extreme force effects (AASHTO, 2004).

(a)

(b)
Fig. 5 Longitudinal locations of centers of governing gravity axes: (a) Under Y2 at rigid zones
(V = 4.27 m), (b) Under Yc at flexible zones (V = 4.27-9.14 m)
A wheel load is modeled as a patch load distributed over a finite area in FEA models. The
tire contact area for an HS20-44 truck is assumed as a rectangle, with a length of 0.51 m (20
in) and a width of 0.25 m (10 in) (AASHTO, 2007). To attain a more accurate estimation of
critical moments M, the tire print loads are enlarged by spreading outwards through the midplane of the slab at critical sections. The contact area of a wheel load is enlarged by projecting
on the mid-plane of the slab with a distribution angle of 45 degrees (AASHTO, 2007) as
illustrated in the Fig. 6.

Fig. 6 Dispersion of truck wheel loads on deck slab

10

5. Numerical Results
The characteristic results of the present parameters influencing on MLL in deck slab are
scrutinized. Fig. 7 shows the typical effect of S on the proportion expressing by the ratio
between MLL and a HS20-44 truck wheel load P of 72.5 kN (16 kips) (MLL/P) for three
different locations along bridge span (y/L = 0, 0.25 and 0.50). In this study, impact factor IM
of 1.33 and multiple presence factors m of 1.20, 1.00 and 0.85 for 1-lane, 2-lane and 3-lane
loadings, respectively are presented to MLL/P in accordance with recommendation of
AASHTO LRFD (2007). In particular, MLL/P starts decreasing with the increase of y/L. That is
to say the magnitude of MLL/P appears to be larger near the support (y/L = 0) and smaller in
the region of mid span (y/L = 0.50). Likewise, S has considerable influence on MLL/P: as S
becomes larger, MLL/P increase in general especially at the support region (y/L = 0).
Moreover, NL seems to produce influence on MLL/P to a certain extent. However, the effect of
NL appears to be identical when NL is equal to two and three as illustrated in Fig. 7(b) and (c).
33
30

S = 1.5 m
S = 1.8 m
S = 2.3 m
S=3 m

27

100 mMLL-/P

24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00

.25

Locations Along Bridge Span, y/L

(a) One Lane Loaded (NL = 1)

11

.50

33
30

S = 1.5 m
S = 1.8 m
S = 2.3 m
S=3 m

27

100MLL-/P

24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00

.25

.50

Locations Along Bridge Span, y/L

(b) Two Lane Loaded (NL = 2)

33
30

S = 1.5 m
S = 1.8 m
S = 2.3 m
S=3 m

27

100MLL-/P

24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00

.25

.50

Locations Along Bridge Span, y/L

(c) Three Lane Loaded (NL = 3)

Fig. 7 Variation of MLL/P with respect to location designated y/L
Based on the present numerical results, BE can be calculated according to equation (1) for
each S, y/L and NL. Table 1 shows the comparison between BE calculated from the present
FEA with respect to spacing S and location designated y/L and those obtained from AASHTO
Specifications (Standard, 2002; LRFD, 2007).
Table 1: Obtaining Widths BE in meter using FEA, AASHTO LRFD and Standards Method

Girder
Spacing
S, m (ft)
1.5 (5)
1.8 (6)
2.3 (7.5)
3 (10)

1
1.26
1.07
1.03
0.93

FEA (Including m Factors (LRFD, 2007)

Ratios between distance along girder y and girder span L, y/L
Support, 0
Quarter span, 0.25
Middle span, 0.50
Number of Loaded Traffic Lanes, NL
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1.23
1.22
1.93
1.63
1.35
1.78
1.30
1.28
1.03
1.00
1.55
1.39
1.27
1.67
1.38
1.21
0.91
0.90
1.59
1.40
1.16
1.59
1.41
1.22
0.73
0.68
1.65
1.20
1.04
1.79
1.33
1.15

12

AASHTO

LRFD
2007
0.78
0.69
0.67
0.72

WSD
2002
0.66
0.70
0.73
0.77

With respect to the present FEA results, it can be seen that y/L is scientifically influential
on BE to the greatest extent in accordance with the assumptions used by Cao and Shing
(1999). The maximum NL of three gives the maximum MLL by implying the minimum value of
BE. In addition, it is apparent that BE is usually maximum at the midspan section (y/L = 0.50),
where the structural flexibility of bridge deck is largest. On the other hand, the minimum BE
can be observed, where the bridge deck is rigidly restrained at the support (y/L = 0).
Modification (1): However, some inconsistences can be observed between BE at the quarter
span and midspan. In some circumstances, BE at the quarter span is larger than the midspan.
This is because of the accompanying effects of girder spacing S and number of lane loaded
NL. Those parameters also produce a significant influence on BE. Therefore, the present BE
includes not only the effect of structural flexibility of bridge deck (y/L and S) but also loading
characteristics (NL)
6. Proposed Effective Strip Widths BE
Instead of using Table 1, the following empirical formulas have been proposed to directly
compute BE as an applicable way in the evaluation of MLL. In addition, it is apparent that BE is
usually maximum at the mid span section when the structural flexibility of bridge deck is
largest. On the other hand, the minimum BE can be observed when the bridge deck is rigidly
restrained at the support. Based on regression analyses, the general relationship of BE is then
developed. The formulations of BE are proposed in terms of S and y/L as follows:
For support region:

BE 0.12S 2 0.87 S 2.24

(2)

BE 0.01S 2 0.19 S 1.55

(3)

For other regions:

It is noted that this formula is applicable for 1.5 m S 3 m, S/L 0.02, S/t 18

13

7. Required Reinforcement Area in Bridge Deck Slab

In general, several provisions have recommended the minimum amount of reinforcement area
(Asmin) or percentage of reinforcement area in gross concrete section for each top layer
provided in the deck slab in each direction. For instance, Asmin of 0.380 mm2/mm (about
0.20% reinforcement steel) has been provided according to AASHTO (2007) by means of the
empirical design method while Asmin of 0.30% has been suggested by BD 81/02 (2002) and

CHBDC (2006). To deal with MLL, the required reinforcement area in transverse direction of
deck slab (AsT) calculated by different approaches are shown in Fig. 8. It is apparent that AsT
computed by the present proposed formula of BE gives moderate results of AsT compared with
those obtained from AASHTO Specifications. When compared with CHBDC (2006) and BD
81/02 (2002), which has a basic on the concept of arching action (compression membrane

action), the present study tends to give underestimated results of BE to a certain extent.
FEA: Equation (2)
FEA: Equation (3)
LRFD (2007)
Standard (2002)
Asmin (AASHTO 2007)

10.5

BD 81/02 (2002), CHBDC (2006)

AsT / Asmin, %

9.0
7.5
6.0
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.0
1.50

1.65

1.80

1.95

2.10

2.25

2.40

2.55

2.70

2.85

3.00

Girder Spacing S, m

Fig. 8 Percentages of reinforcement area AsT/Asmin due to different methods vs. S

14

According to the present study, it has been suggested that current AASHTO design
procedures should be noticeably conservative as they usually give quite larger MLL
than present FEA. The potential advantage of present FEA is that the amounts of slab
reinforcements can be lower compared with the AASHTO counterpart. It should be
noted that AASHTO or empirical method is based mainly on the consideration of
punching shear failure. However, flexure is the primary failure mode when a deck is
subjected to moving loads (Cao, 1996). The utilization of this design concept is
important to note that the design of bridge deck is expected to be more economical
than traditional designs.
8. Concluding Remarks
The present study performs the parametric study on bridge geometries and patterns of truck
loading base on a so-called Eccentric Shell-Beam modeling technique. Among the parameters
that have influence on the negative slab moment MLL, the present analysis reveals that the
location designated by the ratio between distance along the bridge span away from the support
y and bridge span L (y/L) can produce a significant effect on MLL. Moreover, girder spacing S
is also influential on MLL to a great extent. Based on the present numerical results, empirical
formulas have been proposed to determine the effective strip width BE. Compared with other
existing methods in evaluation of MLL, the proposed BE formulas appear to provide moderate
results of the required reinforcement area in bridge deck slab. The present study has also
implied that the bridge slab reinforcement may be minimized when the bridge with small
girder spacing have been selected. This should be resulted in the more realistic and
economical designs of bridge deck slabs for the common ranges of deck slab proportions
under various numbers of truck loadings.

15

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present research was partially supported by the Thailand Research Fund through the
Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program (Grant No. PHD/0167/2546). The first author also owes
very great supports to her coadvisor (P. Benson Shing).
REFERENCES
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2007,
LRFD Bridge Designs Specifications, 4th Edition, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Inc., Washington, D.C.
2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2002,
Standard Specification for the Design of Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Inc., Washington, D.C.
3. American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-08).
4. Bakht, B. and Jaeger, L. G., 1985, Bridge analysis simplified, McGraw-Hill, New York.
5. Bapat, 2009, Influence of bridge parameters on finite element modeling of slab on girder
bridges, M.S Civil Engineering (Structures), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, USA.
6. Barker, R. M. and Puckett, J. A., 1997, Design of Highway Bridges: Based on AASHTO
LRFD, Bridge Design Specifications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA.
7. BD 81/02, 2002, Use of Compressive Membrane Action in Bridge Decks, Design Manual
for Roads and Bridges, UK Highways Agency, UK.
8. Cao, L. C., 1996, Analysis and Design of Slab-on-Girder Highway Bridge Decks, Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, United States of America.
9. Cao, L. C. and Shing, P. B., 1999, Simplified Analysis Method for Slab-on-Girder
Highway Bridge Decks, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 1, 49-59.
10. Canadian Standards Association (CAN/CSA-S6-06), 2006, Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code (CHBDC), 10th Edition, Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, Canada.

16

11. Chan, T.H.T and Chan, J.H.F, 1999, The use of eccentric beam elements in the analysis
of slab-on-girder bridges, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 8, No. 1, 85
102
12. Fang, I. K., J. Worley, Burns, N. H. and Klingner, R. E., 1990, Behavior of isotropic R/C
bridge decks on steel girders. J. Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 3, 659
678.
13. Lee, J. S. and Yau, N. J., 2002, A constraint-based system for arranging bridge spans,
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 25, No. 6, 693-706.
14. Tangwongchai, S., 2003, Effect of Beam Flexibility to Bending Moment in Slab of Slab
Beam bridge, M.S. Thesis, Kasetsart Univ., Bangkok. 1-62.
15. Tangwongchai, S., and Chucheepsakul, S. (2006). Appropriate 3-D Finite Element
Modeling of RC Slabs over Girders. The East Asia Pacific Conference on Structural
Engineering and Construction (EASEC-10), August 2-4, 2006, Bangkok, Thailand.
16. Wilson, E. L., et al. (2000). SAP2000 program users manual, Computers & Structures,
Inc., Berkeley, Calif , USA.
17. Westergaard, H. M., 1930, Computations of stresses in bridge slabs due to wheel loads,
Public Roads, March, 123.

17