Steel Bridge Member Resistance - AASHTO Compared to Other International Codes

This paper contrasts the different approaches to member resistance the calculations in AASHTO 8th edition, Eurocode EN1993-2:2006 and Canadian Bridge Design standard CSA S6-14.

An example steel truss footbridge is used to compare resistances and utilizations determined from each Code (on the basis of identical loading). AASHTO is found to be lacking two interaction checks, to be unconservative in one check and over-conservative in another by comparison to the Eurocode-and prohibits the use of some members based on slenderness alone.

For its part, the Eurocode is found to be more opaque in expressing one interaction check, and to be considerably more voluminous in the calculations required to obtain similar results.

The paper also examines the effects of some basic analysis assumptions on the load effects and therefore utilizations.

View content