Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 410-418  
J. Environ. Treat. Tech.  
ISSN: 2309-1185  
Journal weblink: http://www.jett.dormaj.com  
Line Load Analysis of Live Load Models for  
Short to Medium Span Lengths Bridges in  
Pakistan  
Ateeq Ur Rehman*, Kamran Ahmed  
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering & Technology Peshawar, Pakistan  
Received: 14/10/2019  
Accepted: 08/12/2019  
Published: 20/02/2020  
Abstract  
In bridge designing the live loads plays an important role. Most of the developed countries have their own code for highway  
bridges design specification while the other countries adopt certain renowned design codes but with certain additions to meet  
their demands. In Pakistan, two different codes are followed for designing of bridges i-e American Association of State  
Highway and Transportation Officials and West Pakistan Code of Practice for Highway Bridge. But both of these codes live  
load models are not representative of the present truck traffic situation in Pakistan. For this research study, the MULLA  
MANSOOR weighing station was selected which is located on Grand Trunk road of Pakistan. This paper aim is to study the  
statistical analysis of weigh in motion data and comparative analysis of short to medium span length typical I girder bridges i-  
e 10m to 50m with 5m increment. This will help in comparing the live load effects with the actual truck traffic data for  
proposing a new live load model in Pakistan. The method applied for achieving the objectives is based on Line load analysis  
i-e Load Resistance Factor Design Equations spreadsheet for bridges design in Pakistan for developing the Live load model  
and modification in codes.  
Keywords: AASHTO LRFD, Actual truck traffic data, Calibration Factor, Design truck, Live load model, WIM, WPCPHB  
Introduction1  
illegally manufacturing of trucks with larger dimensions  
1
to carry more and more weights than legal limits and  
resulting in the loss in the structural strength and  
durability. The structure of this article is given below in  
Figure 1.  
Bridge is a key element of the Transportation System  
and they should be designed for all types of necessary  
loadings. The most dynamics of all types of loads for a  
bridge structure the live load which plays a vital role in the  
determination of the strength of the structure. In world the  
developed countries have their own codes for bridges  
design which are different from one another and therefore  
it is the time to developing a unique live load model. But  
some countries adopted the bridge design codes from  
other. In Pakistan the AASHTO LRDF and WPCPHB  
2 Problem statement  
Two main problems are associated with the Live Load  
Models in Pakistan i.e.  
1. Two different specifications are being used for the  
design of highway bridges in our country or a mixture  
of both the codes are used.  
(1967) (1) specification are used. There must be traffic  
live load models that are developed for representing the  
current actual traffic flow of the country and are meant to  
be applicable for designing bridges in the future to achieve  
a good design life. In Pakistan, current live load models in  
WPCPHB (1967) were taken from British (BS 153, 1937)  
introduced in INDIA (in 1935). Since then this code has  
never been updated and resulting in overstressing the  
infrastructure. Since that time the traffic flow and traffic  
loads have increased significantly changes and especially  
the vehicles Gross Vehicular Weights, axle weights and  
axle spacing while this code has never been updated.  
The live load effects on the bridge structure are  
generally influenced by the following important parameter  
i-e axle spacing’s, span length, number of lanes, number  
of axles and number of vehicles. But unfortunately in  
Pakistan the competitions among the marketing, the  
2. The prevailing live load models in Pakistan are not the  
true representatives of the actual truck traffic, as the  
WPCPHB LL model is taken from British code (1937)  
and the LRFD LL model is based on Ontario truck  
traffic data (1977)(2)  
3
Research background  
(
Chan, Miao, & Ashebo, 2004) in his study, extensive  
ten years) weigh in motion (WIM) data of different sites  
(
in Hong Kong were analyzed statistically and proposed a  
method for developing the live load model for bridge  
design. He proposed the Calibration Factors i.e. 1.26 to 1.5  
for 10m to 40m span length bridges (3). Nowak (1993)  
studied the traffic data for developing a live model for  
bridge design. In this research for getting live load effects  
i-e moments and shears, he used probability paper for  
Corresponding author: Ateeq Ur Rehman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering & Technology Peshawar,  
Pakistan. E-mail: malikatiq141@gmail.com.  
4
10  
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 410-418  
extreme daily trucks loads. This research was in continuity  
of research done in 1977 by Nowak and Linf for live load  
models on the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code  
also studied the girders distributions factors by using of  
FEM for spans varying from 30ft to 200ft and for different  
girders spacing. By FEM, he concluded that girders  
distribution factors of AASHTO LRFD were on a safer  
side than the calculated ones. From this study the live load  
model was developed and still are using in whole USA.  
But most of the region in the USA they calibrate this live  
load model for their own truck traffic conditions (4).  
(OHBDC) but after some time this study made a Live  
Load Model for AASHTO LRFD. In 1977 WIM data of  
Ontario was studied for developing the Live Load Model  
but only the extreme trucks were selected for the analysis  
of live load effects for various bridge span lengths and this  
live load model is still in use of the whole USA. Nowak  
Title  
Abstract  
Introduction  
Problem Statement  
Research background  
Research Methodology  
Results & Discussions  
Statistical Analysis  
Impact Factors  
Calibration Factors  
Comparisons of live load  
Distribution Factors  
Comparison of Present Data with Previous Data  
Conclusions  
References  
Figure 1: Structure of an article  
4
11  
 
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 410-418  
In another local study, it is carried out by a researcher  
that the WIM traffic data for N-5 location. He concluded  
by statistical analysis that all the current traffic is  
overloaded compared to NHA legal Limits. On behalf of  
this, he recommended that the calibration factor should be  
of bridge during multiple hazards i-e the indirect losses is  
based on PBEE (Performance Bases Earthquake  
Engineering) methodology from the PEER (Pacific  
Earthquake Engineering Research) center. He concluded  
that the proposed methodology allows to evaluating  
possible solutions to strengthen the original configuration  
(11).  
2
.5 for design truck, design tandem and 0.3 for design  
lane. Hence, the maximum of the 2 combinations is taken  
for bridge design loads (5). A local study by NTRC  
collected the traffic data from 5 different WIM stations for  
studied the statistical analysis. And they concluded that  
the 3 axle trucks types are more than 50% which damaging  
the pavement as compared to others due to the small load  
distribution area. By volume of all trucks, more than 30%  
the trucks are overloaded to NHA Legal Limits while at  
some sections it was found the 87% overloaded of 3 axle  
trucks (6).  
By another Yemen researcher, he studied the cost  
control on concrete bridges during the designing phase.  
He concluded the reasonable modelling for cost control of  
concrete bridge during designing. He proposed an  
alternative method of calculating costs by integrating the  
model of parametric approximation with the method of the  
unit price (12). By an Iraq researcher, he analyzed the  
existing composite girders bridges by finite element  
analysis with the help of ANSYS. He considered all  
composite bridges are relay on shear connectors. He  
concluded that the stresses in steel beam, shear connectors  
and concrete slab under the worst condition of loads of  
single truck condition do not reach to high values as  
compared to ultimate capacities of these materials i-e  
31.47%, 35.78% and 29.91% of steel yield for load cases  
MS1, MS2 and MS2 respectively. He also concluded from  
the research work that maximum deflection is 59mm for  
span length of 35.75m and 55mm for load case MS1 and  
53mm for load case MS3 (13).  
In 2015 a local researcher carried out the  
research for “DEVELOPMENT OF DATABASE OF  
HEAVY TRUCK LOAD DATA IN PESHAWAR,  
PAKISTAN”. In this research they determine the load  
data, for which a portable weighing station was designed.  
Movable weighing station comprises of two rectangular  
steel plates of sizes 28” x 21” and thickness 1” considering  
the dimensions of loaded trucks tires and AASHTO  
specification. The thickness is taken as 1” as the deflection  
produced by the heaviest truck tire was less than 0.5”.He  
concluded that this portable weighing system was found  
more flexible as compare to existing weighing stations. He  
also concluded that the trucks were found more over  
loaded than permitted NHA legal limits i-e 25% to  
4
Research methodology  
This research includes the two main parts i-e  
Descriptive statistical analysis and parameters (impact  
factors, distribution factors, calibration factors). Secondly  
the comparison of live load models of LRDF, WPCPHB  
and Actual trucks and developing a live load model. The  
explanation and the flow chart are given below in Figure 2.  
4
0%.This overloading can reduce the design life of the  
pavement from 15 years to 6.14 and 4.20 years  
respectively. Thus effective life of the road pavement is  
reduced from 41% to 28% .And the volume of 6-axle  
trucks are only 9% of the total trucks and its average  
weight is 78.3 tons which is 27% overloaded than NHA  
legal limits(7).  
For this research, the WIM is used for collecting the  
truck traffic data. The parameter including is the  
GVW, axle spacing, axle weights, and the number of  
axles. In this study, only one specific location was  
selected i.e. N-5 MULLA MANSOOR.  
One of the recent researcher he carried out that for  
2
0m to 50m span lengths the live models of WPCPHB  
requires an enhancement of 65% whereas the AASHTO  
live load model needs 35% increases to address the current  
traffic truck situation in Pakistan. They also recommended  
the 1.35 Calibration Factor for the current traffic truck  
situation. By these parameters, they also concluded the  
six-axle trucks with GVW of 40 tons live load model for  
Pakistan (8). In another local study it was carried out that  
at MMR weigh station 27.76% and 8.8% of GVW of  
actual trucks are higher than GVW of HL-93 and Class A  
respectively (9). A researcher carried out that Class AA  
loading may be used for a single-lane having span length  
less than equal to 35m while for multilane it cannot be  
used as per WPCPHB 1967 code. On the basis of results,  
he proposed the HLP-16 live model for Pakistan which is  
the combination of design truck and design lane load (10).  
According to WPCPHB code, the Impact factor formula  
is the based on the span length (in feet) in WPCPHB as  
shown in the equation below. This was taken from  
AASHTO standards. Although AASHTO standard  
specification has updated this formula based on research  
work it was not updated since then.  
For developing or analysis of live load models the  
quality of WIM data is been more important. In this  
the data are filtered in excel for removing errors.  
The following limitations are applied during filtration  
of data i.e. Ignore single axle loads, Ignore the GVW  
less than or equal to 9 tons, No multiple presence of  
trucks in lanes considered, for comparison National  
Highway Authority (NHA) typical girders and bridge  
section for two lane bridges were considered, and only  
for short to medium span lengths (10m to 50m) were  
considered with 5m increment. After that filtered data  
are used for the analysis of short to medium bridge by  
using LRFD equation excel sheet i-e Line load  
analysis.  
5
Results & discussions  
5.1 Weigh data statistics  
For this research the N-5 MULLA MANSOOR (North  
and South) data was taken from weigh station and was  
statistically analyzed. By volume of legal vs. overloaded,  
from Figure 3 it is clearly shown that the traffic is 84%  
overloaded while the remaining 16% is in legal limits.  
While traffic count by volume, the trucks are classified  
based on axle wise as shown in Figure 3 which is clearly  
shown that the three axle type of trucks is dominating in  
numbers i-e 60% of total traffic data. Second, most is the  
two axle trucks with 26%. Five axle trucks are the least  
I = 15/L+20 ≤ 0.30  
Eq. 1  
Where the L is span length (Feet). A technique has been  
done by a Yemen researcher that enables indirect costs to  
be taken into account in the bridge decision- making  
process. He applied this technique to study the resilience  
4
12  
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 410-418  
among the composition. From Figure 3 it can also be  
observed that over half of the vehicles are overloaded  
and among the 3 axle vehicles is more overloaded as  
compared to others.  
Figure 4 shows that the Mean values of each type of truck  
MMR were calculated and compared with the NHA legal  
limits. In all cases, the mean was above the legal limit.  
Maximum value observed for two and three axles and six  
axle trucks are more than double of the legal limits which  
are the most killing vehicle types are shown in the graph  
below.  
Problem Identification  
Literature Review  
Collection of WIM data  
Data Filtering  
LRFD VS WPCPHB  
1
2
3
.
.
.
Calibration Factors  
Statistical Analysis  
Impact Factors  
Descriptive Statistical  
Analysis  
Max Shear & Moments  
Distribution Factor  
Impact Factor  
Calibration Factor  
Comparison of live load  
effects  
Figure 2: Research Methodology  
4
13  
 
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 410-418  
Legal Vs Overloaded By Axle Types  
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0%  
0%  
0%  
0%  
0%  
0%  
0%  
8
4%  
5
3%  
16%  
LE G A L  
OV E R LOA DE D  
2
2%  
7
%
7
%
2
%
3
%
1%  
1%  
0
%
2%  
1%  
2
axle  
3 axle  
4 axle  
5 axle  
6 axle  
Truck Types  
Legal  
Overloaded  
Figure 3: Legal Vs Overloaded By Axle Types  
Mulla Mansoor Weighing Station  
1
1
20  
00  
8
6
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
axle  
3 axle  
4 axle  
5 axle  
6 axle  
Truck Type by Axles  
NHA Avg Max  
Figure 4: MMR GVW  
5
.2 Distribution factors  
Distribution factor is an important parameter for  
5.2.1 AASHTO LRFD Distribution Factors  
It can be observed from Table 1 the values of DF from  
S over D method are changes for Moments but in case of  
Shear these values are constant i.e. the Moment DF is  
decreasing from 0.98 to 0.639 with increasing in span  
lengths where in case of Shear DF is constant i.e. 0.966  
while the span lengths are increasing with 5m increment.  
In this only 10m to 50m span length bridge are analyzed.  
designing of bridges which depends on girders spacing,  
skew angles, span lengths, etc. DF is usually found by  
different methods like in WPCHB it is fond by “S over D  
method” and in LRFD by a simplified equation. But in the  
“S over D” method it is used only for truck type loading  
but not for military tank loading i-e CLASS AA Loading.  
The DF from LRFD is more realistic than “S over D  
method” for designing purposes. For comparison of live  
DF of prevailing codes, a typical I-girder bridge was  
selected with girder spacing of 1.08m, the bridge section  
remains constant while only the span length varied from  
5.2.2 WPCPHB Distribution Factors  
For the selected typical I girder bridge WPCPHB, S  
over D (S=3.54ft & D=5.5ft) method gives the constant  
value of distribution factor i.e. 0.6436 for Moments and  
Shears for short to medium span lengths bridges. As a  
result, it is not safe to be used for realistic design in current  
truck traffic situations in Pakistan  
1
0m to 50m.  
4
14  
 
 
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 410-418  
loading it gives 10% dynamic increment. The maximum  
value of IM factor is 30% for Class A loading which is 3%  
lower than LRFD in short spans up to 9m. A conclusive  
comparison is done of impact factor for both the codes and  
is shown below in Table 2 as well graphically in Figure  
6.  
5
.2.3 LRFD VS WPCHBP Distribution Factors  
In the given below Figure 5, it is clearly shown that the  
DF from WPCHBP is not applicable for realistic design as  
compared to LRFD. While the DF from LRFD is too  
conservative as compared to WPCHBP for short to  
medium span bridge design. S over D method doesn’t give  
realistic values as each girder in a bridge cannot have the  
same proportion of load effects and it is only used for truck  
loading not for CLASS AA Loading.  
7
Comparisons of live load effects  
Live loads effects were calculated using the beam  
line analysis method, and respective impact factors and  
distribution factors were multiplied with them. For actual  
truck traffic live load distribution factors & impact factors  
of AASHTO LRFD were used.  
6
Impact factors  
As the (WPCPHB, 1967) is not revised therefore, no  
research study conducted on impact factors like other  
codes like (AASHTO, 2007). Load effects grow with  
dynamic loading and this increase depends on different  
parameters. The WPCPHB codes have an impact factor as  
a function of span length for truck train loading which  
decays non-linearly with an increase in length. While in  
LRFD it gives, a fixed value of 33% for truck loading,  
making it uniform for all types of spans. Before LRFD i.e.  
in AASHTO Standard Specification, IM factor was also a  
function of length but it gives 7% to 9% higher value than  
WPCPHB for bridges over 20m spans. As compared to  
WPCPHB, LRFD also has the different provision of  
impact factor for fatigue limit state i.e. 15% allowance  
instead of 33%. There is no provision of impact factor for  
lane loading in LRFD while in WPCPHB for Class AA  
It is clear from Figure 7 & Figure 8 that the AASHTO  
LRFD is not representing the actual truck loading in  
Pakistan as it is increasing with span lengths increasing.So  
it should need to be calibrated.It is also clear that the  
average trucks are above of both codes which are too  
much critical condition for highway bridges in  
Pakistan.As well as from graphs of moments and shears it  
is also clear that WPCPHB 1967 is much lower than all  
the loads which is also not representing trucks loading in  
Pakistan,so it is not a safe method for the realistic design  
of short to medium span lengths highway bridges in  
Pakistan.  
Table 1: LRFD Live Load Distribution Factors  
Span length  
10m  
0.98  
0.96  
15m  
0.814  
0.966  
20m  
0.817  
0.966  
25m  
0.769  
0.966  
30m  
0.732  
0.966  
35m  
0.703  
0.966  
40m  
0.678  
0.966  
45m  
0.657  
0.966  
50m  
0.639  
0.966  
M
V
WPCPHB VS DF  
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
.20  
.00  
.80  
.60  
.40  
.20  
.00  
1
0m  
15m  
20m  
25m  
30m  
35m  
40m  
45m  
50m  
Span Length  
WPCPHB  
LRFD  
Figure 5: WPCPHB vs LRFD DF  
Table 2: Impact Factors  
Span Lengths  
LRFD  
10m  
15m  
20m  
25m  
1.33  
1.15  
1.1  
30m  
1.33  
1.13  
1.1  
35m  
1.33  
1.11  
1.1  
40m  
1.33  
1.1  
45m  
1.33  
1.09  
1.1  
50m  
1.33  
1.08  
1.1  
1.33  
1.28  
1.1  
1.33  
1.22  
1.1  
1.33  
1.18  
1.1  
Class A  
Class AA  
1.1  
4
15  
 
 
 
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 410-418  
Impact Factors  
1
1
.4  
.2  
1
0
0
0
0
.8  
.6  
.4  
.2  
0
1
0m  
15m  
20m  
25m  
30m  
35m  
40m  
45m  
50m  
Span Lenghts  
LRFD  
Class A  
Class AA  
Figure 6: Impact Factors  
MOMENTS (KN-M)  
1
1
1
4000  
2000  
0000  
8
6
4
2
000  
000  
000  
000  
0
1
0
1 5  
2 0  
2 5  
3 0  
3 5  
4 0  
4 5  
5 0  
SPAN LENGTH (M)  
Avg  
Max  
Avg+2std  
AASHTO LRFD  
WPCPHB 1967  
Figure 7 Comparison of Moments  
SHEAR (KN)  
1
1
1
1
1
800  
600  
400  
200  
000  
8
6
4
2
00  
00  
00  
00  
0
1
0
15  
20  
25  
30  
35  
40  
45  
50  
SPAN LENGTH (M)  
Avg  
Max  
Avg+2std  
AASHTO LRFD  
WPCPHB 1967  
Figure 8 Comparison of Shears  
4
16  
 
 
 
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 410-418  
moments and shears for short to medium span length  
bridges (10m – 50m) the following power equations (Eq.  
8
Calibration factor  
Calibration Factor “r” is the ratio of maximum load  
2
and Eq. 3) can be used i.e.  
Moment (KN-m) =1555.2L0.7848  
=821.47L0.1669  
effects of actual trucks traffic load (avg+2std) with  
renowned code i-e Shear and Moment of WIM of traffic  
to the maximum live load effects of renowned codes.  
Many developed/advanced countries have their own  
updated bridge design codes based on prevailing traffic  
loadings so generally they don’t need any Calibration  
factor. But in developing countries like Pakistan which are  
still using WPCPHB (1967) which do not fulfill the  
Traffic demand now-days. So they need to calibrate these  
live load models. The following are the “r” based on Line  
load analysis for 10m to 50m span length with 5m  
increment. For this study the WPCPHB, AASHTO, and  
Actual traffic data i-e Avg+2Std is done for comparison.  
Distribution factors and impact factors for actual trucks  
were used with respective prevailing codes i-e WPCPHB  
and AASHTO LRFD. The calibration factors proposed for  
short to medium span length bridges for WPCPHB &  
LRFD are 1.35 and 1.7 respectively. In case of analysis for  
Eq. 2  
Eq. 3  
Shear (KN)  
In the above equation “L” is span length in meters.  
9
Comparison of present data with previous  
data  
Some previous parameters are compared with some  
present research work i-e; From 2017 (14) research studies  
it is compared the statistical analysis data with present  
data’s analysis and NHA from which it is clearly seen that  
all axles types are overloaded in 2017 as well as in the  
present situation as compared to NHA legal limits as  
shown in Figure 9.  
Max Gross Vechicular Weights (Tons)  
1
1
20  
00  
80  
60  
40  
20  
0
2
Axle  
3 Axle  
4 Axle  
Axles  
5 Axle  
6 Axle  
2
017  
Present  
NHA  
Figure 9 Comparison of Gross Vehicular Weights  
Calibration Factor  
1
.7  
1
.67  
1
1
1
1
.8  
.6  
.4  
.2  
1
1
.35  
1
.09  
0
0
0
0
.8  
.6  
.4  
.2  
0
Present  
2017  
WPCPHB  
LRFD  
Figure 10 Calibration Factors comparison  
From the Figure 10 it is clearly seen that in 2017 (14)  
the calibration factor proposed for WPCPHB and LRFD  
was 1.09 and 1.67 respectively and in this research work  
the C.F is 1.35 and 1.7 respectively, which means that the  
WPCPHB and LRFD live loads should be enhanced by  
35% and 70% respectively for the analysis and design of  
short to medium span lengths bridges in Pakistan.  
4
17  
 
 
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 410-418  
practice-highway-bridges.pdf.  
1
0 Conclusions  
2
3
.
.
Rakoczy P. Wim Based Load Models for Bridge. 2011;  
Chan THT, Miao TJ, Ashebo DB. Statistical models  
from weigh-in-motion data. Struct Eng Mech.  
On the basis of this research work it is concluded that  
AASHTO LRFD and WPCPHB live load models are not  
representing the prevailing traffic in Pakistan and shall be  
proposed a new live load model for Pakistan current  
condition. From the above statistical analysis it is clearly  
seen that actual vehicle weights are over than NHA legal  
limits. From WIM data analysis it is clear that 84% trucks  
are overloaded in which the three axle type of trucks are  
dominating in numbers i.e. 60%.Thus heavy vehicles are  
making problematic for bridge design in Pakistan. On the  
basis of all results of DF from LRFD equations can be  
used instead of DF from WPCPHB. From observation of  
current truck traffic data the DF from both codes need to  
be evaluated through field testing and this will be much  
better for realistic designing. From the results of Impact  
factors it is clearly seen that the impact factor is neither  
revised nor calibrated like AASHTO code. While in  
WPCPHB has an impact factors which depends on span  
lengths and it decays non-linearly for CLASS AA loading  
with increasing in span lengths, thus both codes  
amendment to overcome the deficiency. From moments  
and shears diagram it is clearly shown that truck traffic  
loads are overloaded than codes i-e 7% to 16% and 11%  
to 27% respectively. It is concluded that from “line load  
analysis” the LRFD distribution factors values are higher  
than WPCPHB. Both of these codes cannot be used for  
realistic design of highway bridges in Pakistan so it needs  
to be calibrated for designing purpose.  
2
005;20(1):85–110.  
4.  
5.  
Nowak AS. Live load model for highway bridges.  
Struct Saf. 1993;13(1–2):53–66.  
Ahmed K, Ali SM, Shafi MU. Wim Based Calibration  
of Aashto Lrfd Live Load Model (Hl-93) for Highway  
Bridges Design of Pakistan. Int J Adv Eng Res Dev.  
2
017;4(09):1–8.  
GoP. Government of Pakistan. Ministry of Pakistan.  
016;5(iv):1–40.  
6
7
.
.
2
Shafi MU, Ali SM, Akhtar S, Shah A, Ahmed K.  
DEVELOPMENT OF DATABASE OF HEAVY  
TRUCK LOAD DATA IN PESHAWAR  
PAKISTAN. 2015;34(1):68–75.  
Shoaib S, Fahad M. Development of Live Load  
Calibration Factor for State Highway Bridge Design.  
,
8
9
.
.
2
016;4(1):1–16.  
Shahid I, Farooq SH, Noman AK, Arshad A.  
Comparison of Live Load Effects for the Design of  
Bridges. 2017;5(2):85–96.  
Shahid S, Ahmad I, Arshad MA. AN ASSESSMENT  
OF VEHICULAR LIVE LOADS FOR BRIDGE  
DESIGN IN PAKISTAN. 2018;6(1):9–22.  
Forcellini D. A new methodology to assess indirect  
losses in bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Innov  
Infrastruct Solut. 2019;4(1):400–9.  
Al-Sebaeai M, Al-Bukhaiti KM, Zheng S. A Study of  
Convergence to Control the Cost of Concrete Bridges  
in the Design Stages in Yemen. Civ Eng J.  
2018;4(3):539.  
10.  
1
1
1.  
2.  
From the results it is concluded that the Calibration  
Factor for WPCPHB & LRFD IS 1.35 AND 1.7  
respectively. From all above results it is concluded that a  
live load model should be proposed for prevailing live  
load models in Pakistan for current traffic situation.  
13.  
Laftah Abbas A, Hamood QY. Assessment of Al-  
Sabtea Bridge under the Effects of Static Loadings. Civ  
Eng J. 2018;4(11):2680.  
Structures A. Calibration factors for AASHTO LRFD  
and Pakistan code of practice for highway bridges  
based on statistically analyzed wim loads. 2015;04(04).  
1
4.  
References  
1
.
WCPHBP  
1967  
govt-of-west-pakistan-code-of-  
2