Strength Evaluation of Existing Steel Concrete and Masonry Arch Bridges

Chapter 14 Bridge Design Manual - 2002
Strength Evaluation of Existing Steel; Concrete and Masonry Arch Bridges
14 STRENGTH EVALUATION OF EXISTING STEEL, CONCRETE AND MASONRY
ARCH BRIDGES
14.1 INTRODUCTION 14.1.1 PURPOSE These proposed guidelines establish a methodology for rating existing bridges. They are mainly based on AASHTO (Ref. 1). The guidelines address several shortcomings of existing evaluation procedures. The methodology is developed within a framework that provides for a systematic rating improvement in the evaluation process. Moreover, the methodology can be used in conjunction with a wide range of engineering practices. The aim of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive yet flexible methodology for evaluating existing bridges, which is consistent with todays high standards of safety. Regarding the strength of existing masonry and concrete arch bridges, refer to section 14.5. 14.1.2 SCOPE The methodology presented utilizes Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). This procedure allows for combining probability theory, statistical data and engineering judgment into a rational decision making tool. In particular, the procedure allows the engineer to use site specific information in a consistent manner to improve, if necessary, his judgment on the safe rating level for a particular bridge. In addition, the format incorporates existing methodology for considering local laws and regulations and methods of calculation. A load and resistance factor approach was also chosen as the basis for strength evaluation of existing bridges as it conforms to the design methods for new bridges specified earlier in this manual, while still allowing for a systematic consideration of the differences involved in bridge evaluation. This approach allows each variable to be addressed separately, analyzed in depth (if needed), and proportionally weighed in the overall rating process. Conservative assumptions are made in each step of a strength design or checking procedure to safeguard against the worst possible conditions expected to occur during the lifetime of a structure. In other words, the probability of failure is made exceedingly small by providing large safety margins to cover the uncertainties in predicting load effects and resistance of a bridge. Reliability principle utilizing site data have been used to evaluate the uncertainties and the safety levels or indices implicit in current designs. The rating methodology and load and resistance factors have been developed to maintain consistent safety levels for the above-mentioned uncertainties. Options for incorporating site specific traffic and loading data and higher levels of effort by the engineer are introduced since these lead to a reduction in the overall uncertainty. The lower safety margin required maintaining the same safety level means ratings that are more beneficial. At no stage is it
Ethiopian Roads Authority
Page 14-1
Chapter 14
Bridge Design Manual - 2002
necessary for the evaluation engineer to use probabilistic methods. The necessary reliability-based load and resistance factors have been tabulated for the evaluation. Load and resistance factors were calculated from the coefficient of variation of actual load effects and resistances, the ratio of the mean value to nominally determined values (i.e., the bias) and the desired safety level. Therefore, as the evaluator obtains more data on the distribution of actual load effects and resistances, more realistic load and resistance factors can be utilized. 14.1.3 APPLICABILITY This methodology is intended for evaluating almost all existing bridges. Steel spans include simple and continuous girder bridges and trusses and floor systems. Concrete spans recognized include slab, girder, T-beam and box beam bridges with short to medium span length. Prestressed beams although of recent vintage are also included herein. 14.2 NOTATIONS Af = = Ap ADT = ADTT = d = D = Di = FA = Fb = Fc = Fd = = Ff Fj = Fm = Fmo = Fp = Fsr = Fw = Fy = h = I = I = l = KL = L = L = Lj = LR = Axle factor Centrifugal distribution factor average daily traffic average daily truck traffic Arch barrel thickness nominal dead load effect Nominal dead load effect of element i Centrifugal effect factor Barrel factor Condition factor Depth factor Fill factor Joint factor Material factor Mortar factor Profile factor Span/rise factor Width factor nominal or specified yield stress Depth of fill live load impact factor Impact Factor used to approximate the dynamic effects of moving Legal Trucks. nominal traffic live load effects Proportion factor for longitudinal girders Span of arch nominal live load effect Nominal traffic live load effects for load j other than the rating Legal Truck. Nominal live load effects for the rating Legal Truck.
Page 14-2

m ME n
= total number of elements contributing to dead load to the structure. = Equivalent axle load for bending moment effect = total number of live loadings contributing to the live load effects other than the rating legal truck(s). PAL = Provisional axle loading Qk = Effect of load k R = resistance R = Bending moment or shear without centrifugal effects Rc = Enhanced bending moment or shear Rn = nominal strength or resistance RF = rating factor (the portion of the rating Legal Truck allowed on the bridge) rc = Rise of arch barrel at crown rq = Rise of arch barrel at quarter points SE = Equivalent ax le load for shear force effect SL = Shear on longitudinal member SU = Gross shear due to one lane of UDL (Uniform Distributed Load) D = dead load factor iD = dead load factor for element i. L = live load factor jL = live load factor for load i other than the rating Legal Truck. LR = live load factor for the rating Legal Truck. = Resistance factor (Capacity reduction) to account for uncertainties in resistance due to variations in dimensions, material properties, and theory. 14.3 STRENGTH EVALUATION OF BRIDGES 14.3.1 GENERAL The procedure for rating existing bridges requires knowledge of the physical conditions of the bridge and the applied loadings. A safe level of rating presupposes that nominal strengths should be estimated from a detailed investigation of the structures physical condition and any continuing attempts to alleviate any signs of deterioration. Further knowledge of traffic conditions including signs of overweight vehicle combinations combined with accurate methods of structural analysis should be used when necessary to estimate load effects. The load and resistance factors (LRFD) that must be applied should rationally recognize the corresponding uncertainties in making these judgments on strength, analysis and loading. The concepts of structural reliability are a means for consistently representing these uncertainties and allowing bridge engineers to select proper load and resistance factors for rating specific bridges. The evaluation of a structure is based on the simple principle that the available capacity of a structure to carry loads must exceed the required capacity to support the applied loadings. To perform an evaluation, therefore, it is necessary to know something about the available capacity, the applied loading and the response of the structure to that loading. Knowledge
Page 14-3
Chapter 14
and information with respect to each of these items is never complete; and therefore, evaluation can never be done precisely. To compensate for this lack of knowledge and information, engineers have used safety factors to insure that failure does not occur. The Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) has been introduced in design and rating to provide more uniform safety. The method implicitly recognizes that dead load effects may require lower safety margins than comparable live (truck) load effects due to their relative uncertainty. This probabilistic approach to safety is logically extended in the load and resistance factor methods used herein. The rating check is done by comparing the factored load effects (both dead and live) with the factored resistance at all critical sections. The output is a rating factor, which determines the suitability of the given bridge for the loads under consideration. If the bridge rating is not acceptable, several options for a more detailed analysis are given. Each of these options are associated with an increasing level of effort and shall be done if the rating engineer warrants their use. An initial screening level, however, is provided for routine investigations. Advantages of this method are: 1. It provides uniformly consistent procedures for evaluating existing bridges. 2. It permits suitable flexibility in making evaluations. 3. It provides uniform levels of reliability developed from performance histories. 4. It is based on extensive truck traffic and bridge response data. 5. It permits introduction of site specific data into the evaluation in a rational and consistent format. 6. It permits different levels of effort that involve progressively more work; with correspondingly greater rewards in terms of more beneficial ratings. 7. It includes the same nominal dead and live load calculations and resistances as in the design of new bridges. 8. It allows distinction between evaluation of redundant and nonredundant components. 14.3.2 SAFE EVALUATION The strength evaluation procedures presented herein are intended to recognize a balance between safety and economics. Detailed presentations of the theory and the calibration of the load and resistance factors contained herein are given in Chapter 2: General Requirements and Chapter 12: Detail Design of Bridges and Structures. A single load rating will be produced by these guidelines. Evaluators will find options in these guidelines by which ratings can be improved by recommendations for more frequent and detailed inspection and maintenance, improved structural analysis and especially control of heavy overweight vehicles. These guidelines are intended to produce rating factors for routine evaluation and posting considerations. Evaluation of live load for issuance of permits may require load factors different from rating and shall also utilize the actual vehicle size, weight and configuration.
Page 14-4 Ethiopian Roads Authority

Each of the steps in the evaluation process shall be performed in any one of several ways. Therefore, the proposed guidelines are general enough to accommodate the practices of different engineers and/or agencies. The load and resistance factors presented in the guidelines were developed on the principle that the accuracy of an evaluation was dependent, in part, on the methods used to perform the evaluation. For economic reasons, it is desirable to keep the evaluation effort to a minimum. If the capacity of a bridge can be shown to be sufficient by making some approximations, there is no need to resort to an expensive evaluation procedure. On the other hand, if the sufficiency of a bridge cannot be reliably established using a more approximate method, an engineer may wish to resort to a more sophisticated approach in order to demonstrate the sufficiency of the bridge. Therefore, the evaluation process outlined in the guidelines is a cyclic process in which one or several of the steps shall be repeated. The various options provided in the guidelines along with corresponding land/resistance factors have been developed so as to maintain an adequate level of safety based on calibration with existing performance experiences. The evaluation procedures presented herein therefore provide a balance between safety and economics. The single load rating value produced by these guidelines shall be greater than current operating ratings for well-maintained, non-deteriorated and redundant load path bridges having reasonably well enforced traffic. It may fall, however, even below existing inventory levels for heavily deteriorated bridges or those having non-redundant components and subjected to heavy truck traffic. A gradation of ratings between these two extremes will be obtained depending on the condition of the bridge, type and volume of traffic, the quality of inspection and the regularity of maintenance. Thus, a deficient bridge shall be made to rate sufficiently if certain preventive measures such as load control restriction, inspection, etc. are undertaken. A variety of options may exist and the engineer could choose one of them depending on the economics of the situation and the amount of effort the engineer is willing to expend. 14.3.3 THE RATING EQUATION The evaluation is carried out with a comparison of the factored live load effects and the factored strength or resistance. The load factors are used to account for uncertainties in load effects due to uncertainties in analysis as well as load magnitudes. The dead load factor includes normal variations in material dimensions and densities. The live load factor accounts for uncertainties in expected maximum vehicle loading effect, impact and distribution of loads during a time period between inspection. The resistance factor accounts for uncertainties in strength prediction theories, material properties and deterioration influences over time periods between inspection. Furthermore, the load and resistance factors are adjusted to produce an overall safety margin which leads to an adequate level of safety considering all uncertainties described above.
Page 14-5
Chapter 14
The rating procedure is carried out for all strength checks (moment, shear, etc.) at all potentially critical sections with the lowest value determining the rating factor for the entire span. The rating equation to be used throughout the application of these guidelines is: Rn = DD + L (RF) L (1 + I) or:
RF =
(14.1) (14.2)
Rn DD L * L(1 + I )
= = = = = = = = =
Where: RF Rn D D L l L I
rating factor (the portion of the rating Legal Truck allowed on the bridge) resistance factor nominal resistance dead load factor nominal dead load effect live load factor nominal traffic live load effects nominal live load effect live load impact factor
The rating factor is the ratio of the safe level of loading to the load produced by the nominal or standard vehicle. It shall be used in the consideration of posting levels and/or the consideration and justifications for future repairs or replacement. In determining load and resistance factors for the rating equation, the following steps shall be carried out in evaluating a bridge span: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) collection of information selection of nominal loadings and resistances distribution of loads selection of load and resistance factors calculation of rating factors
A flowchart for the rating procedure is also provided in Figure 14-1. The evaluator/designer should note that potential improvement in the rating factor may came from selecting options in each step. These generally provide a less conservative factor provided additional evaluation effort is performed and no unsatisfactory information is uncovered. The basic structural engineering equation states that the resistance of a structure must equal or exceed the demand placed on it by loads. Stated mathematically: R Qk Where: R = resistance Qk = effect of load k The solution of this simple equation encompasses the whole art and science of structural engineering including the disciplines of strength of materials, structural analysis and load (14.3)
Page 14-6

determination. This equation applies to design as well as evaluation. In structural evaluation, the objective is to determine the maximum allowable live load. In the case of bridge evaluation, this usually means the maximum vehicle weight. Any rational and tractable approach to the analytical solution of the basic structural engineering equation requires that the modes of failure be identified to establish the resistance. The location, types and extent of the critical failure modes must be determined. The checking equation must be solved for each of these potential failure checking modes. Since neither resistance nor the load effect can be established with certainty, safety factors must be introduced that give adequate assurance that the limit states are not exceeded. This shall be done by stating the equation in a load and resistance factor (LRFD) format. The basic rating equation used in the guidelines is simply a special form of the basic structural engineering equation with load and resistance factors introduced to account for uncertainties that apply to the bridge evaluation problem. It is written as follows:
Rn
RF =
i =1
i * Di
D
n i =1
j Lj (1 + I )
L
LR
LR (1 + I )
(14.4)
Where: RF m Rn n iD Di jL Lj LR LR I
= = = = = = = = = = = =
rating factor (the portion of the rating Legal Truck allowed on the bridge) resistance factor number of elements included in the dead load nominal resistance number of live loads other than the rating vehicle dead load factor for element i nominal dead load effect of element i live load factor for live load j other than the rating vehicle(s) nominal traffic live load effects for load j other than the rating vehicle(s) live load factor for rating Legal Truck nominal live load effect for the rating Legal Truck live load impact factor
The maximum permitted traffic live load effect will be the total resistance minus the effect of loadings other than the rating Legal Truck. This will include dead loads, non-vehicular live loads, and, in the case of unsupervised permit loading, the vehicular live load and the impact of normal traffic that could mix with the rating Legal Truck.
Page 14-7
Chapter 14
Start Collect information Deck condition Structural Condition Traffic condition
(1) (2) (3)
Calculate dead loads (Table 14-1) Select live loads and Impact factor (Figure 14-2 to 14-4 and Table 14-2)
Determine nominal resistance (Table 14-3) Calculate load effects (1) Dead load (2) Live load (Chapter 3)
Select resistance factor (Figure 14-6 and Table 14-6) Select load factor (Table 7-5) (1) Dead load (2) Live load
Calculate rating factor R.F. Conduct a more Detailed Analysis warranted by the Engineer
Yes Is R.F. < 1
No Yes The safety level is acceptable Is safety level acceptable? No Post or Modify
Figure 14-1 Flow Chart for Rating Procedure
Page 14-8

Collection of Information Before the load rating of a specific bridge can be conducted, a certain amount of information has to be gathered. The extent to which the engineer is required to collect information will have a direct influence on the load rating of the bridge due to the selection of the proper category for the load and resistance factors. This task shall be the same as the provisions in the existing section 4.9: Site Investigation: Checklist of Site Investigation except that the following items should be noted since they can have an influence on the selection of load and resistance factors. 1. Deck condition The impact factors in section 3.8: Live Loads are deliberately selected to be conservative with respect to most conditions. Field tests have shown that the single most important factor affecting impact is roadway roughness and any bumps, sags, or other discontinuities which may initiate or amplify dynamic response to truck passages. Any of these surface factors should be noted during a bridge inspection. 2. Structural Condition - Signs of recent deterioration in structural members, which may go unchecked and increase the likelihood of further section capacity loss before the next cycle of inspection and rating should be noted. Conversely, maintenance efforts to mitigate such deterioration should also be noted. An allowance for structural deterioration should note whether this is either an expected or conservative estimation since further deterioration may increase the uncertainty regarding reliable section properties and strength during the next inspection interval. 3. Traffic Condition - The expected loading during the inspection internal is affected by the truck traffic at the site. In the best instance, data will be available from traffic surveys including objective truck weight operations. Alternatively, advice should be sought from the traffic division regarding truck traffic volume, composition, permit activities, overload sources, and degree of enforcement. Selection of Nominal Loading and Resistances Loads consist of concentrated or distributed forces that are applied directly to the bridge or result from deformations or the constraint of deformations. For bridge evaluations, the most important loads are dead load and vehicular live load plus its accompanying dynamic effects, since each of these loadings induce high superstructure stresses. Loadings other than dead load and traffic live load usually do not result in significant bending or shear in the superstructure. Since the critical mode of failure for traffic live load almost always occurs in the superstructure, other types of loads will seldom affect the live load capacity of the bridge. When other combinations of loads can affect the capacity of the bridge such as when substructure components can fail due to traffic live loading, the Chapter 3: Load Requirements load factors for design shall be used.
Page 14-9
Chapter 14
Dead Loads The dead load shall be estimated from data available from the inspection at the time of analysis. The dead load factor accounts for normal variations of material densities and dimensions. Nominal dimensions and densities shall be used for calculating dead load effects. For overlays, either cores shall be used to establish the true thickness or an additional allowance of 20% should be placed on the nominal overlay thickness indicated at the time of analysis. The recommended unit weights of materials to be used in computing the dead load should be as in Table 14-1:
Table 14-1 Unit Weights of Materials MATERIAL Asphalt surfacing Concrete, plain or reinforced (normal weight) Steel Cast iron Timber (treated or untreated) Earth (compacted), sand gravel or ballast FORCE EFFECT [kN/m3] 22.5 24.0 79.0 72.0 8.0 18.0
The dead load of the structure is computed in accordance with the conditions existing at the time of the analysis. Dead load can usually be determined more accurately than any other type of loading. One major source of error is failure to consider some of the elements that will contribute to dead load. Some items that are often overlooked are: Wearing surfaces Railings and Utilities Structure modifications not shown on plans Other items that can affect the calculation of dead load are dimensional variations in the concrete section and variations in the unit weight of material. The prescribed dead load factor recognizes the uncertainties in the nominal dimensions and analysis of dead load effects. Overlay thicknesses are a source of greater uncertainty in the dead load so they are assigned a 20% higher load factor unless cores or more detailed measurements are made. Live Loads The guidelines specify the number of vehicles to be considered on the bridge at any one time. These numbers are based on an estimate of the maximum likely number of vehicles under typical traffic situations. When unusual conditions exist, adjustments to the specified number of vehicles should be made.

Highway vehicles come in a wide variety of sizes and configurations. No single vehicle or load model can accurately reflect the effects of all of these vehicles. The variation will usually be greater than the variation in dead load effect. To minimize this difference, it is necessary to select a rating Legal Truck with axle spacing and relative axle weights similar to actual vehicles. Three Legal Trucks shown in Figure 14-2 to 14-4 are recommended as evaluation vehicles. These vehicles, together with the prescribed live load factors, give a realistic estimate of the maximum live load effects of a variety of heavy trucks in actual traffic. The moving loads to be applied on the deck for calculating maximum nominal live loading effects shall be the three Legal Trucks. The spacing and axle weights chosen for these vehicle types were selected from actual trucks. It is believed that these typical vehicles correspond better to existing traffic and will provide more uniform reliability than the old standard AASHTO H or HS design trucks. Hence, the latter are not recommended for bridge posting purposes. In computing load effects, one Legal Truck shall be considered present in each lane. The positioning of the vehicle in each lane shall be according to Chapter 3: Load Requirements. It is unnecessary to place more than one vehicle in a lane since the load factors shown below have been modeled for this possibility. These load factors shall be considered applicable for spans up to 60m. For longer spans, a lane loading is specified in the evaluation. Reduction factors for live loading of more than two traffic lanes are provided. These rationally account for the lower possibility of such occurrences.
INDICATED CONCENTRATION LOADS ARE AXLE LOADS IN KN CG = CENTER OF GRAVITY ALL DIMENSIONS IN METER
Figure 14-2 Truck Type 3 Unit Weight = 227 kN
Page 14-11
Chapter 14
Figure 14-3 Truck Type 3-2 Unit Weight = 325 kN
Figure 14-4 Truck Type 3-3 Unit Weight = 364 kN
Figure 14-5 The Legal Lane Loading (mainly for large spans) For longer spans, the Legal Lane Loading given in Figure 14-5 will govern the evaluation (up to 90 m). This is a combination of a vehicle load and a uniformly distributed load. For all span lengths where the rating factor is less than one, it shall be necessary to place more than

one vehicle in each lane. In lieu of this, the evaluator should check the lane loading for all span lengths together with the rating Legal Truck as shown in Figure 14-5. Where maximum load effects in any member are produced by loading a number of traffic lanes simultaneously, reduction factors as given in Table 14-8 should be applied. In checking special permits, the actual vehicle weights and dimensions shall be used. If the number of such permits in one year are frequent, then it shall be assumed that two lanes are occupied by such a vehicle. Otherwise, standard vehicles shall be placed in the other lanes. When the engineer determines that conditions of traffic movement and volume warrant it, the standard vehicles shall be eliminated. Upon special investigation, the load factor for a controlled permit use is reduced below the value taken for ordinary traffic conditions. Since overload permissible vehicles typically have very different axle configurations, it is very important that this be considered when issuing permits. Judgment must also be exercised concerning sidewalk loadings. The likelihood of the maximum sidewalk loading is small. A unit loading for the sidewalk for the purposes of load limit evaluation will generally be less than the design unit loading. The probable maximum sidewalk loadings should be used in calculations for safe load capacity ratings. This loading will vary from bridge to bridge, depending generally upon its location. Because of this variation, the Engineer must use his judgment to make the final determination of the unit loadings to be used. This loading will not exceed the design sidewalk loading given in Chapter 3: Load Requirements. Impact An impact allowance shall be added to the static loads used for rating as shown in Equation 14.1. Impact values in Chapter 3: Load Requirements reflect conservative conditions that may possibly prevail under certain circumstances. Under an enforced speed restriction, impacts shall be reduced. Impact loads are taken to be primarily due to the roughness or unevenness of the road surface, especially the approach spans. Three values of impact factors are provided by correlating the roughness of the surface to the deck conditions survey values. This information is more likely known during evaluation than in the original design. For smooth approach and deck conditions, the impact shall be taken as 0.10. For a rough surface with bumps, a value of 0.20 should be used. Under extreme adverse conditions of high speed, spans less than 12m. and highly distressed pavement and approach conditions, a value of 0.30 should be taken. For span 12.0 m, where the measured deflection exceeds 1/90 of the span, 0.10 should be added to these values. See Table 14-2. If such a judgment cannot be made, refer to the bridge inspection report and relate impact to the condition of the wearing surface.
Page 14-13
Chapter 14
Table 14-2 Condition of Wearing Surface and Impact Value
WEARING SURFACE 1 - Good condition 2 - Fair condition 3 - Poor condition 4 - Critical condition
No repair required Minor deficiency, item still functioning as designed Major deficiency, item in need of repair to continue Item no longer functioning as designed
IMPACT 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3
Resistances. Nominal component strengths shall be the same values contained in the load factor sections of Chapter 3: Load Requirements. Nominal strength calculations shall take into consideration the observable effects of deterioration, such as loss of concrete or steel crosssectional area, loss of composite action or corrosion. Concrete: The strength of sound concrete shall be assumed to be equal to either the values taken from the plans and specifications or the average of construction test values. When these values are not available, the ultimate stress of sound concrete shall be assumed to be 25 MPa. A reduced ultimate strength shall be assumed (no less than 15 MPa, however) for unsound or deteriorated concrete unless evidence to the contrary is gained by field-testing. Reinforcing Steel: The area of tension steel to be used in computing the ultimate flexural strength of reinforced concrete members shall not exceed that available in the section or 75 percent of the steel reinforcement required for a balanced condition. The steel yield stresses to be used for various types of reinforcing steel are given below.
Reinforcing Steel Yield Stress Fy (MPa) Unknown steel (prior to 1954) 228 Structural Grade 248 Intermediate Grade 300 and unknown after 1954 (former Grade 40) 276 Hard Grade (former Grade 50) Grade 420 (former Grade 60) Grade 520 (former Grade 75) Table 14-3 Reinforcing Steel Yield Stresses The determination of structural resistance is one of the primary tasks in the evaluation process. In a load and resistance design (LRFD - also known as limit state) approach it is necessary to define the condition at which resistance will be determined. These should provide for similar structural performance regardless of the material or structure type. 314 614 517
Page 14-14

These limit states should have a very low probability of occurrence because they can lead to loss of life as well as to major financial losses. They include: Loss of equilibrium of all - or part of - the structure considered as a rigid body (e.g., overturning, sliding, uplift, etc.); Loss of load-bearing capacity of members due to insufficient material strength, buckling, fatigue, fire, corrosion, or deterioration; Overall instability of the structure (e.g., P-delta effect, wind flutter, seismic motions, etc.); Very large deformation (e.g., transformation into a mechanism). Determination of the true safety limit state involves very complicated and difficult analytical procedures. In most cases, the use of these procedures for routine evaluation of bridges is not economically feasible. The ultimate member capacity shall be a lower bound of the ultimate capacity in shear or in flexure. Different methods for considering the observable effects of deterioration were studied in developing the guidelines. The most reliable method available still appears to be a reduction in the nominal resistance based on measured or estimated losses in cross-sectional area and/or material strengths. An alternate approach is to calculate resistance based on plan dimensions and use a smaller capacity reduction factor. Nominal resistances for members in the proposed guidelines are based on the load factor section, Chapter 3: Load Requirements. This resistance depends on both the current dimensions of the section and the nominal material strength. Specifications for both these factors have been provided. Options exist for incorporating data on structural conditions obtained from the site. Careful estimation of losses and deterioration are awarded a higher resistance factor. Similar gains are also given for vigorous maintenance and inspection schedules, which may prevent further deterioration during a normal inspection interval. Options also exist for obtaining more precise material strength through tests. Structural Steel Nominal unit stresses must depend on the type of steel used in the structural member. When tests are performed to assess yield stress, the mean values shall be reduced by 10% to produce nominal values for strength calculations. Nominal values shall be nominal strength computed without any resistance factor applied. Distribution of Loads The fraction of vehicle load effect transferred to a single member shall be selected in accordance with Chapter 3: Load Requirements. These values represent a possible combination of adverse circumstances. The option exists to substitute field measured values, analytically calculated values or those determined from advanced structural analysis methods utilizing the properties of the existing span(s). Loadings shall be placed in positions causing the maximum response. Further, if such a measurement or analysis is made and the expected distribution value is obtained, then this shall be adjusted by the factors shown in Table 14-4.
Page 14-15
Chapter 14
The latter are needed to adjust for the expected bias in distribution factors for different material types. Distribution of Loads 1 2 3 4 AASHTO Distribution, Chapter 13 Tabulated analysis with simplified assumptions** Refined analysis: finite elements, orthotropic plate, grillage analogy Field measurements Correction Factor Steel 1.00 1.10 1.07 1.03 Prestressed 1.00 1.05 1.03 1.01 Concrete 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.90
Actual girder distribution shall be multiplied by the appropriate correction factors to obtain the girder distribution for rating.
* Correction factors are applied if average or expected values are used for R.F. from analysis or measurements. The correction factor shall be used to increase the load factor taken from Table 14-5. ** These correction factors reflect the bias in present Vol. I distribution factors for each material type.
Table 14-4 Correction Factor for Analysis* Lateral distribution refers to the fraction of the live load carried by the member under consideration. Methods in Chapter 3: Load Requirements shall be followed. Options exist for using tabulated values, more refined analysis (e.g. finite elements) and field measurements. Each of these options involves a greater level of effort and more accuracy, so adjustments to the basic live load factors are provided. These adjustments implicitly recognize that more refined analysis may in some instances remove the implicit conservativeness present in some simplified distribution formulas and are therefore treated accordingly. Selection of Load and Resistance Factors The statistics of the dead load, live load and resistances have been determined from existing data. Based on this data, the safety implicit in current designs has been determined. The load and resistance factors provided ensures that this acceptable level of safety is achieved or exceeded. Load Factors The load factors shall be taken from Table 14-5. These are intended to represent conditions existing at the time this specification is written based on field data obtained from a variety of locations using weight-in-motion and other data gathering methods. The live load factor accounts for the likelihood of extreme loads side-by-side and following in the same lane and the possibility of overloaded vehicles. Since one aim of this chapter is to protect the investment in the bridge structure, the live load factors do recognize the presence of

overweight trucks on many highways. An option to reflect effective overload enforcement is contained herein with a reduced live load factor. The presence of illegal loads has also been noted, and if such vehicles are present in large numbers at the site, the higher load factors may lead to unacceptable ratings and enforcement efforts should be instituted. Loading Dead Load
Allow an additional allowance of 20% on overlay thickness if nominal thicknesses are used. No allowance is needed when measurements are made for thickness.
Load Factor D = 1.2
Live Load Category 1 2 Low volume roadways (ADTT less than 1000), reasonable enforcement and apparent control of overloads Heavy volume roadways (ADTT greater than 1000), reasonable enforcement and apparent control of overloads (not common in Ethiopia) Low volume roadways (ADTT less than 1000), significant sources of overloads without effective enforcement (common in Ethiopia) Heavy volume roadways (ADTT greater than 1000), significant sources of overloads without effective enforcement D = 1.30 L = 1.45
3 4
L = 1.65 L = 1.80
If unavailable from traffic data, estimates for ADTT shall be made from ADT as follows: urban areas, ADTT = 25% of ADT; rural areas, ADTT - 50% of ADT. In the absence of accurate data on overloads, it shall be assumed that 30% of the trucks in Ethiopia exceed the local legal gross weigh limits.
Table 14-5 Load Factors When the Rating Factor (R.F.) is less than 1.0, the loads are to be restricted. In such instances, consideration should be given to truck weight surveys and vigorous enforcement programs. If there is a reason to believe that truck posting signs are being ignored then consideration should be given to further raising the live load factor. Dead load factors are used to account for variations in dimensions, unit weights and methods of calculating dead load effect. The variation in the dead load of different components will depend on the accuracy with which the components can be manufactured and/or measured. Factory produced girders cast in steel forms obviously have less variation than an asphalt overlay placed on the bridge deck. The higher dead load factor for asphalt recognizes the greater uncertainty in overlay thickness. Live load factors have been provided to account for the large uncertainty of the maximum live load effects on a structure over a period of time. A large amount of filed data has been modeled to estimate the maximum live load effect together with its uncertainty. Based on this data, degree of enforcement, volume and type of traffic are isolated as the major factors influencing the live load effect. The live load factors have been derived from this data for
Ethiopian Roads Authority Page 14-17
Chapter 14
bridges with a single lane, two lanes and three and four lanes. Instead of providing different sets of load factors for different numbers of lanes, only one set of load factors are provided with corresponding reduction factors for other cases. Three categories of live load are provided in Table 14-5 with varying volumes and degrees of enforcement, each with its corresponding live load factor. Site truck traffic data recorded by the engineer may also be included. Resistance Factors A capacity reduction factor () is included in the basic rating equation to account for variation in the calculated resistance. It takes into consideration the dimensional variations of the structure, differences in material properties, current condition and future deterioration, and the inaccuracies in the theory for calculating resistance. The resistance factors or capacity reduction factors in Chapter 3: Load Requirements are intended for new components with current methods of high quality control. The nominal (unfactored) strengths to be used for evaluation represent an estimate of strength using data pertaining to member properties and conditions at the time of inspection. The resistance factor shall consider both the uncertainties in estimating these member properties and also any bias or conservativeness deliberately introduced into these estimates. Because further changes may occur to the section during the inspection interval, there is some dependence of these properties on the quality of maintenance. Also, the level and detail of inspection is important since it may reveal actual properties to be used in section calculations. The resistance factors for members in good condition are shown in Table 14-6, section I. The influence of deterioration, inspection and maintenance are given in section II, III and IV of this table. A table of resistance factors for all combinations of conditions encountered is given in Table 14-7. A flow chart for obtaining the resistance factors is also presented in Figure 14-6. A basic set of resistance factors is provided. The reliability levels are calibrated to produce different resistance factors for redundant and non-redundant spans with the latter having lower (more conservative) factors. The resistance factors can be further modified depending on the amount of deterioration and type of inspection and maintenance. Options exist for conducting detailed measurements of strength losses. Also included are benefits for vigorous maintenance schedules. This allows the evaluation to be flexible enough and also covers a large range of types and conditions of members that shall be encountered. Calculation of Rating Factors (RF) The rating factor is to be calculated from Equation 14.1. If it exceeds 1.0, the span is satisfactory for the legal loads in Ethiopia. In the present Bridge Design Specifications, there is only one single rating value (eliminating the operating and inventory levels) which determines the allowable loads.
Page 14-18

START
Check Redundancy No = 0.80
Yes
= 0.95 steel P/S = 0.90 R.C.
None
Any Deterioration ? Some = - 0.1
Heavy
= - 0.2
How good is inspection ? Estimated = - 0.0
Careful
= + 0.05
Type of maintenance Intermittent = - 0.05
Vigorous
= + 0.05
is > 0.95 ? Yes = 0.95
No
Figure 14-6 Flowchart for Selecting Resistance Factors
Page 14-19
Chapter 14
Resistance Factors - Good condition Nominal resistance equations are to be those indicated in Chapter 3: Load Requirements. Resistance (capacity reduction) factors are to be applied to the following for the case where members are in good condition. Redundant * Steel Members: = 0.95; Nonredundant Steel Members: = 0.80; Prestressed concrete beams: = 0.95; Reinforced concrete beams: = 0.90; Influence of Deterioration 1. Where field inspection and condition survey reports indicate no deterioration, the provisions of this section should not be used. 2. Where field inspection and condition survey reports indicate slight deterioration with some possible loss of section, the resistance factor values above shall be decreased by 0.1. 3 Where field inspection and condition surveys report significant deterioration and heavy section loss, the resistance factor values shall be reduced by 0.2. 4 If such information is not available then bridge records shall be used. Reduce the resistance factor values by 0.1 for superstructure condition of 5 or 6. Reduce the resistance factor values by 0.2 for a superstructure condition of 4 or less. If these reductions are made then the next two sections should be omitted.
II
III
Inspection* 1 Where field inspection and condition survey reports indicate no deterioration, the provisions of this section should not be used. 2 Where section losses have been carefully estimated in the calculation of remaining section areas the resistance factors shall be increased by 0.05. 3 Where material yield stress has been estimated by physical testing, a mean value of 0.90 shall be used for calculating strength together with the resistance factor contained in the design rules.
IV
Maintenance** 1 Where maintenance activity is vigorous and likely to correct deficiencies which may lead to further section loss, increase by 0.05. 2 Where maintenance activity is intermittent and may not correct defects that have lead to section loss, decrease by 0.05.
*Examples of redundant members include parallel stringers (three or more), parallel eye bars (four or more). Example of nonredundant component includes two-girder system(s) and trusses with single members. ** In no instance shall be taken to exceed 0.95.
Table 14-6 Resistance Factors vs. Condition
Page 14-20

Superstructure Condition
Redundancy Yes x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x No
Inspection Careful x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Estimated
Maintenance Vigorous x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Intermittent
Steel, P/S Concrete 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.75 0.85 0.75 0.95 0.85 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.75 0.65 0.85 0.75 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.65 0.55
Reinforced Concrete 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.70 0.90 0.80 0.85 0.75 0.80 0.70 0.75 0.65 0.80 0.70 0.75 0.65 0.70 0.60 0.65 0.55
Good or Fair
Deteriorated
Heavily Deteriorated
Note : For ratings using data obtained from plans only, the capacity reduction factor should be calculated based on judgment of the engineer supplemented by any additional information obtained.
Table 14-7 Resistance Factors for All Conditions The load and resistance factors have been calibrated to provide adequate safety under the inspection, maintenance, analysis, redundancy, and loading conditions cited. These provisions have the capability for evaluations to be improved by utilizing options related to more intensive inspection and maintenance or control of heavy overloads. The rating factors obtained herein may also safely be applied to permit loadings. In some instances where a permit might otherwise be rejected, the live load factors contained herein shall be reduced to reflect known weight conditions associated with the permit vehicle. This reduction in load factor may depend on the degree of control of the permit and the number of
Chapter 14
permits that shall be issued. Fatigue life should be a consideration in the issuance of overload permits (Ref. 2).
Number of Lanes One or two lanes Three lanes Four lanes
Reduction Factor 1.0 0.8 0.7
Table 14-8 Reduction Factors for Live Load 14.4 NUMERICAL EXAMPLES As an example, an existing reinforced concrete bridge and a steel bridge are rated by the proposed procedures. Example 1 Reinforced Concrete Resistance: Mu = Asfy (d a/2) fy = 225 Mpa Table 14-3 d = 670 mm As = 4440 mm2 Dead load effect: Span = 7,930 mm Asphalt = 45 kNm
fc = 21 MPa a = 29 mm Mu = 670 kNm Other = 124 kNm
Live load effect: I = 1.1 (assuming smooth deck surface) S = 2,000 mm g = 2000 = 1.09 1830
MLL = 254 (1.09) (1.1) = 152 kNm (Legal Truck No 3) 2 Proposed procedure: = 0.95 (good condition, vigorous maintenance) R.F. = (0.95) (670) (1.2) (124) (1.44) (45) = 2.79 L (152) L Assuming enforced, heavy volume traffic: Existing ratings : I = 1 + 50 1.3 26 + 125 MLL = 254 (1.09) (1.3) = 180 kNm 2 L = 1.45 and R.F. = 1.92 = 1.3
Page 14-22

Operating rating = (0.9) (670) (1.3) (124 + 45) = 1.64 (1.3) (180)
Inventory rating 0.6 x 1.64 = 0.99
Proposed rating = 1.92 (Legal Truck No.3)
Remarks: the proposed rating is higher than existing rating for traffic category 2 (the calibration category) but will be lower than existing operating ratings for heavier traffic categories. For a deteriorated section (say 10% loss in strength) and heavy traffic, the proposed rating can fall to existing inventory levels. See below: = 0.80 (for deteriorated section) Mu = 670 kNm L = 1.80 (unreinforced, heavy volume traffic) RF = (0.80) (670) (1.2) (124) (1.44) (45) = 0.99 (1.80) (180) Example 2 Steel Floor beam of a thru truss Resistance: Rn = 363 kNm = 0.85 (non-redundant; vigorous maintenance) Dead load effect: Asphalt = 56 kNm, Remaining = 35 kNm
Live load effect: Impact = 1.1 (smooth surface and approaches) Live load effect = 161 kNm (Legal Truck No 3) Proposed procedure: Assuming enforced, light volume traffic, L = 1.3 RF = (0.85) (363) (1.2) (56) (1.44) (35) = 0.91 (1.30) (161) Existing ratings: Impact = 1.3
Operating R.F. = 363 1.3 (56 + 35) = 0.99 (1.3) (1.3) (146) Inventory R.F. = 0.60
Remarks: The proposed procedure gives lower rating factors than existing operating ratings because of the non-redundancy. However, this rating factor is higher than current inventory ratings.
Page 14-23
Chapter 14
14.5 MASONRY ARCH BRIDGE RATING 14.5.1 GENERAL This subchapter is to be used in the assessment of highway arch bridges. It covers certain types of structures or structural components where firm criteria cannot be given but where the assessment of structural adequacy involves the exercise of engineering judgment. It also contains details of alternative simple methods of load distribution and arch assessment that, while being conservative, are nevertheless adequate for assessment purposes. Finally it gives advice on ways of remedying the various defects that are found in different types of structure. Although this subchapter is advisory in nature, the principles and methods given shall be deemed to satisfy relevant criteria. 14.5.2 SCOPE This subchapter provides a simple method of load distribution and an empirical method and a simple computerized method of arch assessment. It covers the assessment of structures which cannot be treated by normal calculation methods, and the maintenance of the various different types of structure. Each of these items is discussed more fully in the following paragraphs. This subchapter should be used forthwith for assessments of load carrying capacity of all road bridges and other arch structures in Ethiopia. Load Distribution Graphs of load distribution factors are given for estimating the loads carried by internal and external girders of decks composed of longitudinal beams with certain specified forms of deck construction between them. The factors are only intended for use with the type of loading specified Chapter 3: Load Requirements, but can be used for determining both bending moments and shearing forces. Equivalent axle loads are given to enable the direct determination of bending moments and shearing forces in internal and external girders of decks composed of transverse beams with certain specified forms of deck construction between them. The use of these simple methods is both quick and simple and while they are believed to give conservative results their use is recommended where applicable before more sophisticated and accurate methods are tried. Modified MEXE Method of Arch Assessment The modified MEXE method for arch assessment given in this subchapter is a comprehensive method for determining the carrying capacity of single span stone and masonry arches in terms of allowable axle weights. The method as such is concerned solely with the strength of the arch barrel and takes account of the materials, various defects and geometric proportions which affect the strength of the arch. Factors are also given to take account of the effects of multiple axles.

Substructures, Foundations and Retaining Walls Advice is given for qualitative assessment of dry-stone walls, retaining walls, spandrel walls of arches, sub-structures and foundations which cannot be assessed by mathematical means because of the number of unknown parameters involved and their complex behaviour. The advice draws the attention of the engineer to the various defects likely to be found in them and comments on their structural significance. However, ultimately a satisfactory assessment of such structures depends upon the correct interpretations of the physical observations and the exercise of engineering judgement supported by local knowledge. Maintenance Many structures that have been damaged or have deteriorated in various ways can be restored to their original load carrying capacity by carrying out fairly straightforward maintenance. Advice is given on the importance of the various defects and the remedial measures that can be taken to alleviate them. All types of structure within the scope of this subchapter are considered for this purpose. 14.5.3 RATING OF MASONRY ARCH BRIDGES BY THE MODIFIED MEXE METHOD Scope This section deals with the assessment of the strength of the ARCH BARREL ONLY. The strength of the bridge shall be affected by the strength of the spandrel walls, wingwalls, foundations etc. These items are dealt with in later sections of this subchapter. The modified MEXE shall be used to estimate the carrying capacity of arches spanning up to 18m, but for spans over 12m it becomes increasingly conservative compared to other methods. The method should not be used where the arch is flat or appreciably deformed. Span Ap Longitudinal Member Transverse Member Edge Girders Only Supported by Parapet Girders Up to and including 6m 1.0 0.9 Over 6m and up to and 0.9 Centrifugal effect shall including 9m be neglected Over 9m and up to and 0.8 including 12 m Over 12m and up to and 0.7 including 15m Table 14-9: Centrifugal Distribution Factor Ap
Page 14-25
Chapter 14
Method of Assessment The assessment of the arch barrel (adapted from Ref. 4), is based on the results of past experience. It has been found to give satisfactory results for the range of vehicles present; but its extrapolated use for heavier vehicles, or for spans greater than 18m should be treated with caution. It is to be applied primarily to single span arches. The initial assessment is in terms of a maximum allowable axle load on an axle forming part of a double axle truck. Factors are given in later section Application for converting this result to other axle configurations and for situations where axle 'lift-off' may occur on the axle of a multiple axle truck. Theory The long-term strength of a stone or masonry arch is almost impossible to calculate accurately and recourse has, therefore, been made to an empirical formula based on the arch dimensions. The arch is first assumed parabolic in shape with span/rise ratio of 4, soundly built in good quality stonework, with well pointed joints, to be free from cracks, and to have adequate abutments. For such an idealized arch, a provisional assessment is obtained from a nomogram (Figure 14-7) or from the formula given in 14.7. This provisional assessment is then modified by factors which allow for the way in which the actual arch differs from the ideal. Survey of Arch The arch should be inspected in accordance with provisions mentioned earlier in this chapter, and the following dimensions measured as shown in Figure 14-8: i. The span ..........................................................................................................L (m) (in the case of skew spans, measure L parallel to the principal axis of the arch) ii. The rise of the arch barrel at the crown ...........................................................rc (m) iii. The rise of the arch barrel at the quarter points ...............................................rq (m) iv. The thickness of the arch barrel adjacent to the keystone (see following text) d (m) v. The average depth of fill, at the quarter points of the transverse road profile, between the road surface and the arch barrel at the crown, including road surfacing... h (m) The following information will also be required to derive the various modifying factors: Type of material used for the arch barrel Types of construction of the barrel i.e. are the stones laid in courses or laid at random? Condition of materials in the barrel, i.e. is there a lot of spalling and are the stones sound or are they deteriorating due to weathering'? Deformation of the arch barrel from its original shape Positions of dropped stones and the amount of drop Width, length, number and positions of cracks Type of filling above the arch and its condition Position and size of services Width of mortar joints Depth of mortar missing from joints Condition of joint mortar

Figure 14-7: Nomogram for Determining the Provisional Axle Loading of Masonry Arch Bridges before Factoring
Page 14-27
Chapter 14
The appropriate measurements should be taken so that the arch barrel thickness shall be adjusted to allow for missing mortar (see Table 14-14) and to allow or any services laid through the arch barrel.
Figure 14-8: Arch Dimensions Radial displacement of individual stones, especially near the crown when there is little cover, should be particularly noted. Displacement shall be due to uneven masonry projecting above the barrel and being subjected to concentrated loads or a hard spot such as a pipe flange bearing directly on the arch. The damage is usually localized and not serious if dealt with before it has progressed too far. If, however, there are a number of stones displaced, then this should be taken into account, and the thickness of the arch barrel adjusted accordingly. Note should be taken of any evidence of separation of the arch rings, particularly with regard to any additional rings which have been constructed in later years, and due account should be taken in the value assumed for the arch barrel thickness. Provisional Assessment The provisional axle loading PAL is obtained by reference to the nomogram in Figure 14-7. Mark the arch span L on Column A and the total crown thickness (d + h) (barrel and fill) on Column B. Line through these points to Column C, and read off the provisional axle loading assessment in tonnes. Alternatively, the provisional axle loading shall be obtained by substituting the values of (d + h) and L in the following expression: PAL = 740 (d + h)2 L 1.3
Page 14-28
or 70 whichever is less
(14.7)

This expression has been derived from the nomogram and is and should only be used within the limits given in Figure 14-7. The provisional axle load obtained is then modified by the modifying factors and the condition factor in the following text. Modifying Factors Span/Rise Factor (Fsr). Flat arches are not as strong under a given loading as those of steeper profile, and the provisional assessment must, therefore, be adjusted. A span/rise ratio of 4 and less is assumed to give optimum strength and has a factor of 1. When the span/rise ratio is greater than 4, reference should be made to the graph in Figure 14-9 which gives the appropriate span/rise factor Fsr for the different ratios. Profile Factor (Fp). There is evidence that elliptical arches are not as strong as segmental and parabolic arches of similar span/rise ratio and barrel thickness. The ideal profile has been taken to be parabolic and for this shape the rise at the quarter points, rq = 0.75rc, where rc is the rise at the crown.
Figure 14-9: Span/Rise Factor
Page 14-29
Chapter 14
The profile factor Fp for ratios of rq/rc less than or equal to 0.75 should be taken to be unity, and for ratios greater than 0.75 should be calculated from the expression:
Fp= 2 .3 rc rq rc
0.6
(14.8)
For convenience this has been plotted in Figure 14-10. Material Factor (Fm). The material factor is obtained from the following formula:
Fm = (Fb * d ) + (Fj * h ) d+h
(14.9) Appropriate values of the barrel factor Fb and the fill factor Ff can be obtained from Tables 14-10 and 14-11 respectively.
Figure 14-10: Profile Factor
Page 14-30

Arch Barrel
Granite whether random or coursed and all built-in-course masonry except limestone, all with large shaped stones Concrete or engineering bricks and similar sized masonry (not limestone)* Limestone, whether random or coursed, good random masonry and building bricks, all in good condition. Masonry of any kind in poor condition (many stones flaking or badly spalling, shearing etc). Some discretion is permitted if the dilapidation is only moderate. *Concrete arches will normally be of relatively recent construction and their should be based on the design calculations if these are available. Table 14-10: Barrel Factor Filling Concrete* Grouted materials (other than those with a clay content) Well compacted materials Weak materials evidenced by tracking of the carriageway surface
Barrel Factor (Fb) 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.7
assessment
Fill Factor (Fr) 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5
*The fill factor for concrete is less than the barrel factor to allow for possible lack of bond to the arch. When assessing an arch, unless details of the fill are known or there is evidence of weakness from the condition of the road surface, it is recommended that this factor be adopted. If the arch then requires a restriction, further investigation should be made to see if the strength shall be increased.
Table 14-11: Fill Factor An arch which is constantly wet, or shows signs that damp often penetrates, is unlikely to have suffered deterioration from this cause alone unless the seepage contains reactive chemicals which may have affected the materials of construction; in this case allowance should be made in the value taken for the barrel factor. Some local damage shall be offset by evidence that the structure was built with good materials and workmanship. Such evidence would be: i. Durable masonry set in its correct bed; ii. Well-shaped durable stone; iii. Correct bonding of stonework or masonry with regular and narrow joints; iv. Original documents showing liberal hunching at the abutments and a good specification. Note should be taken of any leaching of the fill material over the arch due to the presence of water and this should be allowed for in the fill factor. Joint Factor (Fj). The strength and stability of the arch barrel depend, to a large extent, on the size and condition of the joints. Lime mortar is commonly used in bridge construction, particularly on old bridges, and, although it is softer than cement mortar, and has a lower
Chapter 14
strength, this is compensated for by better joint-filling properties and good distributing power under load. The joint factor Fj is obtained from the following formula: Fj = Fw*Fd*Fmo (14.10)
Appropriate values for Fw and Fmo can be obtained from Tables 14-12 and 14-13 respectively. The depth Factor Fd shall be taken as 1.0 for pointed joints in good condition. In the case of insufficiently filled joints, it is recommended that if the depth of missing mortar can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, the thickness of the arch barrel should be reduced by this amount. When this is not appropriate, the depth factor Fd shall be taken from Table 14-14. Width of Joint Joints with widths up to 6mm Joints with widths between 6mm and 12.5mm Joints with widths over 12.5mm Width Factor (Fw) 1.0 0.9 0.8
Table 14-12: Width Factor Condition of Joint Mortar in good condition Loose or friable mortar Mortar Factor (Fmo) 1.0 0.9
Table 14-13: Mortar Factor Construction of Joint Depth Factor (Fd) Unpointed joints, pointing in poor condition and joints with up 0.9* to12.5mm from the edge insufficiently filled Joints with from 12.5mm to one tenth of the thickness of the barrel 0.8* insufficiently filled Joints insufficiently filled for more than one tenth the thickness of At the engineers the barrel discretion
* Interpolation between these values is permitted, depending upon the extent and position of the joint deficiency. Instead of using this depth factor, it is preferable to reduce the barrel thickness by the amount of missing mortar (see Joint Factor text above).
Table 14-14: Depth Factor Condition Factor General The estimation of the preceding factors is based on quantitative information obtainable from a close inspection of the structure, but the factor for the condition of the bridge depends much more on an objective assessment of the importance of the various cracks and deformations which shall be present and how far they shall be counter-balanced by indications of good material and workmanship. A quantitative estimate of the arch barrel

condition factor Fc should be made by the engineer, the value selected being between 0 and 1.0. A low factor should be taken for a bridge in poor condition while 1.0 shall be taken for an arch barrel in good condition with no defects. It is important that the engineer dissociates the "condition factor" from the "material factor" and the "joint factor" as these are dealt with separately, as indicated in the previous text. Guidance on the choice of condition factor is given in the following text. Lower values than those in the suggested changes shall be taken for an arch in a particularly poor state. When an unsound arch barrel supports a large depth of fill, a lower value of the condition factor should be taken than that based solely on the other arch deficiencies. The condition factor of the arch, and hence its carrying capacity, can often be improved by carrying out fairly minor repairs. These repairs are distinct from more elaborate strengthening methods. Cracks or Deformations Cracks or deformations which may have occurred soon after the bridge was built are not usually as serious as those which are recent, and show clean faces, possibly with loose fragments of masonry. A further important point is whether the deterioration is progressive; where this is suspected, frequent careful observations shall be necessary before arriving at a final assessment. Cracks may on occasion be formed in the mortar only and it is important that cracking and joint deficiencies should not be confused with each other. Defects It is also important to differentiate between those defects which affect the load carrying capacity of the arch barrel and other defects which do not affect the load carrying capacity of the barrel but can affect the stability of the road surface. These are elaborated in the following text. Defects Affecting the Stability and Load Carrying Capacity of the Arch Barrel Ranges of condition factors are given below for crack patterns resulting from specific causes. The choice of factor is made from a critical determination of the size, shape and importance of the various defects. The overall figure representing several defects should be based on the relative importance of the worst type of defect present. It will not necessarily be derived by multiplying the factors for several separate defects together: i. Longitudinal cracks due to differential settlement in the abutments. These are dangerous if large, i.e. > 3mm, because they indicate that the barrel has broken up into independent sections. If the indications are that the barrel is breaking up into 1.0m sections or less, then a factor of 0.4 or below should be used. A higher factor should be used for crack spacings greater than 1.0m. ............................................. ..........................................................................Range of condition factors, 0.4-0.6. ii. Lateral cracks or permanent deformation of the arch which shall be caused by partial failure of the arch or movement at the abutments. These faults can be accompanied by a dip in the parapet which shall be more easily observed. ................................... ..........................................................................Range of condition factors, 0.6-0.8.
Chapter 14
iii.
iv.
Diagonal cracks. These normally start near the sides of the arch at the springings and spread up towards the center of the barrel at the crown. They are probably due to subsidence at the sides of the abutment. Extensive diagonal cracks indicate that the barrel is in a dangerous state. ........................... Range of condition factors, 0.3-0.7. Cracks in the spandrel walls near the quarter points. These frequently indicate flexibility of the arch barrel over the center half of the span. .Condition factor 0.8.
Unfavorable Defects Not Affecting the Stability of the Arch Barrel The unfavorable defects which do not affect the stability of the arch barrel but may affect the stability of the road surface are indicated below, with a description of their significance: i. Longitudinal cracks near the edge of the arch barrel are signs of movement between the arch and spandrel or bulging of the spandrel, caused by the lateral spread of the fill exerting an outward force on the spandrels. This is a frequent source of weakness in old arch bridges and the proximity of the carriageway to the parapet should be taken into account when assessing its importance ii. Movement or cracking of the wingwalls is another common source of weakness in old bridges and occurs for similar reasons to i. above iii. Where the bridge consists of multi-span arches and the strength of intermediate piers is in doubt the structure should be examined for cracks and deformation arising from any weakness in the piers. Condition Factor Less Than 0.4 Where the condition factor is less than 0.4, immediate consideration should be given to the repair or reconstruction of the bridge. Application The span/rise profile, material, joint and condition factors should be applied together with the provisional axle loading obtained as in Provisional Assessment above in order to determine the modified axle load which represents the allowable loading on the arch from a double axle truck configuration with no lift-off from any axle. MODIFIED AXLE LOAD = Fsr*Fp*Fm*Fj*Fc*PAL (14.11)
The unrounded value of this modified axle load should be multiplied by the appropriate axle factors from Figure 14-11 to give the allowable axle loads for single and multiple axles. The capacity of arches should be determined in terms of gross vehicle weights from Table 14-15 in accordance with following subsection Load Capacity and Weight Restriction. It should be noted that these allowable axle loads may not represent the strength of the bridge as a whole. This shall be affected by the strength of the spandrel walls, wingwalls, foundations, etc, as mentioned previously. Should the strength of any of these items be
Page 14-34

assessed as being lower than the barrel strength, then the lowest value should be taken as the strength of the bridge as a whole. Axle Lift-off The axle factors given in Figure 14-11 cover two situations. The first, the 'no lift-off' case, is the more usual when all the wheels of the vehicle are assumed to be in contact with the road surface at all times.
a) No axle Lift-Off
b) with Axle Lift-Off Figure 14-11: Conversion of Modified Axle Loads to Single Double and Triple Axles
Chapter 14
The 'lift-off' case relates to circumstances when an axle of a double or triple axle truck lose contact, either partially or completely, with the road surface and transfers some of its load to the other axles in the truck. Examples of the circumstances which may bring about this phenomenon are given below and the road condition should be inspected to determine whether or not 'lift-off' should be taken into account. The presence of any of the following conditions could lead to the adoption of a 'lift-off' case: i. ii. iii. Vertical road alignment with a small radius of curvature, e.g., a humped back bridge. Arch located at the bottom of a hill or on a straight length of road where approach speeds are likely to be high. Irregularities in road surface on the arch. Allowable Axle Load (tonnes) Single Double Triple 11.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 5.5 10 9.5 9 8* Max Gross Vehicle Weight (gvw)(tonnes) 40 32.5 24.5 17 7.5 Weight Restriction (Tonnes) N/A 33 25 17 7.5 Type of Vehicle 5 axles 4 axles 3 axles 2 axles 4WD
Table 14-15: Load Capacity and Gross Vehicle Weight Restrictions for Masonry Arches Effects of Multiple Axles and Derivation of Axle Factors Introduction The modified MEXE method for arch assessment makes use of a nomogram from which it is possible to derive, for a particular arch, a provisional allowable axle load of an axle forming part of a double axle truck. This load is then modified by various factors to allow for the shape of the arch, construction materials, dimensions of the arch barrel and any defects. However because a proportion of heavy vehicles now have triple axles, a simple method of relating the effect of different axle configurations to double axles is needed so that the carrying capacity of the arch can be derived for all types of vehicle. Theory Examination of the stress influence lines for typical arches reveals the following: i. at positions away from the crown there is little difference in the influence line shapes between a 2 pinned and a 3 pinned arch, ii. for a 2 pinned arch the dead load bending moment increases the live load moment at the 1/3 point but relieves the moment at the crown.
Page 14-36

iii.
peak values for stress in the arch ring for both 2 and 3 pinned arches occur under a concentrated load placed between about 0.1 and 0.35 of the span away from a springing point.
These observations led to the conclusion that the critical position for comparing the effects of different axle configurations could be taken as the 1/3 point. Examination of the influence lines also shows that the influence line for maximum stress at the 1/3 point is very similar in shape to that for the mid-point bending moment of a simply supported beam of span equal to half the arch span. Thus there is a simple method of comparing the effects of different axle configurations by comparing the bending moments due to the different loading configurations on a simply supported beam whose length is equal to half the arch span. Axle Factors The comparisons between single and multiple axles have been done as outlined above for single axle and 2 and 3 axle trucks whose weights and spacing represent the extremes of those allowable. The basis of the method has been a comparison of the existing configurations with the double axle truck that was used in the derivation of the MEXE nomogram. Two sets of comparisons have been undertaken, which consider the no lift-off and lift-off cases. The no lift-off case assumes equal distribution of loading between the axles of the truck. The lift-off case was considered because, although trucks are fitted with compensating mechanisms to share the load between all the axles, it was felt that some allowance should be made for possible axle lift-off which could occur for example at the crown of a sharply humped bridge. Recent research has indicated that for three axle trucks the load transfer takes place between the two outer axles, the center axle weight remaining constant. Accordingly for the three axle lift-off case half the weight of one of the axles has been transferred to the other outer axle. For two axle trucks it has been assumed that half the weight of one axle is transferred to the other axle. It was found that the extreme effects of the 2 axle configurations also covered the 3 axle trucks up to 22.5 tonnes. The worst case results for single axles and two axle configurations are therefore shown in Figure 14-11 where the axle factors are plotted against the arch span. However, the vehicle fleet can include heavier 3 axle configurations of 24 tonnes with air or fluid suspension. Additional factors have therefore been included in Figure 14-11 no liftoff case to enable assessments for the heavier 3 axle trucks to be carried out. These may prove to be the more onerous configuration. These factors are not given in Figure 14-11 lift-off case because the improved compensatory performance of the air or fluid suspension ensures that the effects of the heavier 3 axle trucks are no worse than the 22.5 tonne configuration. Curved Carriageways Where the carriageway on an arch is horizontally curved, an allowance for the effects of any increase vertical loading caused by centrifugal effects should be made by dividing the allowable axle weight by the factor FA. Centrifugal effects shall be ignored when the radius of curvature of the carriageway exceeds 600m.
Page 14-37
Chapter 14
Load Capacity and Weight Restrictions To find the load capacity of an arch, the allowable axle loads determined in accordance with the above methods should first be rounded off to the nearest 0.5 tonnes. The maximum gross weight of the vehicles which the arch can carry is then found from Table 14-15; it is the maximum weight for which both the single and, where applicable, the double axle load calculated for the arch are satisfied. It should be noted that when an arch has allowable axle loads which are equal to or greater than 10.5 tonnes for a single axle and 10 tonnes for a double axle (i.e., 20 tonne truck) no weight restrictions are necessary. It should also be noted that in the case of 5 axle vehicles with gross weights between 32.5 and 38 tonnes it is only necessary to consider the double axle truck configuration, since if this is satisfied any triple axle truck configurations up to 22.5 tonnes are also automatically satisfied. However, heavier triaxles of up 24 tonnes with air or fluid suspensions may also be present. A check should be made to determine whether weight restrictions are needed for these heavier triaxles. Requirements are also given in Table 14-15 to enable arches to be checked for 40 tonne vehicles. When weight restrictions are found necessary the restriction signs will apply to gross weights of vehicles and should be signed for one of the weight restrictions given in Table 14-15. 14.5.4 SPANDREL WALLS The adequacy of spandrel walls and dry stone walls will generally be assessed qualitatively and be based on the results of visual inspection of the structures, including the significance of any defects. The particular details of the two types of wall and the seriousness of the various defects which can occur are described in the following text. Spandrel walls are normally formed from dressed material and suffer the normal problems associated with exposed masonry: weather, loss of pointing, in the joints, etc. In addition deterioration of bridge spandrels is frequently a function of dead and live load lateral forces generated through the bridge infilling or as a result of direct vehicular impact. In both cases some outward movement is caused. Lateral forces may cause the wall to rotate outward from the arch barrel, to slide on the arch barrel, to be displaced bodily outwards whilst taking part of the arch ring with it, or to bulge (see Figure 14-12). Dry-stone spandrel walls are not common. Where they occur there are difficulties which are similar to those of retaining walls, but the effects of live loading are more significant. Spandrel walls are more vulnerable to damage or displacement if no footway exists to restrain vehicles passing close to the side of the bridge. Without footpaths vehicular impact is more likely and the effects of the lateral loading generated by the vehicle through the bridge fill shall be more acute. Poor bridge drainage may also be a feature leading to deterioration of the spandrel, particularly if saturation of the bridge fill occurs. It has been shown that if the fill consists of chiseled, flat stones, the bridge may carry a larger load than if the fill is made from gravel.
Page 14-38

14.5.5 DRY-STONE WALLS Inspection of dry-stone walls reveals that they are normally constructed without recognizable foundations and out of marginal quality material. Only the front face contains dressed masonry, the remainder usually being rubble. Dry-stone walls were constructed as facing walls to vertical or near vertical cuts in unstable or friable material or as free-standing retaining walls. In the latter cases construction and backfilling proceeded together.
Figure 14-12: Spandrel Wall Failures The behavior of dry-stone walls is a function of their method of construction. The absence of mortar results in stone to stone contact and since the stones used in the walls are usually irregular or roughly squared, point contact between stones is common. Contact pressure shall be high especially at the base of tall stones and crushing is often evident. The open nature of a dry-stone wall permits weathering of the face and in the open joints, reducing the area of contact and encouraging further crushing. In addition, percolation of ground water and
Chapter 14
water-borne salts through the wall results in weathering and the leaching of fines from within the structure. Weathering occurs more in some areas of wall than in others, due to the very variable quality of the masonry used. Random weathering and unsatisfactory foundations results in differential settlements, movements and bulging, which induces acute stresses in some elements of the structure, causing cracking, whilst elsewhere stones become loose and shall be dislodged. 14.5.6 ASSESSMENT OF DRY-STONE WALLS Assessment of dry-stone walls consists of regular visual inspection and a comparison with adjacent structures. Qualitative judgments are difficult since conditions will vary greatly with the quality of stone used, age, subsoil conditions, geometry, weathering factors and local expectations. Due attention should be given to local engineering experience. Where past movement or the condition of the structure raises doubts concerning stability, regular monitoring should be introduced. Decisions relating to structural safety and conditions often depend upon engineering instinct, although simple visual aids such as telltales can be useful to determine if the structure is moving or in a temporary equilibrium. 14.5.7 SUBSTRUCTURES, FOUNDATIONS AND RETAINING WALLS The adequacy of a sub-structure, foundation or a retaining wall is usually determined from a qualitative assessment of the general condition of the structure, including the significance of any defects. In carrying out such an assessment, particular attention should be paid to the items described below. Before assessment can proceed, dimensional checks are required on the sub-structure, foundations or retaining wall for preparing sketches for analysis or for confirmation of the 'as-built' drawings. These dimensional checks may require excavation or probing to determine depth and the extent of the sub-structure and foundations. Care must be exercised to ensure that no exploratory work impairs stability or damages underground services. In some instances exploratory excavations, probing or boring may not be practicable prior to assessment. In these cases if an assessment is required conservative estimates may have to be made regarding the probable dimensions of the sub-structure, foundations or retaining wall only upon visual evidence. In many early bridges bearings were omitted, in others only rudimentary forms of bearing were provided. As part of the assessment the existence and efficiency of the bearings should be established. Where no bearings exist or their efficiency is impaired, the ability of a bridge to cater for thermal movements and forces should be considered. Tilting or rotation in any direction of retaining walls and abutments shall be determined using normal survey techniques; if there are any indications of damage due to possible thermal movement this shall be confirmed by using laser techniques.

Flow of water can cause leaching and scour from foundations and sub-structures; any sight of unexpected or unintended water flows should be investigated, the cause established and any resultant deterioration determined. Underwater inspection in slow moving water shall be undertaken by divers, or using flexible dams or cofferdams. The latter may have the advantage of providing dry conditions for repairs should they be required. In fast flowing water or in the rainy season, damming shall be impracticable. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. AASHTO Guide Specifications for Strength Evaluation of Existing Steel and Concrete Bridges, 1989. NCHRP 12-28(3), NCHRP Report 299, USA. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 3: Highway Structures: Inspection and Maintenance, Section 4: Assessment, London, January 1993. Military Engineering Experimental Establishment. "Classification (of Civil Bridges) by the Reconnaissance and Correlation Methods." Christchurch (MEXE), May 1963. Hendry, A. W., and Jaeger, L.G. "The Analysis of Grid Frameworks and Related Structures." Chatto and Windus, 1958 (rept 1969). Thomas F.G., and Short, A. "A Laboratory Investigation of Some Bridge-Deck Systems." I.C.E., March 1952. Pippard A. J. S. "The approximate estimation of safe loads on masonry bridges." Civil Engineer in War, Vol 1, 365. Inst. Civ. Engrs, London, 1948. Bridle, R. J. and Hughes, T. G. An energy method for arch bridge analysis." Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs, London, Part 2, 1990. Heyman J. "The estimation of the strength of masonry arches." -Proc Inst Civ. Engrs, London, Part 2, Dec 1980. MINIPONT User Manual, Highway Engineering Computer Branch, Department of Transport, London, 1975. Page, J. "Assessment of masonry arch bridges." Proceedings of the Institution of Highways and Transportation National Workshop, Leamington Spa, March 1990. Harvey, W. J. Application of the mechanism analysis to masonry arches." The Structural Engineer, Vol 66, No.5, March 1988. Chou, B. S. et al. "Finite-Element analysis of masonry arch bridges using tapered elements." Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs, London, Part 2, Dec 1991.
Page 14-41

Strength Evaluation of Existing Steel Concrete and Masonry Arch Bridges

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Strength Evaluation of Existing Steel Concrete and Masonry Arch Bridges

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chapter 14 Bridge Design Manual - 2002