[Type here]

CHAPTER 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION

As the condition of our nation’s bridges continues to deteriorate, and the weight of trucks
on our highways continues to increase, an ever-growing number of bridges require posted
load limits. It has been estimated that 100,000 bridges in the United states are currently
posted, and another 50,000 bridges should be posted . while these load limits are meant
to ensure the public safety, the time consumed in detouring around a posted bridges
imposes an inconvenience to the travelling publics and a significant financial cost to
society. Furthermore, posted bridge are among those most likely to receive costly repairs
or to be replaced. Because of the associated safety issues and costs, it is important tha
the load carrying capacity of a posted bridge be determined accurately.

According to the ASCE, the average highway bridge was 42 years old in 2013,
approaching the 50-year design life typical of most bridges (ASCE 2013). In 2008,
AASHTO reported that truck miles traveled over bridges had nearly doubled over the
previous 20 years and were expected to continue growing steadily (AASHTO 2008).
Freight volumes were also projected to double by 2025. In addition, approximately 13% of
the nation’s bridges were rated as structurally deficient, while approximately 12% were
considered functionally obsolete (AASHTO 2008). In the AASHTO publication Bridging
the Gap, the researchers observe that “While 50 years ago the nation faced an historic
period of bridge construction, today it faces an historic period of bridge repair and
reconstruction” (AASHTO 2008).

The I-35 W Bridge’s tragic collapse in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on August 1, 2007 spurred
renewed interest and urgency for ensur-ing the safety of the nation’s bridges. In 2008, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiated the Long Term Bridge Perfor-mance
(LTBP) program to improve understanding of bridge perform-ance and promote the safety
[Type here]

and reliability of the nation’s bridges (FHWA 2011). The FHWA also estimated that a capital
investment of $12.8 billion was required annually to maintain current bridge.

Strain data collected on an instrumented bridge during a diagnostic load test can be used
to account for 3D system behavior, unlike the analysis performed using the conventional
approach. A finite-element (FE) model of a bridge, created based on experience and
engineering judgment, can also be used to calculate a load rating. This paper will explore
the use of these advanced load rating tech-niques in comparison with the conventional
method.

Substantial research has been conducted in the fields of load rating, nondestructive testing
(NDT), and finite-element model cal-ibration. Brena˜ et al. (2013) evaluated a damaged
bridge by non-destructive testing methods, using the data collected to identify alternate
load distribution paths caused by girder damage. Schiebel et al. (2002) monitored the
repair of three posted bridges and used diagnostic load testing to confirm the expected
additional capacity after rehabilitation. This data was ultimately used in recommending the
load posting be removed (Schiebel et al. 2002). Chajes et al. (1997) used NDT to
investigate the unintended composite action of a posted bridge, concluding that the load
rating could be in-creased based on the load test data. Yost et al. (2005) used strain data
collected from nondestructive load testing to calibrate a finite-element model. It was
observed that load ratings calculated using the FE model were higher than those
calculated using the conventional method (Yost et al. 2005). The conservatism of the
AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD) distribution factors has been
previously documented (Catbas et al. 2012; Yousif and Hindi 2007; Barr et al. 2001; Yost
et al. 2005). Catbas et al. (2001) load rated a RC T-beam bridge for an HS-20 truck by
load factor rating (LFR) using a variety of methods. The paper discussed the use of fleet
health monitoring using a statistically representative sample of bridges to characterize an
overall population. DeWolf (2009) used short-term field monitoring on deteriorating bridges
to provide the Connecticut DOT with guidance on rehabilitation. The research showed
significant cost savings and demonstrated the feasibility of DOTs effectively employing
field monitoring techniques (DeWolf 2009).
[Type here]

1.2 BRIDGE DISCRIPTION

The steel -girder-and-slab bridge tested in this study was built in 1940. The bridge was
designed for H15 loading ,using steel with a yield strength of 227Mpa . it is located on the
heavily compressive strength of 17.2

FIG 1 Plan and section view of test bridge

1.3 Powder Mill Bridge

The Powder Mill Bridge (PMB) is a three-span continuous composite concrete slab on
steel girder bridge over the Ware River through Vernon Avenue in Barre, Massachusetts,
shown in Fig. 1. Owned by the Town of Barre, the PMB was designed by Fay, Spofford,
and Thorndike (FST) in 2004 for a HS-25 loading using
 [Type here]

FIG 2 Power mill bridge

1.4 Purpose of Load Rating

Above all else, the primary purpose of a load rating is to ensure that every bridge in the
Wisconsin inventory is safe for public use; that it can safely carry legal-weight traffic. The
definition of “legal-weight” is discussed in more detail in 45.2.4 and 45.2.5. When the load
rating for a bridge decreases beyond a certain threshold – when it can no longer safely
carry legal-weight traffic - it may be necessary to restrict heavier loads in order to maintain
safety. This is what is referred to as a load posting and is presented in more detail in 45.10.
There are secondary purposes for maintaining load ratings for every structure in the state.
Some of these include:

 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires a current load rating for each bridge
as a part of the state National Bridge Inventory (NBI) report.

 Load ratings and load rating analysis files are used for the evaluation of over-weight permit
vehicles.
 [Type here]

 Decisions on repair and rehabilitation activities are affected by load ratings.

 Decisions on planning for bridge rehabilitation and replacements are affected by load
ratings.
[Type here]
[Type here]
[Type here]

CHAPTER 2

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW OF LOAD RATING

This section provides a historical perspective on the load rating process. The intent is to
provide a historical context for current load rating and load posting practices in order for
load rating engineers to better understand both AASHTO, FHWA, and WisDOT policies.

What is a Load Rating?

A load rating is the relative measure of a structure’s capacity to carry live load. As standard
practice, FHWA currently requires that two capacity ratings be submitted with the NBI file;
the inventory rating and operating rating. The inventory rating is the load level that a
structure can safely sustain for an indefinite period. The operating rating is the absolute
maximum permissible load level to which a structure may be subjected. As stated above,
a load rating is the relative measure of a structure’s capacity to carry live load. The logical
next question is, “relative to what?” It would be convenient if a simple parameter such as
gross vehicle weight could be used to determine a bridge's capacity. However, the actual
capacity depends on many factors, such as the gross vehicle weight, the axle
configuration, the distribution of loads between the axles, the tire gauge on each axle, etc.
It is a generally accepted principle that a bridge that can carry a given load on two axles
is capable of carrying the same load (or potentially a larger load) spread over several
axles.

2.2 Evolution of Inspection Requirements

[Type here]

In the years following World War II, the United States saw a boom in the construction of
roads and bridges. As we’re aware today, maintaining accurate, up-to-date documentation
on the condition of a bridge is critical to assessing its load carrying capacity; its load rating.
However, during this period of expansion, little emphasis was placed on safety inspections
or maintenance of in-service bridges. This changed with the Silver Bridge collapse,
referenced above. In 1971, the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) were
published, creating national policy regarding inspection procedures, frequency of
inspections, qualifications of inspection personnel, inspection reports, and maintenance
of state bridge inventories.
[Type here]

CHAPTER 3

3.1Load Rating Process

The following section provides direction on general policies and procedures related to the
process for developing a bridge load rating for WisDOT.

3.1.1. Load Rating a New Bridge (New Bridge Construction)

New bridges shall be rated using Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR)
methodology. See 45.3.6 for a discussion on rating methodologies.

3.1.2. When a Load Rating is Required (New Bridge Construction)

It is mandatory for all new bridges to be load rated. Bridges being analyzed for staged
construction shall satisfy the requirements of LRFR for each construction stage. For
staged construction, utilize the same load factors, resistance factors, load combinations,
etc. as required for the final configuration, unless approved by the WisDOT Bureau of
Structures Rating Unit.

3.1.3. Load Rating an Existing (In-Service) Bridge

If an existing bridge was designed using LRFD methodology, it shall be rated using LRFR.
 [Type here]

If an existing bridge was designed using Load Factor Design (LFD) methodology, it shall
be rated using Load Factor Rating (LFR). It is also acceptable to rate using LRFR, but this
shall be approved in advance by the WisDOT Bureau of Structures Rating Unit.

3.2Superstructure

 Steel Girder Structures

Primary elements for rating include girders (interior and exterior), floorbeams (if present),
and stringers (if present). The concrete deck as it relates to any composite action with the
girder (and potentially reinforcing steel in the deck for negative moment applications), is
also part of the primary system. While cross frames are considered primary members in
a curved girder structure or steel tub girder, these members are not considered to be
controlling members, and do not need to be analyzed for load rating purposes. If the
inspection report indicates signs of distortion or buckling, the cross frame shall be
evaluated and the effects on the adjacent girders considered.

Shiplap joints (if present), and pin-and-hanger joints (if present) also may be considered
primary elements. Contact the Bureau of Structures Rating Unit to discuss load ratings for
these elements.

Secondary elements include bolted web or flange splices, cross frames and/or
diaphragms, stringer-to-floorbeam connections (if present), and floorbeam-to-girder
connections (if present).

 Prestressed Concrete Girder Structures

Primary elements for rating include prestressed girders (interior and exterior). The
concrete deck (and potentially reinforcing steel in the deck for negative moment
applications), as it relates to any composite action with the girder, is also part of the
primary system.

Secondary elements include diaphragms.

 [Type here]

 Concrete Slab Structures

Primary elements for rating include the structural concrete slab.

Another primary element for rating could include an integral concrete pier cap, if there is
no pier cap present. This would take the form of increased transverse reinforcement at the
pier, likely combined with a haunched slab design.

 Steel Truss Structures

Primary elements for rating include truss chord members, truss diagonal members, gusset
plates connecting truss chord or truss diagonal members, floor beams (if present), and
stringers (if present). If any panel points of the truss were designed as braced, bracing
members and connections may be considered primary elements.

3.3 Substructure

Substructures generally do not control the load rating. Scenarios where substructure
element conditions may prompt a load rating include, but are not limited to:

3.3.1.1.1 Collision or impact damage

3.3.1.1.2 Substructure components with significant deterioration, particularly those

with a lack of redundancy

3.3.1.1.3 Scour, undermining, or settlement which may affect a footing’s bearing

capacity or a column’s unbraced length
 [Type here]

3.4 Bridge Load Rating

Load rating is used to quantify the live load capacity of a bridge. A rating of 1.0 or higher
means the bridge can safely carry the vehicle it was rated for. Each structural component
is rated individually, with the lowest individual component rating controlling the overall load
rating of the bridge. There are two different levels of load rat-ing, as follows: (1) inventory,
and (2) operating. The inventory rat-ing level represents the routine live load capacity that
the bridge can support over an indefinite period of time.

BRIDGE RATING

Since FEM of the center span that accurately simulates the measured response has been
established , the bridges can now be load- rated. However, because the applied load was
limited to a 223 KN truck ,two important decisions regarding modeling assumptions need
to be made to extrapolate results to higher loads . these decisions are
1. Whether unitended composite action should be counted on at the higher loads
2. Whether support restraint should be maintained at the higher loads. However , before a
final decision is made, it is useful to see how various answers to these questions affect
the computed load-carrying capacity of the bridge.
[Type here]

To evaluate the effects of unintended composite action and partial

[Type here]

To find load rating

Where C= member capacity based on a specific stress limit

D= maximum stress developer due to dead loads

L=max stress developed due to live loads

I= impact factor

COMPUTED RATING FACTORS

 [Type here]

Federal Bridge Formula

In the late 1950s, AASHTO conducted an extensive series of field tests to study the effects
of truck traffic on pavements and bridges. Based on these tests and an extensive structural
analysis effort, the Federal Bridge Formula was developed. The formula is intended to
limit the weights of shorter trucks to levels which will limit the overstress in well-maintained
bridges designed with HS-20 loading to about 3% and in well-maintained HS-15 bridges
to about 30%. While often displayed in table format, the actual formula is as follows.

LN

W = 500{�N − 1� + 12N + 36}

Where: W = the maximum weight in pounds that can be carried on a group of two or more axles
to the nearest 500 lbs.

L = the spacing in feet between the outer axles of any two or more axles N = the number
of axles being considered
[Type here]

FIG 3.4 Data acquisition system

[Type here]

3.5 CURRENT RATING FACTOR

 [Type here]

CHAPTER 4

4.1 BRIDGE TESTING

 The better evaluate the load carrying capacity of the bridge, a nondestructive field test
was conducted.
 Experimental load testing on the bridge can be categorized as either a diagnostic or proof
test.
 In a diadnostic test, a predetermined load, typical near the bridge’s rated capacity ,is
placed at several different locations along the bridge and the bridge response is
measured.
 The measured response is then used to develop a numerical model of the bridge.
 The bridge model can then be used to estimate the maximum allowable load.
 In proof test, load is reached or a predetermined limited state is exceeded .
 Using the maimum load reached, the capacity of the bridge less disruption to traffic.

4.1.1LOADING

With the bridge temporarily closed to traffic, a loading vehicle of known weight was slowly
driven across the deck at approximately 8 Km/h , and strain data was recorded for each
channel at 32 Hz . the loading vehicle was a three-axle, single-unit truck weighing 223 Kn
. The measured wheel load distribution is shown. This weight was slightly less than the
rated posting for the three axle configuration and , therefore was not expected to cause
the bridge response to exceed the linear -elastic range . to verigy this, after each thruck
pass, strains were monitored to ensure that they did, in fact , go back to zero. These three
paths are shown .

Recorded data
Six passes of the truck were needed to collect all of the data . during each pass, traffic
was stopped ffor approximately 1 min . this allowed the driver of the truck time to position
the vehicles and to cross the bridge at a crawel speed. As the loading vehicles moved
[Type here]

across the bridge, a position indicator was used to correlate strain readings with
longitudinal position of the truck front axle.it took a crew of eight only 5 h to completely
instrument and test bridge.
During the testing, the maximum strain recorded was 73 mm/mm. this occurred at
transducer 16, when the loading vehicle passed along P1. This value of strain corresponds
tp tensile stress of 14.5 Mpa .

4.2 BRIDGE ANALYSIS

Test results were used to develop a numerical model of the bridge center span. Results
computed using the model were compared to the measured results to verify the accuracy
of the model.

FIG 4.2 Recorded strains at midspan of girders due to vehicle loading.

[Type here]

CHAPTER 5

5.1DIFFERENT METHODS

5.1.1 Conventional Load Rating Method

The LRFR load rating equation for rating factor (RF) is given as (AASHTO 2011)

where C = capacity of the member; DC = dead load due to struc-tural components and
attachments; and γDC is the DC load factor, equal to 1.25. The variable DW accounts for
the wearing surface and utility dead loads; these have more uncertainty, resulting in the
load factor γDW to be assigned a value of 1.5. If the wearing surface is field verified, γDW
is 1.25. The live load (LL) is multiplied by an impact factor (IM) of 1.33 to account for the
dynamic load effect of the truck. The live load is further increased by γLL, equal to 1.75
for the inventory rating and 1.35 for the operating rating.

The PMB is a three-span continuous bridge, requiring rating factors to be calculated in

the positive and negative bending moment regions. The negative region controlled the
rating. For this reason, only ratings for the negative region are presented. In
Massachusetts, a 60:40 exterior-to-interior girder distribution is allowed to be used for
sidewalk, safety curb, and rail superim-posed dead loads [Massachusetts Department of
Transportations (MassDOT) 2007]. The wearing surface was distributed uniformly across all
girders (MassDOT 2007). The PMB carries a water utility pipe between Girders 4 and 5 that
was conservatively assumed to be full. This load was distributed evenly between the
[Type here]

adjacent girders. To keep consistent with assumptions commonly made in design offices,
the unit weight of the concrete was assumed to be 23.6 kN=m3 (150 lb=ft3). The depth of
the haunch was conserva-tively neglected in section property calculations due to its
variabil-ity (MassDOT 2008). The concrete in the negative bending region was assumed to
be cracked under governing loads, and so the capacity calculation included the stiffness
of rebars in the negative region but not the concrete. The exterior girders were expected
to rate higher than the interior girders due to the higher steel section modulus and smaller
live load distribution factor. The rating factors bar chart for the conventional load rating
method is shown in the “Discussion of Rating Factors” section.

5.1.2 Conventional Load Rating Modified by Nondestructive Testing

The second load rating was performed using diagnostic NDT data to improve the
conventional rating. Diagnostic load tests can be performed to monitor a bridge’s response
to known loading con-ditions. If linear–elastic behavior is exhibited during the load test,
the results can be used for model calibration and load rating (AASHTO 2011). During a load
test, the response of a bridge is monitored and compared with the analytical response. In
most cases, the live load strains measured during the load test are smaller than expected
due to increased live load distribution previously unaccounted for. Since the NDT rating is
based on the structure’s response to loading, it can be considered a more accurate load
rat-ing reflecting the actual capacity of the bridge at the time of testing.

A diagnostic load test was conducted at the PMB on September 25, 2011, the results
of which were used for the load rating pre-sented in this paper. No deterioration was
observed on the bridge prior to the load test. The National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) provides direction for load rating by nonde-structive testing, and was
used as the basis for these calculations (NCHRP 1998). A triaxle dump truck was loaded to
353.59 kN (79.48 kip) for the load test. The first, second, and third axles weighed 84.79
[Type here]

kN (19.06 kip), 134.79 kN (30.30 kip), and 134.01 kN (30.12 kip), respectively. The
distances between Axles 1–2 and 2–3 were 5.08 m (16.67 ft) and 1.40 m (4.59 ft), respec-
tively. Ideally, a legal load vehicle is used for the load test; however, the NCHRP
acknowledges that these are seldom available (NCHRP 1998). In order to validate the NDT
rating, the test truck must be heavy enough to sufficiently stress each girder. Fig. 3 shows
the

FIG 5.1.2.1 Load test truck paths

RFT ¼ RFC · K

The adjustment factor K is used to describe the benefit derived from the load test. It is defined as
(AASHTO 2011)

K ¼ 1 þ K a · Kb
[Type here]

where Ka accounts for the difference between expected and mea-sured load test strains; and Kb

accounts for the understanding of the results. The Ka term considers both theoretical and measured

strains, while Kb considers only theoretical results.

The Ka term is based on the ratio between the theoretical strain and measured strain, defined as

(AASHTO 2011)

εc

Ka ¼ ε T − 1

where εT = maximum member strain during the load test, and εC = theoretical member strain when the

theoretical test truck is in the same position as the load test truck.

5.1.3 Load Rating Using a Finite-Element Model

A FE model can be used to capture the 3D structural system behav-ior of the bridge. A FE model of the PMB
[Type here]

Table 5.1 Non-destructive testing rating summary

Table 5.2 Non destructive testing distribution factors

FIG 5.1.3 Finite element model

[Type here]

). The girders are modeled using four-node shell elements and ASTM A992 (AISC 2011) Grade 50 steel.
The deck is modeled using eight-node solid elements. The bridge is supported by steel-reinforced
elastomeric neoprene bearing pads; these were modeled using springs with axial, shear, and rotational
stiffnesses calculated to represent the support behavior.

The uncalibrated model was shown to predict strains slightly higher than the Year 2011 load test data,
detailed in Sanayei et al. (2012). The subsequent modifications were performed by Sanayei et al. (2012) to
manually calibrate the model to match the Year 2011 load test data. The first modification was to update the
concrete strength from the design value of 30 MPa (4.35 ksi) to 33.6 MPa (4.87 ksi) to reflect cylinder break
test data. The second modifica-tion was to include the parapets stiffness in the model to more accurately
capture the overall stiffness of the bridge. The final modification was the reduction of concrete stiffness in the
negative bending region to reflect cracking of the concrete, as described previously. It was assumed that 20%

of the span was in negative bending (10% at each end). The theoretical Ec was reduced in these regions from

27,400 MPa (3,974 ksi) to 18,000 MPa (2,611 ksi). The previous modifications resulted in a calibrated FE
model that produced analytical strains output closely matching the measured strains collected during the load
test. Additional information on the FE model calibration is presented in Phelps (2010). Load test data can be
very useful for confirming the accuracy of a FE model. The NDT data is often not available due to the
complexities of instru-mentation, arranging a load test, the experience of the engineering team, costs, and
other factors. For the research reported in this paper, strain data was available and was used to confirm the
manual calibration of the PMB FE model (Sanayei et al. 2012).

5.2 OTHER METHODOLOGIES

There are two primary methods of load rating bridge structures that are currently utilized
by WisDOT. Both methods are detailed in the AASHTO MBE. They are as follows:
 [Type here]

 Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR)

 Load Factor Rating (LFR)

Load and Resistance Factor Rating is the most current rating methodology and has been
the standard for new bridges in Wisconsin since approximately 2007. LRFR employs the
same basic principles as LFR for the load factors, but also utilizes multipliers on the
capacity side of the rating equation, called resistance factors, to account for uncertainties
in member condition, material properties, etc. This method is covered , and a detailed
description of this method can also be found in MBE [6A].

Load Factor Rating (LFR) has been used since the early 1990s to load rate bridges in
Wisconsin. The factor of safety for LFR-based rating comes from assigning multipliers, called
load factors, to both dead and live loads

5.2.1 Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR)

The basic rating equation for LRFR, per MBE [Equation 6A.4.2.1-1], is:

C ( DC )(DC) ( DW )(DW) ( P )(P)

RF
( LL )(LL IM)

For the Strength Limit States (primary limit state when load rating using LRFR):
[Type here]

C C S Rn

Where the following lower limit shall apply:

C S 0.85

Where:

RF = Rating factor

C = Capacity

Rn = Nominal member resistance

DC = Dead-load effect due to structural components and attachments

DW = Dead-load effect due to the wearing surface and utilities

P = Permanent loads other than dead loads

LL = Live load effects

IM = Dynamic load allowance

γDC = LRFR load factor for structural components and attachments

γDW = LRFR load factor for wearing surfaces and utilities

γP = LRFR load factor for permanent loads other than dead loads = 1.0

γLL = LRFR evaluation live load factor

c = Condition factor

s = System factor

= LRFR resistance factor

The LRFR methodology is comprised of three distinct procedures:

 [Type here]

 Design Load Rating (first level evaluation) – Used for verification during the design phase,
a design load rating is performed on both new and existing structures alike. See
for more information.

Legal Load Rating (second level evaluation) –

If required, the legal load rating is used to determine whether or not the bridge in question
can safely carry legal-weight traffic; whether or not a load posting is required. See 45.3.7.7
for more information.
 [Type here]

 Permit Load Rating (third level evaluation) – The permit load rating is used to determine
whether or not over-legal weight vehicles may travel across a bridge. for more information.

Table 5.2 Load rating factor

 [Type here]

CHAPTER 6

6.1RESULTS COMPARISION

FIG 6.1 Load rating factor comparison

6.2 DISCUSSION OF RATING FACTORS

 Above fig shows a summary of load ratings calculated using the three methods, as
anticipated, the advanced methods resulted in higher Load ratings than those computed
by the conventional method .
 These advanced methods captured the system behavior, resulting in a rating more
representative of actual structural behavior.
 The conventional method produced higher ratings for the exterior girders than the interior
girders
 This was due to higher section modulus of the exterior girders as well as the smaller live
load distribution factor.
 The slight differences in the interior girder load ratings were due to the water main, located
between girders 4 and 5.
 [Type here]

 The NDT rating used measured strains to enhance the conventional ratings for girder 1-
5.

6.3Inspection Reports

When rating an existing bridge, it is critical to review inspection reports, particularly the
most recent report. Any notes regarding deterioration, particularly deterioration in primary
load- carrying members, should be paid particular attention. It is the responsibility of the
load rating engineer to evaluate any recorded deterioration and determine how to properly
model that deterioration in a load rating analysis. Reviewing historical inspection reports
can offer insight as to the rate of growth of any reported deterioration. Inspection reports
can also be used to verify existing overburden.

Inspections of bridges on the State Trunk Highway Network are performed by trained
personnel from the Regional maintenance sections utilizing guidelines established in the
latest edition of the WisDOT Structure Inspection Manual. Engineers from the Bureau of
Structures may assist in the inspection of bridges with unique structural problems or when
it is suspected that a reduction in load capacity is warranted. To comply with the National
Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), it is required that all bridges be routinely inspected at
intervals not to exceed two years. More frequent inspections are performed for bridges
which are posted for load capacity or when it is warranted based on their condition. In
addition, special inspections such as underwater diving or fracture critical are performed
when applicable. Inspectors enter inspection information into the Highway Structures
Information System (HSIS), an on-line bridge management system developed by internally
by WisDOT. For more information on HSIS, see 45.3.5. For questions on inspection-
related issues, please contact the Bureau of Structures Maintenance Section.

CHAPTER 7
[Type here]

Conclusions

A comparison of load ratings was completed for the Powder Mill Bridge, a fully instrumented bridge located in Barre,
Massachusetts. Load rating calculations were performed by the LRFR method using three different approaches, as
follows: (1) con-ventional design office rating, (2) conventional rating updated by NDT data, and (3) rating using a FE
model manually calibrated using NDT data. The conventional method was performed using a simplified line girder-by-
girder analysis that conservatively ap-proximated the maximum loading condition. The conventional de-sign office rating
is fast, easy to use, reviewable, inexpensive, and conservative. The advanced methods sought to improve upon this by
considering the 3D behavior of the system. The NDT rating compared theoretical strains with measured strains and scaled
the conventional rating based on this difference. The NDT for load rating is reviewable and easy to implement, but
requires more time for testing and data processing and involves additional costs for testing. A 3D FE model also
demonstrated the reserve capacity of the bridge. A 3D FE model requires additional time, modeling experience, and a
more involved review, but can be more accurate. Selection of the advanced method for load rating depends on the level
and type of expertise of the bridge engineer as well as the availability of NDT equipment and/or FEA packages.

Reserve capacity is the result of more accurate live load and superimposed dead load distributions due to redundant
load paths. Accurate assessment of load distribution factors is the key to a good bridge load rating. Conventional bridge
analysis and design meth-ods are conservative, resulting in a reserved bridge load carrying capacity. Considering this
reserve capacity during structural evalu-ation could help to avoid load posting the bridge or, in the worst case, requiring
full replacement when more economical retrofits may be sufficient. Therefore, structural evaluation using more so-
phisticated modeling or NDT can provide bridge owners additional time, flexibility, and potentially better apportionment
of resources when dealing with aging bridges.

CHAPTER 8
 [Type here]

REFERENCE

 AASHTO. (2008). Bridging the gap: Restoring and rebuilding the nation’s bridges, Farmington, Hills, MI.
 AASHTO. (2011). Manual for bridge evaluation, 2nd Ed., Farmington Hills, MI.

 AASHTO. (2012). “AASHTOWare bridge newsletter: Volume 16.” 〈 http://www.aashtobr.org/attachments/File/AASHTO-

NEWSLETTER _-_JUNE2012-DNB_-_FINAL.PDF〉 (Jun. 25, 2013).

 BRASS 4.2 user manual. Wyoming state hwy.dept Cheyenne

 Edberg E. G and goodpasture – state -of-the-art survey in experiments load rating.
[Type here]
[Type here]