<<

tndian Roads Congress

Special Publication 37

GUIDELINES FOR
EVALUATION OF LOAD
CARRYING CAPACITY OF
BRIDGES

Published by:
The Indian Roads Congress

Copies can be had from

The Secreta,y, Indian Road~Congres~
Jam nagar House, Shah/ahan RoacL
New Deihi-/JOOlI

NEW DELHI 1991 Price Rs 60.~kL100

(Plus packing &
postage charges)

<<
Published in June. 1991

(The Rights of Publication and Translation are reserved)

Edited and Published by Shri D.P. Gupta,Secretary, Indian Roads Congress,

Printed at Sagar Printers & Publishers, New Delhi
(2000 copies)

<<
 MEMBERS OF THE BRIDGES SPECIFICATIONS
AND STANDARDS COMMI11TEE
1, Ninan Koshi ... Addi Director General (Bridges), Ministry of Sur-
(Convenor) face Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi
2. M.K. Mukhe~jee ... Chief Engineer (Bridges). Ministry of Surface
(Member-Secretary) Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi
3. SR. Aggarwal ... Director, Research Designs& Standards Organisa-
tion, Lucknow
4. CR, Alimchandani ... Chairman & Managing Director, Stup (India) Lt&
Bombay
5. E)r. AS. Atya ... Head, Deptt of Earthquake Eng~, University of
Roorkee, Roorkee
6. L.S. Bassi .., AddI. Director General (Bridges) (Retd,), Flat No.
42, NGH Society, New Delhi
7. M.K. Bhagwagar ~. Consulting Engineer, Engg Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi
~. P.C. i3hasin .324. Mandakini Enclave, Greater Kailash-H,
New Delhi-I 10019
9. AG. Borkar ... Chief, Transport & Communications Division,
BMRDA, Bombay
10, S.P. Chakraharti ... Chief Engineer (Bridges), Ministry of Surface
Transport (Roads Wing), New Delhi.
II. S.S. Chakrahorty ... Managing Director, Consulting Engg. Services
(India) Lid.. New Delhi
12. Dr. P. Ray Chaudhuri ... 148, Sidhartha Enclave, New Delhi
13. AN. Choudhury ... ChiefEngineer(Retd.), 4, Assam Govt Press Road,
Guwahati (Assam)
14. N.N. Chatter~ee ... Chief Engineer PWE) (Roads). Directorate,
West Bengal
15. Ri. Dave ... Chief Engineer(RRP) and Joint Secretary, Gujarat
R&B Deptt. Gandhinagar
16. Dharm Vir ... Engineer-in-Chief (Reid.), H!G-A-377, Indira
Nagar, Lucknow-2260l6
17. Dharm Pal ... Engineer-in-Chief HP, PWD. Shimla
18. Achyut Ghosh ... Director, Metal Engg. Treatment Co. Pvt Ltd.,
Calcutta
19. P.S. Gokhale ... lchhapoorti”.79. Anani Paid Road. Dadar. Bombay
20. D.T. Grover ... Chief Engineer (Retd.), 0-1037, New Friends
Colony, New Delhi
21. P. Kanakaratnam ... Chief Engineer (H&RW), Tamil Nadu
22. V. Krishnamurthy ... Chief Engineer, PWD NH, Karnataka
23. AK, Lal ... Engineer-in-Chief-cum-SpI. Secy., PWD, Road
Constn. Deptt. Patna
<<
24 (‘.8. Mathur Chief Engineer & AddI. Secy.. Rajasthan PWD
B&R, Jaipur
25 NV. Merani Principal Secretary to the Govt of Maharashtra
PWD, Bombay
26. Dr. AK. Mullick Director General, National Council for (‘ement &
Building Materials, New Delhi
27. P.V. Naik Chief Technical Consultant Gilcon Project Ser-
vices Ltct. Bombay
28. 0. Raman Director (Civil Engineering), Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi
29. Dr TN. Subba Rao Managing Director, Gammon India Ltd., Bombay
30. Dr. OP. Saha Chief Engineer, Hindustan Constn, Co. Ltd.,
Bombay
31. MV. Sastry Chief Engineer (Bridges). Ministry of Surface
Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi
32. 5. Seetharaman Chief Engineer) Bridges) (Retd.). H-Block. Flat No.
3M. Dl)A Self Financing Scheme. Saket.
New Delhi-I t0017
33. RP. Sikka Addl. DirectorGeneral (Roads), Ministn’ ofSurface
Transport (Roads Wing), New Delhi
34. J.S. Sodhi Chief Engineer( Retd.). 546(Sector-l6. Chandigarh
35. KB. Sarkar Chief Engineer )Bridges). Ministry of Surface
Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi
36. By. Subramanyam Chief Engineer (Design) C.P.W.D.. Central Design
Organisation. New Delhi
37. NC. Saxena Engineer-in-ChieC UP PWD. Lucknow
38. Dr. MG. Tamhankar Deputy Director. Structural Eng~Research Centre,
Ghaziabad (UP)
39. Mahesh Tandon Managing Director, Tandon Consultants Ps’s. Ltd.,
New Delhi
40. The Director Highways Research Station, Guindy, Madras
41. The President Indian Roads Congress (V.P. Kamdar), Secretary to
the Govt. of Gujarat. P.W.D. - Er-officio

42. The Director General (Road Development) & AddI. Secretary to the Govt
of India (KK. Sarin) - Er-officio

43. The Secretary Indian Roads Congress(D.P. Gupta) -Er-officio

corresponding Members

44. Dr. K. Rajagopalan Indian Institute ofTechnology, P.O.: ITT, Madras

45. Dr. V.1<. Raina United Nations Expert in Civil Engg. (B&S), CIo
U.N.D.P. PB. No. 558. Riyadh-l1421 (SaudiArabia)

<<
 FOREWARD
The Indian Roads Congress had brought out the Special Publica-
tion No. 9 on Rating of Bridges in 1972. In view of the latest revisions in
the codal provisions, revised Motor Vehicle Act. 1988 atid review of
International practices. the Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Committee finalised the Guidelines on Evaluation of Load Carrying
Capacity of Bridges superseding the Special Publication No. 9. The
draft was approved by the Council in December, i990.
In these Guidelines the common procedures for assessing the
strength and methods of evaluating the safe permissible load carrying
capacity of exisitng bridges have been given as also the procedure for
posting of structurally deflcieni bridges. These Guidelines are applicable
to reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete, steel composite and
masonry arch bridges.
I am confident that the application of these Guidelines will help
the field engineers in assessing the safe carrying capacity of our bridges.
Any suggestions and feed back from the profession on the actual use of
these Guidelines would he most welcome.

(KK. SARIN)
Director General (Road Development)
& AddI. Secy. to the Govt of India
Ministry of Surface Transport
New l)elhi, April 199i. Roads Wing)

<<
 LEGEND

GVW Gross Vehicle Weight

FA W Front Axle Weight
RAW Rear Axle Weight
AXR Axle Weight Ratio
Mcap Moment Capacity of the Section
Veap Shear Capacity of the Section
Reduction Factor
MDL Moment due to all loads other than live load
VDL Shear due to all loads other than live load
MLL Net Moment Resisting Capacity minus effect due to all
loads other than live loads
VU Net Shear Resisting Capacity minus effect due to all loads
other than live loads
MLL Maximum live load moment for standard IRC loads
Maximum live load shear for standard IRC loads
L Span of Bridge
WJM Weight-in-Motion
ODC Over dimensioned Consignment

<<
 CONTENTS

Page
Introduction
Scope 3
3. Assessment of Condition of’ Bridge 4
4. Traffic Factors 8
5. Rating Methodology 16
6. Load Testing 32
7. Bridge Posting 37
8. Repair, Strengthening and Rehabilitation of Bridges 42
9. Bibliography 43
TABLES
Table I. Bridge Rating Systems 18
Table 2. Safe Axle Load for RCC Slab Bridges 32
APPENDICES
Appendix I Permissible Stresses in Different Materials 44
Appendix 2 Ultimate Strength of Sections and Service- 45
ability Conditions
Appendix 3 Factors to he Considered While Rating 48
Existing Steel Bridges
Appendix 4 Factors tbr Rating Masonry Arch Bridges 50

<<
 GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF LOAD
CARRYING CAPACITY OF BRIDGES
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. A Bridge Maintenance & Rehabilitation Committee (B-b)

was constituted by the Indian Roads Congress in January 1988 in order
to look into the various aspects, policies and guidelines for the general
subject ofbridge maintenance and rehabilitation. The above Committee
after detailed deliberations, decided to set up three subcommittees to
prepare drafts of guidelines on the following subjects:
(i) Inspection and maintenance of bridges

(ii) Evaluation of load carrying capacity of bridges

(iii) Methods and techniques of major repairs. strengthening and rehabititation
of bridges

The personnel of the Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation

Committee (B-b) is given below:
NV. Merani Convenor
A.G. Borkar Member-Secretary

Members
CR. Atimchandani NC. Saxena
P.C. Bhasin MC. Sharma
5.5. Chakrahorty Surjit Singh
B.J. Dave Dr. TN. Subba Rao
S.P. Gantayet Mahesh Tandon
P.S. Gokhale N.G. Thatte
V.P. Kamdar Rep. of CRRI
G.P. Lal (M.V.B. Ran)
R.K. Mathur Rep. of West Bengal PWD
A.D. Narain ~A. Mukherjee)
MG. Prabhu Director, HRS, Madras

Er-officio
The President, IRC (V.P. Kamdar)
The D.G. (RD.), (K.l( Sarin)
The Secretary, 1RC (D.P. Gupta)

<<
 Corresponding Members
MR. Vinayak Rep. of National Council
Rep. of Structural for Cement and Building
Eng~Research Centre Materials
(MS. Kapla) (C. Raj Kumafl
The Guidelines on Inspection and Maintenance of Bridges have
already been published by the Indian Roads Congress as IRC: SP-35.
1.2. The present Guidelines for Evaluation of Load Carrying
Capacity of Bridges have been drafted by a subcommittee consisting of
the following:
S.S, Chakraborly .. Convenor
Dr. P. Ray Chaudhury .. Member
BJ. Dave ... Member
MS. Kapla .. Member
All). Narain .. ?sfrmber
MV B, Rao Member
BV. (iururaj ,., Member
The Subcommittee was rendered valuable service by Shri D,T.
Grover. Shri S. Sengupta and Shri AK. Garg in collecting and process-
ing various technical data.
The guidelines prepared by the subcommittee for preparation of
Guidelines for Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges were
approved by the Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Committee in
their meeting held at Bombay on the 17th August, 1990.
Further the Guidelines were considered and approved by the
Bridges Specifications and Standards Committee in their meeting held
at New Delhi on the 7th and 8th November, 1990 subject to certain
modifications. Later on the modified guidelines were approved by the
Executive Committee and the Council in their meetings held at New
Delhi and Calcutta on the 18th November. 1990 and 8th December,
1990 respectively.
These Guidelines should be read in conjunction with and in con-
tinuation of IRC: SP-35 “Guidelines for Inspection and Maintenance of
Bridges’ as both are inter-related and some of the areas may be
overlapping
These Guidelines are revision of IRC Special Publication 9.
entitled ~Report on Rating of Bridges’. The additions/modifications to
the document ~Rating of Bndges made herein are basically due to the
following reasons:
(i) subsequent revisions in the codal provisions

2
<<
 (ii) revised Motor Vehicles Act. 1988
(iii) review of international practice

The present guidelines would supersede the IRC Special Publica-

tion 9 entitled “Report on Rating of Bridges”, 1986.
2. SCOPE
2.1. Objective of these guidelines on evaluation of load carrying
capacity of bridges is as follows:
(a) to establish a common procedure for assessing the strength and specify
methods of evaluating the safe permissible load carrying capacity or rating
of the existing bridges including load testing methods
(h) to establish ‘a common procedure for posting of structurally deficient
bridges
These procedures are meant to serve only as a guide. They are
intended for use for the type of bridges as mentioned in para 2.2 below.
Large and unusual structures require special study and consideration of
even secondary and other effects which may normally be neglected in
simple structures while assessing their strength and do not fall within
the scope of these criteria. These guidelines are also not applicable to
timber bridges.
Rating of a bridge will be essential when:
(a) the design live load is less than that of the heaviest statutory commercial
vehicle plying or likely to ply on the bridge
(h) the design live load is not known nor are the records and drawings
available
(c) if during the inspections (routine, principal, special) any bridge is found to
indicate distress of serious nature leading to doubt about structural and/or
functional adequacy.
The rating of a bridge is a complex procedure involving subjective
decisions in certain cases. As such, it will be carried out by bridge
engineers with adequate experience and/or knowledge on the subject
2.2. Classification of Bridges
The following types of bridges are covered under these guidelines:
(i) Simply supported spans
(ii) Cantilever with suspended spans and
(iii) Arch bridges of span not exceeding 60 m.

In regard to material ofconstruction, all bridges of reinforced con-

3
<<
crete, prestressed concrete, steel, composite and masonry arches are
included.
3. ASSESSMENT OF CONDiTION OF BRIDGE
3.1. Arising out of the detailed inspection and maintenance of the
bridges any abnormal distress in its condition should be noted for a
detailed inspection and evaluation of its present load carrying capacity
by a specialist team. This selection will have to be left to the judgement
of a seniorengineerwho, if necessary, with the help of a design engineer
will be able to discern whether such an evaluation is called for.
A strong data base is essential in order to make a scientific assess-
ment of the condition of the bridge. Where there is a reliable and com-
plete documentation on the design and construction of the bridge, field
investigations will be oriented primarily towards identifying the effect
of any deterioration, damage or settlement that has taken place. Where
such documentation is lacking, then in addition to the above field inves-
tigations, dimensions of all the structural members should be taken to
prepare a complete set of as-built drawings showing the geometrical
dimensions only. However, details of the untensioned reinforcement
and prestressing cables cannot be ascertained to a degree of accuracy
required for preparation’ of as-built drawings or for structural
calculation.
For all these bridges identified for detailed investigation, field and
laboratory testing may he required to an extent which would depend on
the degree of deterioration of the structure.
The present guidelines provide the assessment of the load carrying
capacity of the bridge keeping in view its structural aspects. It is
assumed that no deficiency regarding the hydraulic and geometric
parameters exists in the bridges to be rated for.
3.2. Data Needed for Assessment
3.2.1. Assessment of structural condition of bridge will take
accouni of the following information, which has to be collected during
the detailed field investigation:
U) cracking. spalling, honeycomhing, leaching loss of material or lamination
of concrete members in superstructure, substructure and foundalions
(ii) corrosion of rehars, exposure of rebars, corrosion in prestressing cablesand
structural steel members

4
<<
 (iii) settlement, deformation or rotation, producing redistribution of stress or
instability of the structure

(iv) in-situ strength of materials

(v) hydraulic data covering scour, HFL, afflux. erosion at abutments variation
ii any in ground water table arising out of new irrigation projects or any
other reason.

(vi) effectiveness and condition of structural joints viz, bolted, riveited and
welded connections for steel bridges
(vii) condition of expansion joints, bearings and articulations hinges
(viii) any possible movements of piers, abutments, skew backs, retaining walls,
anchorages and any settlement of filling of foundations.
The list is not comprehensive but includes majority of factors
likely to influence load carrying capacity of the bridge.
3,3. Collection of D*ta
To the extent available, following documents are to be procured:
(i) contract drawings. updated to reflect as built details
(ii) design computations which are required to study the concepts and
assumptions on which the original design was based
(iii) site records during construction and soil investigation records
(iv) contract specifications
(v) post-construction inspection and maintenance reports
(vi) detailsofall repair/strengthening work carried out till the dateof investigation
(vii) prevalent commercial vehicular loading plying on the bridge
(viii) Seismic and environmental data

3.4. Pretimiuary Assessment

Preliminary assessement of the structural condition can be made
by observing for visible deterioration in the form of large deflections
and/or extensive cracking, and spalling of concrete. In such distressed
bridges, there will normally be time for a preliminary assessment of the
distress and its reduced load carrying capacity.
For proper assessment ofthe structural capacity, its vertical profile
survey should be conducted on the deck level both on the upstream and
downstream sides of the carriageway and plotted on a suitable scale,
This may be carried out once in a month or two months and profiles
compared in order to detect indication of increase in deflection or any
unusual break in the profile, This has been discussed further under para

<<
3.9. hereinafter. The movement of the expansion joints (both horizontal
and vertical) should, likewise, he monitored from time to time.
A study ofdrawings and calculations(where available or prepareui
by the rating engineer based on site measurements) together with an in-
situ inspection would generally give indication whether the structural
component has been overloaded or whether reserves are still available.
Where necessary, immediate measures should be taken to complete the
detailed assessment and decide upon the various options available e.g.
derating, closure, replacement repair, strengthening or no action.
3.5. Detai’ed Assessment
The detailed structural assessment should include a careful
inspection using techniques appropriate to the kind of deterioration or
damage. Since all structural inadequacies that adversely affect strength
or serviceability arise from:
(a) deficiencies within the structure i.e. faults in design or detailing.
material or workmanship
(h) change in external circumstances e.g. increase in traffic loading, environ-
mental influences etc resulting in excessive demands on the structure.

A systematic approach to the structural assessment must include

the following:
(1) VIsual Inspection of the structure — tins should be carried out in order to
detect all symptoms of damage and defects, and should include a check on
the actual dimensions of the structural element concerned.
(ii) Study of exlsthsgdocuments — this should include all the documents as men-
tioned under para 3,3. hereinabove.
(iii) Mapping of cracking pattern in the structural components. All visible cracks
should be mapped, hut cracks of width upto 0.20 mm should he
recorded.
(iv) Assessment of hels*vieur of the structure under dynamic loading e.g.
excessive vibrations and amplitude.
(v) Enviroomental influences - this should include effect of aggressive agents in
the atmosphere. ground. soil and effluents discharged in the river as well as
effects of temperature. rain, snowfall and seismicity ofthe location.
(vi) Material properties of steel and concrete — several inspection and testing
techniques and types of equipment required have been described in sub-
sequent part of this document
(vii) Estimate of loads — the prevalent heaviest commercial vehicular road prying
on the bridges and the extent of traffic congestion during peak hours
including the traffic mix, should be studied in detail,

<<
 3.6. Techniques of fnspection and Testing
The inspection procedures to be followed, a simplified Bridge
Inventory Form. standard tools for preliminary assessment and the
assessment methods including destructive and non-destructive tests.
have been covered in ERC: SP-35. A separate document covering the
State-of-the-Art of Non-Destructive Testing of Bridge Structures, is
currently under finalisation by the IRC, which should also he studied in
this respect.
The possible assessment methods and tests for such cases have
been indicateul in Appendices-7 & 8 of IRC: SP-35.
However, all the testing methods are not essential for the assess-
ment, Selection of tests may be made based on the specific requirement
of the structure. Further, it should be noted that such tests do not always
provide reliable results in ascertaining the exact extent of distress in
the structure.

3.7. Assessment of Strength of Materials

in-situ testing or sampling normally produce results with some
degree of divergence due to various reasons(viz. variability of materials,
concrete batching etc.).
Usually, it would be necessary to establish upper and lower pro-
bability limits for the material properties under examination.
Cutting of samples for assessing the material strength ofconcrete
or steel members should be carried out only when essential as, such sam-
pling entails some risks to the structure. Samples cut from steel struc-
tures may lead to fatigue weakness while cores drilled in weak concrete
members mayact as crack inducers. Therefore, such work should be car-
ried out under close supervision and only after obtaining approval from
the Design Engineer with respect to the location and details of sampling
proposed.

3.8. Sectional Areas of Structural Members and Location of

Reinforcement and Tendons
When reinforcement details are not known, position of reinforce-
ment close to the surface may be determined by covermeter (electro-
magnetic reinforcement detectors).

<<
 This equipment would also givean approximateindication of bar
sizes and spacings. For reinforcement at depth greater than 120 mm, it
will he necessarry to use other methods such as radiography subject to
availability of such equipment although this will prove to be expensive
due to use of radiographic films.
Radiography should be carried out only by specialists licensed to
handle radio-activeisotopes and all health and safety regulations should
he strictly observed.
In prestressed concrete structures, size of tendons can be deter-
mined if the end anchorages are accessible. Otherwise radiographic
methods will he required. However, such methods are not reliable for
ducts containing several tendons since individual tendons are difficult
to distinguish clearly.
3.9. Settlement~Deformation or Rotation of Structural Members
Alevel survey should be carried outon the deck level along the bridge
centre line and on either ends of carriageway and the profile plotted to
reveal any untoward sag or kink, Levels shall he taken at intervals of
about 5 metres, Levels should also be taken on top of each pier cap at the
four corners in order to determine any differential settlement of foun-
ulations. Distortion or buckling in steel components should be carefully
investigated as this would result in reduction of their load carrying
capacity. Measurement will be made by means of a straight edge or dial
gauge to give an accuracy of ±0.5 mm in one metre.
3.10. Full Scale Load Test on Bridges
This has been dealt with separately in para 6.

4. TRAFFIC FACTORS
4.1. Bridge design standards and specifications determine, in
principle, the load carrying capacity of bridge ensuring that they can
safely carry the anticipated motor vehicle traffic. The Motor Vehicle Act
and regulations limit the axle load and the Gross Vehicle Weight
(GVW) and impose a number of dimensional limits so as to allow the
bridges to support such traffic with adequate factor of safety.
It is, therefore, essential to reviewexisting regulations particularly
regarding the freight vehicles in order to define the actual live load pat-

<<
tern for the existing bridges anul to establish an approximate correlu toni
with the standardised design live loads as specified in IRC 6-1966.

4.2. Review of Axle and Vehicle Weights

Motor Vehicles Act stipulates the maximum safe laden weight of
motor vehicles and maximum safe weight of each axle of such
sreh i dc s.
Maximum safe axle loauls for commercial vehicles in India are
as follows
— single axle fitted with two tyres fit) ton nes
— single axle fitted with four tyres 1(1.2 tonnes
— tandem axle fitted with eight tyres 19.0 tonnes

The laden weight of the vehicle, including multi-axle vehicles,

must not be more than the sum total of all the maximum safe axle
weights. This means that with two tyres on the front axle and four on the
rear axle. a Iwo axle rigid truck can weigh upto 16.2 tonnes, With a tan-
dem rear axle, a three-axle vehicle may weigh upto 25 tonnes (6 tonnes
on the front and 19 tonnes on the rear).
Thereafter, the maximum safe laden weight is determined by the
comhination of single axle, with two or four tyres, and tandem axles.. A
our-axle setni—urticulateil vehicle, comprising a tractor with two lyres
on the ironi axle anul four tyres on the rear and a trailer having tandem
axle with eight tyres on the rear could carry a maximum of 35.2 tonnes.
i’his has been shown in Fig. I.
Bulk of the commercial traffic plying on Indian roauls ct)mprises
two axle rigid trucks. Presently a number of different models are
marketed in India for which the vehicular particulars vary to. .some
extent Figs. 2 & 3 furnishes the salient data for a number of models of
such two axle rigid trucks.
l’he largest truck and trailer combination, at present in India, with
tandem rear axles on both units, could have a maximum laden weight of
44 lonnes.
‘rhe weight limit for tandem axles(which are two axles coupled to
one anoiher within specified ulistances) tends to be higher. ranging from
1.6 to 1,9 times the weight limit for single axles. The weight limit for tan-
dem axles in India is 19 tonnes.

<<
 MA)UMUM
PERMISSIBLE
I, STANDARD TRUCK WEIGHT GVW
(TATA LII’ 121&32) 16.2 TONNES

2. HEAVY TRUCK 25 TOM4ES

(IAURUS ST/Mi)

3. ARTICULATED VEHICLES (BEAVER ALE 1/4& HIPPO ALH 1/4)

35.2 TONNES

44 TONNES

0 INDICATES PERCENTAGE
(All DimensionsOF
in WEIGHT
metms) PER AXLE

Ag. I . Commercial vehicles predominantly operating In India

10

<<
 RO\1 ~XIi
FL~1R~ FL,

—I—
.4 0 I. I, ~ 4
SI ‘.,,F44_ 4.1:..,
— :‘,
II:—,, SI.~., Li’~ -‘I. ,‘~ 4
15! I .5-44 2. ., - ‘l’’’ M-M

Fig. 2. Vehicle particulars for typical two-axle rigid trucks plying on Indian roads

<<
 2. ~‘ERIirC,IkoI\
~, AS

‘ 1

I iii 1±11111 (vwIf~~

‘!“ ~
444c

<< Fig. 3. Vehicle particulars for typical two-axle rigid trucks plying on Indian roads
 There has been a persistent upward trend the World over in per-
missible vehicle and axle weights, as is well reflected in our country also,
This is the combined result of improvements in Vehicle and tyre
technology and of the persistent urge on part of the transporters/
shippers to achieve higher payloads in order to reduce the unit cost
of transportation.
In view of the present modernisation of the commercial vehicle
fleet in India, there is likelihood of increase in the GVW of these
vehicles, it is necessary that the standard commercial vehicles anti their
(..iVW, RAWand FAW as depicted in Fig. I he updated at a regular inIer~~
vals of, say every 5 years. However, if the GVW of a rigid body 2 axle
truck is known, the RAW and FAW may he evaluated based on an
empirical relationship for the FAW/R.AW ratio (i.e. Axle Weight Ratio,
AXR) as shown in Fig. 4.

ii RELATIONSHIP EASEL) ON AXI,E WEIGHT

SURVEYS FOR FRONT AXLE WSTGHT TI)
REAR AXLE WEIGHT RATIO

— 1.5
N

1.E

)- 1.3

12

N 1~1
N
RSGRESF ION RELA TI(FNSIIFP BASE I) ON U,F’
~ 09 AXLE WETOUT OR4ERSATIONS
4FA)
AXE — F,W RAW

0•1

01
N
04

*5

0.4

0•3 II 12 13 14 15 16 17

SEAS AXLE 14510111 10551515510

Fig. 4. Regression relationship for axle weight ratio

13
<<
 4.3. Vehicle Dimensions
(a) Height
According to the MotorVehicles Act 1988. the maximum height for vehicle
other than a double-decker. is 3.8 metres, unless it is carrying an ISO series I
Freight Container, in which case the height must not exceed 4.2 metres, A
double-decker vehicle must not exceed 4.75 metres.

(b) Width
A public service vehicle or transport vehicle other than a motor cab. must
not exceed 2.5 metres in width.
(c) length
A rigid truck must not exceed 11 metres. On mutes or in areas approved by
the State Government, buses may go upto 12 metres in length. Articulated
vehicles must not exceed 16 metres, whereas truckJtrailer combinations
have a maximum limit of 18 metres.

4.4. Speed Limits and Overload Factor

The current speed limits on highways in the country are:
60 kmph for rigid trucks
50 kmph for semi-articulated vehicles: and
40 kinph for truck/trailer combinations

There is a wide variety of vehicles currently using highways. A

review of the data regarding the heavy commercial vehicles currently
being manufactured in the country reveals that vehicle manufacturers
in general follow the limitations of g~ossvehicle weight as laid down in
the Motor Vehicle Act it has however, been noted that overloading of
vehicles is a common practice in the trucking industry. The extent of
overloading of 2 axle rigid vehicles in the general freight market is corn-
paralivelymore than multi-axle rigidvehicles. The result ofa’hrief survey
conducted in the country, revealed that the minimum charge for a full
truck load is quoted for 12 tonnes payload as against 10 tonnes rated
capacity and the carriage of load upto 14 tonnes is quite common while
upto 16 tonnes on certain National and State Highways network in the
plain terrain is frequently practised. As per survey conducted by OECD.
overloads commonly observed for road trains in the OECI) member
countries maybe upto 20 per cent Studies conducted in various parts of
the country indicate that the extent of overloading may be quite high.
However, for the purpose of these guidelines, an average overload of 2.S
percent over the registered (V%V has been catered for. An overload factor

14
<<
exceeding above value may not be normally required, unless there is a
ground for considering a higher factor of overloading for some
specific region.
4.5. Traffic Composition
Present day traffic is estimated to contain a substantial portion of
freight vehicles particularly on National or State Highways. Informa-
tion on the traffic composition can be obtained through traffic surveys
at bridge approach.
If such survey data are not available, it may be necessary to carry
out special traffic studies in the following manner:
(a) manual vehicle counts (per hour and category, per traffic direction) during

specified periods of day or night

(h) m~ualcounts and static weighingofa small-sample ofvehicles( 10 per cent
of\’ehicles of any particular category)
~c) counts and automatic measuring of axle loads during a specified time
period in addition to measuring axle spacings and sequence.
The last type of survey involves sophisticated measuring equip-
ment, hut enables determination of statistical distribution of axle loads
and other parameters such as vehicle speeds, spacing between vehicles,
spacing between axles ofthe same vehicle etc. This however, is the only
procedure which provides the data needed to specify actual loading pat-
terns on a bridge. This survey can also be useful in determining loads
represented by stationary traffic ifrequired, and also lateral distribution
of traffic and loads. All the above data is possible to be obtained at site
by using computerised traffic management system, presently available
in our country. The above data will be useful in reviewof the axle load
spectrum for the commercial vehicles to be adopted for load posting of
the bridges.
4.6. Review of Existing IRC Design Live Loads
The IRC Class AA, Class A and Class B load trains were for-
mulated in 1958. In 1966, additional types of loadingsviz. Class 70R etc.,
were introduced. These loadings are still being used for design of
bridges. Class 70R loading was meantto cater to defence vehicles, while
the basis of the other load trains are exactly not known. These loading
standards are currently under review by IRC in order to effect some
rationalisation in these design loadings. However, till such time these

15
<<
are rationalised and simpIified~these loadings will continue to serve as
the basis for design of new bridges and for rating of existing bridges.
A comparative survey of the IRC loadings vis-a-vis design
loadings in other developed countries, indicates that IRC loadings
appear to he the heaviest for single lane traffic. However, theyare lighter
than thoseofthe French, WestCiermany.Japanese and the HA loadings
of BS when two lanes are considered.
It has been observed that IRC Class i2R, 18R and 24R loadings
nearly correspond to 12 L 16.2 t and 25 t (articulated) comniercial
vehicles as shown in Fig I,

5. RATING METF1ODOLOGY

5.1. The rating of existing structures requires careful and detailed

evaluation of many corn~.plex factors and conditions. The present para
tries to provide guidelines for a common basis of evaluation of the rated
load for a bridge. So far, only limited extent of work has been carried out
in various countries. A review of the global practice. loads for rating.
allowable stresses, design philosophy etc. have been dealt with in
this liant,
The basis of the rating methodology for any existing Indian
bridges will he that the bridges would he rated for standard IRC live
loads as specitied in “IRC: 6-1966” (Section II). but posted for equivalent
heaviest corn mercial vehicles(legal loads) plying on the bridge. For the
purpose ofthese guidelines, rating of a bridge would imply “operational
rating’,
5.2. Review of Global Practices
Most of the countries in the world do not have any comprehensive
bridge rating system. In many countries, load rating of bridges is carried
out in connection with passage of exceptional loads only The national
loading standards, bridge codes and standards vary to a large extent for
all these countries and so also the systems followed. The rating system
followed in most of these countries is particularly applicable for steel
bridges and includes the concept of “inventory” and “operational’
rating.

16
<<
 5.2.1. Loads: The loads used by various countries for rating pur-
poses, are of three types
(it design live toads at the time of construction
(ii) presently allowed tegat toads; and
(iii) specific loads for rating purposes only.

Some of the loads in category (iii) are military loads and not much
inifirmation is available on them. Most countries use presently allow-
able legal loads or design loads at the time of construction.
5.2.2. Stresses; The stresses used in the rating schemes also vary a
great deal. Some countries use the allowable design stress in effect at the
time of construction, whereas others allow larger than design stresses
tor rating purposes, allowing as much as 75 percent of the yield stress in
steel. In several countries stresses for rating ofolder bridges are reduced,
leaving the allowable stresses upto the judgement of the rating engineer
depending on the condition of bridge. There are also other variations
viz, reduction in impact factor, which underscores the necessity ofspeed
control of heavy commercial traffic on the bridge.
5.2.3, Fatigue; Most countries do not rate bridges for fatigue load-
ing and leave this to the discretion of the rating engineer. Fatigue is
generally relevant for steel bridges. However, the subject of fatigue
behaviour of concrete bridges subjected to heavy repetitive loading (e.g.
railways) is still under research.
In Germany. fatigue is considered on bridges with mixed highway
and railway loadings. In Sweden, for very important structures, a
detailed, fatigue life calculation is made. In the USA, bridges are
designed for expected fatigue loading but during rating of existing
bridges fatigue is not considered.
5.2.4. Design philosophy; Most countries use working stress
methods for the rating calculations. But some of them, especially for
modern bridges, are using limit state methods in conjunction with the
working stress methods. This has been furnished in Table I.

5.2.5. Computer programme; The USA and Denmark (modified

NATO system) have specific computer programmes developed for
bridge rating hut many countries use the design computer programmes
for the recalculation of stresses for rating purposes.

17
<<
 TABLE I - H1UDGE RATING SYSTEMS

Rating Loading Rating Stresses Fatigue Rating Calculations Rating Com- Plans Un- Rating Per-
Method puter Pro- available formed by
grammes

BELGIUM All bridge same Specification at No No Field measure- Bridge engineers

rules time of Construc- ments concrete
tion cores load tests
DENMARK Standard military Up to 33% increase No Mostly working 9 programmes Field measure- Special teams
vehicles of allowable stress load available ments compa-
stresses during factor also military loads- n-son with
lime of construe- allowed in Danish similar bridges.
lion loading history
FINLAND Maximum legal Normal; No Working stress Ten Design Measurements Central Bridge
loads Design some limit state Programmes Construction
Abnormal; 18% Office and
lace, exceptional Consultants
a impact reduction;
+ 18%

FRANCE Design loads Not Defined No Working stress No Field measure- Not systematic
INo systematic Military loads Individual case since 1971 meats Load tests
rating> Unusual loads judgetnent limit state
GERMANY Design loads. Present design No for hvy, Working stress. Design pm-’ Field Central bridge

,
legal load classes, stresses all aridges limit state for grammes are used measurements office in each
38 t vehicle members Yes for mixed some members State or consult-
hs. & RR ing engineers

ITALY Design loads since Formula for Some stress Working stress No Field measure- Local engineer-
1962 Military & concrete 058 ey reduction some limit slate ments lag office
non-military reinforcing steel
Working stress No Road Authorities
JAPAN Present Design Allowable stress No
Live Load at present specifi- in accordance
with the speci-
cation (modified
by various factors> fied rating
method
<<
NEIl-ICR- Design Classes Design stress No Working stress No Field No rating
LANDS (No 6(l,4~,30 measurements system
r-atiatt system)
NORWAY 5 classes Before 1920 Yes reduced Working stress Not Many Field measure- Main roads-
BK IC) I l01~!mm stress Depends Load factor in bridge design ments - central office
BK 18 (120 lCmm compel, on age & siae future programmes Comparison brtdge engineers.
BK 8 After 1920 øf bridge available with other Others-local
BK 7 135K/mm (for I bridges of engineers
BK 6 & compr) same age
Concrete;
Varies with age of
Construction
SPAIN Design loads l972 Varies with lime No Limit state No, Design Compared with Local bridge
or earlier of construction programmes known type engineer
& matenals used (field No general
measurements( classification
load tests.

SWEDEN Design load at Before 1901-711% of indirectly Working stress Mostly not Ficld measure- Spectal central
lime of construe- St 37 1901-1919 reduced stress used ments and non- oflice team.
tion; all greater St 37 after 1919-St Special cases destructive under bridges
than present 37 + 20% fatigue life testing, test dept
allowable Cotter. - 120% calculation loads
UNITED Special loading According to Steel struclures Working utress Yes. OPTAX Field measure- Usually by the
KINGDOM trains for rating relevant code hut only rated and other ments and non- Highway
special stresses according to Programmes deslruclive Authority
for old bridge design testing
standards
USA Design Live load Operaling-0.75 e y No Working stress Yes. BRASS Field Varies - bridge
or Legal load inventor5 1)55 ~ y and Load and BARS measurements engineers.
concrete factor Physical testing

<<
 Table I furnishes a comparative position of the bridge rating sys-
tem used in various countries of the world.
5.3. Rating Systems
The following three systems may be followed for rating of
bridge structures;
(i) Analytical Method — applicable when the as-built or contract drawings and
specifications followed are available or when such drawings can he pre-
pared by site measurement to an acceptable level ofaccuracy (e.g for steeL
masonry or composite bridges). In any case correctness of the available
drawings shalt he verified at site.

(ii) Load Testing Method — applicable when no construction drawings and

specificationsoriginally followed are available or when such details are not
possible to be obtained fnm site. Guidelines for this method have been pro-
vided in para 6.

(iii) Correlation Method — In certain cases of bridge structures, it is possible to

ascertain the safe carrying capacity of the structure by correlating the sec-
tional details of the structure with those of identical specifications and sec-
tional details whose safe carrying capacities are known.

Even in this case, it is necessary to know the actual details of the existing
structures vis-a-vis the details of those structures whose safe carrying
capacities are known, so that proper assessment by correlation can he made
if the physical condition of the bridge is otherwise satisfactory.

5.4, Analytical Method of Bridge Rating

5.4.1. Loads for rating:
(I) Dead Loads; Dead load of the structure shall comprise the
Light
s~ of the structure plus attachtnents thereto. The unit weight of
materials shall he assumed as set forth in Clause 205 of IRC; 6-1966.
(El) Live Loads ; The different live loads to be considered for
evaluation of load carrying capacity of a bridge will include;
— design live loads as per IRC: 6-1966 (for rating purpose)
— presently allowed commercial vehicles as per current Motor Vehicle Act
(Refer Fig. l)for posting purpose.

Bridges should not be rated for any abnormal loads or over-

dimensioned consignment but should be examined for their safety
separafely on a ease-to-case basis.
(Ill) Footway Loading: Footway loads should be taken as per Clause

20
<<
209.1 to 209.4 of ERC; 6- 1966. Footway loading due tO accidental mount-
ing of vehicles need not he considered for rating computations.
(IV) Impact
(i) During nose to tail situations (these would include situations when the
individual commercial vehicles are separated by one truck length or less).
traffic moves~~ata slow speed and therefore it is not recommended to con-
sider any impact percentages over the static axle loads.
(ii) Forothercases, impact factorwill be considered as per provisions of Clause
211 oflRC: 6-196&
(iii) For single lane, narrow bridges and for those distressed bridges on which
adequate provision for speed restrictions is made, the impact factor maybe
reduced at the discretion of the rating engineer,
(iv) No impact need he considered while examining the stability ofsubstructure
and foundations.

(V) Horizontal Forces

(i) For the purpose of rating of bridge superstructure covered by the guidelines.
all horizontal forces may be neglected.

(ii) Where the structure is likely to have lateral or longitudinal instability (as in
the case ofbridges on trestlesorscrew piles) or forchecking safety of the sub-
structure and foundations, effect of horizontal forces will be considered as
provided in Clauses 213. 214 and 217 of 1RC: 6-1966.

(V~l)Effects of Loads other than Dead and Live Loads

(i) Temperature Effects - Stresses set up by thermal forces will not he con-
sidered in determination of load rating unless the rating engineer, as a
result of his investigation, determines that they are especially and
unusually important

(ii) Seismic Forces — Seismic stresses will beconsidered only forbridges located
in seismic zones IV and V as in IRC: 6-1966.
(iii) Wind Forces - Wind effects will be duly considered but wind and seismic
tbrces will not be considered simultaneously. Wind pressures will he in
accordance with IRC: 6-1966.

(iv) Deformation Effects — Effects due to deformation or secondary stresses will

be considered for rating purpose. wherever deemed necessary by the
rating engineer.
(v) Water Current Forces — Water current forces will be considered for scrutiny
of safety of bridge substructure.

For the combination of forces/stresses due to different effects. the

21

<<
permissible stresses (as mentioned under para 5.4.5.) will be suitably
increased as per Clause 203 of ERC: 6-1966.
5.4.2. Carriageway width: Bridges with carriageway width less
than or equal to 5.5 m will be classified as single lane bridge, and those
having carriageway width above 5.5 m (uplo 7.5 m) should be classified as
two lane bridges.
5.4.3. Spacing and number of commercial vehicles on bridge deck:
(a) Single Lane Bridge (carriageway width less than or equal to 5.5 m)
for any magnitude of span.
(i) Standard and Heavy Trucks A closer spacing of vehicles in urban areas
(particularly in congested traffic situation) is a frequent possibility.
However, urban traffic is mixed and slow. For such cases previous studies
and experience indicate that it would he appropriate to consider the entire
bridge deck loaded with series of standard or heavy trucks in a single lane
with a clear nose to tail spacing of half the overall length of the truck.

(ii) Articulated Vehicles — As these multi-axle vehicles resembles those under

IRC Class A train ofvehicles(and the probabilityoloccurrence ofa conges-
ted situation with series of such vehicles, all with maximum payload is
extremely low), the clear nose to tail spacing for such vehicles will he con-
sidered same as those in IRC 6-1966. which is IS ~ m. A single lane of such
vehicles would he considered on the deck and no other simultaneous
vehicular load will be taken.

(h) Two Lane Bridges carriageway width above 5.5 m and uplo 7.5 m
br all spans.
(i) Standard and Heavy Trucks — Bridge deck may be considered loaded with
two lanes(one up and other down) of series of vehicles with clearnose to tail
spacing of one truck length.

(ii) Ar~culatedVehicles Bridge deck may he considered loaded with one lane
of such vehicles in series with clear spacing of l&5 metres.

5.4.4. Minimum clearances: Within the kerh to kerb width of the

carriageway, the vehicle will be considered to travel parallel to the
bridge length and to occupy any position which will produce maximum
stresses provided that the minimum clearances between vehicles and the
kerh as shown below and in Fig. 5, are not encroached upon.

(‘Icar Carriageway Width g f

5.5 rn to 7.5 m Uniformly increasing 150 mm for all
from 0.4 m to 1,2 m carriageway widths

<<
 CLEAR CARRIAGEWAy WIDTH

~1~1llLJllL.±JJ Fig. 5. MiRimum clear nce ofvehicles

svsatrleufsoel5d.o4wef,5ss,(i:ganA~,laothnwedab(lheo),wstarebuslt elismtfroeitrs deastitnogthoef ecvoxanislutidnegrpbereidsgwicerislb:ebdFeotuhrnewdoheirrgkh(icne)g.r
((ah)) AoArlsiogpwinroavbilededsitgrensAceapsl ecunoladntisxoi-dnIe.sreadn inteochringicnalscpoenctifractidnoscuments such as
c5.4.6. inDelvoewssitagigbnaltimeosntretshoesd:obEitatnheedr ftrhoem wostrernkgitnhgtessttrebsy fimeeld tahnoddlaobrorlaotoardy
ttfahhaleecotrwwooartahimrnkgeintehghnoegdsritnmaleeosaryd.mebItoehtbuhaesoedco.atrfTeohinrebdreebfyoncrtofhm,eupcnsautdrtuatchitoaountrleiosbtahndeafnaddceohtdnartimnperdotovhpiontdigedmanthbofisy
csianolcweueTltadhh.teeiorenpmaroofcyetdhuersewetrutoacktunberesfsoehlsooiunwledthdeb ofoldroetnhreedebaesgforeesanamneyacntupoogmfurpaldletiitnmegarteeis-
swhtreilngatdopftisneg tihoensloandfathctostemrevitchoad,bialrteyfucor nisdhiteodnintoAbpe cnadteixre2d. Ffor,
23

<<
the load factor method, the factors shall be as follows;
.1 for dead load where its effect is additive to that of live load
Ii) for dead load where its effect is opposite to that of live load
1.8 for live load including its impact effects: and
1.0 for both dead and live loads while checking for the serviceability conditions
to be catered for.

5.5. Steps to be followed for Analytical Methods (for superstructures

only) All the steps are explained in detail below.
—

Step I : Compute moment and shear resisting capacity ofthe section at selected
critical locations (defined as Mcap & Vcap respectively).
Step 2 : Based on assessment of condition of the bridge (para 2), decide about
the reduction factor(~)to be applied for the net effective strength of the
section. This, obviousl~will be a subjective assessment by the rating
engineer based on detailed condition evaluation made at site on a
given date.
Step 3 Compute effect(moment and shear) of all loads other than live loads at
the same selected critical section as considered in Step I (defined as
MDL and VDL respectively).
Step 4: Compute MLL and ~LL (Net Resisting Capacity minus effect due to all
loads other than live loads) at the same selected critical sections as in
Step I.
Step 5: Compute the maximum possible effect Mu and VLL (moment and
shear) on the bridge due to standard IRC loading as per IRC: 6-1966.
Section II (latest revision) including impact effects. For rating of all
bridges on national highways, following standard loads will be
considered
1 stipulations for numberof loaded lanes will be as in IR(’: 6-
1966 (Section II)
— Class AA tracked and wheeled
— Class A
— Class 70k, 60k, 50k, 40k, 30K 24K 18k, 12k.
Step 6: Compare MIL and VIL with the values ofMLL and ViLcomputed from
Step 5 at thecorrespondingcritical sections. Identify the IRC loading
class whose effect is just below the corresponding value of MLL or
VLL.
Step 7: Finalise the rating of the bridge as the IRC load class identified above.
This rating will be correlated to the date of field assessment of the
bridge.

5.6. Explanatory Note for the Steps to be followed for Analytical

Method of Rating
Step I : Computation of Section Capacity
(i) calculation method will depend on the type of the old bridge to be

24
<<
 evaluated which mostly consists of the following:
— Slab bridges (solid or voided)
— RCC T-beam and slab
— RCC Box girder
— Prestressed concrete (T-beam and
deck slab and box girder)’
— Arches - masonry and RCC
Majority of the existing and old concrete bridges are either simply
supported spans or ofcantilever or balanced cantilever construc-
tion. Accordingly, section capacity will be computed atthe follow-
ing locations:

— L4. L/2, 3L’4 and supports for simply supported spans. Same
for centrally suspended span in a balanced cantilever
arrangement.
— Support and centre of cantilever span for cantilever bridges
and at the articulation. Support section for arches are to
be considered.
— Any other critical location as deemed necessary by the
rating engineer.
(ii) Due consideration will be given to the section capacities of the
structural components ofsuperstructure viz, deck slab, T-heams.
box webs, arch ribs and supports etc.
Step 2: 4ssessment of Reduction factor
The reduction factor( ‘i)would represent the in-situ strength of the struc-
ture as on the date of field investigation and will be assessed based on
subjective evaluation of the individual load carlying capacity of the
structure. This will depend upon the extent of distress/deterioration
identified at site, as discussed in para 3 of these Guidelines. Considering
the importance of such assessment in evaluating the bridge rating, this
should be carried out by a qualified bridge engineer experienced in
this field.

Although subjective in nature, the assessment ofreduction factor should

be made in a systematic manner through use ofa marking ~stem. The
format of the marking system may be suitably decided by the rating
engineer.

As an example, the following format is suggested for a systematic assess-

ment of the reduction factor of a typical RC T-beam and slab type
superstructure of a bridge.

25

<<
 Assessment of Reduction Factor (Concrete Superstnicture)

~Exampleonlyl

SI. Structural Component Full’ Marks % Marks % Marks

No. Marks Assigned Componentwise Overall

1 2 3 4 5 6

I. Deck Slab 25
2. Soffit slab (for box girder) 15
3. Longitudinal (lirder 30
(T-beam or box ribs)
4. Cross Girder 10
5. Footpath Slab 5
6. Articulations/Central hinges 10
7. Expansion joints/bearings 5

Total Superstructure 1(X)

for each bridge

‘This would depend on the weightage of the individual components in

relation to the entire superstructure and to be decided by the rating
engineer after studying the structural system. The marks mentioned
above are only indicative and for the purpose of explaining the
method.
As an example, if the total marks assigned are, say, 80 percent, then an
overall reduction factor of0.8 will be adopted. Similarly, for checking of
component safety (e.g. deck slab) reduction factor will be considered for
the marks assigned for the particular component.
In case, the total marks assigned for the superstructure falls below a
given limit, the bridge should be considered for traffic controlor for clos-
ing to traflic, Depending upon the importance of such decision on the
traffic flow in the network, strategic importance, length ofdetour etc., the
rating engineer should decide about the above limit (such as 50 per cent
or 60 per cent of total marks etc.) in close co-ordination with the
bridge authority.
Also, decision for traffic control or closing the bridge to traffic may he
required when one of the major structural components (e.g. deck slab,
longitudinal girder, central hinge/articulation, bearings etc.) are observed
to be severely distressed and the marks assigned for that particular
component (s) fall less than a particular value (say 40 or 50 per cent of
the full marks for that component).
For bridges with reduction factor (overall and componentwise) above

26

<<
 the pre-assigned limit, the bridge will be rated/posted as discussed
in the guidelines.
Step 3 : Effect of all Loads other than Use Load
For computation of dead load moment and shear at the different
locations in the span, no reduction will be made in the cross-sectional
areas of the superstructure, due to any spalling, honeycombing etc.
Loads which will he considered other than dead and live load will be as
indicated in para 5.4.1. hereinhefore.
Step 4: Self-explanatory
Step 5 : Computation ofLive Load Effects( in accordance with IRC: 6-1966, Section II)
Consideration of transverse distribution of loads will he given. Analysis
may be based on any rational method such as Morice Little, Hendry-
Jaegar or (irillage Analogy method.
For checking effect of maximum wheel load on deck slab, any rational
method such as Pigeaud’s chart may be used (for slabs spanning in two
directions). For slabs supported on two opposite sides, or for cantilever
slabs, effective width method oranyotherrational method maybe used.

For box girders. effect of torsion due to eccentric loading, will be con-
sidered in addition to flexure.
Step 6 Self-explanatory
& 7: Fig. 6 shows the logic diagram indicating the algorithm of the steps
involved in analytical rating of bridge superstructure.

5.7. Assessment of Safe Carrying Capacity of Substructures and

Foundations
5.7.1. When no detailed drawings of the existing substructure and
foundations are available, it may not be possible to make accurate com-
putations for ascertaining the safe carrying capacity ofthe substructure
and foundations. However, a qualitative evaluation may be made based
on the following information:
(a) Detailed inspection of the accessible areas of the abutments, piers and well
foundations/pile foundations, Underwater inspection of the foundation
may he essential in some cases.
(b) For such cases, where no drawings of substructure/foundations are avail-
able, approximate indication of cariying capacity may be obtained from
load testing. For such cases, the test vehicles (para 6) may be so located as to
result in maximum vertical reaction on the substructure. Vertical settlement
or tilting of the substructure/foundations shall be continuously monitored
during the load testing and afterwards, In case of no perceptible settlement!
tilting observed, approximate assessment of the minimum vertical load car-
rying capacity ofthe substructure/foundationcould be made accordingly.

27
<<
 sr

(OMPU11~ SF(TION CAPAC~FY

IN MOM~NiAND SHEAR
SI SS1,ICTED LO(KI1ONS
‘I,

~: p,~.

Fig. 6. Logic diagram for analytical rating system for bridge superstructure

28
<<
 (c) It is to be noted thatby the above load testing procedure no information will
be available retarding the lateral load capacity of the substructure/
fbundations. In absence ofthe relevant data, viz, depth of foundation below
scour depth, details of’ piled/well foundations, reinforcement details in the
abutment, piers and well steiningfpiies, soil characteristics etc. any analyti-
cal computation will lead to approximate results.

5.72. When detailed drawings of the substructure and foun-

dations are available, it is feasible to assess their load carrying capacity
by analytical computations. The salient points for such assessment are
mentioned below:
5.7.3. Bearing pressure at the founding l~elshaH be examined
analytically on the same principle as provided for in Clausel22 ofIRC:
5-1985 taking due cognizance of the maximum scour depth and for any
other load combination specified earlier. The various loads to be con-
sidered shall be as mentioned in para 5,4.1 hereinbefore. The maximum
bearing pressure shall not exceed the safe bearing capacityof the soil by
more than 25 per cent when wind/seismic loading is not considered and
33-1/3 per cent when effect of wind/seismic is taken into account
5,7.4. In deciding about the safe bearing capacity of the soil, pre-
vious soil investigation report, design calculations, existing local
knowledge and behaviour of structures in the vicinity shall be con-
sidere&~inabsence of any soil data available, fresh soil exploration will
be essential at the foundations under investigations.
5.7.5. Where the foundationsand substructure are known to carry
given external loadswithout any sign ofdistress or deterioration and the
increase in live load~bverthose already using the bridge does not cause
an increase of more than 25 per cent of the total loads at foundation
level, the foundationsand substructure ofthe bridge shall be assumed to
be safe for the aforesaid increase in live loads.
5.7.6. The adequacy of substructure and foundations shall be
examined for cases not covered by para 5.7.5 by analysis only and the
maximum stresses under the worst combination of loads specified
earlier shall not exceed those specified hereinbefore.
5.7.7. Due allowance should be made in the assessment for any
deterioration and signs of distress noticed in the substructure and foun-
dations during detailed inspection. The salient information considered
necessary in this respect has been provided in paras 3.2. and 3.3.
hereinbefore.
29

<<
 5.7.8. The safe load carrying capacity of the bridge shall be the
lesser value ofthe capacity of the superstructure(as discussed in para 5.5
and pant 6 of these: guidelines and that ofthe substructure/foundations
(as discussed above). The bridge rating shall be decided accordingly.
5.8. Method of Assessment of Safe Carrying Capacity of
Superstructure for Different Types of Bridges
5.8.1. Masonry arch bridges:
(ft The provisional safe axle loads (before applying various factors) for dif-
ferent spans, thickness of arch ring and depth of cushion may directly be
read from the nomogram in Fig. 7.
(ii) Assessment arrived at from the nomogram are in terms ofa maximum pro-
visional axle load (before applying various factors), which may be taken as
the combined load in case of tat~demaxles.
(iii) The allowable axle loads and thereby the rating shall be arrived at from the
provisional axle loads obtained above, by multiplying these loads by
appropriate profile factors, material factors, joint factors, support factors,
etc., specified in Appendix’4.

5.8.2. Concrete arch bridges:

(i) Wherever possible, the strength ofthe arch bridges shall be determined pre-
ferably from analysis,
(ii) Plain concrete arches may also be classified in the same manner as masonry
arches vide 5.8.1 with a material factor of 1.5 applied in the assessment

5.8.3. RCC slab bridges:

(ft The carrying capacity of these bridges shall be determined on the basis of
analysis only.
(ii) However, the permissible axle loads for such slabs may also be determined
by the rapid method of assessment using Table 2.

5.8.4. Girder bridges: When the details of the bridge structure

(whether reinforced concrete. prestressed concrete or steel girder deck)
are known, the strength of the bridge structure shall be determined by
analysis and, while doing so, the following shall be kept in view:

(ft consideration shall be given to the composite action of different members

that act together in carrying the live loads

(ii) examining separately the adequacy of the deck slab of such girder bridges
as may he necessary

30

<<
d - The thickness of ring at Crown
h - The average depth of fill between the road surface and the arch ring
at the Crown
B
ARCH SPAN METRES TOTAL CROWN THICKNESS
l8m~ A (h+d) mm
1800
1600 C
PROVISIONAL AXLE
1400 WADING TON1~ES
12m ~ 1200 45
10(X)
900
9m
800 30
26
6(8) 23
6m ~ 20
18
16
400 14
12
300
10
9
3m —
200 8
EXAMPLE
Span 9 Metres Width Factor 0.90
Span/Rise Ratio 4 Depth Factor 1,00
= 1.0
Span/Rise Factor Mortar Factor = 1.00
Shape Factor ~‘t).8 Joint Factor 0,9xlxl “090
Profile Factor I x 08 08 Support Factor =095
Crown Thickness d 401) mm Crack Factor 090
Ring Factor 1.20 Abutment Fault
Fill Factor 0.91) Factor 0.80
Fill Depth h 250 mm Reduction Factor
For Impact “0,90
Material Factor = 1.2. xO.4x0.9 xO.25
0.65
= 1.085
The provisional axle loading for an an±,9 m span with total crown
thickness of 650 mm is. fiom the nomogram 18.7 tonnes.
Allowable axle load
18.7 xO.8 x 1.085 xO.9 xO,95 xO.90xO,80 xO,9
8.95 tonnes,
NOTE TEllS WOULD MEAN THAT THE ARCH UNDER
CONSIDERATION IS SAFE FOR 12 T STANDARDTRUCK
Fig. 7. Nomogram for determining die provisiona’ allowable axle loading of existing
masonry arch bndges before applying factors (to be used only for ratingand not
for design purposes~
31
<<
 (iii) where proper shear connection between the decking and the girder exists.
the distribution ofthe live load in the transversedirection will beconsidered
depending upon the eccentricity of the live load on the deck.
TABLE 2. SAFE AXLE LOAD ~ORRCC SLAB BRIDGES

Effective Thickness Safe Axle Effective Thickness Safe Axle

Span of Slab Load Span of Slab Load
(m) (mm) (1’) (m) (mm) (T)

( 150 9.5 ( 300 10.0

2 ( 175 14.5 ( 325 13.0
( 200 21.0 6 ( 350 16.0
( 375 19.0
( 200 11.5 ( 400 24.0
( 225 15.5
3 ( 250 20.0
( 275 25.5 ( 325 9.0
( 350 11.5
( 225 9.5 7 ( 375 14.0
( 250 13.0 ( 400 17.5
4 ( 275 17.0 ( 425 21.0
( 300 21.5

( 250 9.0 ( 175 9.0

( ‘275 11.5 ( 400 12.0
5 ( 300 15.0 8 ( 425 15.0
( 325 19.0 ( 450 18.0
( 350 23.0 ( 475 21.5

Notes.’
a. Slab thickness includes a cover of 25 mm
h. A 75 mm thick wearing coat is assumed over the slab
c. No separate allowance for impact need be made on the safe axle loads as the same
has already been accounted for.

6. LOAD TESTING
6.1. When it is not possible to determine the rated capacity of a
bridge due to lack ofessential details, it may be determined by load test-
ing with gradual application of a proof load by test vehicles.
Rating by load testing is recommended for masonry arches and
girder bridges.

32
<<
 6.2. Vehicle for Testing
it is extremely difficult to simulate in the field, the IRC standard
bridge loadings for full scaleload testing. Accordingly, the test vehicles
will be from amongst those commercially available as specified in Fig.l.
The test vehicle chosen will be the next heavier vehicle than the pre-
dominant heavy vehicles presently plying over the bridge. The next
heavier vehicle may be considered for testing. if required, after the load
testing with the first vehicle is complete and found to be satisfactory.
Heavier vehicles, if available, is permitted for testing Number of
vehicles for test is to be worked out so as to produce the desired bending
moment at the critical sections.
6.3. Deflectwn Measurement
6.3.1. Vertical deflections upto 25 mm will be measured by sus-
pended wire method utilising dial gauges having least count of0.25 mm
whereas the horizontal deflection or spread will be measured by means
of dial gauges having least count of 0.01 mm, fixed on firm support,
independentofthe structure to be tested and provided at location where
deflections are to be measured,
6.3.2. For arch bridges, the measurement ofverticaldeflection will
he made at crown along the arch crown line at three locations (at
upstream end, at the centre and at the downstream end) over the
transverse width of the arch.
The horizontal movement of spread ofpiers and abutment maybe
measured at three similar locations over the length ofthe pierand abut-
merit near the springing level.
6.3.3. For girder bridges, deflection measurement will be taken at
the centre of the span for all girders.
6.3.4. Corrections, if any, for the observed deflection areas to be
applied for:
(a) settlement of bearings, and
(b) rotation of pier in the case of cantilever span under load testing

6.4. Positioning of Load for Testing

6.4.1. For arch bridges, total rear axle of a standard truck having
only one rear axle, will be placed on the crown and in the case of twin

33
<<
tandem rear axle, the rear twin tandem axles should be placed symmet-
rically about the transverse centre line of the bridge.
6.4.2. Test vehicles will be placed at marked locations on the
bridge so as to produce maximum moment effects on girders. While
placing the test vehicles at the desired location on the deck, these will
preferably be moved from both directions leading to their final
positioning.
6.4.3. The maximum bending moment for which the test pro-
gramme will be worked out should be computed based on the maximum
possible bending moment with nose to tail placement of normal pre-
dominant commercial vehicles plying on the bridge.
6.4.4. For a two-lane bridge, threevehicles (trucks) can be placed
abreast within the carriageway width of 7.5 m.

6.5. Procedure for Load Testing

6.5.1. For concrete girders prior to load testing observations
should be made for any crack in the structure and the cracks, ifany, will
be measured for their width and the cracks should be marked. For girder
bridges, theoretical deflection can be obtained from external dimen-
sions of the concrete sections.
6.5.2. Prior to testing a whitewash should be applied at the critical
sectionsfor easeofobservationofbehaviour of cracks and their new for-
mations during the test
6.5.3. The load test should be done during such period of the day
when the variation in temperature is low. Preferably, the testing could
be done in early hours of morning or after 4 p.m.
6.5.4. The test load shall be applied in stages following the given
values 0.5W, 0.75W, 0.90W, 1.0W, where “W” is the gross laden weightof
the test vehicle.
6.5.5. For each stage, the correspondingly loaded test vehicle shall
be brought to the intended/marked position and observation of deflec-
tions will be made instantaneously and after five minutes.
6.5.6. After the load placement, observation should also be made for
development of any new crack and widening of the existing ones.

34
<<
 6.5.7. Prior to starting of testing. the theoretical deflections at
various stages of loading should be plotted. In case the in-situ deflec-
tions exceed these values by more than 10 per cent the testing procedure
should be discontinued.
6.5.8. During the testing operations, the load-deflection diagram
should he plotted at site at every stage of loading Attempt should be
made to evaluate the anticipated deflection corresponding to each stage
of loading taking the deflection measurement in field as the basis for
prediction (by linear extrapolation). Deflection exceeding the predicted
value by less than 10 per cent would be permissible.
6.5.9. For testing with multiple test vehicles, the individual
vehicles should be gradually brought to position and the deflections
under them should be continuously monitored.
6.5.10. The test vehicle should be taken off the bridge and instan-
taneous deflection recovery and deflection recovery 5 minutes after the
removal of the load should be noted.
6.5.11. For assessment, the following values will be worked out:
(I) The value of deflection after 5 minutes of loading
(ii) For recovery the least of the following:
Instantaneous recovery on unloading
instantaneous deflection on loading
or
Recovery after 5 minutes of unloading
Deflection after 5 minutes of loading
6.5.12. Next stage of loadincrement should be stopped under any of
the following conditions:
(a) For Arch Bridges
(i) Crown deflection or spread of abutment as specified in 66,1 is reached
(ii) The recovery of crown deflection or spread of abutment/pier is less than 80
per cent
(iii) Signs of distress in the shape of appearance of visible new cracks or per-
ceptible widening ofexisting cracks in the arch rib are observed. Methods of
measuring crack width have been discussed under para 3,6. hereinbefore.

(b) For Girder Bridges

(i) The deflection or the percentage recovery of deflection does not satisf~rthe
limits specified in 6.6.2.

35
<<
 (ii) Signs of distress in tile shape ofcracks with a width more than0.3 mmin the
tensile zone of the girders for normal cases and 0.2 mm for structures
exposed to very severe and adverse conditions or conspicuous diagonal
cracks close to support are observed.

6.6. Acceptance Criteria

6.6.1. For arch bridges: Where no crack is observed, the load fQr
rating shall be taken as the least ol:
(i) The load on rear axle causing a deflection or 1.25 mm in the case of test
vehicles having single rear axle and for test vehicles having twin rear axles,
the total load on the two rear axles causing a ciuwn defkction a(2.0 mm
(ii) The load causing a spread of abutment/pier of 0.4 mm and
(iii) The load causing recovery ofcrown deflection or spread ofabutment/pierto
a value of 80 per cent
The load for rating shall be taken as half the axle load at which a
new visible crack or perceptible widening of existing cracks are
observed.
6.6.2, For girder bridges: The load for ratingshouldbe taken as the
least of:
(i) The load causing a deflection oil (15(X) of the span in any ofthe main gir-
ders for simply supported spans,
or
for cantilever spans, the load causing a deflection of 1/800 of the cantilever
span in any of the main girders
(ii) The load causing tension cracks ofwidth more than0.3 mm inany ofthe gir-
ders for normal cases and 0.2 mm for structures exposed to very severe and
adverse conditions.
(iii) The load causing appearance of visible new diagonal cracks of width
more than 0.3 mm for normal cases and 0.2 mm for structures exposed to
very severe and adverse conditions. or opening/widening of existing cracks
close to the supports in concrete girders.
(iv) The load at which recovery of deflection on removal of load is not less than
80 per cent for R.C.C. structures and 90 per cent for prestressed
concrete structures.

6.7. Procedure for Radag and Posting

6.7.1. For arch bridges : The safe load which can ply over the
bridge will depend on the configuration of the testing vehicle. In case of
test with vehicles having single rear axle, the safe axle load will be 90 per
cent ofthe ratedload whereas for tests conducted with twin tandem axle,

36

<<
the safe axle load will be 90 per cent of the total load on the twin rear
axle. This safe toad can be on one axle or spread over two axles which
are at least 1.2 m apart.
6.7.2. For girder bridges: For girder bridges, the safe carrying
capacity should be based on bending moment The bending moment due
to the rated load will depend on the vehicles position on the span and
the configuration of the vehicle. A theoretical calculation will enable the
rated load to be converted to the maximum bending moment on the
span. The IRC class of load which produces nearly identical bending
moment for the bridge will be the class which can safely ply over
the bridge.

7. BRIDGE POSTING

7.1. On completion of structural rating, posting will be made near

approaches on either side of the bridge. Posting will be made for all
bridges which are rated for IRC standard live load, except that for
bridges rated for axle loads more than those using the bridge or likely to
use in the near future, need not be posted.
All posting will be made in terms of equivalent axle loads and/or
gross vehicle weights (GVW~of the commercial vehicles plying on
Indian roads and satisfying provision of the Motor Vehicle Act as
shown in Fig. 1.
The overall dimensions of the commercialvehicles will be as men-
tioned in para 4 on Traffic Factors.
7.2. Method of Analytical Computation for Posting
Bridge structure rated for vehicles classes as per IRC: 6-1966 (Sec-
tion II) will be posted for the commercial vehicles shown in Fig. I by
establishing a correlation.
Correlation between a rated load and posting load will be
established by comparing the maximum live load effects (bending
moment and shear force effect, refer para 5.5. Step 5) due to standard
IRC loading with those due to the commercial vehicles as shown in
Fig. 1. The spacing and number of the commercial vehicles to be con-

37

<<
sidered for such computations will be as mentioned under para 5.4.3 of
these guidelines. The other guidelines for computation of maximum
bending moment and shear for these commercial vehicles (e.g. minimum
clearance from road kerb, transverse distribution etc.) will be as men-
tioned in para 5 entitled Rating Methodology. An overload factor of 1.25
will be considered for all the commercial vehicles mentioned above
(Refer para 4.4.)
The four categories of commercial vehicles as shown in Fig, I will
only he considered for posting purposes. The maximum axle loads cor-
responding to the respective GVW have been indicated in the above
figure. The logic diagram for bridge posting procedure is shown in
Fig. 8.
7.3. Traffic Restrictions
Depending upon the assessment ofthe bridge condition, the rating
of the bridge, equivalent maximum allowable axle load and/or GVW
and the maximum axle load/GVW ofthe commercial vehicles plying on
the bridge, the rating engineerwould decide the necessity of the follow-
ing traffic restrictions on the bridge from safety considerations:
(I) Speed Restriction — to be effective till the detailed investigations and
strengthening or rehabilitation work and load testing (if required) on the
repaired bridge is complete and clearance is given by the specialised agency
carrying out the work. The limiting speed of vehicles over the structure will
be decided by the bridge authority depending upon the physical condition
of the structure.
(ii) Geometrical Restnetiou — this would involve curtailing the carriageway
width to ensure lesser extent of live load on the bridge at a particular time
and/or installation of height barrier on either end approaches to restrict
passage of overloaded or over~sizedcommercial vehicle on the bridge.

(iii) Footpath Loading - depending upon the structural condition of the footpath
slab, restriction on load on footpath may be imposed till the distressed part
is rehabilitated. Restriction on footpath load may also be necessary in order
to reduce the total load on the bridge superstructure.

7.4. Posting Sign

The regulatory signs for the above, as shown in Fig. 9, may be

installed on either side of bridge approach at adequate distance from
the bridge abutments and at a number of road junctions leading to the
posted bridge.

38

<<
 • Speed Limit
• Frequent Inspection
• Lane Limits
• Repair

Operate Posted Bridge

* Inspection
* Enforcement
* Permit ibr ODC

Fig. 8. Bridge posting procedure

39

<<
 RED SPEED LIMIT

WIDTH LIMIT

ttEIGHT LiMIT
WARNING SIGN
(WRITINGSIN BLACK)

REGULATORY SIGN

RAILING POST ON
ENTRY AND EXIT

t
• BLACK WRITINGS
ON YELLOW
BACKGROUND

RATING SIGN

RECIUSATORy SIGN
(WRITINGS IN BLACK)
Fig. ~).liridge posting signs (Specifications to IR(: 67-1977 & S,P: 31)

40

<<
 Advance Warning Sign: For all bridges to he posted. an advance
warning sign indicating a ‘~LoadLimit Bridge” will be placed at least 200 m
from the abutments on both ends of the bridge and at a number of road
junctions leading to the posted bridge, starting from the earliest
fli ajor junction
Load Regulatory Sign: ‘rhis will be placed at a sufficient distance
(not less than 100 iii) from the abutment., on both ends of the bridge so
that truckers can make arrangements to use detours or to limit their
loads to the maximum weight allowed.
Posting in the load restriction sign will consist of restriction of
maximum axle loads and/or restriction of maximum gross loads of
vehicles as under:
(i) For maximum single or bogie axle loads only for spans less than 5 m.
(ii) For maximum single or bogie axle loads and for gross loads of vehicles
specified in Fig 1 for spans beiween 5 m and 12 m, and
(iii) For only gross loads of vehicles specified in Fig. I for spans over 12 m.

7.5. Enforcement
Enforcement of restrictions in respect of maximum axle load,
GVW, speed on bridge and geometrical restrictions may be required for
safety of the bridge. This may be ensured by the respective department
through the administrative machinery of the State. For bridges of
paramount importance (e.g. strategic locations, on highways carrying
heavy traffic loads, bridges whose closure will involve very long detour
etc.), specialised equipment may be used for such enforcement These
may Comprise:
(i) Portable or permanent weight bridges or weight~in—mo1ion (WIM)
appliances or computerised traffic management systems, presently avai-
lable indigenously.
(ii) Doppler Radars for checking vehicle speed on the bridge.
(iii) Frame Barriers — suitably designed forspecific applications(motorised and
remote controlled from a traffic booth: ii necessary), such as restricting
height/width of vehicles.
(iv) Installation of close circuit TV to monitor traffic intensity on the
bridge.

The options available to the rating engineer as alternatives to

bridge load posting are as follows
—• restriclions to speed limit

41

<<
 — restrictions to ve1~icledimensions (frame barrier)
— frequent inspections
— lane limits
repair
— strengthening

In addition to the posting sign at the distressed bridge site, the

following methods may be considered by the enforcing authority for
notifying public ofthe bridge posting to be suitably located at a number
of road junctions leading to the posted bridge:
— news release
— special notice to trucking association
— legal notice
— notice pasted at weigh stations
— weight limit maps or lists

It is a normal practice throughout the world that posted bridges are

reinspected more thoroughly or frequently than other structures.

8 REPAIR, STRENGTHENING AND

REHABILITATION OF BRIDGES
8.!. Pursuant to the detailed inspection, testing and assessment of
the load carrying capacity of an existing distressed bridge, the various
options available to the bridge owner and the follow up actions to be
taken would be carefully evaluated. Four possible options have been
mentioned in IRC: S.P.-35. One of these options will be to undertake
immediate repair. strengthening and rehabilitation of the bridge.
The technical scheme for repair and strengthening of distressed
bridge would depend on the nature and extent of the distress in the
bridge superstructure, substructure and foundations. The objective
must not always be to restore the original condition ofthe bridge. It can
be quite sufficient both economically and technically to provide proper
strengthening whilst, at the same time, derating the safe load carrying
capacity. In this respect, cost analysis can be of help. An estimate can
also he obtained by studying the risks involved and giving considera-
tion to the life of the structure as to the success of the repair!
strengthening measures proposed.
The above subjects are covered in detail in a separate report
entitled “Guidelines for Methods and Techniques of Major Repairs,
Strengthening and Rehabilitation on Bridges” under preparation by the
1 RC.
42

<<
 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges, OECD, Paris (December1979).

2. Correlation of Bridge Load Capacity Estimates with Test Data, National Coopera-
tive Highway Research Programme, Report 306, Transport Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington DC (June 1988).
3. IRC Special Publication 9: Report on Rating of Bridges (1986).
4. Concrete Bridge Practice: Construction, Maintenance and Rehabilitation by Dr.
V.K. Raina, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi (1988).
5, Concrete International, Design and Construction, Bridge Evaluation Yields
Valuable Lessons, VoL 6, No. 6 (June 1984).
6. Inspection and Maintenance ofReinforced and Prestressed Concrete Stnictures —
FtP Guide to Good Practice (1988).
7, Conserving and Strengthening Prestressed Concrete Structures, Dieter Jungwirth,
IABSE Proceedings P-I 12/87.
8. IRC: 6-1966 (Sec Il): Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road
Bridges - Loads and Stresses.
9. Report on Study ofAxle Weight Limits forIndia preparedby Consulting Engineer-
ing Services (India) Private Limited, New Delhi (October1988) for the Ministry of
Surface Transport (Roads Wing), Government of India.
10. IRC Special Publication 35: Guidelines for Inspection and Maintenance of
Bridges. (1990).
II. Paper No: 301 entitled “The Evolution ofa New Highway Bridge Loading Stan-
dard for India”, Thomas, P.K, IRC Journal (1975).
12. Manual for MaintenanceInspection of Bridges (1978), AASHTO, Washington DC.
13. Transportation Research Record 950, Second Bridge Engineering Conference,
Vo14, National Research Council, Washington DC (1984).
14. Guidelines for Evaluation and Repair of PrestressedConcrete Bridge Members,
National Cooperative Highway Research Programme Report 280, Washington
DC (1985).
15. Distribution of Wheel Loads on Highway Bridges, Transportation Research Board
Report No: 111, Washington DC (1984).

<<
43
 APPENDIX-i

PERMISSIBLE STRESSES IN DIFFERENT MATERIALS

Where working stress method of analysis is done, the permissible stresses in dif-
ferent materials shall be as under:
(i) In structural steel and mild steel, 45 percent extra shall be allowed over the values
specified in relevant IRC Standard Specifications and Codes of Practices for
Road Bridges.
(ii) In concrete and in masonry, 333 per cent shall be allowed over the values, specified
in relevant IRC Standard Specifications and Codes of Practices for Road Bridges
and Design Criteria.

Note: Permissible stresses in early steel shall be as given in Appendix-i

44

<<
 AFPENDIX-2

ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF SECTIONS AND

SERVICEABILITY coNumoNs

1. tHtimate Strength of Sections and Serviceability (‘onditions

1.1. For reinforced concrete sections, ultimate strength of sections in flexure,
combined bendingand axialload and in shear shall be computed according
to the provisions ofClause 5-3.2 to B-3.7 of IS: 456-l9~.

1.2. For prestressed concrete sections. the ultimate capacity shall be computed
in accordance with the provisions of clause 13 of IRC: 18-1983 “Design
Criteria for Prestressed Concrete Road Bridges(Post-tensioned Concretel.~’

1.3. For steel sections, the ultimate strength may be computed by any
rational method.
However, due account shall be taken ofthe conditionsofinstability, buckling
or failure ofjoints/connections causing local failures at ultimate load stage.
1.4. For a composite section, the ultimate flexural strength of the section and
ultimate strength of shearconnectors shall be computed as per the provision
of JRC: 22-1986.
1.5. The maximum vehicular load (rating), W
1 on the bridge/structure shall be
determined as follows:

f(V11) F~—1.1
1.8

or, f(W1) ‘F~+ f(Wd)

1.8 (when the effect of dead load is opposite to that of live
load)

Where f (W1) is the particular generalised effect or effects due toW1

being considered for strength evaluation. e.g. bending
moment, shear axial load, etc.
~(~~) is the particular generalised effect or effects being con-
sidered due to the dead load of the structure
is the ultimate strength of the section in bending shear,
axial, load, etc.
2. Serviceability Conditions

2.1. The check forensuring proper serviceability shall be done with a load factorof
1.0 for dead and for live load, including impact
2.2. Limiting Crack Widths in Concrete.

2.2.1. No check shall be necessary for solid slabs.

45
<<
 2.2.2. For reinforced concrete beams with plain bars, no check shall be necessary if
the maximum diameter of bar does not exceed the following values:

Percentage of Longitudinal (tensile) Maximum dia of plain bar in

reinforcement to the cross section of concrete mm

p<l.O 20
p~l.5 32
p<2.0 40

2.2.3. In other cases, the maximum cracks width as computed by the following
expression shall not exceed 0.3 mm for normal cases and 0.2 mm for structures exposed to
very severe and adverse conditions.
3acr Em
Wmax =

(h - x)

Where.
W max is the maximum design surface crack width:
Cmin is the minimum cover to the tension steel;
acr is the perpendicular distance from the point considered to the surface of
the nearest longitudinal bar
Em is the average strain at the level where cracking is being considered
calculated allowing for the stiffening effectof the concrete in the tension
zone; this may be obtained from the equation:

Em — 1l.2.b
1h(d—x)l l0~
A5 (h - x) 5,
where,
bt is the width of the section at the centroid of the tension steel;
d is the distance from the compression face to the point at which the crack
width is being calculated;
h is the overall depth of the member;
El the average strain at the level where cracking is being considered,
15

calculated ignoring the stiffening effect of the concrete in the tension zone;
x is the depth ofthe neutral axisfound from the analysis to determine E~
A~ is the area of tension reinforcement~
f~ characteristic strength of tension steel i.e. minimum value of 0.2 per cent
proof stress or yield stress.

46
<<
 A negative value OfE~mindicates that the section is uncracked. In assessing the
strains the modulus ofelasticity ofthe concrete should be taken as half the instantaneous
value.
2.3. Limiting Strains
2.3.1. No strain computations would he necessary. However, where there are
external signs of distress, in the form ofcracks and it is so considered essential by the
Engineer rating the bridge, strain computation at the workingload(load factor 1.0) shall
he made presuming elastic behaviour of the material and the member.
2.3,2, In reinforced concrete, when calculations are considered necessary to check
the strain at working load, the value of concrete strain shall not exceed 0.04 per cent and
the steel strain shall not exceed 0.09 per cent The above concrete strain value may be
exceeded with closely spaced helical or lateral ties, at the discretion of the Engineer rating
the bridge.
2.4. LimIting Deflections

2.4.1. In case of concrete, the check fordeflections need not be done ii the following
are satisfied:

Slabs or beams in cantilever Span/depth 10

Slabs L
01depth 25
Rectangular on T-beams L~Jdepth 12
Where L0 = distance between points of zero moment
2.4.2. The computation for limiting deflection shall be made for normal working
loads i.e. load factor = I). Such computations shall be necessary ifthe deflection is likely
to affect the serviceability of the structures.

2.4.3. Deflections shall be calculated in accordance with the basic principles of

theory ofstructures and structural mechanics considering modulii ofelasticity as given in
relevant IRC Codes of Practice for Road Bridges.

2.4.4. The maximum deflection due to live load plus impact shall not exceed 1/1500
of the span, the span length being considered from centre to centre of bearings.

47
<<
 APPENLWX-3

FACTORS TO BE (‘ONSIDEREI) WHILE RATING

THE EXISTING STEEL BRIDGES

1. Classification of Steel Bridges

Bridges with steel manufactured after 1895 AD shall he treated as conforming to
present day standards. Those with steel manufactured before 1895 AD shall he treated as
steel of early manufacture, whether it be wrought iron or mild steel. However, in cases
where there is any doubt about the quality ofthe steeL whether mild steel or wrought iron.
or about the year of manufacture. its strength shall he decided by tests as indicated in para
4 herein.

2. Pennissile Stresses in Steel of Early Manufacture

For purposes of operational rating. the permissible stresses for such steels shall be
taken as those specified in the relevant IRC Standard Specifications and Code of Practice
2
for Road allowing
without Bridges. For
anymild steel conforming
increase to IS: for
as suggested 226 present
with a yield
daystress
steelof23.6 kg/mm
bridges vide
Appendix’!.

3. Consideration for Rating

3.1. Camber
In the case of bridges with spans over 35 metres if there is no camber (without live
loads), the rated capacity assessed shall be reduced by 10 per cent
3.2. Deteriorations

While assessing the strength of individual members, the weakest (least) section
concerned shall he measured and considered for strength assessment
4. Testing of Steel of Doubtful Quality
4.1. Test pieces shall he made from representative members canying direct stress
and the permissible stress shall be based on the results of the tensile tests made on
these.

4.2. For open web spans 20 pieces of metal shall he cut from atleast4 different sec-
tionS of one or more spans.
4.3. For plate web spans, pieces shall be cut from atleast4 different sections ofone
or more spans.

4.4. It shall be ascertained from rolling marks on the metal whether the material
for all spans in a particular bridge is from the same source and., if possible, rolled in the
same year. If this is not the case, the number of pieces of metal indicated above shall he
obtained for each ditTerent source of supply of the material, as may be feasihlc~
4.5. Test pieces shall, if possible, conform to the stipulations given in IS Code I
pertaining to method of tensile testing of steel products. Test pieces of’ smaller size or

48

<<
miniature test pieces, if found necessary, may be allowed. provided the elongation is
measured on the appropriate gauge length.
4.6. In the case ofabnormally low test values, it shall be permissible to repeat the
test on rwo additional specimens cut from the same component as close as possible to the
location from where test pieces were taken. The lowest value ofthe additional tests will be
considered in place of original test results.
4.7. The permissible working stress in tension in kg/sq. mm shall be determined
from the expression

Ult Stress — (10 — % elongation)

3 1.9

Subject to maximum value of ~t1mate Stress

4.8. The above formula shall be applied to each ofthe individual tests and the per-
missible stress shall he the average of the worst 50 per cent of the tests carried out
2 and 14.1 kg/mm2,
4.9. When f determined from tests above lies between 9.4 kg/mm
the permissible stress shall be increased by the amount arrived at by multiplying the dif-
ference between the safe permissible values for wrought iron and mild steel by the
factor:

f -9.4
14.1 -9.4

However. in no case the stresses in wrought iron shall exceed those given in
para 2 above.
4.10. When fas determined from the tests above is less than 9.4 kg/mm2, the per-
missible stress shall he obtained by multiplying the respective permissiblevalues in para 2
above by a factor f/9.4

49

<<
 APPEND11-4

FACTORS FOR RATING MASONRY ARCH BRIDGES

L PROFILE FACTORS

The profile factor of an arch. F

1, shall be arrived at from the expression.
Pp F Sr X F5

Where FSr” the span/rise factorand F5- the shape factor, shall be as given in Table
3 and Figs. 10 & II.

TABLE 3

Serial Span/Rise Ratio Span/Rise Factoi Remarks

No. (FSr) ,~

I. For [JR upto 4 1.0 For a given load, flat arches are weaker
than those of steeper profile
For [JR over 4 1.0 although an arch with a very large
obtain factor from to rise may fail due to the crown
Fig, 10 0.6 acting as a smaller flatter arch.

B, MATERIAL FACTORS
The material factor of an arch. F~11shall be arrived at from the expression.
~m “~‘(Frd+Ffh)
(d + h)
Where, d is the arch ring thickness, his the depth offill, Fr~the arch ring factor and

Ff — the fill factor shall be as in Tables 4 & 5.

TABLE 4

Arch Ring Ring Factor

(Fr)

Granite and built-in-course masonry with large shaped voussoirs 1.50

Concrete blocks 1.20
Lime-stone, good random masonry and bricks in good condition 1.00
Masonry (of any kind) or brick work, in poor condition (many voussoirs
flaking or badly spalling. shearing, dilapidation is only moderate) 0.70

50
<<
 1.0

0.9

0.M

S
2,
ci, 0.7
:11

06
6 S
SPAN/RISE RATIO [JR
Fig, tO. Spa. rise factors for masonry arch bridges

~M~llil~1~
1.0 WHERE’
Rq. RISE: A”l’ QUARTER

°‘~~U~ll
POINT
R RiSE AT CENTRE

0 1:1
0.75 ~~oio 085 0.’O 0.95 1.00

Rq/R.

Hg. it. %ape factors for masonry arch bridges

51

<<
 TABLES

Filling Fill Factor

(F
1)

ConcLete slab 1.00

Lime concrete or similar grouted material 0.90
Well compacted material 0.70
Weak materials evidenced by tracking of the carriageway surface 0.50

C. JOINT FACTORS
The joint factor of an arch, F~shall be arrived at from the expression.
Fj F~Fd ~mo
Where, Fw the width factor. Ed- the depth factor and Fmo~the mortar factor shall
he as given in Tables 6, 7 and 8.
TABLE 6

Width of Joint Width Factor

(Fw)
Joints with widths upto 6 mm 1.0
Joints with widths between 6 mm and 12 mm 0.9
Joints with widths over 12 mm 0.8

TABLE 7

Depth of Joint Depth Factor

(Fd)

Pointed joints in good condition 1.0

Unpointed joints, pointing in poor condition and joints with
upto 12 mm from the the edge insufficiently filled 0.9
Joints with widths from 12 mm to one tenth of the thickness of the
ring insufficiently filled. 0.8
Joints insufficiently filled for more than one-tenth the
thickness of the ring At the di scretion of the
Engineer.

Interpolation between these values is permitted, depending upon the extent and
position of the joint deficiency.

52
<<
 TABLE S

Condition of Joint Mortar Factor

(F mo~

Mortar in good condition 1.0

Loose or friable mortar 0.9

RATING OF BRIDGES

0. StJPPORT FACTOR

Serial Condition of Supports Factor Remarks

No.

I. Both abutments satisfactory 1.00 An abutment maybe regarded

as unsatisfactory to resist the
2. One abutment unsatisfactory 0.95 full thrust of the arch if:
3. Both abutments unsatisfactory 0.0 (a) the bridge is on a narrow
embankment particularly
if the approaches slope
steeply upto the bridge.
4. Arch carried on one abutment and 0.90 (b) the bridge is on an
one pier embanked curve:
5. Arch carried on two piers 0.80 (c) the abutment walls are
very short and suggest little
solid fill behind the arch.

F. CRACKS FACTOR

Serial Condition of Supports Factor Remarks

No.

Longitudinal cracks within 0.6 m of Due to an outward force on the

the edge of the arch; if wider than
6 mm and longer than 1/10 of the
span then in bridges
(a) wider than 6 iii between parapets
(h) narrower than 6 m between
parapets
2. Longitudinal cracks in middle third
of the bridge width:
(a) One small crack under 3 mm
wide and shorter than 1/10
of the span
spandrel walls caused by lateral
spread of the filL Fig. I 2 (a)
1.0
0.8
Due to varying amount of sub-
sidence along the length of the
1.0 abutments, large cracks are
danger signs which indicate
that the arch ring has broken
up into narrow independent
rings. Fig. 12 )b)

<< 53
 (b) three or more small cracks
as above
(c) one large crack wider than
6 mm and longer than l/l()
of the span
3. Lateral and diagonal cracks less than
3 mm wide and shorter than I 10 of
the arch width
4. Lateral and diagonal cracks wider
than6mm and longerthan l!l0ofthe
arch width
Restrict the load class 10 12 T or the
calculated class using all other
applicable factors, whichever is less.
5. Cracks between the arch ring and
spandrel or parapet walls greater
than 1/10th oithc span duetospread
of the till.
6. Cracks between the arch ring and
spandrel or parapet wall due to a
dropped ring.
Reclassify from the nomogram taking
the crown thickness as that of the ring
alone.
F. DEFORMATION FACTOR
Deformation of the Arch Allowance 10 be made
If the deformation is Discard the profile factor
limited so that the rise over already calculated and
the affected portion is apply the span/rise ratio of
always positive the affected portion to the
whole arch.
54
<<
0.5
(1.5
1.0 Lateral cracks, usually found
near the quarter points. are due
to permanent deformation of
the arch which may be caused
by partial collapse of the arch
or abutment movements
Diagonal cracks, usually start-
ing near the sides ofthe arch at
the springing and spreading
to~rardsthe centre of the arch
at the crown are probably due
to subsidence at the sides ofthe
abutment, They indicate that
the bridge is in a dangerous
state.
Due 10(a) spreading ofthe fill
‘pushing the wall outwards.
(1.9 Fig. 13 or (b) movement of a
flexible ring away from a stiff
filL so that the two act indepen-
dently. This type of failure
often produces cracks in the
spandrel wall near the quarter
points, Fig. 14.
Remarks
Arch ring deformation may be
due to (a) Partial failure ofthe
ring, observable in the ring
itself and often accompanied
by a sag in the parapet over
approximately the same length,
Fig. IS or (hi mcs; enlent at
the abutment.
 • THRtJST DUE TO

L LATERA.L
LATERAL MOVEMENT

Fig, 12. Longitudinal cracks in an arch ring Fig. 13. (racks between the arch ring and
the spandrel or parapet wall

Fig. 14. Mu~ementof the arch ring away Fig. IS. Deformation of the arch ring
from a stiff till
55

<<
 C. ABUTMENT FAULT FACTORS

Serial Condition of Supports Factor Remarks

No.

I. Inward movement of the abutment: Shown by hogging of the arch

(a) old movement with well con-
solidated till and slight hogging
of the arch ring.
(h) recent movement or poor fill.
2. Outward spread of the abutments. If
movement has been small and
appears to have ceased, apply factor
based on type and condition of fill,
3. Vertical settlement of one abutment.
Apply factor varying from 0.9 for
slight movement to 0.5 where the
materials under each abutment are
dissimilar
ring and parapet at the crown
0.75 and possiblyopen cracks in the
intrados between the quarter
points and the springing,
0.50
1.00 Usually causes change in the
to profile
0.5
0.9 The nature ofthe hack fill and
to foundations can he discovered
0.5 only by probing, hut this should
be necessary only on important
routeswhen the strength of the
bridge is in doubt.

General Note on Cracks Old cracks no longer operating and which probably occurred
soon after the bridge was built can he ignored. Recent cracks usually show clean faces
with perhaps small loose fragments of masonry. Although cracks may shear through
bricks or stone, they normally follow an irregular line through the mortar. Care must be
taken not to confuse such cracks with mere deficiencies of the pointing material.

<<