CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LOAD RATING PROCEDURES
NOTATION
18.1

INTRODUCTION
18.1.1 The Purpose of Rating
18.1.2 Definitions
18.1.3 Procedures
18.1.3.1 Collect Information
18.1.3.1.1 Results of Field Evaluation
18.1.3.2 Determine Loading and Resistances
18.1.3.2.1 Dead Loads
18.1.3.2.2 Live Loading
18.1.3.2.3 Impact Factors
18.1.3.2.4 Resistances
18.1.3.3 Determine Load Distribution
18.1.3.4 Select Load and Resistance Factors
18.1.3.5 Rating Factor

18.2

LOADING AND DISTRIBUTION

18.2.1 Dead Loads
18.2.2 Live Loading
18.2.2.1 Selection
18.2.2.2 Placement
18.2.2.3 Standard Specifications
18.2.2.4 LRFD Specifications
18.2.3 Load Distribution for Rating
18.2.3.1 Standard Specifications
18.2.3.2 LRFD Specifications

18.3

RATING METHODOLOGY
18.3.1 Rating Equation
18.3.2 Analysis Method
18.3.2.1 Load Factors
18.3.2.2 Strength Resistance Factors
18.3.2.3 Adjustments for Actual Conditions
18.3.3 Load Rating Methods
18.3.3.1 Allowable Stress Method
18.3.3.2 Factored Load Method
18.3.4 Rating Method for Prestressed Concrete Bridges

18.4

RATING BY LOAD TESTING

18.4.1 Condition Assessment
JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LOAD RATING PROCEDURES
18.4.2 Types of Load Tests
18.4.2.1 Proof Load Test
18.4.2.2 Diagnostic Load Test
18.4.3 Modeling and Analysis
18.4.4 Measurements for Evaluation
18.4.5 Instrumentation Plan
18.4.6 Test Procedure
18.4.6.1 Static Testing
18.4.6.2 Dynamic Testing
18.4.7 Analysis of Test Data
18.4.8 Verification of Analytical Model
18.5

RATING EXAMPLE
18.5.1 Introduction
18.5.2 Materials and Conditions
18.5.3 Section Properties
18.5.4 Load Calculations
18.5.4.1 Dead Loads
18.5.4.2 Live Loading (HS20 Truck)
18.5.4.3 Prestress Losses
18.5.5 Stresses and Strength
18.5.5.1 Total Tensile Stress at Service - Inventory Rating
18.5.5.2 Design Flexural Strength - Operating Rating
18.5.5.3 Rating Factor
18.5.6 Evaluation Guide Specification Rating
18.5.7 LRFD Specifications Rating
18.5.7.1 Dead Load
18.5.7.2 Prestress Loss
18.5.7.3 Live Load
18.5.7.4 Live Load Stress
18.5.7.5 Strength Calculation
18.5.7.6 Inventory Rating
18.5.8 Rating by Load Testing
18.5.8.1 Test Information
18.5.8.2 Test Results
18.5.8.3 Distribution Factor
18.5.8.4 Test Inventory Rating Factor
18.5.8.5 Test Operating Rating Factor

18.6

REFERENCES

JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

NOTATION
LOAD RATING PROCEDURES
A
Ac
A*s
a
b
be
bt
bb
CRc
CRs
DL
d
Ec
Eci
ES
Es
e
eg
fallow
f c
f ci
fcir
fcds
fCDL
fDL
fHS20+I
fLL
fLLSW
fLL+I
fNDL
fpe
fps
fpu
f*su
f s
fse

= area of cross-section of the precast beam

= area of cross-section of the composite section
= area of pretensioning steel
= depth of equivalent rectangular stress block
= width of flange of flanged member or width of rectangular section
= total width of composite flange
= width of top flange of I-beam
= width of bottom flange of I-beam
= loss of prestress due to creep of concrete
= loss of prestress due to relaxation of pretensioning steel
= dead load
= distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of the pretensioning
force
= modulus of elasticity of concrete
= modulus of elasticity of the beam concrete at transfer
= loss of prestress due to elastic shortening
= modulus of elasticity of pretensioning reinforcement
= eccentricity of the strands
= distance between the centers of gravity of the beam and the deck
= allowable stresses
= specified concrete strength at 28 days
= concrete strength at transfer
= average concrete stress at the center of gravity of the pretensioning steel due
to pretensioning force and dead load of beam immediately after transfer
= concrete stress at the center of gravity of the pretensioning steel due to all
dead loads except the dead load present at the time the pretensioning force
is applied
= stresses resulting from dead loads on the composite section
= stresses resulting from dead loads
= stress resulting from test for an equivialent HS20 truck plus impact
= stresses resulting from live loading
= stress due to sidewalk live loading
= stresses resulting from live loading plus impact
= stresses resulting from dead loads on the non-composite section
= compressive stress in concrete due to effective prestress forces only (after
allowance for all prestress losses) at extreme fiber of section where tensile
stress is caused by externally applied loads
= average stress in pretensioning steel at the time for which the nominal
resistance of member is required
= nominal strength of prestressing strands
= average stress in pretensioning steel at ultimate load
= ultimate stress of pretensioning steel
= final effective prestress after all losses
JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

NOTATION
LOAD RATING PROCEDURES
ftotal
= total tensile stresses at service
I
= moment of inertia of non-composite beam
I
= impact factor
Ic
= moment of inertia of composite section
IM
= dynamic load allowance
Kg
= longitudinal stiffness parameter
L
= span length
LDF
= lane-load distribution factor
LL
= nominal live loading
LLSW
= sidewalk live loading
Mb
= unfactored bending moment due to weight of barriers
MD
= dead load moment
Md
= total unfactored dead load moment
Mg
= unfactored bending moment due to weight of the beam
Mlane-HS20(lane) = maximum lane moment per lane
Mlane-HS20(tandem) = maximum tandem moment per lane
Mlane-HS20(truck) = maximum truck moment per lane
ML
= live load moment
MLL+I
= unfactored live load plus impact moment
Mn
= nominal flexural resistance
Ms
= unfactored bending moment due to weight of the deck
Mu
= factored bending moment at section
MWL-HS20
= maximum wheel-load moment for HS20 truck
Mws
= unfactored bending moment due to weight of the future wearing surface
m
= multiple presence factor
Nw
= number of wheel loads on the tested bridge
n
= modular ratio between slab and beam concrete
Pj
= strand jacking force
Pse
= effective pretension force after allowing for all losses
Psi
= effective pretension force after allowing for initial losses
*
p
= A*s/bd, ratio of prestressing steel
R.F.OP
= operating rating factor
R.F.IN
= inventory rating factor
R.F.
= rating factor the ratio of available live load moment or shear capacity to
the moment or shear produced by the loading being investigated
RH
= relative humidity
Rn
= nominal strength or resistance
S
= spacing of beams
SH
= loss of prestress due to concrete shrinkage
ts
= thickness of the structural portion of the cast-in-place concrete slab
WDF
= wheel load distribution factor
JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

NOTATION
LOAD RATING PROCEDURES
w
wc
yb
ybc
ybs
yt
ytc

*
D
L
i
max
measured

= uniform load
= unit weight of concrete
= distance from centroid to the extreme bottom fiber of the non-composite
beam
= distance from centroid to the extreme bottom fiber of the composite section
= distance from the center of gravity of strands to the extreme bottom fiber
of the beam
= distance from centroid to the extreme top fiber of the non-composite
beam
= distance from centroid to the top of deck of the composite section
= coefficient applied to actual loads for service load and load factor designs
[STD Art. 3.22]
= ratio of depth of equivalent compression zone to depth from fiber of maximum compressive strain to the neutral axis
= load factor [STD Art. 3.22]
= factor for type of prestressing steel
= dead load factor
= live load factor
= measured strain at a cross-section of the bridge
= maximum measured strain at a cross-section of the bridge
= measured strain
= resistance (strength reduction) factor

JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

Load Rating Procedures

18.1
INTRODUCTION
18.1.1
The Purpose of Rating

Many factors affect the load-carrying capacity of bridges. Aging, environmental conditions, damage due to vehicular impact, and an increase in gross vehicle weights and
traffic volume can all result in structural deterioration. Any change in the condition
of a bridge can impact safety and require periodic evaluation of capacity. The capacity
evaluation process is referred to as load rating.
Bridge load rating is a component of the inspection process and is used to determine
1) the safe load-carrying capacity of the bridge and 2) whether specific overweight
vehicles may use the bridge. Load rating also determines if the bridge must be
restricted for the loads it may carry and, if so, what level of restriction is required.
This is referred to as weight posting or simply as posting.
Load rating is performed in accordance with the procedures given in the AASHTO
Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges (1994). This manual, which is based on
the Standard Specifications, will be referred to as the Condition Manual. At present,
there are no established guidelines for load rating in the LRFD Specifications (1998).
However, an example of rating based on the LRFD Specifications is included at the
end of this chapter.

18.1.2
Definitions

The following are standard terms used in the course of rating bridges. They are taken
from the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Strength Evaluation of Existing Steel and
Concrete Bridges (1989). This specification will be referred to as the Evaluation Guide
Specifications.
Inventory Rating The load that can safely utilize the bridge for an indefinite
period.
Operating Rating The absolute maximum permissible load to which the
bridge can be subjected.
Load Rating
The process of determining the live load capacity of a
bridge based on its current conditions through analysis or
load testing.
Rating Factor
The ratio of available live load moment or shear capacity to the
moment or shear produced by the load being investigated.

18.1.3
Procedures

The rating of bridges is dependent on a large number of variables. In order to create

the analytical model, certain assumptions must be made about individual bridge components. In addition, the engineer must decide whether standard AASHTO equations
and factors accurately model the true response of the bridge. If necessary, the equations
and factors should be modified to reflect actual conditions. Generally, there are five
steps to follow to establish the rating. These are described in the following sections.
JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.1.3.1 Collect Information/18.1.3.2.2 Live Loading

18.1.3.1
Collect Information

All relevant information is collected on the current condition of the bridge. Then, the
structural condition of the bridge is determined and evaluated for all criteria which
could affect performance. Variables affecting performance should be determined
from an on-site inspection. The items that need to be examined include:
All individual bridge elements
The state of scour
The condition of the deck
The condition of joints (expansion and contraction)
The type and condition of bearings
Traffic conditions
Any additional items necessary for proper evaluation

18.1.3.1.1
Results of Field Evaluation

Field evaluation could require changes in the standard capacity reduction factors.
For example, evaluation of deck condition could lead to the use of larger reductions (for rough or discontinuous decks) or smaller reductions (for decks in excellent
condition). Distribution of live loads and secondary dead loads (e.g., lighting and
mechanical fixtures and signs) in bridges with adjacent prestressed concrete units
is influenced by the condition of longitudinal joints. When the joints between prestressed units (e.g., voided deck slabs, box beams, etc.) are in good condition and provide adequate transverse distribution of applied loads, secondary dead loads should
be distributed equally to all units. If joints between the units are cracked and the
units are acting independently, then engineering judgment must be used to estimate
actual load distribution.
Inspection of the structure also yields information about damage or repairs since
the previous rating cycle. Structural deterioration will have a serious effect on the
analysis and rating. Damage from loss of section due to impact or corrosion can
affect load distribution and seriously reduce the capacity of the section. Additionally,
the amount and type of traffic should be evaluated and compared to the assumed or
surveyed information for the bridge.

18.1.3.2
Determine Loading and
Resistances
18.1.3.2.1
Dead Loads

The engineer must calculate the actual loads that are a permanent part of the structure and
determine their location and configuration; i.e., a point load, a distributed load, concentrated moments, etc. Recommended unit weights for various materials can be found in
the Standard and LRFD Specifications. Also given are allowances for additional loads that
may accumulate over time. Ratings based on these recommendations assume the worstcase conditions for component materials. Load testing may provide a better indication of
the true condition. The rating engineer must recognize that materials will probably not
be homogeneous throughout the structure. This variability must be accounted for in the
process.

18.1.3.2.2
Live Loading

According to AASHTO requirements, the vehicle from the survey of legal vehicles
which creates the maximum live load effect must be used. For example, the Standard
Specifications requires that all interstate highway bridge structures have a minimum

JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

design capacity equal to the HS20-44 design loading. In evaluating the effects of the
vehicular loading, only one such vehicle is considered present in each lane since the
load factors, which will be applied later, were created to recognize the possibility of
multiple vehicles. Vehicles with special permits may also have access to the bridge. In
this case, the actual vehicle loading must be checked prior to issuing a permit.
To account for dynamic effects, impact factors are provided in both the Standard and
LRFD Specifications as an increase in the weight of the design vehicle. These factors
are known to be conservative in some cases and in certain situations a reduced value
can be used.
Applying the AASHTO specifications, the nominal (design rather than actual)
strength of the specified materials must be used to calculate capacity. The analytical rating of bridges will usually assume perfect boundary conditions. However, it

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.2 Loading and Distribution/18.2.2.2 Placement

18.2 LOADING AND

DISTRIBUTION
18.2.1
Dead Loads

The effects of dead loads on the structure must consider the current condition of
these materials and should use densities provided in the AASHTO Specifications as
discussed in Section 18.1.3.2.1. Load estimates should accurately reflect any changes
in cross-sectional dimensions along the span. Overlays, decks or slab components
with unknown thickness require either a conservative estimate or several core samples
so that a statistically reliable value can be obtained. In addition to the actual dead
loads, load factors given in the AASHTO Specifications should be used to account
for variations in material density and thickness.
Application of dead loads in the analysis should consider any stress changes occurring from
the time of initial erection to the present. Such changes may be due to the effects of composite sections, continuity and any other factors which might affect performance.

18.2.2
Live Loading
18.2.2.1
Selection

Selection of the design vehicle live loading for the structure being rated should consider
both the basic design vehicle and all special permit vehicles or applicable fatigue vehicles
so that the maximum legal loads are applied. Additional effects such as wind, centrifugal,
thermal or other temporary forces must be considered when applicable.

18.2.2.2
Placement

The AASHTO Specifications require the placement of the design or rating vehicle 1 ft
from the curb line for the design or rating of the slab, and 2 ft from the curb line for the
design or rating of the beams. For a concrete box beam, the slab is rated with a wheel line
placed no closer than 2 ft from the curb line.
The Condition Manual requires vehicles to be placed in accordance with the Standard
Specifications, but allows the engineer to use judgment in adjusting the placement

Figure 18.2.2.3-1
HS Trucks
Clearance and
Load Lane Width
10'- 0"

32,000 lbs
24,000 lbs
V

0.8W

14'- 0"

32,000 lbs
24,000 lbs
0.8W

0.2W

HS20-44 8,000 lbs

HS15-44 6,000 lbs

0.1 W

0.4 W

0.4 W

0.1 W

0.4 W

0.4 W

Curb

2'- 0"

6'- 0"

2'- 0"

W = Combined weight on the first two axles which is the same

as for the corresponding H truck.
V = Variable spacing 14 ft to 30 ft inclusive. Spacing to
be used is that which produces maximum stresses.
JUL 03

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.2.2.2 Placement/18.2.2.3 Standard Specifications

according to actual traffic patterns. However, no guidelines are provided. The following recommendations may be used for placement of the vehicles:
Ramp structures striped for fewer lanes than the maximum that can be accommodated on the structure may be load rated for the actual number of lanes being carried.
Bridges that would require posting if the full width of the structure was subject to live loads may be load rated by restricting the live load to the traveled
lanes.
For load rating according to the Standard Specifications, there are four standard
load vehicles: H15, H20, HS15 and HS20. For interstate highway structures, the
minimum design vehicle is the HS20-44 or alternate military loading consisting of
two axles 4-ft apart with each one weighing 24,000 lbs (see Figures 18.2.2.3-1 and
18.2.2.3-2).
Figure 18.2.2.3-2
Tandem Loading
(Alternate Military)

4'-0"
24 kips

24 kips

Desi

The design vehicle selected should be the one that produces maximum stresses. The
vehicle loading is further increased for dynamic loading through application of an
impact factor. In addition, a combination of uniformly distributed and concentrated
loads, known as lane loading (Figure 18.2.2.3-3), must be compared to the design
vehicle. The load creating maximum stresses should be used in the analysis. Location
of the loads should be such that maximum stresses occur. In the case of continuous
spans, an envelope of stresses may be needed.

JUL 03

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.2.2.3 Standard Specifications/18.2.3 Load Distribution for Rating

In a multiple-lane bridge, it is unlikely that all lanes will be loaded simultaneously. To

account for this fact, the design live load effect should be reduced depending on the
number of loaded lanes as shown in Table 18.2.2.3-1 [STD Art. 3.12.1]:
Table 18.2.2.3-1
Live Load Reduction Factor

Number of
Loaded Lanes
1 or 2
3
4 or more

% of Design
Load
100
90
75

The standard bridge design live loading used in the LRFD Specifications is designated
HL-93 and consists of a design vehicle or tandem, combined with a uniform lane
load (see Figure 18.2.2.4-1). For all LRFD limit states, except fatigue and fracture,
the moving (vehicle) load is further increased by application of a Dynamic Load
Allowance (IM) of 33 percent. In the analysis, the number of loaded lanes and the
location of the live load should be such that maximum stresses occur.
Figure 18.2.2.4-1
LRFD Design Vehicular
Live Loading, HL-93

Design Truck and

Design Lane Load

4'-0"
25 kips

25 kips

Uniform Lane
Loading 640 plf

Design Tandem and

Design Lane Load

In a multiple-lane bridge, it is unlikely that all lanes will be loaded simultaneously. To

account for this fact, the design live load effect should be reduced depending on the
number of loaded lanes as shown in Table 18.2.2.4-1 [LRFD Table 3.6.1.1.2-1]:
Table 18.2.2.4-1
Multiple Presence Factors

Number of
Loaded Lanes
1 or 2
3
4 or more

% of Design
Load
100
90
75

Distribution of the wheel loads for rating may utilize the simplified guidelines given
in the Standard Specifications or the LRFD Specifications as applicable, unless a more
detailed computer analysis is performed. For both Standard and LRFD Specifications,
the multiple presence factors discussed above are included in load distribution factors
given in the specifications.

JUL 03

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.2.3.1 Standard Specifications/18.3.2 Analysis Method

18.2.3.1
Standard Specifications

Longitudinal distribution of wheel loads will not be considered in the determination

of end shears, reactions, and bending moment. Lateral distribution of wheel loads
for shear will assume that the deck acts as a simple span between stringers or beams.
Lateral distribution of wheel loads on longitudinal elements for bending moments
will follow the requirements of STD Arts. 3.23.2.3, 3.23.4, 3.28 and Table 3.23.1.

18.2.3.2
LRFD Specifications

Lateral distribution of wheel loads for moment and shear is given in Section 4 of
the LRFD Specifications. The lever rule should be used for any structure that exceeds
the range covered by the specifications (see Section 7.4.2). A more refined analysis
procedure can be used with the appropriate multiple presence factors applied.

18.3
RATING METHODOLOGY
18.3.1
Rating Equation

Generally, the rating of a bridge is controlled by the capacity of the component with
the lowest rating. According to the Condition Manual, the following strength condition equation should be used to determine the load rating of the structure:

Rn = D (DL) + L (R.F.)(LL)(1 + I)
or
R n D (DL)
R.F. =
L (LL)(1 + I)

Eq. 18.3.1-1

Eq. 18.3.1-1a

where
R.F. = rating factor the ratio of available live load moment or shear capacity to
the moment or shear produced by the loading being investigated
= resistance (capacity reduction) factor
Rn = nominal strength or resistance
D = dead load factor
L = live load factor
DL = dead load
LL = nominal live loading
I = impact factor (dynamic load allowance)
The coefficients , D and L may have different values depending on the type of
load rating (inventory or operating), and rating method (working stress or factored
load).
18.3.2
Analysis Method

The load rating procedure should use approximate methods of analysis given in the
AASHTO Specifications unless a refined procedure is deemed necessary. In selection
of the refined procedure, any method known to produce an accurate representation
of existing conditions may be used. These methods include, but are not limited to:
Finite element analysis
Classical numerical analysis
Bridge design programs

JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

13

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

When a refined method is used, a table of live load distribution coefficients for maximum force effects in each span must be provided according to AASHTO requirements.
For analysis in accordance with the Standard Specifications, the load factors and
corresponding to the respective group loading are given in STD Table 3.22.1A. For
LRFD Specifications-based analysis, the factors defined in LRFD Tables 3.4.1-1 and
3.4.1-2 are used with the load combination and corresponding limit state creating
the maximum load effect.
For analysis by the Standard Specifications, material strengths are reduced by the resistance factor that corresponds to the material and design group under consideration.
In the LRFD Specifications, the resistance factors corresponding to the different limit
states are used.
When field inspection indicates that there is structural deterioration or a loss of section, the resistance factor should be reduced by up to an additional 20 percent. If
material properties have been established by physical testing, a mean value multiplied
by 0.9 along with the appropriate resistance factor can be used.

The general rating formula (Eq. 18.3.1-1a) reduces to the following form for allowable stress rating in terms of the Standard Specifications:
R.F. =

f allow fDL
f LL (1 + I)

Eq. 18.3.3.1-1

where fallow, fDL, and fLL are the allowable, dead load and live load stresses, respectively.
The Condition Manual specifies that for prestressed concrete members, the allowable
stresses, fallow, for inventory rating should be based on the Standard Specifications [Art.
9.15.2.2]. Meanwhile, for the operating rating, the allowable stresses, fallow, should
result in moments not to exceed 75 percent of the ultimate moment capacity of the
member [STD Art. 9.17].
The Condition Manual does not provide clear guidance on sidewalk live loading for
bridge rating. It states that the engineer may use good judgment and apply a smaller
unit load than called for in the specifications based on the location of the bridge and
anticipated maximum vehicle load. Sidewalk loading shall not be considered coincident with traffic loading unless the engineer has reason to suspect that significant
sidewalk loading will occur coincident with maximum traffic loading.
The

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.3.3.1 Allowable Stress Method/18.3.3.2 Factored Load Method

where
fDL = stress due to dead loads
fLL+I = stress due to live loading plus impact = fLL(1 + I)
fLLSW = stress due to sidewalk live loading
The Standard Specifications, Article 3.24.2.2, also specifies that in designing sidewalk,
slab, and supporting members, a wheel load located on the sidewalk shall be one 1
ft from the rail when there is no barrier between the sidewalk and the roadway. An
element 8 in. or higher may be considered a barrier. The stress due to the combined
dead, live and impact loads shall not be greater than 150 percent of the allowable
stress.
A 50 percent over-stress is allowed for this condition; therefore, the worst case of the following two equations should be applied:
1) fDL + fLL+I < allowable stress
(no wheel load on sidewalk)
2) fDL + fLL+I < 1.5(allowable stress)
(wheel load on sidewalk)
18.3.3.2
Factored Load Method

The general rating formula (Eq. 18.3.1-1a) reduces to the following form for factored
load rating:
R.F. =

Mn D MD
L ML (1 + I)

Eq. 18.3.3.2-1

where
is specified in Standard Specifications Article 9.14
D = 1.3
L = 1.3 for operating rating and 2.17 ( = 1.3 x 1.67) for inventory rating
The Standard Specifications Article 3.23.2.3.1.3 states that when sidewalk live loading
is included, a load factor equal to 1.25 should be used rather than 1.67 in the ultimate strength equation. Therefore, the inventory rating should be determined from
the worst case of the following two equations:
1) Mu = 1.3[DL + 1.67(LL + I)]
2) Mu = 1.3[DL + 1.25(LL + I) + LLSW]
For operating ratings, there is no clear guidance given in the AASHTO Specifications.
The following two equations should be checked with the worst case being used for
the operating rating:
1) Mu = 1.3[DL + (LL + I)]
2) Mu = 1.3[DL + 0.75(LL + I) + LLSW]
This is a reasonable approach based on the very minor probability of having maximum sidewalk live loading and maximum traffic live loading at the same time.
Where pedestrian traffic is minimal, the sidewalk live loading can be considered zero
for load rating purposes.
JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

15

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.3.3.2 Factored Load Method/18.3.4 Rating Method for Prestressed Concrete Bridges

Similarly, when wheel load on sidewalk is considered, the Standard Specifications

Article 3.24.2.2 specifies that the inventory rating should use = 1.0 rather than
1.67. Therefore, the worst case of the following two equations should be considered
for each rating:
Inventory Rating:
1) Mu = 1.3[DL + 1.67(LL + I)]
2) Mu = 1.3[DL + (LL + I)]

(no wheel load on sidewalk)

(wheel load on sidewalk)

Operating Rating:
1) Mu = 1.3[DL + (LL + I)]
2) Mu = 1.0[DL + (LL + I)]

(no wheel load on sidewalk)

(wheel load on sidewalk)

For other special cases, the rating formula can be derived as shown in Section 18.3.1
by equating the capacity to the load effect. The corresponding rating formulas for
LRFD rating using the LRFD Specifications can also be similarly derived.
18.3.4
Rating Method for
Prestressed Concrete
Bridges

Both the allowable stress and factored load methods may be used in the load rating of
bridges. However, special attention should be given to prestressed concrete members
due to their unique design procedure. For the typical design of a prestressed concrete
member, the allowable stress method is used in sizing and providing reinforcing in
the member to achieve a specified limiting stress under service loads. Then, the factored load method is used to verify the ultimate capacity of the member. The service
stress limit, in most cases, controls the design resulting in additional prestressing
strands and hence, higher ultimate capacity. Utilizing the factored load method in
rating prestressed concrete elements could result in an artificially high load rating that
is not consistent with the original design assumptions.
To be compatible with the original design, the rating of prestressed concrete members
should be conducted with both the allowable stress and factored load methods. The
member load rating should be the lower value obtained with the two methods.
In general, whether the allowable stress method or the factored load method is used
for rating is governed by the policies of the owner of the bridge. Often, these ratings
are used for the purposes of determining load posting. Some state departments of
transportation post for operating, some for inventory, and some for an intermediate
condition. For prestressed concrete, this may result in a large variation in the rating
capacity for the same bridge. Based on the definitions of inventory and operating
ratings, it seems more reasonable to use the allowable stress method to establish the
inventory rating and the factored load method for operating rating. For prestressed
concrete members, load posting should be based on the inventory rating. Generally,
special permits for occasional overloads are based on the operating rating. The rating methodology for prestressed concrete bridges is demonstrated in the example in
Section 18.5.

JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

16

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

Before deciding to use load testing to establish a bridges load rating, a strength
evaluation should be performed as previously discussed. Load testing is usually recommended if a bridge receives an unsatisfactory rating from this evaluation. The recommendation is also conditional on the underlying cause of the low rating. Typical
reasons for recommending load testing may be physical damage, questionable or
insufficient as-built plans, or any physical characteristic which affects performance
but cannot be adequately accounted for in the strength evaluation.
A structure should not be load tested solely because it received an insufficient rating
for a special permit vehicle. Prior to conducting a load test in these cases, the analysis
method used to rate the structure must be examined. If a simplified procedure was
used, a refined evaluation must be made. If this evaluation also results in a deficiency,
and there are no alternative truck routes, a load test may be deemed necessary.
Before load testing a structure considered insufficient due only to age, a comprehensive on-site inspection must be performed. The inspection must consider the current
state of the bridge components, and the basis which makes it currently obsolete.
Based on these factors, the engineer then determines if the bridge requires load
testing.
Prior to conducting a load test, all possible ramifications must be considered. Any
conditions that would cause the load testing to be a hazard to either the public or the
individuals conducting the test, must be reconciled prior to the testing. Modifications
such as testing at night or limiting the scope of the testing may be required.
There are two types of tests: proof load and diagnostic. Proof load testing is typically
recommended when the bridge exhibits signs of distress such as corrosion or damage
which cannot be accurhd

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.4.2.2 Diagnostic Load Test/18.4.4 Measurements for Evaluation

18.4.2.2
Diagnostic Load Test

Diagnostic testing is typically conducted for two conditions:

1. When information from inspection and analysis indicates that the bridge may
not be capable of withstanding the ultimate live load.
2. When, based on observed behavior and experience with similar bridges, the
bridge is believed capable of resisting the design loads, but a load rating for a
certain vehicle is required.
In the second situation, the test vehicle is placed on the bridge and the measured
data are used to compare to analytical models. The load rating for a vehicle which
produces moment and shear values that are lower than the test truck can be obtained
by multiplying the test vehicle rating factor by the moment ratio. Generally, the load
in diagnostic testing is lower than used in proof-load testing.
Information obtained from the testing is used to validate analytical assumptions and
determine whether the predicted capacity is accurate. Diagnostic testing can also be
used to establish the actual distribution of loads to the individual elements and the
effects of impact.

18.4.3
Modeling and Analysis

Before conducting a load test, a detailed computer or hand analysis must be performed. The modeling should include all known facts about the actual conditions of
the bridge to ensure accurate predictions of test results. Accurate modeling includes
consideration of the effects of structural continuity, composite sections, deterioration, damage levels, transformed sections and anything else that could affect the
integrity of the structure.
The result of this analysis provides information on the health of the bridge and is
used as a guide in the selection of the test method (whether diagnostic or proof ).
During the test, the results of the analysis are compared to the measured response.
Any large variation in the measured response indicates a safety warning, which
requires close evaluation by the test engineer.

18.4.4
Measurements for
Evaluation

The data acquired through physical testing should provide the engineer with the
information required for rating. Data are obtained from various instruments including strain gauges and displacement transducers. In order to select the appropriate
instrumentation, the engineer must first determine the kind of information that is
required. The engineer must also determine an optimal configuration of the instrumentation so that a maximum amount of information is obtained about the bridge.
Strains can be measured at nearly any point below the surface of the slab. Alternatively,
multiple strain gauges can be configured to determine the strain distribution throughout the cross-section of an element. The placement of a line of strain gauges across
the width of the bridge on the primary components will yield important data regarding the true lateral load distribution. Additionally, strain readings can be used to
calculate stress levels thereby checking allowable limits. Selection of the specific type
of gauges is typically left to the testing engineer.
Additional data that can be obtained from load testing includes deflection and rotation. Deflection measurements can be used to determine the structures longitudinal
load distribution and the structures ability to meet the AASHTO criteria. Rotation
measurements provide information on the structures degree of continuity.
JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

18

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.4.5 Instrumentation Plan/18.4.8 Verification of Analytical Model

18.4.5
Instrumentation Plan

The rating engineer must provide an instrumentation plan, which shows instrumentation recommendations and requirements for the load test. Final approval of the
plan, however, is left to the discretion of the testing engineer who must determine
whether it is feasible to place instruments at the indicated locations. The testing
engineer may relocate, change or eliminate unnecessary or improperly placed instruments. Since the majority of the instrumentation is electronic, it is necessary to route
wires from the instrument to the data acquisition system. The wires must be located
so they will not interfere with or be damaged by traffic.

18.4.6
Test Procedure

Two test procedures are available for load testing. Proper selection of a procedure is
critical for accurate rating.

18.4.6.1
Static Testing

Static testing is conducted by incrementally placing calibrated weights on test vehicles, then locating the vehicles at positions on the structure that create maximum
stresses. Load may be applied at more than one point at the same step, especially in
the case of continuous bridges, or bridges with various shear or fracture-critical components. Since large structures typically require many load increments, there may be
a great deal of time between the first and last load application. Therefore, it may be
necessary to consider temperature effects in the analysis of the test data.
Extreme caution must be used when performing static loading, in that sudden distress of the components may occur between load increments. It is the responsibility
of the testing engineer to stop the test at the first sign of non-linear behavior in the
structure.

18.4.6.2
Dynamic Testing

Dynamic testing is used primarily to determine a more accurate value for the impact
factor to use in load rating. It is also used to determine the natural frequency of vibration of the bridge. Dynamic testing is performed by loading a test vehicle with weight
and then driving the vehicle over the bridge at a known velocity. In order to obtain
a complete envelope of the dynamic effects, runs are made using various speeds, lane
locations, and weights.

18.4.7
Analysis of Test Data

During the test, the testing engineer must compare the structural response with the
analytical data to ensure that the response remains in the linear-elastic range. After
testing, the testing engineer will reduce the data and place it in a standard format
so that the rating engineer can assess the differences between the measured and
analytical results. Through data analysis, the testing engineer will eliminate environmental (temperature) and electrical effects (noise) so that only pertinent results
are presented.

18.4.8
Verification of
Analytical Model

It is the responsibility of the rating engineer to:

determine the adequacy of the analytical model
identify the potential causes of differences
make necessary adjustments
Sound reasoning must be used to explain the differences so that future analysis and
rating can be performed accurately.

JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

19

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.5 Rating Example/18.5.2 Materials and Conditions

18.5
RATING EXAMPLE
18.5.1
Introduction

Figure 18.5.1-1
Example Bridge Details

This two-lane bridge, built in the 1970s, is located on State Road 30 over the
Carrabelle River in Franklin County, FL. It consists of five simple spans, each 65-ft.
long. Each bridge span consists of 6 AASHTO Type III prestressed concrete beams
spaced at 8'-2" on center. The total width of the bridge is 46'-3". The bridge has
an 8-in.-thick continuous concrete deck. The top 1/2 in. of the slab is considered a
wearing surface. The continuity of slab is not considered in the following calculation
for simplicity. Figure 18.5.1-1 shows the bridge elevation and the typical span crosssection. The following calculations demonstrate the rating procedure for an interior
beam using AASHTO Specifications and the field test method.

7.5" thick slab continuous over supports

5 Simple Spans @ 65'-0" (center-to-center of bearings)

ELEVATION

46'-3"
43'-6"

AASHTO Type III Beams

5 spaces @ 8'-2"
CROSS-SECTION
18.5.2
Materials and Conditions

Number of simple spans = 5

Number of traffic lanes = 2
Span length, L = 65 ft
Bridge width = 46'-3"
Structural slab thickness, ts = 7.5 in.
Total slab thickness = 8 in.
Future wearing surface = 2.0 in. (25 psf )
Parapet weight = 411 plf
Specified concrete strength of beam, f c = 5,000 psi
Modulus of elasticity of beam concrete, Ec = 4,287 ksi
Specified Concrete strength at transfer (beam), f ci = 4,000 psi
Modulus of elasticity of beam concrete at transfer, Eci = 3,834 ksi
Specified concrete strength of deck, f c = 3,400 psi
JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

20

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.5.2 Materials and Conditions/18.5.4.1 Dead Loads

Modulus of elasticity of deck concrete, Ec = 3,535 ksi

Unit weight of concrete for beams and deck, wc = 150 pcf
Allowable tensile stress at service (midspan) = 6 f c = 0.424 ksi
Prestressing strand strength, f s = 270 ksi
Modulus of elasticity of strand, Es = 28,500 ksi
Area of 1/2 in. dia prestressing strand = 0.153 in.2
Initial prestress, fsi = 0.75f s = 202,500 psi
Initial prestress force/strand, Pj = (0.153)(0.75)(f s) = 30.98 kips
Rating vehicle = HS20
18.5.3
Section Properties

Table 18.5.3-1
Section Properties

The beam properties and cross-section are shown in Table 18.5.3-1 and Fig. 18.5.3-1.
The section properties are calculated based on a 7.5 in. structural slab thickness, ts.
The difference in material properties between slab and beam are considered with
transformed width of slab.

Non- Composite
Section
yt = 24.73 in.
yb = 20.27 in.
I = 125,390 in.4
A = 560 in.2

Composite
Section
ytc = 17.42 in.
ybc = 35.08 in.
Ic = 364,153 in.4
Ac = 1,166 in.2

Figure 18.5.3-1
Cross-Section at Midspan

be = 98"
bt = 16"
7.5"
N.A. Composite

2@ 2"

3"

45"

ybc = 35.07"

ybs = 4.27"

(22) 1/2-in.-dia, low-relaxation strands,

270 ksi, Pj = 30.98 kips

yb = 20.27"

N.A. Non-composite

bb = 22"

18.5.4
Load Calculations
18.5.4.1
Dead Loads

The non-composite section carries the beam self-weight and slab weight (8-in. thick),
while the weights of the barrier and future wearing surface are uniformly distributed
among the six beams and are carried by the composite section.

JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

21

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.5.4.1 Dead Loads/18.5.4.3 Prestress Losses

Beam moment:
Mg =

wL2 (560 / 144)(0.150)(65)

= 308.07 ft-kips
=
8
(8)
2

Slab moment:
Ms =

wL2 (8.17)(8 / 12)(0.150)(65)

= 431.30 ft-kips
=
8
(8)
2

Barrier moment:
wL2 (0.411)(2)(65)
Mb =
=
8
(8)(6)

= 72.35 ft-kips

Future wearing surface:

wL2 (43.5)(0.025)(65)
Mws =
= 95.72 ft-kips
=
8
(8)(6)
2

Total dead load moment:

Md = 907.62 ft-kips
18.5.4.2
Live Loading (HS20 Truck)

Truck loading governs for this span, so lane and alternate military loadings are not
considered.
Maximum wheel-load moment:
MWL-HS20 = 448 ft-kips
Impact factor:
50
I=
= 0.26
(125 + 65)

[STD Eq. 3-1]

AASHTO wheel-load distribution factor:

S
8.17
WDF =
=
= 1.49
5.5 5.5

[STD Table 3.23.1]

Live load moment per beam:

MLL+I = (WDF)(MWL-HS20)(1 + I) = (1.49)(448)(1.26) = 841.1 ft-kips
18.5.4.3
Prestress Losses

Initial prestress force immediately after transfer:

Psi = (22)(0.153)(0.69)(270) = 627.1 kips

[STD Art. 9.16.2.1.2]

JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

22

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.5.4.3 Prestress Losses/18.5.5 Stresses and Strength

Eccentricity of prestress force:

e

= yb ybs = 20.27 4.27 = 16.00 in.

fcir =

[STD Art. 9.16.2.1.2]

Mge
Psi Psi e
+

A
I
I
2

627.1 (627.1)(16)2 (308.07)16(12)

=
+

= + 1.93 ksi
560 125, 390 125, 390
fcds =

M s e (M b + M ws )( y bc y bs )

I
Ic

( 431.48)16(12) (72.35 + 95.72)(12)(35.07 4.27)

=
= 0.831 ksi

125, 390
364, 324
Elastic shortening loss:
ES =

Es
28,500
fcir =
(1.93) = 14.35 ksi
3,834
E ci

[STD Eq. 9-6]

Shrinkage loss (assume RH = 70%):

SH = 17 (0.15)(RH) = 17 (0.15)(70) = 6.50 ksi

[STD Eq. 9-4]

Creep loss:
CRc = 12fcir 7fcds = (12)(1.93) (7)(0.831) = 17.34 ksi

[STD Eq. 9-9]

Relaxation loss:
CRs = 5 0.1(ES) 0.05(SH + CRc ) = 5 (0.1)(14.35) (0.05)(6.50 + 17.34)
= 2.37 ksi
[STD Eq. 9-10]
Total prestress losses:
SH + ES + CRc + CRs = 6.50 + 14.35 + 17.34 + 2.37 = 40.56 ksi [STD Eq. 9-3]
Effective final prestress:
fse = 202.5 40.56 = 161.94 ksi
Effective final prestress force:
Pse = (22)(0.153)(161.94) = 545.09 kips
18.5.5
Stresses and Strength

In a complete design process, strength checking (bending and shear) should be conducted for several sections along the span length. While a rating process should follow the same principles as design, the following calculation is limited to the bending
strength at midspan and stress at the bottom of the beam, which are the locations
that typically govern design.
JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

23

8/28/03, 10:43 AM

Dead load stress on non-composite section:

fNDL =

(M

+ Ms y b
I

(308.07 + 431.48)(12)(20.27) = 1.435 ksi

Dead load stress on composite section:

125, 390

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.5.6 Evaluation Guide Specification Rating/18.5.7.3 Live Load

18.5.6
Evaluation Guide
Specification Rating

Based on values obtained using the Standard Specifications in the previous section, the
following ratings can be obtained from the Evaluation Guide Specifications.
Operating and inventory ratings using the factored load method:
Mn 1.3 Md (1.0)(3, 468.0) (1.3)(907.62)
=
= 2.09
R.F.OP =
1.3 MLL+I
(1.3)(841.1)
R.F.IN =

Mn 1.3 Md (1.0)(3, 468.0) (1.3)(907.62)

=
= 1.25
1.3(1.67)MLL+I
(1.3)(1.67)(841.1)

Inventory rating using the allowable stress method:

f pe f DL f allow 2.383 (1.435 + 0.194) ( 0.424)
=
= 1.21
R.F.IN =
0.972
f LL+I
The inventory load rating is controlled by the service (allowable stress) requirement.
Therefore, the inventory rating is equal to 1.21. The inventory rating with the factored load method is 1.25, which shows that the use of this method may result in
a higher rating. The final rating factor for prestressed concrete structures should be
the lesser of the values obtained by the allowable stress and factored load methods to
ensure adherence to the original design assumptions.
18.5.7
Rating using the LRFD
Specifications

18.5.7.1
Dead Load

As noted in Section 18.1, at present there are no established guidelines for load rating
using the LRFD Specifications. The following rating is based on the guidelines given
in the Standard Specifications and is intended to illustrate the difference between the
two design specifications.
The dead loads are essentially the same as previously calculated.

18.5.7.2
Prestress Loss

The prestress loss calculation in the LRFD Specifications is almost identical to that of
the Standard Specifications except for minor changes to the relaxation calculation. The
total loss calculated according to the LRFD Specifications is 41.62 ksi compared to 40.56
ksi using the Standard Specifications. Since these values are fairly close, the effective prestress will be taken as the same value above, computed using the Standard
Specifications, i.e., 161.94 ksi.

18.5.7.3
Live Load

Rating live load: HL-93

Maximum truck moment per lane: Mlane-HS20(truck) = 896.0 ft-kips
Maximum lane moment per lane: Mlane-HS20(lane) = 338.0 ft-kips
Maximum tandem moment per lane: Mlane-HS20(tandem) = 762.5 ft-kips
Dynamic load allowance: IM = 0.33
AASHTO lane-load distribution factor for cross-section type k with two or more
lanes loaded:

( )()(

S
L DF = 0.075 +
9.5

0.6

S
L

0.2

Kg
12.0L t 3s

0.1

[LRFD Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1]

JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

25

8/28/03, 10:44 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.5.7.3 Live Load/18.5.7.6 Inventory Rating

where
Kg

= n(I + Aeg2)
=

[LRFD Eq. 4.6.2.2.1-1]

2
4, 287
45 + 7.5 20.27 7.5 = 702, 913 in.4
,
125
390
+
560

3, 535
2

8.17
LDF = 0.075 +
9.5

0.6

8.17
65

0.2

702, 913
3

(12.0)(65)(7.5)

0.1

= 0.726

The live load moment is specified as the lane load moment plus the larger of the
truck or the tandem moment:
MLL+I = LDF[MlaneHS20(lane) + max(MlaneHS20(truck),MlaneHS20(tandem))(1 + IM)]
= (0.726)[338.0 + 896.0(1.33)] = 1,110.5 ft-kips
18.5.7.4
Live Load Stress

f LL +I =

(MLL +I )y bc (1,110.5)(12)(35.07)
=
= 1.280 ksi
Ic
364, 324

It can be seen that the live load stress calculated by the LRFD Specifications is much
higher than that calculated by the Standard Specifications (1.280 ksi versus 0.972
ksi).
18.5.7.5
Strength Calculation

Because the strength calculation in the LRFD Specifications is similar to that in the Standard
Specifications, the detailed calculations are not presented here. For a presentation of the
details, consult Section 8.2. To review a sample calculation, refer to Design Example 9.4.

3.14 1 = 3,458.0 ft-kips

Mn = A ps f ps d = (22)(0.153)(264.21) 48.23

2
2 12
This is very close to the value obtained using the Standard Specifications (3,468.0 ftkips). The minor variation in the nominal moment capacity is due to the change in the
calculation for fps and sometimes for the calculation for a in the LRFD
Specifications.
The inventory rating should utilize the same principles that were used in the design.
Therefore, the inventory rating, according to Strength I, should be:

18.5.7.6
Inventory Rating

R.F.IN =
=

M n 1.25(M g + Ms + M b ) 1.5 M ws
1.75M LL+I

(1.0)(3,458.0) (1.25)(308.07 + 431.48 + 72.35) (15. )(95.72) = 118

.
, .5)
(1.75)(1110

Although the live load moment by the LRFD Specifications analysis is 32 percent
larger than that by the Standard Specifications (1,110.5 ft-kips versus 841.1 ft-kips),
the load factor for live load is considerably less for the LRFD Specifications analysis
(1.75 versus 2.17). Thus the inventory rating for LRFD Specifications Strength I is
only 6 percent less than that for the Standard Specifications (1.18 versus 1.25).
Inventory rating with LRFD Specifications Service III (full dead load plus 80 percent live
load):
JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

26

8/28/03, 10:44 AM

Allowable tensile stress:

R.F.IN = f pe

f DL f allow
0.8f LL+I

2.383 (1.435 0.194)

0.8 1.28

0.424

1.15

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.5.8.3 Distribution Factor

Fig. 18.5.8.3-1
Strain Distribution in Bottom
Flanges across Bridge

Test Trucks

207 kips

207 kips

Measured Strain, (Microstrain)

Strain Gage (Typ.)

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

3
4
Beam Number

For comparison, the wheel load distribution factor from the Standard Specification
is 1.49. The LRFD lane distribution factor calc
ated in Section 18.5.7.3 must be
m
tiplied by 2 for comparison, which is (2)(0.726)
= 1.45. Therefore, the distribution factor determined by the load test is m
h lower than the values computed by
the two specifications.
Because the test vehicles are different from the HS20 truck, the stress from the test
for an equivalent HS20 truck plus impact can be calc
ated from the ratio of test
truck moment and HS20 moment as:
(1 + I)M WL HS20
(2)(1.26)(448)
fHS20 +I =
measured )(E c ) =
182 10 6 (4, 287)
(

Mtest
1,868

= 0.471 ksi
where the factor 2 equates the maximum wheel load moment for an HS20 truck to
two test trucks.

Because the applied test load moment per lane (1,868 ft-kips/lane) is less than the
ultimate design live load moment per lane [2.17(2)(448)(1.26) = 2,450 ft-kips] the
load test is considered diagnostic.

JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

28

8/28/03, 10:44 AM

CHAPTER 18

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

LOAD RATING PROCEDURES

18.5.8.4 Test Inventory Rating Factor/18.6 References

18.5.8.4
Test Inventory Rating Factor

The inventory load rating based on the test measurements is shown below.
R.F.IN =

f pe fDL f allow
fHS20 +I

2.383 (1.435 + 0.194) ( 0.424)

0.471

= 2.50

The above test inventory rating, based on test measurements, is more than twice the
theoretical AASHTO allowable stress inventory rating obtained in Section 18.5.6.
The computed maximum tensile stress from load testing, 0.471 ksi, is significantly
less than the theoretically calculated value, 0.972 ksi. This is due to many beneficial
factors that are ignored in a theoretical load rating. These factors include:
slab continuity
diaphragms
parapet composite action
bearing restraint effects
lower than expected prestress losses
higher concrete strength
higher concrete modulus of elasticity
In addition, the AASHTO load distribution factors are generally very conservative
resulting in the design of stronger elements than required by actual loading.
18.5.8.5
Test Operating Rating Factor

Maximum live load moment from test for equivalent HS20 plus impact:
I
364, 324 0.471 = 407.7 ft-kips
M LL + I = c fHS20 + I =
35.07 12
y bc
Operating rating according to the Standard Specifications, Load Factor Method:
Mn 1.3Md 1.0(3, 458.0) 1.3(907.62)
R.F.OP =
=
= 4.30
1.3MLL +I
1.3(407.7)
The inventory rating factor (2.50) and operating rating factor (4.30) above are considered upper bounds due to the nature of diagnostic/linear analysis. Therefore, the
final rating should be limited to the original design, i.e., inventory rating of HS20,
or operating rating of HS(20 x 1.67) = HS33.

18.6
REFERENCES

Guide Specifications for Strength Evaluation of Existing Steel and Concrete Bridges,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,
DC, 1989
Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C, 1994
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Second Edition, American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1998
Standard Specification for Highway Bridges, 16th Edition, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1996

JUL 03

6872 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 18

29

8/28/03, 10:44 AM