Field Testing and Refined Load Rating of a Load-Posted Continuous Steel Girder Bridge
Publication: Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 27, Issue 10
Abstract
Load-posted bridges have potential effects on traffic, commerce, and emergency egress due to detours in routes between origins and destinations. Posted bridges can also be problematic for state departments of transportation from a management standpoint because they may call for more frequent maintenance, monitoring, and inspection. For these reasons, it is beneficial for states to minimize the number of load-posted bridges. This study investigates a continuous steel plate girder bridge superstructure and proposes a methodology for exploring the refined load rating of this bridge type in a safe manner through refined modeling and load testing. Load test results were used to examine live load distribution factors, and finite-element models were developed to refine load ratings. It was determined that the refined load-rating factors for the bridge are significantly higher than the currently posted limits, and therefore, the posting could be removed. The methodology presented in this paper can potentially be used to increase the load-rating factors for similar continuous steel girder bridges.
Practical Applications
The results of this case study suggest that some continuous steel girder bridges that were designed as noncomposite without shear studs may have unaccounted reserve capacity that can increase their load ratings. For a specific bridge or a group of the same type of load-posted bridges, refined analysis methods can be used to improve the load rating or potentially even remove the posting. Live load distribution factors may be determined through refined analysis to provide a more accurate estimate of the load distribution among girders. In addition, for certain bridges that are designed as noncomposite, the level of partial composite action can be determined through nondestructive load testing. Naturally, these refined analysis methods require more time and effort than a basic load rating analysis. However, the results could create a more manageable inventory for bridge owners and allow more trucks to use bridges currently posted for load, providing economic benefits.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funded this study as part of TxDOT Project 0-6955, administered by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. The authors appreciate the guidance from Graham Bettis, James Kuhr, Jesus Alvarez, Jonathon Boleware, Aaron Garza, Courtney Holle, Andrew Lee, Alan Ogden, and Jason Scantling who are among the TxDOT personnel monitoring the project. The authors also wish to thank graduate students Nuzhat Kabir, Hyeonki Hong, and Hungjoo Kwon for their help with the bridge load testing. The findings presented in this paper reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect FHWA or TxDOT's official views or policies.
References
AASHTO. 2002. Standard specifications for highway bridges. 17th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 2014. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 7th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 2017. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO MBE (Manual for Bridge Evaluation). 2018. Manual for bridge evaluation. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Barnard, T., C. G. Hovell, J. P. Sutton, J. M. Mouras, B. J. Neuman, V. A. Samaras, J. Kim, E. B. Williamson, and K. H. Frank. 2010. Modeling the response of fracture critical steel box-girder bridges. Rep. No. FHWA/TX-10/9-5498. Austin, TX: Center for Transportation Research at the Univ. of Texas.
Chajes, M. J., D. R. Mertz, and B. Commander. 1997. “Experimental load rating of a posted bridge.” J. Bridge Eng. 2 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(1997)2:1(1).
Computers and Structures. 2019. CSibridge, 20. Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures.
Hag-Elsafi, O., and J. Kunin. 2006a. Load testing for bridge rating: Route 22 over Swamp River. New York: Transportation Research and Development Bureau. New York State Department of Transportation.
Hag-Elsafi, O., and J. Kunin. 2006b. Load testing for bridge rating: Route 32 over Plattekill Creek. New York: Transportation Research and Development Bureau. New York State Department of Transportation.
Hag-Elsafi, O., and J. Kunin. 2006c. Load testing for bridge rating: Route 82 over Sprout Creek. New York: Transportation Research and Development Bureau. New York State Department of Transportation.
Hueste, M. D., S. Hurlebaus, J. B. Mander, S. Paal, T. Terzioglu, M. Stieglitz, and N. Kabir. 2022. Development of a strategy to address load-posted bridges through reduction in uncertainty in load ratings–Volume 2: Load testing and modeling for refined load rating. Research Rep. No. FHWA/TX-19/0-66955-R1-V2. College Station, TX: Texas A&M Transportation Institute and Texas Department of Transportation.
Hurlebaus, S., J. B. Mander, T. Terzioglu, N. C. Boger, and A. Fatima. 2018. Fracture critical steel twin tub girder bridges: Technical report. Research Rep. No. FHWA/TX-18/0-6937-R1. College Station, TX: Texas A&M Transportation Institute and Texas Department of Transportation.
Lwin, M. M. 2006. Bridge load ratings for the national bridge inventory. Office of Bridge Technology ed. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, DOT.
NBI (National Bridge Inventory). 2016. National bridge inventory. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Peiris, A., and I. Harik. 2016. “Load testing of bridges for load rating.” In Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Sustainable Built Environment. Peradeniya, Sri Lanka: University of Peradeniya.
Puckett, J. A., S. X. Huo, M. Jablin, and D. R. Mertz. 2011. “Framework for simplified live load distribution-factor computations.” J. Bridge Eng. 16 (6): 777–791. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000285.
Sanayei, M., A. J. Reiff, B. R. Brenner, and G. R. Imbaro. 2016. “Load rating of a fully instrumented bridge: Comparison of LRFR approaches.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil 30: 04015019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000752.
Terzioglu, T., D. Jiang, M. B. D. Hueste, J. B. Mander, and G. T. Fry. 2016. “Experimental investigation of a full-scale spread slab beam bridge.” J. Bridge Eng. 21 (11): 04016082. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000957.
TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation). 2018a. Bridge inspection manual. Ratings and Load Posting. Austin, TX: TxDOT.
TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation). 2018b. Inspectech inspection records. Austin, TX: Bentley Systems and Texas Department of Transportation.
TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation). 2019. TxDOT dump truck diagram. Provided by Anthony Garcia. Austin, TX: TxDOT.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 27 • Issue 10 • October 2022
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: May 20, 2021
Accepted: May 15, 2022
Published online: Aug 8, 2022
Published in print: Oct 1, 2022
Discussion open until: Jan 8, 2023
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Bridge engineering
- Bridge tests
- Bridges
- Bridges (by material)
- Bridges (by type)
- Design (by type)
- Engineering fundamentals
- Engineering mechanics
- Field tests
- Girder bridges
- Live loads
- Load distribution
- Load factors
- Load tests
- Loading rates
- Static loads
- Statics (mechanics)
- Steel bridges
- Structural design
- Structural engineering
- Tests (by type)
- Wood bridges
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Xu Zheng, Ting-Hua Yi, Dong-Hui Yang, Hong-Nan Li, Multisection Optimization–Based Target Proof Load Determination Method for Bridge Load Testing, Journal of Bridge Engineering, 10.1061/JBENF2.BEENG-6073, 28, 6, (2023).