Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Proof load testing for bridge assessment and upgrading

Michael H. Faber a, Dimitri V. Val b,*
, Mark G. Stewart b

a
COWI, Consulting Engineers and Planners AS, Lyngby, DK-2800, Denmark
b
Department of Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia

Received 27 April 1999; received in revised form 27 September 1999; accepted 10 November 1999

Abstract

Bridge deterioration with time and ever increasing traffic loads raise concerns about reliability of aging bridges. One of the ways
to check reliability of aging bridges is proof load testing. A successful proof load test demonstrates immediately that the resistance
of a bridge is greater than the proof load. This reduces uncertainty in the bridge resistance and so increases the bridge reliability.
The paper considers a reliability-based calibration of intensities of proof loads for aging bridges to verify either an existing or
increased load rating taking into account possible bridge deterioration. Intensities of proof loads are calibrated based on a consistent
target reliability index. The influence of test risk, dead to live load ratio, and uncertainties associated with dead and live loads and
bridge resistance is considered. The results presented in the paper relate to short and medium span bridges.  2000 Elsevier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bridges; Proof loads; Time dependent reliability

1. Introduction (i) confirm an existing load rating (if bridge deterioration

It is quite evident that the bridge population in the
US, Canada, Europe, Australia and elsewhere is aging.
This is due to aging local road bridges and the large
expansion of highways built during the post-war boom
era of the 1950s to 1970s. For example, in Australia,
over 60% of bridges for local roads are over 50 yr old
and approximately 55% of all highway bridges are over
20 yr old. These figures are typical of other countries
also. The incidence of structural deterioration increases
with bridge age due to corrosion, fatigue, wear and tear
and other forms of material property degradation. During
this same period vehicle loads and legal load limits have
been steadily increasing. Aging bridges subject to
increasing legal load limits mean that existing bridges
often fail to satisfy structural requirements as specified
for new bridges. There is obviously a strong financial
incentive that existing bridges be conserved and their
remaining service life extended.
In general, bridge assessment is conducted to either:
* Corresponding author. Current address: School of Engineering,
James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia. Tel.: + 61-
7-4781-4722; fax: + 61-7-4775-1184.
E-mail address: dimitry.val@jcu.edu.au (D.V. Val).
is observed or suspected), or (ii) increase a load rating.
Analytical or predictive approaches to determining load
ratings are well documented and widely used. However,
such approaches may be overly conservative. For
example, the actual load carrying capacity of a bridge is
often higher than the predicted capacity, this may be due
to system effects, load redistribution, contribution of
non-structural elements and bearings not behaving in an
‘idealised’ manner [1,2]. It is desirable that the assess-
ment of existing bridges not be overly conservative since
such an approach may result in the replacement of
bridges that are in fact ‘satisfactory’. As such, a diagnos-
tic or proof load test may be more appropriate if
앫 analytical analyses produces an unsatisfactory load
rating; or
앫 analytical analysis is difficult to conduct due to
deterioration or lack of documentation.
A diagnostic test may be used to verify or refine analyti-
cal or predictive structural models, whilst a proof load
test is used to assess the actual load carrying capacity
of a bridge. A successful proof load test demonstrates
immediately that the resistance of the bridge is greater
than the proof load. As a result, this reduces uncertainty

0141-0296/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 1 1 - X
1678 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689
associated with the resistance of the bridge and so
increases its reliability [3]. Moreover, a proof load test
may provide additional useful information about bridge
properties and performance. However, extensive proof
load testing programs are very costly. For example,
proof load testing of bridges in New South Wales, Aus-
tralia, can cost up to A$110,000 per bridge or 6% of
the bridge replacement cost [4]. Given the large costs
involved it is surprising that proof load testing pro-
cedures are not well documented [5]. It should be recog-
nised also that there is a risk that the bridge will be dam-
aged or not survive a proof load test (referred to herein
as test risk) and so proof load testing may not always
be cost-effective [6].
The present paper presents a reliability-based method
(i.e. reliability is used as the measure of structural
performance) to determine the target proof load. Pre-
vious reliability studies [5,7,8] in this area are quite lim-
ited and have (i) ignored the risks associated with failure
of a bridge during the load test—this is referred to herein
as the ‘test risk’ (although Moses et al. [8] have con-
sidered test risk); (ii) assumed bridge reliabilities were
not influenced by the timing of the proof load test; and
(iii) ignored the effects of structural deterioration.
Clearly, these are not realistic assumptions. Stewart and
Val [6] improved this previous work by developing a
probabilistic framework that considers bridge age,
deterioration, magnitude of proof loads, test risk,
updated bridge reliability (for prior service loading and
proof loading) and associated decision-making appli-
cations such as a risk–cost–benefit analysis. The present
paper considers a practical implementation of such a pro-
babilistic approach, in this case by using reliability-based
methods to propose target proof loads to either verify an
existing load limit or assess a bridge for an increased
load limit, for non-deteriorated or deteriorated bridges.
In this approach, target proof loads are calibrated from
a consistent target reliability index and the influence of
test risk, dead to live load ratio, dead and live loading
variability, and resistance modelling uncertainty is con-
sidered. A risk–cost–benefit analysis is not considered
herein. The results presented herein relate to short and
medium span bridges.
2. Reliability considerations for proof load testing
The carrying out of a proof load test is a complicated
and often bridge-specific procedure specified by high-
way agency, state or national guidelines. It is beyond the
scope of the present paper to describe such procedure;
however, it can be found elsewhere [2,9].
The design of new bridges is increasingly being based
on LRFD or limit state design principles [10,11] in
which all ‘typical’ bridges have relatively uniform
reliabilities and that these reliabilities exceed a target
reliability index. As such, bridge reliability (or safety)
is influenced by resistance and loading variability. How-
ever, the observation that a bridge survives a proof load
test indicates only the minimum load-carrying capacity
of the bridge—it does not reveal the actual bridge
capacity and also does not provide a meaningful measure
of the safety of the bridge. To be consistent with LRFD
principles, an assessment procedure should show that the
post-test bridge reliability is acceptable. Consequently,
decisions related to bridge assessment are based on
uncertain or incomplete information. Deterministic
approaches are not efficient for decisions taken under
uncertainty since such decisions tend to be conservative
and based on ‘prudent pessimism’ or ‘worst case’ scen-
arios. Reliability (or probabilistic) analysis includes
information from all resistance and loading variables
influencing the assessment process (not just point
estimates) and so provides a rational criterion for the
comparison of the likely consequences of decisions
taken under uncertainty.
The initial stage of a bridge assessment is to estimate
the reliability of the existing bridge, such a reliability
analysis should consider the following uncertainties:
앫 representation of real structures by idealised predic-
tion models (model errors);
앫 inherent variability of material properties;
앫 variability in workmanship, element dimensions and
environmental conditions;
앫 spatial variations in material and other properties;
앫 prior and current variability of service loading; and
앫 assessment of current fatigue, corrosion or other
deterioration processes.
Reliabilities may be calculated using updated probabilis-
tic load and resistance models developed from data
which are representative of known site characteristics.
This may occur if inspection data are available, leading
to additional sources of uncertainty, such as:
앫 inaccuracy of inspection and maintenance tech-
niques; and
앫 statistical uncertainty due to limited number of obser-
vations or sample tests.
Information regarding the reliability of the existing
bridge is also needed to determine the target proof load.
After the application of a target proof load the bridge
reliability can again be updated. This occurs since the
lower tail of the distribution of structural resistance is
truncated at the target proof load, resulting in a higher
bridge reliability. Although this could be at the expense
of an unacceptable test risk. Note that an additional
source of uncertainty can arise since the proof load may
not always be applied in a correct and controlled manner.
After a proof load test it is often of interest to deter-
 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689
mine when the bridge will need to be re-assessed (e.g.
frequency of inspections or maintenance). This provides
an indication when funds will need to be allocated again
for this bridge. In such cases a time-dependent reliability
analysis can be used to determine when the bridge
reliability will fall below a target reliability index. The
uncertainties associated with this form of reliability
analysis include, in addition to those described above,
앫 prediction of longer term deterioration processes; and
앫 prediction of lifetime service loads.
In other words, the life-cycle performance of the bridge
can be predicted from a reliability-based approach.
For the present study, and as described above, it is
proposed that bridge reliabilities be compared with
reliability-based acceptance criteria such as a target
reliability index. A complementary approach may be to
use bridge reliabilities to estimate the cost-effectiveness
of bridge assessment decisions using a risk–cost–benefit
analysis [6].
Since many bridges are similar with respect to their
spans, type of construction, traffic loads and volumes,
etc. (steel stringer, RC slab, RC stringer, pre-stressed
concrete tee, etc.) it is possible to develop bridge-type
specific assessment specifications for these ‘generic’
bridges using a calibration approach. Such an approach
has been used in the development of LRFD codes
[10,11]. However, long-span bridges, historical bridges,
and other ‘unique’ bridges are likely to require an indi-
vidual or bridge-specific assessment in which bridge
reliabilities may need to be calculated for each bridge.
The present paper will present a reliability-based cali-
bration of target proof loads for ‘generic’ bridges. This
is now described.
3. Time-dependent reliability analysis
3.1. Computation of time-dependent structural
reliability
When assessing the reliability and residual service life
of existing bridges the effect of time variations in both
the strength (e.g. due to deterioration) and the load
characteristics must be taken into account. If it is
assumed that n independent load events Si occur within
the time interval (0,T) at times ti(i = 1, 2, %, n) then
the cumulative probability of failure, Pf(T), of a bridge
during this time interval is
Pf(T) ⫽ 1 ⫺ Pr[R(t1) ⬎ S1傽R(t2) (1)
⬎ S2傽%傽R(tn) ⬎ Sn]
where R(ti) represents bridge resistance at the time ti and
t1 ⬍ t2 ⬍ %tn. The probability of failure represented
1679
by Eq. (1) is calculated herein using the time variant
component reliability analysis option in the STRUREL
[12] software package.
3.2. Probabilistic models
3.2.1. Resistance model including effects of
deterioration
In order to take into account the time-dependent
deterioration of bridges their structural resistance, R(t),
can be presented as the product of the time-independent
initial resistance, R0, and a time-dependent degradation
function, g(t). The degradation function defines the pro-
portion of the initial resistance remaining at time t
[13], hence,
R(t) ⫽ R0·g(t) (2)
As has been mentioned above, there are a number of
uncertainties associated with the prediction of bridge
resistance. Uncertainties in the initial resistance include,
among others, variability and spatial variations of
material properties and element dimensions, and model
uncertainty related to representation of a real bridge by
an idealised model (i.e. idealisation of support conditions
and joints between bridge members, not accounting for
contribution of nonstructural elements, etc.). Generally,
these uncertainties depend on bridge type, quality of
materials used, workmanship, environmental conditions
during construction; all of which vary from bridge to
bridge. Resistance statistics for slab-on-girder type of
bridges (i.e. steel girder, reinforced concrete T-beam and
prestressed concrete girder) were estimated by Nowak
[14]. According to his results, the coefficient of variation
of resistance (in flexure, shear, tension and compression)
of girder bridges varies from 0.075 for prestressed con-
crete girders in flexure to 0.17 for reinforced concrete
T-beams in shear without stirrups. In this paper R0 is
treated as a lognormal random variable in which two
values of its coefficient of variation, VR—0.10 and
0.15—are considered.
The resistance degradation function g(t) is adopted in
the following form [15]
g(t) ⫽ 1 ⫺ k1t ⫹ k2t2 (3)
where t is the elapsed time, and k1 and k2 are coefficients
defining the deterioration rate. Based on parametric stud-
ies of reinforced concrete beams subjected to corrosion
attack the following values of k1 and k2 and the time of
corrosion initiation, Ti, corresponding to low, medium
and high deterioration were suggested [15]
Low deterioration k1 = 0.0005 k2 = 0 Ti = 10 yr
Medium deterioration k1 = 0.005 k2 = 0 Ti = 5 yr
High deterioration k1 = 0.01 k2 = 0.00005 Ti = 2.5 yr
(4)
1680 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689
The values (4) were developed from limited analytical
data and must be used with caution. For example, based
on the results of the analysis by Stewart and Rosowsky
[16] of a reinforced concrete slab bridge deteriorating
due to reinforcement corrosion with the corrosion rate
of 3 µA/cm2 (which represents a high corrosion rate) k1
= 0.0035 and k2 = 0 were obtained. This indicates that
the values k1 and k2 (4) for medium and high deterio-
ration may be too conservative, and that the ‘medium’
case actually represents very severe bridge deterioration.
It should be noted also that sufficiently accurate and
experimentally and analytically verified degradation
functions have not yet been developed.
Generally, there is significant uncertainty associated
with a deterioration process. However, at present no suf-
ficient data are available to determine statistical para-
meters of k1 and k2 so in this study they are assumed to
be deterministic.
Information on parameters controlling bridge resist-
ance can be updated prior to a proof load test by carrying
out on-site inspections of the bridge. Inspections can be
used to determine material properties (e.g. core testing,
the rebound hammer, ultrasonic pulse velocity to esti-
mate on-site compressive strength of concrete), element
dimensions (e.g. electromagnetic covermeters to locate
and measure cover of reinforcing bars), and to detect
defects or deterioration (e.g. impact-echo to locate large
voids in concrete, half-potential and resistivity measure-
ments to predict the likelihood and rate of corrosion).
Predictive probabilistic models for the bridge resistance
can then be updated with collected site-specific data
using Bayes theorem [17], which is a general theorem
applicable to any situation in which existing probabilistic
knowledge is updated with new evidence [18].
3.2.2. Load modelling
The safety and residual service life of road bridges is
usually dominated by the variable loading due to passing
vehicles. Design loads prescribed by design codes for
specific classes of bridges are normally calibrated such
that they will induce load effects which are exceeded
only once within a certain sufficiently long return period,
typically 50 yr. In modern design codes such a cali-
bration is based on a probabilistic model of the loading,
broadly valid for all the bridges within the considered
class.
For short span bridges and for secondary structural
elements, the statistical characteristics of the individual
axle loads are important, whereas for long span bridges
the statistical characteristics of the integrated effect of
several axles are more important [19]. Based on known
traffic characteristics the statistical characteristics of the
load effects may readily be evaluated.
The probabilistic traffic load models must be formu-
lated such that they can be used both to assess the service
life reliability of the bridge and to assess the instan-
taneous reliability considering collapse, serviceability
and fatigue failure modes. Thus it is necessary that these
probabilistic load models represent correctly both the
extreme load events within a reference period (i.e. period
of time) and the random-point-in-time load events.
Since in the present context the main emphasis is on
the probabilistic modelling of the load for ultimate limit
state analysis, the Gumbel distribution for the random
maximum load effect L within a reference period of n
yr is chosen [20]. This distribution has the property that
if the extreme value within one reference period is Gum-
bel distributed then the extreme value corresponding to
any reference period being a multiple of the first is also
Gumbel distributed. Furthermore, the standard deviation
is independent of the reference period. If mL and sL are
the mean value and the standard deviation of the distri-
bution of the annual maximum load effect, the mean
value of the distribution of the maximum load effect in
n yr is readily calculated as [21]
冑6
mnL ⫽ mL ⫹ sL ⫻ ln(n) (5)
p
Based on analysis conducted by Stewart and Rosow-
sky [16] using probabilistic load models developed by
Nowak [14] it was found that the coefficient of variation
of the Gumbel distribution for the annual extreme load
effect is close to 10% for a two-lane bridge. This value
is thus used in the following.
In addition to the live load a load component due to
dead load of the bridge is also included. It is assumed
that this load may be modelled by a time invariant nor-
mal distribution with mean of 1.05 times the nominal
dead load and a coefficient of variation of 10% [14].
In the following analysis, the live load is normalised
with respect to the dead load in terms of r the ratio
between the characteristic values of the dead load Dk and
the live load Lk
Dk
r⫽ (6)
Lk
Dk is the 50th percentile value or the mean value of the
distribution of the dead load, and Lk is taken as the 98th
percentile of the distribution function of the annual
maximum load effect in accordance with the definition
of characteristic loads in Eurocode [22].
For a given r, the mean value of the Gumbel distri-
bution of the annual maximum load effect may thus be
determined as
rmD
mL ⫽ (7)
− ln[ − ln(0.98)] × VL 冑 6+1−
0.5772
p
冑6VL
where VL is the coefficient of variation of the live load-
ing.
 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689
3.3. Effect of proof loading on time-dependent
reliability
Based on the survival of proof load testing the
reliability of a bridge may be updated in accordance with
the pattern and intensity of the proof load applied.
Depending on the way the reliability of the bridge is
evaluated, different approaches may be followed to
include the information of survival in a formal
reliability analysis.
As mentioned previously, bridge reliability is evalu-
ated using a time variant component reliability analysis.
In this context the post-test reliability can be updated by
truncating the distribution function for the bridge resist-
ance in its lower tail; namely, at the value which is equal
to the load effect induced by the applied proof load. The
updated distribution function of the resistance F⬙R(r) after
the proof load test may then be written as
F⬘R(r) − F⬘R(lp)
F⬙R(r) ⫽ r ⱖ lp
1 − F⬘R(lp)
where F⬘R(r) is the distribution function of the resistance
Fig. 1. ‘Low deterioration’, VR = 0.15, r = 1, and different bridge ages: (a) required proof load intensities; (b) test reliability.
1681
prior to the proof load test and lp is the load effect
induced by the proof load.
3.4. Reliability-based determination of proof loads
To determine an appropriate intensity of proof load
then the desired increase in reliability of a bridge and
the risk of damaging the bridge during the proof load
test must be considered. In the present study, the
required intensity of the proof load is evaluated as a
function of the desired bridge load rating. The bridge
load rating is defined herein in terms of four different
levels of characteristic live loads, namely 100%, 105%,
110% and 115% of the characteristic live load used in
the initial design of the bridge. These levels cover most
reassessment and upgrading situations in practice. Note
that the load rating is not a rating factor, but rather a
general measure representing the proportional increase
in live loads relative to the characteristic live load
(8) (100%) used in design. In the reliability analysis the load
rating influences the distribution of annual maximum
load effects since a change in Lk will effect r and conse-
1682 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689
Fig. 2. ‘Low deterioration’, VR = 0.15, r = 1/2, and different bridge ages: (a) required proof load intensities; (b) test reliability.
quently mL in Eq. (7). It is assumed that a proof load test
is to be conducted only once during the service life of
a bridge and the intensity of the proof load is determined
on the basis that this single load test should ensure safe
service of the bridge for the remainder of its service life.
To take into account different spans and bridge types
reliability analyses are carried out for three different
characteristic dead to live load ratios used in design (r
= 1/2, 1 and 2) which cover bridges of short span and
medium spans up to 40 m. Two cases of deterioration
are considered, namely ‘low deterioration’ and ‘medium
deterioration’, which are described by the degradation
functions given in Eq. (4). Furthermore, the effect of
bridge age at the time of the proof load test is also exam-
ined by considering proof load testing after 20, 40, 60
and 80 yr for bridges with an intended design life of 100
yr. Finally, for all the cases mentioned above the risks
of bridge collapse associated with the proof load test
are evaluated.
It is assumed that the target reliability index, bT, for
bridges with an intended design life of 100 yr is 3.4.
This corresponds largely with the target reliability index
of 3.5 for a 75 yr intended design life used by Nowak
[14]. Based on this target reliability requirement and for
a given r and load rating of 100%, the mean initial
resistance, R̄n, is estimated such that the reliability of
this ‘new’ bridge is equal to bT. As occurs in normal
design practice, deterioration is not taken into account
when deriving R̄n.
4. Results
The following section presents results obtained from
reliability analyses as described in Section 3.4. It is
assumed that a coefficient of variation of bridge resist-
ance is VR = 0.15 (see Section 3.2.1).
Considering the cases where ‘low deterioration’ is
assumed, Figs. 1(a)–3(a) show the proof load intensities
required to verify an existing bridge on proposed load
rating, for r = 1, 1/2 and 2 respectively. Figs. 1(b)–3(b)
show the test reliability, bPL = ⫺ ⌽ ⫺ 1(PfPL) (where PfPL
is test risk, i.e. the probability of bridge failure during the
test, and ⌽(·) the standard normal distribution function),
 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689
Fig. 3. ‘Low deterioration’, VR = 0.15, r = 2, and different bridge ages: (a) required proof load intensities; (b) test reliability.
associated with each proof load intensity. For example,
in the case of ‘low deterioration’, r = 2, desired load
rating of 105% and the age of the bridge 40 yr it can
be found in Fig. 3(a) that a proof load intensity of 1.2
times the characteristic live load used at the design is
required. The corresponding test reliability found in Fig.
3(b) is approximately bPL = 3.1.
From Figs. 1(a)–3(a) it is seen that the required proof
load intensity decreases as the time of the proof load
application increases. This is not surprising as the corre-
sponding residual service life and failure probabilities
are reduced and so it is relatively easier to reach the
target reliability index of 3.4. It is seen that in the cases
corresponding to 80% expired service life the curve
starts at 105% of the characteristic live load used in
design (i.e. load rating). This means that proof loading
is not needed if the desired load rating is less than 105%,
since in this case during the remaining service life (20
yr) the reliability index will not fall below 3.4.
For the cases where ‘medium deterioration’ is
assumed, Figs. 4–6 show the proof load intensities and
test risks for r = 1, 1/2 and 2, respectively. In compari-
son to the case of ‘low deterioration’ it is seen that proof
1683
loads well above the characteristic live load used in
design are required for all desired load ratings. This is
expected; loss of structural resistance due to deterio-
ration requires larger proof loads to maintain a constant
target reliability index. Figs. 4(b)–6(b) show that the cor-
responding test reliabilities are very low and in most
situations are thus unacceptable.
5. Further issues of proof load testing
5.1. Effect of resistance uncertainty
To examine the effect of resistance uncertainty on the
efficiency of proof load testing a reduced coefficient of
variation of resistance, VR = 0.10 (compared with pre-
viously used VR = 0.15), will now be considered for the
case of ‘low deterioration’ and r = 1. There are two
possibilities:
앫 the reduced coefficient of variation is used in the
initial design of a bridge (e.g. steel girders [14]);
앫 the initial design is based on VR = 0.15 and the coef-
1684 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689
Fig. 4. ‘Medium deterioration’, VR = 0.15, r = 1, and different bridge ages: (a) required proof load intensities; (b) test reliability.
ficient of variation is reduced by carrying out an on-
site inspection prior to the proof load test.
When VR = 0.10 is used in the initial design this results
in a lower mean initial resistance, R̄n/Dk = 3.175, to
ensure a target reliability index bT = 3.4 for a 100-yr
intended design life (whereas for VR = 0.15, R̄n/Dk =
3.825). As such, results of the analysis (see Fig. 7 for
VR = 0.10, and Fig. 1 for VR = 0.15) indicate that higher
proof loads need to be applied to a bridge with VR =
0.10, compared to one with VR = 0.15, to provide the
same reliability index for the same residual period of
intended design life and with the same load rating. This
also leads to a higher test risk for a bridge with VR =
0.10. For example, if a proof load test is carried out after
20 yr of bridge service to verify an increased load rating
110% (i.e. 110% of characteristic live load used in
design) for VR = 0.10 the required test load intensity is
1.48Lk and the corresponding test reliability bPL = 2.2
(or test risk PfPL = 1.4 × 10 − 2), while for VR = 0.15 these
values are 1.24Lk and bPL = 3.2 (or PfPL = 6.9 × 10 − 4).
The test risk is 20 times lower in the latter case. These
results show that proof load testing is less efficient when
a lower variability of resistance is adopted in the initial
design. This occurs because the lower tail of the distri-
bution of resistance is less sensitive to truncation at
lower proof loads.
When the initial design is based on VR = 0.15, it is
assumed that data obtained by an on-site inspection will
reduce material property and dimensional uncertainty.
As such, in the reliability analysis the coefficient of vari-
ation of the bridge resistance may be, in some cases,
assumed to be reduced to 0.10 while the mean value of
the resistance is not changed. Proof loading testing is
then not necessary since even for the worst case con-
sidered (i.e., the inspection is carried out after 20 yr of
the bridge service life and an increased load rating
115%) the reliability index for the remaining service life
is 4.2 (i.e. much higher than the target value 3.4).
Generally, these results illustrate an obvious fact that
the higher uncertainty of the initial information the more
reserves of bridge resistance are available and the more
efficient updating may be in reducing this uncertainty.
Both proof load testing and an on-site inspection update
information on bridge resistance and, consequently,
improve the assessment of bridge reliability. However,
 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689
Fig. 5. ‘Medium deterioration’, VR = 0.15, r = 1/2, and different bridge ages: (a) required proof load intensities; (b) test reliability.
there is risk of bridge failure during a proof load test,
while on-site inspections are ‘risk-free’ in this respect,
but may not be sufficient in themselves to assess an
existing bridge for a proposed load rating.
5.2. Reduction of test risk by reducing the reference
period
Previously it has been assumed that a proof load test
is to be conducted only once during the service life of a
bridge (i.e. there are no subsequent intended inspection,
maintenance or repairs). Essentially, this is ‘test and for-
get’ bridge management. In the case of severely deterior-
ating bridges (i.e. in this study bridges subjected to
‘medium deterioration’) this results in a very high test
risk [PfPL = 0.1 ⫺ 0.5 and higher, see Figs. 4(b)–6(b)].
Clearly, it is not particularly realistic to inspect/test a
bridge, especially a deteriorating one, only once during
its entire service life. More frequent inspections may be
needed. A reduction of the time between assessments
(i.e. reduced reference period) allows the magnitude of
the proof load and test risk to be reduced significantly.
As an example, consider a bridge with r = 1 subjected
to ‘medium deterioration’. After 20 yr of service the load
1685
rating of the bridge needs to be increased by 5%. If the
bridge will not be re-assessed at a later stage the inten-
sity of proof load required to ensure that the reliability
index will not be less than 3.4 for the remaining 80 yr
of the bridge service life is 3.18Lk [see Fig. 4(a)] and
the corresponding test reliability bPL = ⫺ 1.3 (test risk
PfPL = 0.90) [see Fig. 4(b)]. However, if the next bridge
assessment is planned after 10 yr (i.e. the reference per-
iod is 10 yr), then the intensity of proof load required
is only 1.01Lk and the corresponding test reliability bPL
= 3.38 (PfPL = 3.6 × 10 − 4) (see Fig. 8). In other words,
a proof load of 1.01Lk will ensure that the bridge is ‘safe’
for the next 10 years; however, after this period the
bridge will need to be re-assessed. The effect of the
proof load test on bridge reliability during these 10 yr
is shown in Fig. 9. Without the proof load test the
reliability index falls below its target value of 3.4 within
5 yr, while the application of the proof load with inten-
sity of 1.01 ensures that the reliability index will stay
above the target value for the entire reference period.
Generally, a risk–cost–benefit analysis may be used
for making decisions about optimal periods between
inspection or tests and proof load intensities, as well as
about other measures (e.g. strengthening, repair,
1686 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689
Fig. 6. ‘Medium deterioration’, VR = 0.15, r = 2, and different bridge ages: (a) required proof load intensities; (b) test reliability.
replacement) which can be employed to ensure continu-
ing service of aging bridges. More detailed consideration
of the application of a risk–cost–benefit analysis for
management of aging bridges, including the use of proof
load testing, can be found elsewhere [6].
5.3. Effect of prior service loads
Prior service loads may be treated as an uncertain
proof load, since the fact that a bridge has survived ns
yr in service means that the bridge resistance is greater
than the maximum load effect over this period of time.
Thus, the reliability of service-proven (i.e. older) bridges
would increase [16,23]. However, the influence of
deterioration may negate this expected increase [6].
To update the distribution function F⬘R(r) of the bridge
resistance taking into account prior service loads Eq. (8)
is modified by replacing the deterministic proof load
effect, lp, with a random variable. In accordance with the
probabilistic live load model described above this ran-
dom variable is Gumbel distributed and its mean value
is determined from Eq. (5) with n = ns.
To illustrate the effect of prior service loads a bridge
subjected to ‘low deterioration’ with Vr = 0.15 and r =
1 will now be considered. Fig. 10 shows reliability indi-
ces for the remaining service life of the bridge with and
without taking into account that the bridge has survived
prior service loads (i.e. with and without resistance
updating). It is assumed that prior to the year considered
(i.e. survival age) the load rating of the bridge is 100%
and it is then increased to 110%. It is also assumed that
the intended design life of the bridge is 100 yr. Thus,
the results in Fig. 10 show, for example, that if the bridge
is 60 yr old the reliability indices for the remaining 40
yr of the bridge life with a load rating increased to 110%
are 3.6 with updating (i.e. with taking into account that
the bridge has survived prior service loads corresponding
to a load rating 100%) and 3.2 without updating.
According to the results, the influence of prior service
loads significantly increases reliabilities of aging
bridges, especially with no or minor deterioration. For
example, if the bridge considered in the example has
survived for about 35 yr its load rating may then be
increased to 110% without any proof load tests, since
the bridge reliability index for the remaining service life
will still be higher than bT = 3.4 (see Fig. 10).
 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689 1687

Fig. 7. ‘Low deterioration’, VR = 0.10, r = 1, and different bridge ages: (a) required proof load intensities; (b) test reliability.

Fig. 8. Reliability indices to select proof load intensity for 10 yr reference period, ‘medium deterioration’, VR = 0.15 and r = 1.

6. Conclusions dead/live load ratios, degradation functions and bridge

ages. The proof load intensities have been calibrated
Proof load intensities for the load rating of aging using reliability methods to ensure that the bridges achi-
bridges have been investigated. Proof load intensities eve a desired load rating and at the same time maintain
have been derived for a range of different load ratings, a prescribed residual service life reliability. In order to
1688 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689
Fig. 9. Bridge reliability for 10 yr reference period, ‘medium deterioration’, VR = 0.15 and r = 1.
Fig. 10. Effect of updating by taking into account prior service load, ‘low deterioration’, VR = 0.15 and r = 1.
assess the feasibility of the proof load tests the associated
test risks (i.e. risks of bridge collapse during tests) has
been also evaluated.
It has been found also that the risks associated with
the tests are within reasonable limits, if deterioration is
not significant, i.e. loss of around 5% of the initial resist-
ance over the intended design life (‘low deterioration’).
However, the risks and the benefits may be considered
in more detail by cost–benefit analyses. For bridges
which are subject to significant deterioration, i.e. loss of
around 50% of their resistance over the intended design
life (‘medium deterioration’), proof load tests may still
provide a very useful tool for ‘controlled aging’. In this
case proof loads may still be efficient to achieve a
desired load rating of the bridge within reasonable test
risks but for a reduced reference period.
Finally, the residual service life reliability of bridges
is evaluated, taking into account that the bridges have
already survived a certain period of time under service
loading. It is found that this information may be useful
for updating the reliability of existing bridges.
Acknowledgements
The present paper presents part of the work conducted
during a three months research leave for M.H. Faber, at
The University of Newcastle, Australia. The work has
been co-sponsored by research grants from COWIfonden
and from the Faculty of Engineering, The University of
Newcastle, for which the authors are very thankful.
References
[1] Bakht B, Jaeger LG. Bridge testing—a surprise every time. J
Struct Engng, ASCE 1990;116(5):1370–83.
[2] Saraf V, Nowak AS. Proof load testing of deteriorated steel girder
bridges. J Bridge Engng, ASCE 1998;3(2):82–9.
[3] Fujino Y, Lind NC. Proof-load factors and reliability. J Struct
Engng, ASCE 1977;103(4):853–70.
[4] Ariyaratne W. Case history of bridges tested in NSW since 1995.
In: Chirgwin GJ, editor. Proceedings of the AUSTROADS 1997
Bridge Conference ‘Bridging the Millennia’, Sydney: AUS-
TROADS Inc., 1997;3:283–90.
[5] Fu G, Tang J. Risk-based proof-load requirements for bridge
evaluation. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1995;121(3):542–56.
[6] Stewart MG, Val DV. Role of load history in reliability-based
decision analysis of ageing bridges. J Struct Engng, ASCE
1999;125(7):776–83.
[7] Nowak AS, Tharmabala T. Bridge reliability evaluation using
load tests. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1988;114(10):2268–79.
[8] Moses F, Lebet JP, Bez R. Applications of field testing to bridge
evaluation. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1994;120(6):1745–62.
[9] Ransom AL, Heywood RJ. Recommendation for proof load test-
ing in Australia. In: Chirgwin GJ, editor. Proceedings of the
AUSTROADS 1997 Bridge Conference, Bridging the Millennia,
Sydney: AUSTROADS Inc., 1997;1:232–44.
 M.H. Faber et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 1677–1689
[10] OHBDC. Ontario highway bridge design code. Ontario: Ministry
of Transportation, 1993.
[11] AASHTO-LRFD. AASHTO-LRFD bridge design specifications.
Washington, DC: Association of State Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials, 1994.
[12] STRUREL, RCP Consulting Software, technical and users man-
uals, version 6.1. Munich: RCP GmbH, 1998.
[13] Mori Y, Ellingwood BR. Maintaining reliability of concrete struc-
tures. I: role of inspection/repair. J Struct Engng, ASCE
1994;120(3):824–45.
[14] Nowak AS. Calibration of LRFD bridge design code, NCHRP
Project 12-33, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1993.
[15] Enright MP, Frangopol DM. Service-life prediction of deteriorat-
ing concrete bridges. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1998;124(3):309–17.
[16] Stewart MG, Rosowsky DV. Time-dependent reliability of deter-
iorating reinforced concrete bridge decks. Struct Safety
1998;20(1):91–109.
[17] Val DV, Stewart MG, Melchers RE. Assessment of existing RC
1689
structures: statistical and reliability issues. Proceedings of the 2nd
RILEM International Conference on Rehabilitation of Structures,
Melbourne, Australia, 1998:91–101.
[18] Box GEP, Tiao GC. Bayesian inference in statistical analysis.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1973.
[19] Faber MH, Hommel DL, Maglie R. Aspects of safety and oper-
ation of bridges during rehabilitation. International Symposium
on Advances in Bridge Aerodynamics, Ship Collision Analysis
and Operation and Maintenance, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998.
[20] Madsen HO, Krenk S, Lind NC. Methods of structural safety.
New York: Prentice-Hall, 1986.
[21] Thoft-Christensen P, Baker M. Structural reliability theory and
its applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1982.
[22] Eurocode. Basis of design and actions on structures—part 1: basis
of design. ENV 1991-1, 1994.
[23] Stewart MG, Rosowsky DV. Structural safety and serviceability
of concrete bridges subject to corrosion. J Infrastruct Sys ASCE
1998;4(4):146–55.