Probability based Load Rating

Dennis R. Mertz, Ph.D., P.E.

Center for Innovative Bridge Engineering
University of Delaware
 Fundamentals of LRFR
Part 1
Introduction to Load
Rating of Highway
Bridges

1-2
 How Did We Get Here?
What do you know
about the collapse
of the U.S. 35 Silver
Bridge?

What bridge safety

measures were
introduced because
of it?

1-3
 Why Do We Load
Rate Bridges?
???

1-4
 Purposes of Load Rating
• Ensure bridge safety
• Comply with federal regulations - National
Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)
• Rehabilitation or replacement needs
• Posting needs
• Processing of overload permits
1-5
 Definition of Load Rating
• Live load capacity of a bridge
– Using as-built bridge plans
– Using latest field inspection (NBIS)

• Expressed as a Rating Factor (RF) or in

tonnage for a particular vehicle

1-6
 Rating Factor

C  DL
RF 
LL
C = Capacity (bridge member/element)
DL = Dead Load effect
LL = Vehicular Live Load effect

1-7
 Example Rating Factor
Bridge in 1944 Bridge in 2008

C = 4391.5 kip-ft C = 4391.5 kip-ft

DL = 1694.1 kip-ft DL = 1694.1 kip-ft
LL = 2111.4 kip-ft LL = 2815.2 kip-ft

4391.5  1694.1
RF 
?
 RF  ?
1-8
 When Should a Load Rating
be Performed?
• Design stage
• Initial inventory inspection
• Change in the live loading
• Change in the dead load on the structure
• Physical change in any structural
member of the bridge
•
1-9
Change in load rating method
 2008 AASHTO Manual for
Bridge Evaluation (MBE)
• New single standard for bridge evaluation
• Replaces:
– 2003 AASHTO Manual for Condition
Evaluation and Load and Resistance Factor
Rating of Highway Bridges
– 1994 AASHTO Manual for Condition
Evaluation
1-10
 Bridge Evaluation Process
1. Determine type of evaluation
2. Review bridge data
3. Perform load rating
4. Report results & make recommendations

1-11
 Data Requirements
for Load Rating
• Geometric data
• Member and condition data
• Loading and traffic data

1-12
 Primary Types of Loads Used
in Load Ratings
• Permanent loads or dead loads (DL)
– Structure self weight
– Superimposed dead loads (barriers,
overlays, utilities)
– Construction induced forces

• Vehicular live load (LL)

1-13
 Vehicular Live Loads
• Design load (national)
• Legal loads (local)
• Permit loads (local)

1-14
 Load Rating Methods
in the MBE
• Allowable Stress Rating (ASR)
• Load Factor Rating (LFR)
• Load & Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR)
FHWA considers LRFR to be the
preferred load rating methodology
for existing bridges.
1-15
 Allowable Stress Rating
• Loads are at a working level
• Capacity is reduced by factors of safety
• Does not address variability in DL and LL
• Live Load is the HS20 truck or lane load,
whichever governs

1-16
 Load Factor Rating
• Strength-based method using factored loads
• Uncalibrated code: load factors based on
engineering judgment
• Live Load is the HS20 truck or lane load,
whichever governs
• No guidance on permit loads
1-17
 Load & Resistance
Factor Rating
• Reliability-based limit states philosophy
• Use probabilistic method to derive load &
resistance factors
• Uniform reliability in load ratings
• Provides guidance on adjusting live load
factors using site-specific traffic data
1-18
 Elements of a Bridge
to be Load Rated
• ALL primary superstructure bridge
components and connections shall be
load rated
• Elements not typically load rated include:
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
1-19
______________________________
 Elements of a Bridge
to be Load Rated
Typical Stringer Bridge

Interior Stringer

Dead Load Considerations

Exterior Stringer

1-20
 Elements of a Bridge
to be Load Rated
Deck Truss Bridge
Stringer
Floorbeam

Truss Member

Truss Connection

Steel Pier Bent

1-21
 MBE Requirements for
Quality Measures

MBE Article 1.4

To maintain the accuracy and
consistency of inspections and load
ratings, bridge owners should
implement appropriate QC/QA
measures.
1-22
 Quality Control
• Quality control procedures:
– Checklists ensure uniformity/completeness
– Independent reviews of computation/load
rating report

1-23
 Quality Assurance
• Quality assurance measures:
– Overall review of the rating program
– Ascertain that the results meet or exceed the
standards established by the owner

1-24
 Fundamentals of LRFR

Part2
Benefits of LRFR

2-25
 LRFR Philosophy
• Reliability-based, limit states approach
consistent with LRFD
• Rating done at strength limit state and
checked for serviceability
• More easily adopts site-specific
information while maintaining uniform
reliability
2-26
 Definitions
Limit State -
Condition beyond which the bridge or
component no longer satisfies the
design or rating provisions

Resistance -
Quantifiable value beyond which the
particular limit state will be exceeded
2-27
 Limit States
Strength Limit on:
strength and stability

Service Limit on:

stress, deformations,
and cracks

Fatigue Limit on:

stress range
2-28
 Limit States and
Reliability Index
Strength Limit State has been
calibrated to achieve uniform safety using
structural reliability methods

Reliability Index ‘’ provides a new

measure of safety that is statistically based

2-29
 Probabilistic Design
and Evaluation
CENTRAL
SAFETY MARGIN

Q RD R
LOAD RESISTANCE
MARGIN MARGIN

LOAD, QQ RESISTANCE, R

Pf R,Q

2-30
 Probabilistic Design
and Evaluation (cont.)
As-built-Q As-built-R
Increase over time-Q
Decrease over time-R

2-31
 Reliability Index, ‘’

Design Level Reliability:  = 3.5

or 1 in 5,000 notional probability of exceedence
Minimum for Evaluation:  = 2.5
or 1 in 1,200 notional probability of exceedence
2-32
 Reliability Indices
Reliability Indices
LRFR (INV)
LFD LRFD
5

4
β ~ 3.5
3
β ~ 2.5
2
LRFR (OP)
Beta

0
Span Length

2-33
 Minimum Reliability for LRFR
 = 2.5
• Comparable to average reliability inherent
in load factor ratings at Operating Level
• Shown to be an acceptable minimum
level of safety for bridge evaluation

Exposure period for evaluation is

2-5 years vs. 75 years for design

2-34
 Reliability Index vs. LRFR and LFR
4.5
LFR
4.0
LRFR


3.5
RELIABILITY INDEX,

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5

DESIGN LOAD OPERATING RATING FACTOR

2-35
 Study’s Key Findings
LRFR ratings correlate well with limit
state exceedence rates

LFR ratings did not correlate well

2-36
Uniform Reliability Predictors
• Live load model
• Distribution factors
• Multiple presence of live loads
• Resistance formulations (LRFD)

2-37
Live Load Effect on Reliability
• Uniform reliability requires uniform bias
for load effects across all span lengths
• Force effects from HS20 load model to
“exclusion vehicles” does not provide a
uniform bias
• New live load model needed to achieve
uniform reliability
2-38
What are Exclusion Loads?
• Trucks exempted from Federal
weight laws
• Comply with state vehicle weight
regulations
• Allowed to operate on non-
interstate highways
2-39
What makes this an
“Exclusion Truck?”

2-40
 Michigan “Exclusion Truck”
Load: 3-S3-5

Total weight = 77 ton Total length = 72.4 ft.

2-41
LRFD Live Load (HL-93)
8 kips 32 kips 32 kips 25 kips 25 kips
14’ Varies 4’

(14’ to 30’)

Design Truck Design Tandem

PLUS or PLUS
Design Lane Design Lane

2-42
 1.9

1.8

1.7
1.6
EXCLUSION VEHICLES
1.5 AASHTO HS‐20
MOMENT RATIO

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9 EXCLUSION VEHICLES
LRFD Load Model
0.8

0.7

0.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
SPAN IN FEET 2-43
 Load & Resistance
Factor Rating Process
• Can it be used for the load rating of
existing bridges designed using the
Standard Specifications?
• If so, what are the benefits?
• If not, why not?

2-44
Potential LRFR Benefits?
• What were the benefits of using the
LRFR rating for existing older bridges
in YOUR state/region?

• How were these benefits realized?

• What changes, if any, would YOU

implement for the rating process?
2-45
 LRFR Ratings Benefits
• Uniform reliability in load ratings and load
postings
• Promotes more confidence in rating and posting
values
• Provides guidance for evaluation of overloads
• Introduces state-of-the-art technologies that
could benefit existing bridges
• Evaluation of serviceability or service limit states
2-46
 Fundamentals of LRFR
Part 3
Overview of Load
Rating Equation &
Rating Process

3-47
LRFR Loading Rating Equation
C  DL
RF 
LL
C   DC  DC    DW  DW    P  P 
RF 
 LL  LL  IM 
C   c  s  Rn
C  fR
3-48
 Capacity, C
C   c  s  Rn • For the STRENGTH
Limit States

• For the SERVICE or

C  fR FATIGUE Limit States

cs  0.85
3-49
 Factored Permanent Loads
   DC  DC    DW  DW    P  P 

• LRFD Values
• LRFR modifications
•  DW = 1.25 if field measured

3-50
 Factored Live Loads
 LL  LL  IM 
LRFR calibrated values for load factors

3-51
LRFR Load-Rating Process
• Performed for varied purposes using
different live-load models and evaluation
criteria
• Three procedures with evaluation live-
load models levels
• Results serve specific uses and guide
the need for further evaluations
3-52
 LRFR Live-Load Levels
Design Load Rating Design
(HL-93)

Legal Load Rating Posting

(AASHTO and State Legal Loads)

Permit Load Rating Permits

(Overweight Trucks)
3-53
 LRFR Load Rating Process
RF  1
Design (HL93) NBI reporting

RF < 1
RF < 1
• Load Posting
Legal
• Strengthening
RF  1
RF < 1
Post or Restrict
Permit
For Routine Permits

3-54
 HL 93 Design Load Rating
• Screening level for identifying vulnerable
bridges
• Inventory Level: safe for state legal loads
within federal weight laws and LRFD
exclusion limits. Comparable to new design
• Operating Level: safe for state legal loads
within federal weight laws
3-55
 Legal Load Rating
• Provides single level load rating
• RF ≥ 1.0 Safe for unrestricted indefinite use
• RF < 1.0 Need for posting or bridge
strengthening

3-56
 Permit Load Rating
• Single level rating

• Permits only allowed on bridges having

RF ≥ 1.0 for legal loads or HL-93

• RF ≥ 1.0 safe for permit crossing

• Permit rating based on permit type:

– Routine / Annual Permits
– Special / Single-Trip Permits
3-57
 Thank you for your
attention.
Questions or comments?