Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
DEFINITIONS
As-Built Plans (As Constructed) – Plans that show the state of the bridge at the end of construction.
Bent – A substructure unit with two or more columns or pile extensions with a cap or cross bracing
that supports the spans of a multi-span superstructure at an intermediate location between its
abutments.
Bridge Management System – A system designed to optimize the use of available resources for
inspection, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of bridges.
Box Culvert – Reinforced concrete cast-in-place and precast box culverts under fill, both three and
four-sided.
Condition Rating – The result of the assessment of the functional capability and the physical
condition of bridge components by considering the extent of deterioration and other defects.
Complex Bridges – These structures are movable, suspension, cable stayed and/or have other unusual
characteristics.
Crossbeam (Bent Cap) – A transverse beam supporting longitudinal girders at a bent.
Fracture Critical Member – Steel member in tension, or with a tension element, whose failure could
cause a portion of or the entire bridge to collapse.
Inventory Level Rating – Generally represents a load allowed to stress the structure on a continuing
basis, but reflects the existing bridge and material conditions with regard to deterioration and loss of
section.
Limit State – A condition beyond which the bridge component ceases to satisfy the criteria for which
it was designed.
Load Effect – The response (axial force, shear force, bending moment, torque) in a member or an
element due to the loading.
Load Factor – A load multiplier accounting for the variability of loads, the lack of accuracy in
analysis, and the probability of simultaneous occurrence of different loads.
Load Rating – The determination of the live load carrying capacity of an existing bridge.
Load Rating File Set – The complete collection of documentation, preliminary, analysis, and
summary files that make up the Load Rating, stored in a bridge-numbered folder.
Load Rating Report – The stamped, calculation book (electronic pdf) for the Load Rating.
Load Rating Section – The Load Rating specialist group that is part of the Office of Bridge Design in
the Connecticut Department of Transportation Engineering Division.
Low Rating – A rating factor less than 1.0 for any of the required loading conditions.
Metal Pipe – Steel or aluminum structures that are defined by a pipe with a single radius equivalent to
the span length throughout.
Metal Pipe Arch – Closed shape steel or aluminum structure that has individual radii measurements
between the crown, the floor, and the corner.
National Bridge Inventory – The aggregation of structure inventory and appraisal data collected to
fulfill the requirements of the National Bridge Inspection Standards.
National Bridge Inspection Standards – Federal regulations establishing requirements for
Issued February 2016 5 Version 1.0
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bridge Load Rating Manual
inspection procedures, frequency of inspections, qualifications of personnel, inspection reports, and
preparation and maintenance of bridge inventory records. The NBIS apply to all structures defined as
bridges located on or over all public roads.
Nominal Resistance – Resistance of a component or connection to load effects, based on its
geometry, permissible stresses, or specified strength of materials. Also referred to as Unfactored
Resistance.
Operating Level Rating – The absolute maximum live load that the structure can be subjected to, for
limited passages of the load.
Pier – A substructure unit with one column or shaft supported by a footing that supports the spans of a
multi-span superstructure at an intermediate location between abutments.
Posting – Signing a bridge for load restriction.
Primary Member – Any member that receives traffic loads either directly or from the deck and
distributes them to main supporting elements, substructure units, or foundation soil or rock.
Reliability Index – A computed quantity defining the relative safety of a structural element or
structure expressed as the number of standard deviations that the mean of the margin of safety falls on
the safe side.
Resistance Factor – A resistance multiplier accounting for the variability of material properties,
structural dimensions and workmanship, and the uncertainty in the prediction of resistance.
Rating Factor - The ratio of the available load capacity to the load produced by the live load that was
considered.
Service Limit State – Limit state relating to stress, deformation, and cracking.
Specialized Hauling Vehicles – Short but heavy vehicles that may or may not meet the provisions of
Federal Bridge Formula B but induce load effects greater than Routine Commercial Vehicles,
especially on short spans.
Strength Limit State – Safety limit state relating to strength and stability.
Terminal Development Length – The distance beyond the theoretical cover plate end to allow
terminal development of the plate.
Theoretical End of Cover Plate – For partial length cover plates, this is the section at which the
stress in the flange without that cover plate equals the allowable stress exclusive of fatigue
considerations. For evaluation, this is the length of the cover plate minus the terminal development
length at each end of the cover plate.
Year Built - Refers to the date of original construction of the superstructure and substructure.
Year Rebuilt – Refers to the date of major structural changes but the original substructure is in place.
ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO – American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials
ACI – American Concrete Institute
ADTT – Average Daily Truck Traffic
AISC – American Institute of Steel Construction
ASD – Allowable Stress Design
ASR – Allowable Stress Rating
ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials
CTDOT – Connecticut Department of Transportation
FHWA – Federal Highway Administration
LFD – Load Factor Design
LFR – Load Factor Rating
LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design
LRFR – Load and Resistance Factor Rating
MBE – Manual for Bridge Evaluation
NBI – National Bridge Inventory
DW – Dead load of Wearing Surface and Utilities
DC – Dead load of Structural Components and Nonstructural Attachments
LL – Live Load
FEM - Finite Element Model
FEA - Finite Element Analysis
LLDF – Live Load Distribution Factor
MPF – Multiple Presence Factor
CHAPTER 1 GENERAL
1.1 Purpose
The primary mission of the Connecticut Department of Transportation is to provide a safe and
efficient intermodal transportation network that improves the quality of life and promotes economic
vitality for the State and region. Maintaining and improving upon the State’s bridge inventory is
necessary to accomplish this goal. A critical task for a bridge inventory to be in a good state of repair
is the knowledge of each bridge’s capacity to safely carry live loads in its current condition. A Load
Rating must provide this information in an accurate, organized, and standardized report. The
information contained in this report is used for several purposes:
To determine which structures may require remedial action.
To determine safe posting limits for structures with substandard load capacities.
To assist in the most effective use of available resources for rehabilitation or replacement.
To assist in permit vehicle reviews.
To satisfy FHWA requirements that every structure in the State on the National Bridge Inventory
has an associated load rating in accordance with the most recent AASHTO Manual for Bridge
Evaluation.
This document shall provide a methodology that will result in consistent and reproducible Load
Rating inputs and deliverables. It was developed in accordance with the most current editions of the
AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification,
including interims and/or errata. The CTDOT Bridge Load Rating Manual conforms to the criteria set
forth in these AASHTO manuals and provides guidance in areas that are not specifically called out by
AASHTO or that require owner decisions.
1.2 Scope and Format
The requirements set forth in this Manual apply to all CTDOT personnel involved in load rating and
bridge posting. In addition, consultants performing load ratings for CTDOT are required to follow the
guidance contained herein. While this Manual is intended to provide bridge load rating policy for
work done by or for CTDOT, it does not preclude justifiable exemptions, subject to the approval by
the CTDOT Load Rating Section.
This Manual shall serve as a supplement to the most recent MBE. It is not intended to be a stand-
alone document for load rating in the state of Connecticut. Rather, this Manual should be consulted
wherever the AASHTO manuals leave room for interpretation and where policy decisions are
required. In instances where information contained herein disagree with the most recent MBE, the
guidance in this Manual shall be followed. The principal areas of emphasis are on methodology,
requirements for Load Rating Report submittals, approved software, and the quality assurance and
checking process.
This Manual is a living document in that changes will be issued as warranted because of changes in
policy, loadings, or evaluation. The most recent version of this Manual, working template files, and
example Load Rating Reports are located at the CTDOT Load Rating Website.
1.3 Methodology
LRFR shall be the only method of rating accepted for submittal. Exceptions must be approved by the
CTDOT Load Rating Section prior to beginning the report. Exceptions will only be granted for
evaluation of material or geometry that is not currently included in the most recent LRFD or MBE.
Figure 4.1
Note: CT-L3S2 represents the vehicle described in Section 14-267A(b)(8) of the CT General Statutes
Issued February 2016 16 Version 1.0
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bridge Load Rating Manual
CT-L3S2 Legal Live Load Vehicle
80 kips on 5 axles
4.3.1.3 Specialized Hauling Vehicles
4.3.1.3.1 Loading shall be in accordance with MBE Article 6A.4.4.2.1b. The drive axle spacing of 6
feet shall not be increased up to 14 feet, which is allowed in the MBE.
4.3.1.3.2 The AASHTO SU4, SU5, SU6, and SU7 Trucks shall be rated. Their geometries and axle
loads shall conform to MBE Appendix D6A.
4.3.1.3.3 The CT-L73.0 shall be rated. Its geometry and axle loads shall conform to Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2
Figure 6.2.B.b
Note: CT-L73.0 represents the construction vehicle described in Section 14-269(d) of the CT General Statutes
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.11
4.4.3 Special (Limited Crossing), Single-Trip, Mix with traffic one lane distribution factor or single lane
loaded.
Figure 4.12
Note: TLC = Tri-load combination of vehicles in paving train
Figure 6.1
6.3.3.6 An approved Excel file for beam ends with web loss is available at the Bridge Design
Website.
6.3.4 When analyzing section loss to gusset plates, the methods described in MBE Appendix A11 shall be
used as a guideline. Since the criticality of the section loss varies depending on its location and the
failure mode analyzed, do not simply determine an average thickness for the entire gusset plate to
use in analysis.
6.4 Combined Axial Compression and Flexure
6.4.1 For steel compression members with eccentric connections, the Secant Formula Method described
in MBE Appendix I6A shall be used for analysis provided that its specified requirements are
satisfied. Otherwise, MBE Appendix H6A shall be used for analysis.
6.5 I-Sections in Flexure
6.5.1 General
6.5.1.1 The inclusion of the fl term in LRFD Design Equations 6.10.4.2.2-2 and 6.10.4.2.2-3 is
optional for straight girder bridges with skews less than or equal to 30 degrees. All straight
girder bridges with skews greater than 30 degrees and bridges with horizontal curvature
shall include the fl term in analysis.
Issued February 2016 27 Version 1.0
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bridge Load Rating Manual
6.5.1.2 The provisions of LRFD Appendix A6 shall apply for flexural resistance of straight
composite I-sections in negative flexure and straight non-composite I-sections with
compact or non-compact webs so long as the requirements set forth in LRFD Article A6.1
are satisfied.
6.5.1.3 The provisions of LRFD Appendix B6 shall apply for moment redistribution from interior-
pier I-sections in straight continuous-span bridges at the service and strength limit states so
long as the requirements of LRFD Article B6.2 are satisfied.
6.5.2 Composite Sections
6.5.2.1 Compact, composite sections shall be analyzed at the plastic moment capacity.
6.5.3 Non-composite Sections and Sections with unknown mechanical shear connector details
6.5.3.1 The compression flanges of sections where the deck is not connected to the steel section by
shear connectors in positive flexure shall be assumed to be adequately braced by the
concrete deck, and the compression flange bracing requirements need not be checked where
the top flange of the girder is fully in contact with the deck and no sign of cracking, rust, or
separation along the steel-concrete interface is indicated in the most Recent Inspection
report.
6.5.3.2 Determine if composite action exists: The following guidance is from NCHRP Research
Results Digest, November 1998 – Number 234, Manual for Bridge Rating Through Load
Testing.
6.5.3.2.1 For encased I-sections with no sign of cracking, rust, or separation along the steel-concrete
interface indicated in the most recent Inspection Report, the encased I-section shall be
assumed to act as a composite section at the service and fatigue limit states. The encased I-
section shall initially be assumed to act as non-composite at the strength limit state. If low
flexure ratings result, the encased I-section must be evaluated for composite action without
mechanical shear connection. If the encased I-section satisfies the requirements of Equation
6-1, it shall be considered composite at the strength limit state.
6.5.3.2.2 For steel I-sections in flexure with concrete decks and unknown composite action, the I-
section shall initially be assumed to act as non-composite. If low flexure ratings result, the I-
section must be evaluated for composite action without mechanical shear connection
provided that there is no sign of cracking, rust, or separation along the steel-concrete
interface indicated in the most recent Inspection Report and that the requirements of
Equation 6-1 are satisfied. If the top flange is not partially or fully encased, use a maximum
interface shear stress across the width of the top steel flange, ρh, of 70 psi instead of 100 psi.
𝑝ℎ
𝜌ℎ = ≤ 100 𝑝𝑠𝑖 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 70 𝑝𝑠𝑖 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑠
𝑏𝑓
Equation 6-1
Where:
ρh = Interface shear stress (psi) across the width of the top steel flange
bf = Width (in.) of the top steel flange
ph = Horizontal shear stress (lb/in.), calculated as follows:
1
𝑉 ∗ 𝑏1 ∗ 𝑑1 ∗ (𝑦 − 2 ∗ 𝑑1 )
𝑝ℎ =
𝑛 ∗ 𝐼𝑐
Equation 6-2
Issued February 2016 28 Version 1.0
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bridge Load Rating Manual
Where:
V = Factored vertical shear force (kips)
b1 = Effective width (in.) of the concrete slab per AASHTO
d1 = Depth (in.) of the concrete slab
y = Distance (in.) from the top of the concrete slab to the neutral axis of the composite section for live
loads
Ic = Moment of inertia (in.4) of the composite section for live loads
n = modular ratio, calculated according to LRFD Article 6.10.1.1.1b.
*The ρh upper limit of 100 psi corresponds to reinforced concrete with a compressive strength f’c, equal to
or greater than 3,000 psi. An upper limit of ρh equals 80 psi shall be used for reinforced concrete with f’c
equal to 2,500 psi.
6.6 Partial Length Cover Plates
6.6.1 Partial length cover plates shall be evaluated over the theoretical length of the cover plate. The
theoretical end of the cover plate shall be determined by subtracting the terminal development
length from both sides of the cover plate ends. The terminal distance beyond the theoretical end of
the cover plate shall not be included in the analysis.
6.6.1.1 If a continuous fillet weld across the end and along both edges of the cover plate or flange
to connect the cover plate to the flange is present, the terminal development length,
measured from the actual end of the cover plate, shall be 1-1/2 times the width of the cover
plate at its theoretical end.
6.6.1.2 Alternatively, the end of the cover plate is the theoretical end if no weld across the end of
the cover plate is provided and all of the following conditions are met:
6.6.1.2.1 The terminal development length is twice the width of the cover plate, measured from the
actual end of the cover plate.
6.6.1.2.2 The width of the cover plate is symmetrically tapered to a width no greater than 1/3 the
width at the theoretical end, but no less than 3 in. (75 mm).
6.6.1.2.3 There is a continuous fillet weld along both edges of the plate in the tapered terminal
development length to connect it to the flange.
6.7 Diaphragms and Cross Frames
6.7.1 Diaphragms and cross frame members in horizontally curved bridges or bridges with a support
skewed greater than 30 degrees shall be load rated.
6.7.2 Lateral bracing members shall not be analyzed unless specifically requested by the CTDOT Load
Rating Section.
6.8 Evaluation of Critical Connections
6.8.1 Pin and hanger assemblies shall be rated.
6.8.2 Field splices shall be rated if they are located on fracture critical members, there is section loss or
evidence that a slip critical connection has slipped and is now acting as a bearing-type connection,
or if requested by CTDOT.
6.8.3 The connection plates of floor-system superstructure primary members shall only be load rated if
section loss is indicated in the most recent inspection report.
6.8.4 Pins in trusses shall be rated.
Figure 9.1
9.2.2.3 Vehicular traffic and pedestrian loads should not be applied concurrently.
9.2.2.4 The decks of all pedestrian structures shall be rated by applying a 1 kip force to a 4 inch by
4 inch patch to ensure adequate punching shear capacity to simulate equestrian loading.
This loading may be omitted only if it is dimensionally implausible for a horse to cross the
structure.
𝐶 𝐶
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝐷 ±𝛾𝐷𝐶 ∗ 𝐷𝐶 ± 𝛾𝐷𝑊 ∗ 𝐷𝑊 ± 𝛾𝐸𝑉 ∗ 𝐸𝑉±𝛾𝐸𝐻 ∗ 𝐸𝐻 ± 𝛾𝐸𝑆 ∗ 𝐸𝑆
Equation 10-1
Equation 10-2
H = Depth of fill (ft) including the rigid concrete and wearing surface
The structure shall be logged and follow the same naming convention as documented in the most
current inspection report. All working files and report documents submitted shall reference and label
the structure’s components as such. For new structures the bridge shall be logged as specified in the
CTDOT Bridge Inspection Manual, Chapter 06, General, Bridge Component Labeling Systems For
Inspection Reporting
12.1 Load Rating File
The load rating engineer shall make every effort to contain the load rating documents in one pdf file
for ease of future use and reference. It is understood that some of the more complex structures will
require multiple pdf files. The major categories listed below must be linked by digital bookmarks
within the pdf file for ease of reference. Additional digital bookmarks may be created at the discretion
of the Load Rating Engineer.
12.1.1 Report Cover Sheet
12.1.2 Load Rating Summary Sheets
12.1.2.1 This will include all of the critical member information for all of the load cases that is
required.
12.1.2.1.1 The member length is the centerline to centerline of bearing for the span for the controlling
member.
12.1.2.1.2 The controlling location is where the member experiences the failure mechanism. This will
be represented as a decimal percentage of the total length (e.g. 0.5L is at mid-span).
12.1.2.1.3 The controlling mechanism is the governing failure mechanism (for example shear, flexure,
etc.) and associated Limit State for the critical location.
12.1.2.2 References
12.1.2.2.1 Include all references (e.g. AASHTO, AISC, ASTM, etc.) including version and most recent
interims used in the load rating analysis. References must include inspection report pages
used and Bridge plan sheets that assisted in the analysis.
12.1.2.3 Calculation Tools
12.1.2.3.1 Include all software used to develop the load rating. Please include the version of the
software and any maintenance patches if applicable.
12.1.3 Rating Factors Less than 1.0
12.1.3.1 Include a tabularized output including all rating factors that do not achieve a rating greater
than 1.0, and separate the ratings in two tables; (1) AASHTO & CT Legal, and (2) CT
e
Figure 12.1
Figure 12.2
Equation 13-1
CHAPTER 15 BIBLIOGRAPHY
AASHTO. (2011). The Manual for Bridge Evaluation (2014 Interims) (Second ed.). Washington, DC: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO. (2014). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (Seventh ed.). Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASTHO. (2009). LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges (2015 Interim). Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
American Welding Society. Structural Welding Committee. (2008). Structural welding code - steel (22 ed.). Miami, Fla.:
American Welding Society.
Connecticut Department of Transportation. (2000). Drainage Manual.
Connecticut Department of Transportation. (2001). Bridge Inspection Manual (Version 2.1).
FHWA. (2001). Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Substructures Reference Manual and
Participant Workbook.
Fisher, J. W., Statnikov, E., & Tehini, L. (n.d.). Fatigue Strength Enhancement by Means of Weld Design Change and the
Application of Ultrasonic Impact Treatment. Retrieved from http://www.appliedultrasonics.com/pdf/FATIGUE-
STRENGTH-ENHANCEMENT-BY-MEANS-OF-WELD-DESIGN-CHANGE-AND-THE-APPLICATION-OF-
ULTRASONIC-IMPACT-TREATMENT.pdf
Han, J., Acharya, R., Parsons, R. L., & Khatri, D. (2013). Improved Load Distribution for Load Rating of Low-Fill Box
Structures. The University of Kansas. Kansas Department of Transportation. Retrieved from
https://www.ksdot.org/PDF_Files/KU-12-3_Final.pdf
Howes, M. H. (1965). Design and Construction Features Concerning the Ring Compresion Theory, as Applied to
Corrugated Structural Plate Steel Pipe. Wethersfield: Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved from
http://csce.org/images/1965_03_RingCompressionTheory.pdf
Ocel, J. M. (2013). Guidelines for the Load and Resistance Factor Design and Rating of Riveted and Bolted Gusset-Plate
Connections for Steel Bridges. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center. Transportation Research Board.
Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w197.pdf
Salkar, R., Salkar, A., & Davids, W. (2015). Crippling of Webs with Partial-Depth Stiffeners under Patch Loading.
Engineering Journal, 52(4), 221-231.
Transportation Research Board. (1998). Manual for Bridge Rating Through Load Testing. Transportation Research Board.