PRESERVATION OF MISSOURI

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURES

VOL I:
Bridge Design & Load Rating

VALIDATION OF FRP COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGY

THROUGH FIELD TESTING

Strengthening of Bridge Y-0298

Pulaski County, MO

Prepared for:
Missouri Department of Transportation
University of Missouri-Rolla
(Project Code R03MO5-1)

February 19, 2004

Page ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1
A.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 1
A.2 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 2
A.3 ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 3
B. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS.................................................................................... 4
B.1 LOAD COMBINATIONS ................................................................................................... 4
B.2 DESIGN TRUCK AND LOAD LANES ............................................................................. 5
B.3 SLAB ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 6
B.3.1 Bridge Analysis ................................................................................................. 7
B.3.1.1 Dead Load Analysis ............................................................................................... 7
B.3.1.2 Live Load Analysis................................................................................................. 7
B.3.1.2.1 Design Truck Load Analysis (HS20-44) ...................................................................................... 7
B.3.1.2.2 Load Lane Analysis...................................................................................................................... 8
B.3.2 Summary of Results .......................................................................................... 9
C. DESIGN ................................................................................................................... 10
C.1 ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................ 10
C.2 SLAB DESIGN .................................................................................................................. 11
C.2.1 Assumptions .................................................................................................... 11
C.2.2 Positive Moment Strengthening ...................................................................... 11
C.2.3 Negative Moment Check................................................................................. 12
C.2.4 Shear Check..................................................................................................... 12
D. MF-FRP DESIGN ................................................................................................... 13
D.1 ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................ 13
D.2 STRENGTHENING DESIGN........................................................................................... 16
D.2.1 Load Analysis ................................................................................................. 16
D.2.2 Geometrical Assumptions ............................................................................... 18
D.2.3 Flexural Strengthening.................................................................................... 18
E. LOAD RATING ...................................................................................................... 21
REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 24

Page iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Slab Bending Moments and Shear Forces per Unit Strip ................................... 9
Table 2 – Material Properties............................................................................................ 10
Table 3 – Slab Geometrical Properties and Internal Steel Reinforcement ....................... 11
Table 4 – Slab Positive Moment Capacity........................................................................ 11
Table 5 – Slab Shear Capacity .......................................................................................... 13
Table 6 – Material Properties............................................................................................ 14
Table 7 – Parameters of the Design Section for the MF-FRP Strengthening................... 18
Table 8 – Strengthening Summary ................................................................................... 19
Table 9 - Maximum Shear and Moment due to Live Load............................................... 22
Table 10 - Rating Factor for the Slab Strengthened with CFRP Laminates (Bending
Moment).................................................................................................................... 22
Table 11 - Rating Factor for the Slab Strengthened with MF-FRP (Bending Moment) .. 22
Table 12 - Rating Factor for the Slab (Shear)................................................................... 23

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Bridge Y-0298 ................................................................................................... 1

Figure 2 – Superstructure of the Bridge.............................................................................. 1
Figure 3 – Plan View of the Bridge .................................................................................... 4
Figure 4 – Truck Load and Truck Lanes ............................................................................ 5
Figure 5 – Loading Conditions ........................................................................................... 6
Figure 6 – Loading Conditions for Slab Analysis .............................................................. 6
Figure 7 – Design Truck Load Analysis ............................................................................. 7
Figure 8 – Load Lane Analysis........................................................................................... 8
Figure 9 – Slab Internal Reinforcement............................................................................ 11
Figure 10 – Strengthening of the Slab Deck..................................................................... 12
Figure 11 – Evaluation of Moment at a Section where V is max ..................................... 13
Figure 12 – Details of the Connection Concrete-FRP ...................................................... 15
Figure 13 – Slab Load Condition...................................................................................... 17
Figure 14 – Slab Longitudinal Bending Moment Distribution for One Span of the Bridge
................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 15 – MF-FRP Strengthening of the Deck.............................................................. 19
Figure 16 – Pattern of the Bolts ........................................................................................ 20

Page iv
 A. INTRODUCTION

A.1 General Description

In the following report, the analysis and design procedures used in the upgrade of the
load-posted Bridge Y-0298, located in Pulaski County, MO are summarized. Figure 1
shows a picture of the bridge. The total bridge length is 30 ft and the total width of the
deck is 24.0 ft.

Figure 1 – Bridge Y-0298

The structure has two spans each of which consists of a solid reinforced concrete slab
7 in. thick as depicted in Figure 2. Each span is considered simply supported on rein-
forced concrete vertical walls. Both spans are 15.0 ft long.

Figure 2 – Superstructure of the Bridge

An inspection of this bridge revealed major concrete deterioration on the underside of

the slab which would prevent the application of any bonded strengthening system in
some areas. Due to the high cost of repairing the concrete, a system consisting of me-
chanically-fastened (MF) FRP laminates was used to strengthen these areas. The analysis
and design of this system are presented in this report.

Page 1
A.2 Objectives
The objective of this document is to provide an analysis of the structure and the de-
sign calculations for its strengthening using externally bonded fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) systems. The FRP systems consist of FRP laminates to be installed by manual lay-
up and pre-cured FRP laminates which are mechanically fastened.

Page 2
A.3 Assumptions
The following assumptions are made:
a) Nominal material properties for steel and concrete. At the onset of the project, exist-
ing material properties were validated in the field by extracting two concrete cores
and steel bar sample. The resulting values are: f`c=4,000 psi, and fy=40 ksi.
b) Load configurations and analysis are consistent with AASHTO1 Specifications; and
c) Design of the strengthening system is in compliance with ACI 440.2R-022 where ap-
plicable.
Contrary to all other bridges considered for this project, blue prints for this structure
were not available from MoDOT.

Page 3
 B. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

B.1 Load Combinations

Figure 3 shows a sketch of the bridge.

10 L
"
L 6"

'-6
'-
10

15'-0" 15'-0"

Figure 3 – Plan View of the Bridge

Ultimate values of bending moment and shear force are obtained by multiplying their
nominal values by the dead and live load factors and by the impact factor according to
AASHTO Specifications as shown in Eq. (1):

ωu = 1.3[ β d D + 1.67( L + I ) ] (1)

where D is the dead load, L is the live load, βd=1.0 as per AASHTO Table 3.22.1A, and I
is the live load impact calculated as follows:

50
I= ≤ 30% (2)
L + 125

Page 4
and L=10.5 ft represents the span length from center-to-center of support. The impact
factor can be assumed equal to 1.30 for both spans. It is to be noted that because of the
45 degree skew of the bridge, the effective center-to-center length of the span can be ex-
pressed as L·cosα=15(cos45˚)=10.5 ft.

B.2 Design Truck and Load Lanes

The analysis of the bridge is carried out for an HS20-44 truck load (which represents
the AASHTO design truck load) having geometrical characteristics and weight properties
as shown in Figure 4. There is no need to consider the 3S2 truck load for this bridge,
since it will never govern the design.
According to AASHTO Section 3.6.3, roadway widths between 20.0 and 24.0 ft shall
have two design lanes, each equal to one-half of the roadway width. However, the num-
ber of design lanes will not affect the design since the unit-strip method will be used.
Two loading conditions are therefore required to be checked as laid out in Figure 5.
The HS20-44 design truck load (Figure 5a) has a front axle load of 8.0 kip, second
axle load, located 14.0 ft behind the drive axle, of 32.0 kip, and rear axle load also of 32.0
kip. The rear axle load is positioned at a variable distance, ranging between 14.0 and 30.0
ft. Given the specific bridge geometry, the worst loading scenario is obtained for the
minimum spacing of 14.0 ft between the two rear axles.
The load lane condition consists of a load of 640 lb per linear foot, uniformly distrib-
uted in the longitudinal direction with a single concentrated load so placed on the span as
to produce maximum stress. The concentrated load and uniform load is considered to be
uniformly distributed over a 10’-0” width on a line normal to the centerline of the lane.
The intensity of the concentrated load is represented in Figure 5b) for both bending mo-
ment and shear force calculations. This load shall be placed in such positions as to pro-
duce the maximum stress in the member.

Clear Rodway Width

24'-0"
27'-2"
Variable
Spacing
14'-30'
14'-0"
Parapet
1-ft Clearance

6'-0"
32 K

32 K
8K

HS20-44

Parapet

Figure 4 – Truck Load and Truck Lanes

Page 5
 8.0 KIP 32.0 KIP 32.0 KIP

14'-0" 14'-0" TO 30'-0"

a) Design Truck (HS20-44)

18.0 KIP FOR MOMENT

26.0 KIP FOR SHEAR
0.64 KIP/FT TRANSVERSELY DISTRIBUTED
OVER A 10 FT WIDTH

b) Load Lane

Figure 5 – Loading Conditions

B.3 Slab Analysis

The deck slab is considered to be a one-way slab system due to its large aspect ratio
(panel length divided by the panel width). The effect of the skew will be neglected in this
analysis.
The width of the slab strip to be used in the calculation is provided by AASHTO
(Section 3.24.3.2) as follows (see Figure 6):

B = 4 + 0.06 L = 4 + 0.06(10.5 ft ) = 4.6 ft (3)

where L (ft) represents the length of the slab measured between supports’ centerline as
previously defined in Section B.1.

P=16 kip 6'-0"

wheel load

4'-741" B
2'-385"
3'-0"

Figure 6 – Loading Conditions for Slab Analysis

Figure 6 clearly demonstrates that there is no interference between two wheel loads.
The bridge deck can therefore be analyzed as subjected to the concentrated load of the
wheel only. This load will be placed in the most unfavorable position to maximize both
moment and shear stresses.

Page 6
B.3.1 Bridge Analysis
The bridge analysis is subdivided in: a) dead load analysis and b) live load analysis.
It will be discussed in the next two sections.

B.3.1.1 Dead Load Analysis

The load due to both slab and asphalt layer self-weight can be expressed as follows:

ωd = bhsγ c + bhaγ a (4)

where b represents the slab unit strip (12 in.), hs and ha are the slab and asphalt layer
thickness (7 and 8 in., respectively), and γc and γa represent the concrete and asphalt
weight per cubic foot (150 and 108 pcf, respectively). From Eq. (4) one can get ωd=0.16
kip/ft.
Maximum bending moment and shear force can be written as follows:

ωd L2
(0.16)(10.52 )
MD = = = 2.2 k − ft / ft
8 8 (5)
ω L (0.16)(10.5)
VD = d = = 0.8 kip / ft
2 2

B.3.1.2 Live Load Analysis

The live load analysis is subdivided in two sections; the first one is related to the de-
sign truck load analysis (HS20-44), and the second one to the load lane analysis.

B.3.1.2.1 Design Truck Load Analysis (HS20-44)

Figure 7 shows the bridge loading condition used to maximize moment (I) and shear
(II), respectively.

P=16 kip

A
I)
A Section A-A
L P
P=16 kip Asphalt
Layer
A
Slab
II) B
A
d
L-d

Figure 7 – Design Truck Load Analysis

Page 7
 Moment and shear can be expressed as follows (per width “B”):

PL (16)(10.5)
M max = = = 42 k − ft
4 4
(6)
L−d 10.5 − 7 /12
Vmax =P = 16 = 15.1 kip
L 10.5

Moment and shear to be used in the design can be found by dividing the previous val-
ues by the effective slab width, B, defined in Eq. (7) as follows:

M max 42
ML = = = 9.1 k − ft / ft
B 4.6
(7)
V 15.1
VL = max = = 3.3 kip / ft
B 4.6

B.3.1.2.2 Load Lane Analysis

Figure 8 shows the bridge loading condition used to maximize moment (I) and shear
(II), respectively. It is to be noted that both uniform and concentrated load have been di-
vided by 10 ft which represents the transversal extension of the load lane. Moment and
shear, already expressed per unit width, can therefore be written as follows:

qL2 PM L (0.064)(10.5)2 (1.8)(10.5)

ML = + = + = 5.6 k − ft / ft
8 4 8 4 (8)
qL L − d (0.064)(10.5) (10.5 − 7 /12)
VL = + PV = + 2.6 = 2.8 kip / ft
2 L 2 10.5

P=18/10
M
kip/ft
A ωd =0.64/10 kip/ft

I)
A Section A-A
L/2 L/2
P=26/10 kip/ft Asphalt
V
A ωd =0.64/10 kip/ft Layer
ft 1'-0"
Slab
II)
A
d
L-d

Figure 8 – Load Lane Analysis

Page 8
B.3.2 Summary of Results
Table 1 summarizes the results in terms of both unfactored and factored bending
moments and shear forces. Ultimate (factored) values are obtained by applying Eq. (1).

Table 1 – Slab Bending Moments and Shear Forces per Unit Strip
Mu Vu
Load Analysis (k-ft/ft) (kip/ft)
Dead - 2.2 0.8
HS20-44 9.1 3.3
Live
Lane Load 5.6 2.8
Total HS20-44 28.5 10.4
Factored Lane Load 18.7 8.9

Page 9
 C. DESIGN
Section C of this report details the design of the standard CFRP strengthening. The
design of the mechanically fastened FRP is detailed later in Section D.

C.1 Assumptions
Strengthening design is carried out according to the principles of ACI 440.2R-02
(ACI 440 in the following). The properties of concrete, steel, and FRP laminates used in
the design are summarized in Table 2 including other FRP systems that may not be rele-
vant to this bridge. The reported FRP properties are guaranteed values. The FRP sys-
tems used in the design of this bridge are highlighted in Table 2,
The φ factors used to convert nominal values to design capacities are obtained as
specified in AASHTO for the as-built and from ACI 440 for the strengthened members.

Table 2 – Material Properties

Concrete Steel FRP Type System Properties
f`c fy Tensile Modulus Size or
Pre-
(psi) (ksi) NSM Manual Strength Ef Thickness
cured
System Lay-up f*fu (ksi) tf
Laminate
(ksi) FRP (in)
Type-1a - - 300 19,000 0.079x0.63
Type-1b - - 300 19,000 4/8 bar size
4,000 40
- Type-2 - 550 33,000 0.0065
- - Type-3 360 30,000 0.055

Material properties of the composite reinforcement reported by manufacturers, such

as the ultimate tensile strength, typically do not consider long-term exposure to environ-
mental conditions, and should be considered as initial properties. Composite properties
to be used in all design equations are given as follows (ACI 440):

f fu = CE f fu*
(9)
ε fu = CE ε *fu

where ffu and εfu are the FRP design tensile strength and ultimate strain considering the
environmental reduction factor (CE) as given in Table 8.1 (ACI 440), and f*fu and ε*fu rep-
resent the FRP guaranteed tensile strength and ultimate strain as reported by the manufac-
turer (see Table 2). The FRP design modulus of elasticity is the average value as re-
ported by the manufacturer. FRP properties in the case of NSM system relate to the gross
section whereas in the case of manual lay-up relate to net fiber area.

Page 10
C.2 Slab Design
C.2.1 Assumptions
Slab geometrical properties and the assumed internal steel flexural reinforcement are
summarized in Table 3 and Figure 9.

Table 3 – Slab Geometrical Properties and Internal Steel Reinforcement

Span Slab Slab Tensile Effective Compression Effective
Thickness Width Steel Area Depth Steel Area Depth
hs b As d A’s d’
(in) (in) (in2/ft) (in) (in2/ft) (in)
Both Spans 7 12 #8@6”=1.58 5.75 #6@6”=0.88 1.75

As' =#6@6"=0.88 in 2/ft

d' 143"
hd 543" 7"

As =#8@6"=1.58 in 2/ft

Figure 9 – Slab Internal Reinforcement

C.2.2 Positive Moment Strengthening

The strengthening recommendations summarized in Table 4 are suggested for the
case of mid-span location (maximum positive moment) for both spans.

Table 4 – Slab Positive Moment Capacity

FRP
Span Strengthening Scheme
φMn Mu
Type (k-ft/ft) (k-ft/ft)
No FRP 23.5
Type-2 All 28.5
2 Plies 8” wide @12” ocs 28.9

Figure 10 shows the strengthening scheme for the deck of the bridge. The portions of
the figure which show no Type-2 FRP will be strengthened with Type-6 FRP. The de-
sign of this system is addressed in Section D.

Page 11
 "
-0
8'
2 Plies
8" wide
@12" ocs

Figure 10 – Strengthening of the Slab Deck

C.2.3 Negative Moment Check

The slab has been assumed to be simply supported. No negative moment exists.

C.2.4 Shear Check

The concrete contribution to the shear capacity has been assumed to be based on Eq.
(11-5) of ACI 318-993 as follows:

⎛ Vd⎞
Vc = ⎜1.9 f c' + 2500 ρ w u ⎟ bw d ≤ 3.5 f c' bw d (10)
⎝ Mu ⎠

where ρw=As/bwd, Vu and Mu represent ultimate bending moment and shear force acting at
the same cross-section, respectively, and bw and d are width and effective depth of the
girder.
Shear strengthening of slab-deck systems is not a viable solution. The as-built shear
capacity is summarized in Table 5. No shear strengthening will be provided on the slab
since the values of the as-built shear capacity is acceptable.

Page 12
 Table 5 – Slab Shear Capacity
Span φVn Vu
(kip/ft) (kip/ft)
All 10.4 10.4

The ultimate moment acting at the same cross-section where the shear is checked has
been calculated as follows (see Figure 11):

(15.1)(7 /12)
M @Vmax = = 1.9 k − ft / ft (11)
4.6

P=16 kip

d
L-d
d=7" Section of
Maximum Shear

M@ V =1.9 k-ft/ft
max

Figure 11 – Evaluation of Moment at a Section where V is max

D. MF-FRP DESIGN
Section D of this document pertains to the design of mechanically fastened FRP
strips. The analysis and design procedures which follow differ from what has been
shown in the earlier portions of this document.

D.1 Assumptions
Mechanically-Fastened FRP laminate design is carried out according to the principles
of ACI 440.2R-02 (ACI 440 in the following). The properties of concrete, steel and FRP
laminates used in the design are summarized in Table 6. The φ factors used to convert
nominal values to design capacities are obtained as specified in AASHTO (2002) for the
as-built and from ACI 440 for the strengthened members.

Page 13
 Table 6 – Material Properties
Concrete Steel FRP - SAFSTRIP
Compressive Yield Modulus of Tensile Modulus of Thickness Width
Strength Strength Elasticity Strength Elasticity
f c' fy Es f fu* Ef tf wf
[ psi ] [ksi] [ksi] [ksi] [ksi] [in] [in]
4000 40 29000 85.4 8800 0.125 4.00

The maximum strength that the MF-FRP strengthening can develop depends on the
capacity of the bolt-strip connection and, therefore, on the number of fasteners used.
In order to mechanically fasten the FRP laminate to the concrete, the optimal solution
in terms of mechanical behavior of the connection was found as a result of an experimen-
tal program conducted at UMR. The chosen fastening system consists of:
¾ Bolt with ribs under the head (diameter 3/8 in. and total length 2.75 in. - Figure
12). The shear capacity Tc of the bolt embedded in the concrete depends upon the
embedment depth hb and the strength of the concrete f’c. The shear strength of the
bolt, Tb, becomes equal to 5.0 kip when f’c = 4000 psi and hb = 2.5 in;
¾ Steel washer (inner diameter 7/16 in., outer diameter 1 in. and thickness 1/16 in. -
Figure 12);
¾ Epoxy between the washer and the FRP and throughout the hole on the FRP;
¾ Epoxy at the interface FRP-concrete.

Page 14
 Wedge-Bolt

3
8"
3 212" 3
4" 4"

Steel Washer

7
16"
1" 1
16"

Concrete Surface
Wedge-Bolt

Epoxy

Steel Washer Surfaces Soaked by Epoxy

Figure 12 – Details of the Connection Concrete-FRP

Bond tests on the connection FRP-fastener showed that at the ultimate conditions, the
applied load is uniformly distributed between all the fasteners. In addition, it was ob-
served that for concrete having an f’c = 4000 psi, the failure mode of the connection is
due to the bearing of the FRP. The experimental ultimate load supported by this connec-
tion was found to be 4.5 kip. For design purposes, a safety factor equal to 1.8 was as-
sumed and therefore the design capacity of the connection is Rb=2.5 kip.
The presence of the epoxy at the FRP-concrete interface was not taken into account
while computing the ultimate capacity of the bolt-FRP connection. In fact, it was as-
sumed that at the ultimate conditions, when the bonding is lost, the entire load is sup-
ported by the bolts. This provides a very conservative approach.
Under these assumptions, the minimum number of fasteners nb,min to anchor each FRP
strip so that failure of the FRP controls, is given by:
F
nb ,min = FRP (12)
Rb
where FFRP is the maximum load that the FRP strip experiences at ultimate conditions.
Assuming CE = 0.85 (i.e., carbon plate exposed in exterior non aggressive ambient) and

Page 15
taking into account the net area of the strip (i.e., subtraction of the area lost to insert the
bolt), from Eq. (12) the minimum number of bolts to reach the ultimate capacity of the
FRP strip is 26. If fewer bolts are used, the failure would occur at the connection (i.e.
bearing of the FRP strip).

D.2 Strengthening Design

D.2.1 Load Analysis

The continuity of the deck over the girders was conservatively neglected. This led to
model the deck as a slab simply supported between two supports.
Figure 13 shows the worst loading condition for the slab side to be strengthened by
MF-FRP. The design value was determined from the truck design condition when the rear
axle of the truck is in the middle of the span. The load of the wheel was spread over a
surface 20 ''×10 '' as prescribed in the AASHTO (2002) Section 4.3.30. A commercial Fi-
nite Elements Program (SAP 2000) was used to analyze the structure. The ultimate mo-
ment found from this analysis was (See Figure 14):

kip ⋅ ft
M u = 12.45 .
ft

Page 16
L 6"

L 6"
'-

'-
10

10
4 kip
TRUCK 1 8 kip
HS20-44
4'-0"

TRUCK 2
HS20-44

15'-0" 15'-0"

Figure 13 – Slab Load Condition

Page 17
 Pwheel = γβ L (1 + I ) PHS20-44 = 22.58 kip

⎡ kip ⋅ ft ⎤
⎢ ft ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Figure 14 – Slab Longitudinal Bending Moment Distribution for One Span of the Bridge

D.2.2 Geometrical Assumptions

The geometrical properties and the internal steel flexural reinforcement of the design
cross section are summarized in Table 7. Due to the corrosion phenomena of the bars at
both sides of the bridge, for the computation of the flexural reinforcement the area of
steel was assumed being half of the existing.
Table 7 – Parameters of the Design Section for the MF-FRP Strengthening
Slab Slab Longitudinal Effective
Slab Width
Thickness Tensile Steel Area Depth
H B As , slab long . d slab long .
[in] [in] [in ]
2
[in]
7.0 12 0.555 5 34

D.2.3 Flexural Strengthening

Table 8 summarizes the strengthening recommendations for the damaged sides of the
superstructure of the bridge. Figure 15 details the longitudinal flexural strengthening. It

Page 18
can be observed that the strips were placed parallel to the guardrail. This solution was
adopted for two reasons:
1. The FEM analysis showed that the stresses are higher in that direction. Therefore
putting the reinforcement in the direction were the stresses are maximum would
have optimized the amount of strengthening.
2. This solution allows for a better anchorage of the strip.
The pattern of the bolts for longitudinal and transversal reinforcement is showed in
Figure 16.
Table 8 – Strengthening Summary
Moment
Design Capacity
Demand
φM n
Section Strengthening Scheme Mu
[kip ⋅ ft ] [kip ⋅ ft ]
Un-strengthened Strengthened
Side A:
Longitudinal 2 Plates for Each Span
7.36 12.53 12.45
Direction Side B:
4 Plates for Each Span
a) Value corresponding to a 12" wide stripe of the deck

Bonded FRP
2 FRP Plates @ 6'' Abutment 1
4'' wide
11' 0'' long
Fastened with 12 Bolts
Guardrail

Abutment 2
SIDE A SIDE B

Guardrail
2 FRP Plates @ 6''
4'' wide
Abutment 3 11' 0'' long
Fastened with 12 Bolts

Figure 15 – MF-FRP Strengthening of the Deck

Page 19
 FRP Design Strip
(12 Bolts) CL
Abutment Deck
2"

2" 10" 1' 1' 1' 1' 6"

1'-10" 5'-6"
Figure 16 – Pattern of the Bolts

Page 20
 E. LOAD RATING
Bridge load rating calculations provide a basis for determining the safe load carrying
capacity of a bridge. According to MoDOT, anytime a bridge is built, rehabilitated, or
reevaluated for any reason, inventory and operating ratings are required using the Load
Factor rating. All bridges should be rated at two load levels, the maximum load level
called the Operating Rating and a lower load level called the Inventory Rating. The Op-
erating Rating is the maximum permissible load that should be allowed on the bridge.
Exceeding this level could damage the bridge. The Inventory Rating is the load level the
bridge can carry on a daily basis without damaging the bridge.
In Missouri, for the Load Factor Method the Operating Rating is based on the appro-
priate ultimate capacity using current AASHTO specifications (AASHTO, 1996). The
Inventory Rating is taken as 86% of the Operating Rating.
The vehicle used for the live load calculations in the Load Factor Method is the HS20
truck. If the stress levels produced by this vehicle configuration are exceeded, load post-
ing may be required.
The tables below show the Rating Factor and Load Rating for this bridge. The
method for determining the rating factor is that outlined by AASHTO in the Manual for
Condition Evaluation of Bridges (AASHTO, 1994). Equation (13) was used:

C − A1 D
RF = (13)
A2 L (1 + I )

where: RF is the Rating Factor, C is the capacity of the member, D is the dead load effect
on the member, L is the live load effect on the member, I is the impact factor to be used
with the live load effect, A1 is the factor for dead loads, and A2 is the factor for live loads.
Since the load factor method is being used, A1 is taken as 1.3 and A2 varies depending on
the desired rating level. For Inventory rating, A2 = 2.17, and for Operating Rating, A2 =
1.3.
To determine the rating (RT) of the bridge Equation (14) was used:

RT = ( RF ) W (14)

In the above equation, W is the weight of the nominal truck used to determine the live
load effect.
For Bridge Y-0298, the Load Rating was calculated for a number of different trucks,
HS20, H20, 3S2, and MO5. The different ratings are used for different purposes by the
bridge owner. For each of the different loading conditions, the maximum shear and
maximum moment were calculated. An impact factor is also taken into account for load
rating. This value is 30% for Bridge Y-0298. The shear and moment values for the deck
are shown in below in Table 9.

Page 21
 Table 9 - Maximum Shear and Moment due to Live Load
Maximum Maximum
Maximum
Maximum Shear with Moment
Truck Moment
Shear (kip) Impact with Impact
(k-ft)
(kip) (k-ft)
HS20 3.4 8.7 4.5 11.3
MO5 3.4 8.8 4.4 11.4
H20 2.6 6.0 3.4 7.8
3S2 2.8 6.0 3.6 7.8

Table 10 and Table 11 give the results of the Load Rating pertaining to bending moments
for the deck reinforced with CFRP laminates and MF-FRP laminates respectively, while
Table 12 shows the results for shear.

Table 10 - Rating Factor for the Slab Strengthened with CFRP Laminates (Bending Mo-
ment)
Rating Factor Rating (RT) Rating
Truck
(RF) (Tons) Type
HS20 1.780 64.1 Operating
HS20 1.066 38.4 Inventory
MO5 1.759 63.3 Operating
H20 2.198 44.0 Posting
3S2 2.198 80.5 Posting
* All Units Expressed in English System

Table 11 - Rating Factor for the Slab Strengthened with MF-FRP (Bending Moment)

Rating Factor Rating (RT) Rating

Truck
(RF) (Tons) Type
HS20 1.683 60.6 Operating
HS20 1.008 36.3 Inventory
MO5 3.365 121.1 Operating
H20 2.894 57.9 Posting
3S2 2.894 106.0 Posting
* All Units Expressed in English System

Page 22
 Table 12 - Rating Factor for the Slab (Shear)
Rating Factor Rating (RT) Rating
Truck
(RF) (Tons) Type
HS20 1.618 58.3 Operating
HS20 0.969 34.9 Inventory
MO5 1.655 60.7 Operating
H20 1.841 36.8 Posting
3S2 1.721 63.1 Posting
* All Units Expressed in English System

Since the factors RF with which posting is determined are greater than 1 the bridge does
not need to be load posted. In addition, from Table 12 the maximum operating and inven-
tory load can be found as 58.3 T and 34.9 T respectively.

Page 23
 REFERENCES
1
AASHTO, 2002: “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”, 17th Edition, Pub-
lished by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington D.C.
2
ACI 440.2R-02, 2002: “Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures,” Published by the American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
3
ACI 318-99, 1999: “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commen-
tary (318R-99),” Published by the American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI.
4
AASHTO (1996): “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications”, Second Edition, Published by
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washing-
ton D.C.
5
Bank, L. C., Lamanna A. J., Ray, J. C., and Velásquez G. I. (2002): “Rapid Strengthen-
ing of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Mechanically Fastened, Fiber-reinforced
Polymeric Composite Materials”, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C.
6
Bank, L. C., Borowicz D. T., Lamanna A. J., Ray J. C., and Velásquez G. I. (2002):
“Rapid Strengthening of Full-sized Concrete Beams with Powder-actuated Fasten-
ing Systems and Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composite Materials”, US Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C.

Page 24