liUllrllhllllll ~1{J)~Mll§ Congress Special IPIlllMkruttniUllln 37

GUKDELJIf>JES FOR EVJULUATJIOI\J OlF LOAD CAJ~}i('y[N G CAJP) J1l CI1fY () lrl'

1'1)) Tflll'11""'1 ··F" ~ ~ 1))) 1ft Li . .d)J S.\y l~ 0

Published by:

The Indian Roads Congress

Copies can be had from

The Secretary, Indian Roads Congress, Jamnagar House, Shahjahan Road New o-na.noon

NEW DELHI 1991

Pricc Rs. 1601- (Plus Packing & Postage Charges)

Published in June, '1991

Reprinted March, 2002

Reprinted : November, 2004

(Rights of Publication and of Translation are reserved)

Prillt(vl nt Sae ar Printers IV Puhlishcrs. New Delhi-II 0003

MEMBERS OF THE BRIDGES SPECIFICA nONS AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE

I. Ninan Koshi
(Convenor)
2. M.K. Mukherjee
(Member-Secretary)
3. S.R Aggarwal
4. C.R Alimchandani
5. Dr. AS. Arya
6. L.S. Bassi
7. M.K. Bhagwagar
8. P.c. Bhasin
9. AG. Borkar
10. S.P. Chakrabarti
II. S.S. Chakraborty
12. Dr. P. Ray Chaudhuri
13. AN. Choudhury
14. N.N. Chatterjee
15. BJ. Dave
16. Dharm Vir
17. Dharm Pal
18. Achyut Ghosh
19. P.S. Gokhale
20. D.T. Grover
21. P. Kanakaratnam
22. V. Krishnamurthy
23. AX LA! Addl, Director General (Bridges), Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi

... Chief Engineer (Bridges), Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi

... Director, Research Designs & Standards Organisation, Lucknow

... Chairman & Managing Director, SIUP (India) Ltd, Bombay

... Head Deptt. of Earthquake Engg.,. University of Roorkee, Roorkee

... Addl, Director General (Bridges) (Retd.), Flat No. 42, NGH Society, New Delhi

Consulting Engineer, Engg. Consultants Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

... 324.. Mandakini Enclave. Greater Kailash-Il, New Delhi-1 10019

... Chief Transport & Communications Division.

DMRDA. Bombay

... Chief Engineer (Bridges), Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi.

Managing Director. Consulting Engg. Services (India) Ltd .. New Delhi

148, Sidhartha Enclave, New Delhi

... Chief Engineer (Retd.), 4, Assam Govt Press Road.

Guwahati (Assam)

... Chief Engineer PWD (Roads). Directorate.

West Bengal

... Chief Engineer (RRP) and Joint Secretary, Gujarat R&B Deptt, Gandhinagar

... Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), HIG-Ac377. Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016

... . Engineer-in-Chief. HP. PWD. Shimla

... Director, Metal Engg. Treatment Co. Pvt Ltd ..

Calcutta

... "Ichhapoorti", 79. Anant Patil Road Dadar, Bombay ... Chief Engineer (Retd), 0-1037, New Friends Colony, New Delhi

... Chief Engineer (H&RW). Tamil Nadu ... Chief Engineer, PWD NH, Kamataka

F"<Yi"~pr_;n-r""p'f-~l1..,,~~,,,l ~ .... ,... .. j. DUm TJ,..,,.,....f

=",=-:0£' '11

24. CB. Mathur

25. N.V. Merani

26. Dr. AK Mullick

27. P.V. Naik

28. G. Raman

29. Dr. T.N. Subba Rao

30. Dr. G.P. Saha

31. M.V. Sastry

32. S. Seetharaman

33. RP. Sikka

34. 1.S. Sodhi

35. KB. Sarkar

36.

B.V. Subrarnanyam

37. 38.

N.C Saxena

Dr. M.G. Tamhankar

39.

Mahesh Tandon

40. 41.

The Director The President

42.

The Director General

43. The Secretary

44 Dr. K Rajagopalan

45. Dr .. VK Raina

... Chief Engineer & Addl, Secy., Rajasthan PWD B&R. Jaipur

Principal Secretary to the Govt of Maharashtra PWD, Bombay

Director General. National Council for Cement & Building Materials. New Delhi

... Chief Technical Consultant, Giicon Project Services Ltd., Bombay

Director (Civil Engineering), Bureau of Indian Standards. New Delhi

... Managing Director, Gammon India Ltd, Bombay ... Chief Engineer, Hindustan Constn. Co. Ltd, Bombay

... Chief Engineer (Bridges), Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi

... Chief Engineer (Bridges) (Retd.). H-Block. Flat No. 33A. DDA Self Financing Scheme. Saket, New Delhi-I 10 017

Addl, DirectorGeneral (Roads). Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi

... Chief Engineer, Retd.), 546/Sector- I 6. Chandigarh ... Chief Engineer (Bridges). Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi

.. , Chief Engineer (Design) CPWD .. Central Design Organisation. New Delhi

.. , Engineer-in-Chief. UP PWD, Lucknow

... Deputy Director, Structural Engg. Research Centre, Ghaziabad (UP)

.. , Managing Director, Tandon Consultants Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

... Highways Research Station. Guindy, Madras Indian Roads Congress (V. P. Kamdar), Secretary to the Govt of Gujarat, P.W.D. - ex-officio

.. , (Road Development) & Add!. Secretary to the Govt

of'India (KK Sarin) - Ex-officio

Indian Roads Congress(D.P. Gupta) -Ex-officio

FOREWARD

The Indian Roads Congress hadbrought out the Special Publication No.9 on Rating of Bridges in 1972. In view of the latest revisions in the codal provisions, revised Motor Vehicle Act 1998 and review of International practices, the Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Committee finalised the Guidelines on Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges superseding the Special Publication No. I). The draft was approved by the Council in December. 1990.

In these Guidelines the common procedures for assessing the strength and methods of evaluating the safe permissible. load carrying capacity of exisitng bridges have been given as also the procedure for posting of structurally deficient bridges. These Guidelines are applicable to reinforced COncrete, prestressed concrete, steel, composite and masonry arch bridges.

I am confident that the application of these Guidelines will help the field engineers in assessing the safe carrying capacity of our bridges. Any suggestions and feed back from the profession on the actual use of these Guidelines would be most welcome.

New Delhi, April .1991.

(KK SARIN)

Director General (Road Development) & Addl, Secy, to the Govt of India Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing)

Corresponding Members

Indian Institute of Technology, P.O. : Il'T, Madras United Nations Expert in Civil Engg. (B&S), C/o U.N. D.P. P.B. No. 558, Riyadh-I 1421 (Saudi Arabia)

, ..

GVW FAW RAW AXR Mcap Vcap '1

MDL VDL MLL

VLL

MU VLL L WlM ODe

LEGEND

CONTENTS

Gross Vehicle Weight Front Axle Weight Rear Axle Weight Axle Weight Ratio

Moment Capacity of the Section Shear Capacity of the Section Reduction Factor

Moment due to all loads other than live load Shear due to all loads other than live load

Net Moment Resisting Capacity minus effect due to all loads other than live loads

Net Shear Resisting Capacity minus effect due to all loads other than live loads

Maximum live load moment for standard IRC loads Maximum live load shear for standard IRC loads Span of Bridge

Weight-in- Motion

Over dimensioned Consignment

I. Introduction

2. Scope

3. Assessment at' Condition of Bridge

4. Traffic Factors

5. Rating Methodology

6: Load Testing

7. Bridge Posting

g. Repair, Strengthening and Rehabilitation of Bridges ...

9. Bibliography

TABLES

Table I. Bridge Rating Systems

Table 2. Safe Axle Load for RCC Slab Bridges' APPENDICES

Appendix I Appendix 2

Permissible Stresses in Different Materials UI tima te Strength of Sections and Serviceability Conditions

Factors to be Considered While Rating Existi ng Steel Bridges

Factors for Rating Masonry Arch Bridges

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

Page 1 3 4 8

16 32 37 42 43

18 32

44 45

48

50

,iiL&1J=

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF BRIDGES

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. A Bridge Maintenance & Rehabilitation Committee (B-IO) was constituted by the Indian Roads Congress in January 1988 in order to look into the various aspects, policies and guidelines for the general subject ofbridge maintenance and rehabilitation. The above Committee after detailed deliberations, decided to set up three subcommittees to prepare drafts of guidelines on the following subjects:

(i) Inspection and maintenance of bridges

(ii) Evaluation of load carrying capacity of bridges

(iii) Methods and techniques of major repairs, strengthening and rehabilitation of bridges

The personnel of the Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Committee (B-lO) is given below:

N.V. Merani AG. Borkar

... Convenor

... Member-Secretary

Members

CR. Alimchandani P . .c. Bhasin

S.S. Chakraborty BJ. Dave

S.P. Gantayet P.S .. Gokhale V.P. Kamdar G.P. Lal

RK. Mathur AD. Narain M.G. Prabhu

N.e. Saxena M.e. Sharma Surjit Singh

Dr. T.N. Subba Rao Mahesh Tandon N.G. Thatte

Rep. of CRRI (M.V.B. Rao)

Rep. of West Bengal PWD (A. Mukherjee)

Director, HRS, Madras

Ex-officio

The President, IRC (V.P. Kamdar) The D.G. (RD.), (KK Sarin) The Secretary, IRC (D.P. Gupta)

corresponding Members

(ii) revised Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (iii) review of international practice

. The ~rese~t guidelines would supersede the IRC Special Publica-

tion 9 entitled Report on Rating of Bridges", 1986.

2. SCOPE

M.R Vinayak Rep. of National Council

Rep. of Structural for Cement and Building

Engg, Research Centre Materials'

(M.S. Kapla) (c. Raj Kumar)

The Guidelines on Inspection and Maintenance of Bridges have already been published by the Indian Roads Congress as IRC : SP-35.

1.2. The present Guidelines for Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges have been drafted by a subcommittee consisting of the following:

S.S. Chakraborty Convenor

Dr. P. Ray Chaudhury Member

BJ. Dave Member

M.S. Kapla Member

AD. Narain Member

M.V.B. Rao Member

n.Y. Gururaj ... Member

The Subcommittee was rendered valuable service by Shri D.T.

Grover, Shri S. Sengupta and Shri AK Garg in collecting and processing various technical data.

The guidelines prepared by the subcommittee for preparation of Guidelines for Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges were approved by the Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Committee in their meeting held at Bombay on the 17th August, 1990.

Further the Guidelines were considered and approved by the Bridges Specifications and Standards Committee in their meeting held at New Delhi on the 7th and 8th November, 1990 subject to certain modifications. Later on the modified guidelines were approved by the Executive Committee and the Council in their meetings held at New Delhi and Calcutta on the l Sth November, 1990 and Sth December, 1990 respectively.

These Guidelines should be read in conjunction with and in continuation ofIRC:SP-35 "Guidelines for Inspection and Maintenance of Bridges" as both are inter-related and some of the areas may be overlapping.

These Guidelines are revision of IRC Special Publication 9, entitled 'Report on Rating of Bridges', The additions/modifications to the document 'Rating of Bridges' made herein are basically due to the following reasons:

~.1. Objective of these guidelines on evaluation of load car .

capacity of bridges is as follows: ryrng

(a)

to ~~ta:lis~ a com~on procedure for assessing the strength and specify me 0 s 0 .evalu~tmg the safe permissible load carrying capacity or ratin

of the existing bridges including loao testing methods g

(b) to establish a common p dr.

b id roce ure lor posting of structurajjy deficient

n ges

. These procedures are meant to serve only as a guide. They are ~tended for use for the typ~ of bridges as mentioned in para 2.2 below.

arge and unusual structures require special study and consideration of e_ven secondary and ?ther effe.cts which may normally be neglected in SImple structures while assessing their strength and do not tall ithi the scope of th iteri T WI in ti b brid ese cn ena, hese guidelines are also not applicable to im er n ges.

(i) subsequent revisions in the codal provisions

Rating of a bridge will be essential when:

(a) the design live load is less than that of th > I " . . .

v hi I I" . e ieaviest stdtutory commercial

e IC e p ymg or likely to ply on the bridge

(b) the design live load is t k .

. s no .nown nor are tne records and I' .

available ( rawings

(c) !f ~~~ng ~?e inspectio~s (routine, principal. special) any bridge is found to

~:n~~~~e Iistdress of serious nature leading to doubt about structural and/or na a equacy.

The rating f brid .

decisions . ~ ,a n ge IS a complex procedure involving SUbjective

. 'I~ cer am cases. As such. it will be carried out b brid e

engineers WIth adequate experience and/or knowledge on the subject, g

2.2. Classification of Bridges

Th~ following types of bridges arc covered under these guidelines: (I) Simply supported spans

(ii) Cantilever with suspended spans and

(iii) Arch bridges of span not exceeding 60 m.

In regard to material of construction, all bridges of reinforced con-

crete, prestressed concrete, steel, composite and masonry arches are included.

3. ASSESSMENT OF CONDITION OF BRIDGE

3.1. Arising out of the detailed inspection and maintenance of the bridges any abnormal distress in its condition should be noted for a detailed inspection and evaluation of its present load carrying capacity by a specialist team. This selection will have to be left to the judgement of a senior engineer who, if necessary; with the help of a de-sign engineer will be able to discern whether such an evaluation is called for.

A strong data base is essential in order to make a scientific assessment of the condition of the bridge. Where there is a reliable and complete documentation on the design and construction of the bridge, field investigations will be oriented primarily towards identifying the effect of any deterioration, damage or settlement that has taken place. Where such documentation is lacking, then in addition to the above field investigations, dimensions of all the structural members should be taken to prepare a complete set of as-built drawings showing the geometrical dimensions only. However, details of the untensioned reinforcement arid prestressing cables cannot be ascertained to a degree of accuracy required for preparation' of as-built drawings or for structural calculation.

For all these bridges identified for detailed investigation, field and laboratory testing may be required to an extent which would depend on the degree of deterioration of the structure.

The present guidelines provide the assessment of the load carrying capacity of the bridge keeping in view its structural aspects. It is assumed that no deficiency regarding the hydraulic and geometric parameters exists in the bridges to be rated for.

3.2. Data Needed for Assessment

3.2.1. Assessment of structural condition of bridge will take account of the following information, which has to be collected during the detailed field investigation:

(i) crackingspalling, honeycombing. leaching. loss of material or lamination of concrete members in superstructure. substructure .and foundations

(ii) corrosion of rebars, exposure of rebars, corrosion in prestressing cables and structural steel members

4

(iii) settlement, deformation or rotation, producing redistribution of stress or instability of the structure

(iv) in-situ strength of materials

(v) hydraulic data covering Scour, HFL, afflux, erosion at abutments variation if any in ground water table arising out of new irrigation projects or any other reason.

(VJ) effectiveness and condition of structural joints viz. bolted, rivetted and welded connections for steel bridges

(vii) condition o{expansion joints, bearings and articulations hinges

(viii) any possible movements of piers, abutments, skew backs, retaining walls, anchorages and any settlement of filling of foundations.

The list is not comprehensive but includes majority of factors likely to influence load carrying capacity of the bridge.

3.3. Collection of nata

To the extentavailable, following documents are to be procured: (i) contract drawings, updated to reflect as built details

(ii)design computations which are required to. study the concepts and

,assumptiolJs on which the original design was based

(iii) site records during construction and soil investigation records (iv) contract specifications

(v) post-construction inspect jon and maintenance reports

(vi) details of all repair/strengthening work carried out till the date ofinvestigation (vii) prevalent commercial vehicular loading plying on the bridge

(viii) Seismic and environmental data

I I

i l

I

I ~

3.4.Preliminllry Assessment

P,reliminary assessernent of the structural condition can be made by observing ~or visibl~ deterioration in the form of large deflections an.dlor extenslv~ cracking, and spalling of concrete. In such distressed b~dges, ther~ will normally be time for a preliminary assessment of the distress and Its reduced load carrying capacity.

For proper assessment of the structural capacity, its vertical profile survey should be conducted on the deck level both on the upstream and do~stream sides of the carriageway and plotted on a suitable scale. This may ~e carried out once in a month or two months and profiles compared III o~der to detect indication of increase in deflection or any unusual break III the profile. This has been discussed further under para

:' wmr

I

3.9. hereinafter. The movement of the expansion joints (both horizontal and vertical) should, likewise, be monitored from time to time.

A study ofdrawings and calculations (where available or prepared by the rating engineer based on site measurements) together with an insitu inspection would generally give indication whether the structural component has been overloaded or whether reserves are still available. Where necessary, immediate measures should betaken to complete the detailed assessment and decide upon the various options available e.g. derating, closure, replacement, repair, strengthening or no action.

3.5. Detailed Assessment

The detailed structural assessment should include a careful inspection using techniques appropriate to the kind of deterioration or damage, Since all structural inadequacies that adversely affect strength or serviceability arise from:

(a) deficiencies within the structure i.e. faults in design or detailing. material or workmanship

(b) change in external circumstances e.g-increase ill traffic loading. environmental influences etc. resulting in excessive demands on the structure.

A systematic approach to the structural assessment must include the following:

(i) Visual illspection of the structure - this should be carried out in order to detect all symptoms of damage and defects, and should include a check on the actual dimensions of the structural element concerned

(ii) StiJdyof exisding documents - this should include all the documents as mentioned under para 3.3. hereinabove.

(iii) Mapping of crocking pattern in the structural components. All visible cracks should be mapped. but cracks of width upto 0.20 mm should be recorded.

(iv) ASSt1iSIDCI"lI of behaviour of the structure under dynamic loading e.g. excessive vibrations and amplitude,

(v) Environments! influences - this should include effect of aggressive agents in the atmosphere. ground. soil and effluents discharged in the river as well as effects of temperature. rain. snowfall and seismicity of the location.

(vi) Milterial properties of steel and concrete - several inspection and testing techniques and types of equipment required have been described in subsequent part of this document

(vii) Estimate of loads - the prevalent heaviest commercial vehicular load plying on the bridges and the extent of traffic congestion during peak hours including the traffic mix. should be studied in detail.

6

3.6. Techniques of Inspection and Testing

The inspection procedures to be followed, a simplified Bridge Inventory Form. standard tools for preliminary assessment and the assessment methods including destructive and non-destructive tests, have been covered in IRC: SP-35. A separate document covering the State-of-the-Art of Non-Destructive Testing of Bridge Structures. is currently under finalisation by the IRe. which should also be studied in this respect

The possible assessment methods and tests for such cases have been indicated in Appendices-I & 8 of IRC: SP-3S.

However, all the testing methods are not essential for the assessment Selection of tests may be made based on the specific requirement of the structure. Further, it should be noted that such tests do not always provide reliable results in ascertaining the exact extent of distress in the structure.

3.7. Assessmen! of Strengtil of Mn~erials

In-situ testing or sampling normally produce results with some degree of divergence due to various reasons (viz. variability of materials, concrete batching etc.).

Usually, it would be necessary to establish upper and lower probability limits for the material properties under examination.

Cutting of samples for assessing the material strength of concrete or steel members should be carried out only when essential as, such sampling entails some risks to the structure. Samples cut from steel structures may lead to fatigue weakness while cores drilled in weak concrete members may' act as crack inducers. Therefore, such work should be carried out under close supervision and only after obtaining approval from the Design Engineer with respect to the location and details of sampling proposed

3.8. Sectional Areas of Structural Members Iilnd Location of Reinforcement and Tendoes

When reinforcement details are not known, position of reinforcement close to the surface may be determined by covermeter (electromagnetic reinforcement detectors).

.. ~-~-

This equipment would also give an approximate indication of bar sizes and spacings. For reinforcement at depth greater than 120 mm., it will be necessarry to use other methods such as radiography subject to availability of such equipment, although this will prove to be expensive due to use of radiographic films.

Radiography should be carried out only by specialists licensed to handle radio-active isotopes and all health and safety regulations should be strictly observed.

In prestressed concrete structures, size of tendons can be determined if the end anchorages are accessible. Otherwise radiographic methods will be required. However, such methods are not reliable for ducts containing several tendons since individual tendons are difficult to distinguish clearly.

3.9. Settlement, Deformation or Rotation of Structural Members A level survey should be carried out on the deck level along the bridge centre line and on either ends of carriageway and the profile plotted to reveal any untoward sag or kink. Levels shall be taken at intervals of about 5 metres. Levels should also be taken on top of each pier cap arthe four comers in order to determine any differential settlement of foundations. Distortion or buckling in steel components should be-carefully investigated as this would result in reduction of their load carrying capacity. Measurement will be made by means of a straight edge or dial gauge to give an accuracy of ± 0.5 mm in one metre.

3.10. Full Scale Load Test on Bridges

This has been dealt with separately in para 6.

4. TRA .. FlC FACTORS

4.1. Bridge design standards and specifications determine, in principle, the load carrying capacity of bridge ensuring that they can safely carry the anticipated motor vehicle traffic. The Motor Vehicle Act and regulations limit the axle load and the Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) and impose a number of dimensional limits so as to allow the bridges to support such traffic with adequate factor of safety.

It is, therefore, essential to review existing regulations particularly regarding the freight vehicles in order to define the actual live load pat-

8

1-

.... _-------> _' ._--,---- ------.--_._--.---.--- .. -.-~.'

tern for the existing bridges and to establish an approximate correlation with the standardised design live loads as specified in IRe: 6-1966.

4.2. Review of Axle and Vehicle Weights

Motor Vehicles Act stipulates the maximum safe laden weight of motor vehicles and maximum safe weight .of each axle of such vehicles.

Maximum safe axle loads for commercial vehicles in India are as follows:

single axle fitted with two lyres single axle fitted with four tyres tandem axle fitted with eight lyres

6.0 tonnes 10.2 tonnes 19.0 tonnes

The laden weight of the vehicle, including multi-axle vehicles, must not be more than the sum total of all the maximum safe axle weights. Thismeans that with two tyres on the front axle and four on the rear axle, a two axle rigid truck can weigh upto 16.2 tonnes. With a tandem rear axle, a three-axle vehicle may weigh upto 25 tonnes (6 tonnes on the front and 19 tonnes on the rear).

Thereafter, the maximum safe laden vJ\..;ght is determined by the combination of single axle, with two or four tyres, and tandem axles. A four-axle semi-articulated whick comprising a tractor with two tyres on the front axle and four tyres on the rear and a trailer having tandem axle with eight tyres on the rear could carry a maximum of35.2 tonnes. This has been shown in Fig. I.

Bulk of the commercial traffic plying on Indian roads comprises two axle rigid trucks. Presently a number of different models are marketed in India for which the vehicular particulars vary to some extent Figs. 2 & 3 furnishes the salient data fora number of models of such two axle rigid trucks.

The largest truck and trailer combination, at present in India, with tandem rear axles on both units, could have a maximum. laden weight of 44 tonnes.

The weight limit for tandem axles (which are two axles coupled to one another within specified distances) tends to be higher, ranging from 1.6 to 1.9 times the weight limit for single axles. The weight limit for timdem axles in India is 19 tonnes.

9

"

1. STANDARD TRUCK (TATA LPT 1210132)

MAXIMVM PERMISSIBLE

l WEIGHTGVW

~---~-I 16.2 TONNES

~t 3.20 i~ ® ®

2. HEAVY TRUCK (TAURUS 2ST/46)

3. ARTICULATED VEHICLES (BEAVER ALB 1/4 & HIPPO ALH 1/4)

35.2 TONNES

7.25

o

INDICATES PERCENTAGE OF WEIGHT PERAXLE (All rilmensions in metres)

fig. ,I . Commercial vehicles predominantly operatiDg in India

10

\

... ~.

~ l~
is c =" -l
Z
'"
"1:1
!
..
=
..
f~! :;
f ~ ~~~~~~ .s
~ =
}: e
z H~::~~ Ni
.~ !t =
,31 :E-
li. ~~~~~~ ~
~ .:I
c
j~i - ~~!~~~ ~
~] "1:1
e gJ~~~ ·Sh
1'I~ .!. "'
j~ ·c
~t ..
e " ~~§~~~ 1<
6] .!. ..
~ ~
e :r ~~l~~J w ~H~g !
>-
w "
~ z 1
w
.. _, ~~r ;; ~~~~~~
_, _, .!. u
w _,
w ;:;
~ "' H~ e §§§§~g ..
> 0 ~
0 ",oJ! !
H i ~
.. ~~~~g .!f
1\ '"
:f
§§Q It
:.: ;;<~ J!
i sH :a
~ ..
~ .!I~Fo ;>
~~;!
N'
~
fi: \ G:
~
::i
-c
s
u,
I 0
I
i
\
i
l
)~
j
\
i
,
i
j
"
it
1
i
t c s
G s
~ u,
0
c f=; .,
~ ~ s
~ G E ~.
ur w 2 ~i e
f- G •
0
Z 01
C
011
:;;
.s
Q g
b!)
c
~ ~ ~ ~ .~
a ~ ~
:; <11
::l ~
~ " ~ ~ ::l ::l ~ ~
0 i
f-
1:: .."
... ~ ::l ::l ~ ~ '!ill
~ :r: a ·c
"
~ ~ ~·@I~ '"
o a~U ]
z O~l b
w
..J ~~t 0 ~~H !
c j~ I "-
w ~ iii
'" §: HH5
c ~ '" uu .~
« w
;3 <Il o
-e ~
'" ]gj HH ..
..J :I 0 oS!
w ::;:
w ;i ~
'" :c ::;:
~ "' ~ ~!J ~ ~H ~
u > '. _ ~ N N
« 0 <Il ::I
'" z t
f2~ ~ H ~ nn
ww z
"'~ w
,""'" ::;: J!
~6 s H un u
""' ~ 11
wO
>
w lj ..J Z !'I
~ :i ~ ;,; ~ I>ll
!It: :.c-:..::.t:
u '..J u v f.i:
n ~ ~ ~ ~
:;;
~ Z i i ~ 12

•

r

There has been a persistent upward trend the world over in permissible vehicle and axle weights, as is well reflected in our country also. This is the combined result of improvements in vehicle and tyre technology and of the persistent urge on part of the transporters/ shippers to achieve higher payloads in order to reduce the unit cost of transportation.

In view of the present modernisation of the commercial vehicle fleet in India, there is likelihood of increase in the GVW of these vehicles. It is necessary that the standard commercial vehicles and their GVW, RAW and FAW as depicted in Fig. I be updated at a regular intervals of, say every 5 years. However, if the GVW of a rigid body 2 axle truck is known, the RAW and FAW may be evaluated based on an empirical relationship for the FAW/RA W ratio (i.e. Axle Weight Ratio, AXR) as shown in Fig. 4.

RELATIONSHIP BASED ON AXLE WEIGHT SURVEYS FOR FRONT AXLE WEIGHT TO REAR AXLE WEIGHT RATIO

~H

"' ,.,

~ '·0 ~ 0.,

w

~ 0'0' ~ 0·7 o

Il: 0.6

0·5

REGRESSION RELATIONSHIP BASED ON 1637 AXLE WEIGHT OBSERVATIONS:

AXR - 1.86 (RAw-l'o~

0.4 O"'~~~--+--7 __ ~~~~~~ __ ~~~==:::::::::;~~~~

~ n tt u ~ B ~ n ~ ~ ~

REAR AXLE WEIGHT TONNES (RAW)

liig. 4 . Regression relationship for axle weight ratio

13

,I

4.3. Vehicle Dimensions

(a) Height

According to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. the maximum height for vehicle other than a double-decker. is3.8 metres. unless it is carrying an ISO series I Freight Container. in which case the height must not exceed 4.2 metres. A double-decker vehicle must not exceed 4.75 metres.

(b) Width

A public service vehicle or transport vehicle other than a motor cab. must not exceed 2.5 metres in width.

(c) Length

A rigid truck must not exceed H metres. On routes or in areas approved by the State Government, buses may go upto 12 metres in length. Articulated vehicles must not exceedJe metres. whereas truck/trailer combinations have a maximum limit of 18 metres.

4.4. Speed Limits and Overload Factor

The current speed limits on highways in the country are: 60 kmph for rigid trucks

50 kmph for semi-articulated vehicles; and

40 kmph for truck/trailer combinations

There is a wide variety of vehicles currently using highways. A review of the data regarding the heavy commercial vehicles currently being manufactured in the country reveals that vehicle manufacturers in general follow the limitations of geoss vehicle weight as laid down in the Motor Vehicle Act It has however, been noted that overloading of vehicles is a common practice in the trucking industry. The extent of overloading of 2 axle rigid vehicles in the general freight market is como. paratively more than multi-axle rigid vehicles. The result of a' brief survey conducted in the country, revealed that the minimum charge for a full truck load is quoted for 12 tonnes payload as against 10 tonnes rated capacity and the carriage ofload upto 14 tonnes is quite common while upto 16 tonnes on certain National and State Highways network in the plain terrain is frequently practised. As per survey conducted byOECD, overloads commonly observed for road trains in the OECD member countries may be up to 20 per cent Studies conducted in various parts of the country indicate that the extent of overloading may be quite high. However. for the purpose of these guidelines. an average overload of 25 per cent over the registered GVW has been catered for. An overload factor

14

exceeding above value may not be normally required, unless there is a ground for considering a higher factor of overloading for some specific region.

4.5. Traffic Composition

Present day traffic is estimated to contain a substantial portion of freight vehicles particularly on National or State Highways. Information on the traffic composition can be obtained through traffic surveys at bridge approach.

If such survey data are not available, it maybe necessary to carry out special traffic studies in the following manner :

(a) manual vehicle counts (per hour and category. per traffic direction) during specified periods of day or night

(b)

manual counts and sta tic weighing of a small-sample of vehicles (10 per cent of 'vehicles of any particular category)

(c) counts and automatic measuring of axle loads during a specified time period in addition to measuring axle spacings and sequence.

The last type of survey involves sophisticated measuring· equipment, but enables determination of statistical distribution of axle loads and other parameters such as vehicle speeds, spacing between vehicles, spacing between axles of the same vehicle etc. This however. is the only procedure w~ich provides the data needed to specify actual loading patterns on a bndge. This survey can also be useful in determining loads represented by stationary traffic if required, and also lateral distribution of traffic and loads. All the above data is possible to be obtained at site ?yusing computerised traffic management system, presently available m our country. The above data will be useful in review of the axle load spectrum for the commercial vehicles to be adopted for load posting of the bridges.

4.6. Review of Existing IRC Design Live Loads

The IRC Class AA. Class A and Class B load trains were formulated in 1958. In 1966, additional types ofloadingsviz. Class 70R etc., w~re introduced. These loadings are stilI being used for design of bndges. Class 70R loading was meant to cater to defence vehicles, while the basis of the other load trains are exactly not known. These loading standards are currently under review by IRC in order to effect some rationalisation in these design loadings. However, tilI such time these

'"

r

are rationalised and simplified these loadings will continue to serve as the basis for design of new bridges and for rating of existing bridges.

A comparative survey of the IRC loadings vis-a-vis d~~ign loadings in other developed countries, indicates that IRC loa.dmgs appear to be the heaviest for single lane traffic. However, they are hg~ter than those of the French, West Germany, Japanese and the HA loadings

of BS when two lanes are considered.

It has been observed that IRC Class 12R 18R and 24R loadings nearly correspond to 12 1, 16.2 t and 25 t (articulated) commercial vehicles as shown in Fig. I.

5. RATING METHODOLOGY

5.1. The rating of existing structures requires careful and detailed evaluation of many complex factors and conditions. The present para tries to provide guidelines for a common basis of evaluation of th~ rated load for a bridge. So far, only limited extent of work .has been carried .out in various countries. A review of the global practice, loads for rating. allowable stresses, design philosophy etc. have been dealt with in

this para.

The basis of the rating methodology for any existing Indian bridges will be that the bridges would be rated for standard I~C live loads as specified in "IRC: 6-1966" (Section II), but posted for equivalent heaviest commercial vehicles (legal loads) plying on the bridge. For the purpose of these guidelines, rating of a bridge would imply" operational

rating".

5.2. Review of Global Practices

Most of the countries in the world do not have any comprehensive bridge rating system. In many countries, load rating of bridges is ca.rried out in connection with passage of exceptionalloads only. The national loading standards, bridge codes and standards. vary to a large extent for all these countries and so also the systems followed. The rating system followed in most of these countries is particularly applicable for steel bridges and includes' the concept of "inventory" and "operational"

rating.

16

I, "

I

5.2.1. Loads: The loads used by various countries for rating purposes, are of three types:

(i) design live loads at the time of construction (ii) presently allowed legal loads; and

(iii) specific loads for rating purposes only.

Some of the loads in category (iii) are military loads and not much information is available on them. Most countries use presently allowable legal loads or design loads at the time of construction.

5.2.2. Stressea : The stresses usedin the rating scherries also vary a great deal. Some countries use the allowable design stress in effect at the time of construction, whereas others allow larger than design stresses forrating purposes, allowing as much as 75 per cent of the yield stress in steel. In several countries stresses for rating of older bridges are reduced, leaving the allowable stresses upto the judgement of the rating engineer depending on the condition of bridge. There are also other variations viz. reduction in impact factor, which underscores the necessity of speed control of heavy commercial traffic on the bridge.

5.2.3. Fatigue: Most countries do notrate bridges for fatigue loading and leave this to the discretion of the rating engineer. Fatigue is generally relevant for steel bridges. However, the subject of fatigue behaviour of concrete bridges subjected to heavy repetitive loading (e.g. railways) is still under research.

In Germany, fatigue is considered on bridges with mixed highway and railway loadings. In Sweden, for very important structures, a detailed, fatigue life calculation is made. In the USA, bridges are designed for expected fatigue loading but during rating of existing bridges fatigue is not considered.

5.2.4 -. Design philosophy: Most countries use working stress methods for the rating calculations, But some of them, especially for modern bridges, are using limit state methods in conjunction with the working stress methods. This has been furnished in Table 1.

5.2.5. Computer programme: The USA and Denmark (modified NATO system) have specific computer programmes developed for bridge rating, but many countries use the design computer programmes for the recalculation of stresses for rating purposes.

18

o

Z

o Z

o Z

o

Z

o Z

o

Z

o Z

o

Z

o Z

~ i: ~ i:
0 0
" e 5: "
~ '"0 ~ ~ '" "0 "
E @ 'i3 " o c .~
oil E '" t>
~ .5 ~ ~ ~ eo
"0 .~ "0 C c
" e "0 " "£i
" ~ '" "
t.C E~ ~ .s Iii: I: "0 S 19

z u.J c u.J

:J;.

'"

Table I furnishes a comparative position of the bridge rating sysern used in various countries of the world

5.3. Rating Systems

h systems may be followed for rating of

The following tree

.ridge structures:

(i) Analytical Method - applicable when the as-buil t or contr~ctdrawings and specifications followed are available or when such drawings can be prepared by site measurement to an acceptable level of accuracy (e.g. for.steel. masonry or composite bridges). In any case correctness of the available

drawings shall be verified at site.

(ii) Load Testing Method - applicable when no construction dra~ings .and specifications originally followed are available or ~hen such details are not possible to be obtained from site. Guidelines for this method have been pro-

vided in para 6.

(iii) Correlation Method - In certain cases of bridge structures. it is. possible to ascertain the safe carrying capacity of the structure by c?rrel~t1ng the sectional details of the structure with those of identical specificatIOns and sectional details whose safe carrying capacities arc known.

Even in this case. it is necessary to know the actual details of the existing structures vis-a-vis the details of those structures whos.e safe carrying capacities are known. so that prope~ asse~smcnt b~ corre~atlOn can be made if the physical condition of the bndge IS otherwise satlsfactorv,

5.4. Analytical Method of Bridge Rating 5.4.1. Loads for rating:

(I) Dead Loads: Dead load of the structure shall c~mp~se the veight of the structure plus a~tachme~ts thereto. The um.t weight of naterials shall be assumed as set forth to Clause 205 of IRe. 6-1966.

(II) Live Loads: The differe~t live loa.ds to .be. consi~~['ed for

.valuation of load carrying capacity of a bridge will include:

design live loads as per IRC: 6-1966 (for rating purpose)

presently allowed commercial vehicles as per current Motor Vehicle Act (Refer Fig. I) for posting purpose.

Bridges should not be rated for any abno.mlal loads ?r overiimensioned consignment but should be examined for their safety .eparately on a case-to-case basis.

(III) Footway Loading: Footway loads should be taken as per Clause

w

209.1 to 209.4 ofIRC: 6-1966. Footway loading due to accidental mounting of vehicles need not be considered for rating computations.

(IV) Impact

(i) During nose to tail situations (these would include situations when the individual commercial vehicles are separated by one truck length or less). traffic moves at a slow speed and therefore it is not recommended to consider any impact percentages over the static axle loads.

(ii) For other cases. impact factor will be considered as per provisions of Clause 211 oflRC: 6-1966.

(iii) For single lane, narrow bridges and for those distressed bridges on which adequate provision for speed restrictions is made. the impact factor may be reduced at the discretion of the rating engineer,

(iv) No impact need be considered while examining the stability of substructure and foundations.

(V) Horizontal Forces

(i) For the purpose of rating of bridge superstructure covered by the guidelines. all hori;~(~ntal forces may be neglected.

(ii) Where the structure is likely to have lateral or longitudinal instability (as in the case of bridges on trestles.or screw piles) or for checking safety of the substructure and foundations. effect of horizontal forces will be considered as provided in Clauses 213. 214 and 217 of IRC: 6-1966.

(VI) Effects of Loads other than Dead and Live Loads

(i) Temperature Effects - Stresses set up by thermal forces will not be considered in determination of load rating, unless the rating engineer, as a result of his investigation. determines that they are especially and unusually important

(ii) Seismic Forces- Seismic stresses will be considered only for bridges located in seismic zones IV and Vas in IRC: 6-1966.

(iii) Wind Forces - Wind effects will be duly considered but wind and seismic forces will not be considered simultaneously. Wind pressures will be in accordance with IRC:' 6-1966.

(iv) Deformation Effects - Effects due to deformation or secondary stresses will be considered for rating purpose. wherever deemed necessary by the rating engineer.

(.v) Water Current forces - Water current forces will be considered for scrutiny of safety of bridge substructure.

For the combination of forces/stresses. due to different effects, the

permissible stresses (as mentioned under para 5.4.5.) will be suitably increased as per Clause 203 of IRC: 6-1966.

5.4.2. Carriageway width: Bridges with carriageway width less than or equal to 5.5 m will be classified as single lane bridge, an~ those having carriageway width above 5.5 m (upto 7.5 m) should be classified as two lane bridges.

5.4.3. Spacing and number of commercial vehicles 0.1 bridge deck: (a) Single Lane Bridge (carriageway width less than or equal to 5.5 m) for any magnitude of span.

(i) Standard and Heavy Trucks - A closer spacing of vehicles in urban. a.r:as (particularly in congested traffic situation) is a frequent. posslblh.ty. However. urban traffic is mixed and slow. For such cases pr~vlOus stud~es and experience indicate that it would be appropriate to con.slder.the entire bridge deck loaded with series of standard or heavy trucks In a single lane, with a clear nose to tail spacing of half the overall length of the truck.

(ii) Articulated Vehicles - As these multi-axle ve.h.icles resembles those under IRC Class A train of vehicles (and the probability of occurrence of a conge~ted situation with series of such vehicles. all with maximum payload IS extremely low), the clear nose to tail spacing for such vehicles will be considered same as those in IRC: 6-1966. which is 1 X.5 m. A single lane of such vehicles would be considered on the deck and no other simultaneous vehicular load will be taken.

(b) Two Lane Bridges carriageway width above 5.5 m and upto 7.5 m for all spans.

(i) Standard and Heavy Trucks - Bridge deck may be considered loaded wit~ two lanes (one up and other down) of series of vehicles with clear nose to tall spacing of one truck length.

(ii) Articulated Vehicles - Bridge deck may be considered loaded with one lane of such vehicles in series with clear spacing of 18.5 metres.

5.4.4. Minimum clearances: Within the kerb to kerb width of the carriageway, the vehicle will be considered to travel parallel ~o the bridge length and to occupy any position which will produc.e maximum stresses provided that the minimum clearances between vehicles and the kerb as shown below and in Fig. 5, are not encroached upon.

Clear Carriageway Width

g

5.5 m to 7.5 m

Uniformly increasing 150 mm for all

from 0.4 m to 1.2 m carriageway widths

22

CLEAR CARRIAGEWAY WIDTH

/' ~

, I

I I

I ,

I ,

I f

I ,

I I

, I

r I

, I

, I

1 :J.--.l,,,:_::I1l.~.ld-

Fig. 5 . Minimum clearance of vehicles

5.4.5. Allowable stresses for rating of existing bridges: For working stress design, the allowable stresses to be considered will be the higher value of (a) and (b), but limited to the value prescribed under (c).

as follows: 1 ~

(a) Allowable stresses considered in original contract documents such as original design calculations and technical specifications

(b) As provided in Appendix-I;

(c) Allowable stresses obtained from strength tests by field and laboratory investigations

5.4.6. Design method: Either the working stress method or load factor method may be used for the computation based on the option of the rating engineer. It has often been found that load factor method may allow a higher load to be carried by the structure than that provided by the working stress method Therefore, caution is needed in doing this since there may be weaknesses in the older design and a complete recalculation of the structure should be done before any upgrading is

. allowed

The procedure' to be followed for the assessment of ultimate strength of sections and the serviceability condition to be catered for, while adopting the load·factor;method, are-furnished in Appendix 2. For

23

the load factor method. the factors shall be as follows:

for dead load where its ,,[leet is additive to th;,t of live load 1.0 for l!i:,.d lo.u! when: it.<' .. fket is oppositc to t h at of liv,: load \.~ for live IO'ld includin!, it:; impact cfTecK and

\.(1 k'r both lkad a lid live !"a,h wh i le check i nil for the serviceability conditions (0 he l:akrcd 1'01'

).5. :;temi to be foHo',I''i.'1l for Analytica] ivl ::thods (for superstructures onl~')- All till: skps arc cxplai ncd in detail below.

( ornputc moment and shear resisting capacity of the section at selected

critical locations (ciefilll'd as Mc':!!, 8.: Vcap rcxpcct ivc lv). ,

Ba:--.cd on ;_\SSl'SSnlL'nl oj' l'onLiiliol1 0[' 1 ill' b ridu.: (pard ~). decide about thc reductic:'1 faetorl11ltlJ h,' applied for the nct effective strl'ngth ofthe

section. This. obviously. will he a subjective assessment by the rating enl~ine,'r busc«! on det:tilcd ,'ollditil'1l evaluation made at site on :t g:ivcn d,i tc.

Compute c lfcct : moment and shear) of all loads other than live ~oads at the S:InIC sclcc.·ted critical sectio1l as considered in Step I (defined as iv1 DL and V])L respectiwly).

Compute M 1.1. and VLl~ (Net Resisting Capacity minus effect due to all loaeis other th a n live loads) at the same selected critical sections as \0

Step I.

Compute the maximum possible effect MLL and \iLL (mon:ent and shear) on the bridge due to standard IRC loading as per IRe: 6-1966.

Section II (latest revision) including impact effects. For rating of all bridges on national highways. following standard loads will. be considered, stipUlations for numherofloadcd lanes WIll be as In IR(: 6- 1%(, (Section II)

Class AA tracked and wheeled -- Class A

_ Class 70K !JOlt SilK 40[( 30R. 24K 18K 12K

Compare M LL an.! VU. with the values ofMLL andVLlcomputed from Step 5 at the corresponding critical sections. Identify the IRC loading class whose effect is just below the corresponding value of MU_ or VLL

Finalise the rating of the bridge as the IRC load class identified above. This rating will be correlated to the date of field assessment 01 the bridge.

5.6. Explanatory Note for the Steps to he followed for Analytical Method of Rating

Step 1 .

Step 2.

Step:1 :

Step 4:

Step 5:

Step (i :

Step 7:

Step I :

Computation of Section Capacity .

(i) calculation method will depend on the type of the old bnd~e to he

24

Step 2:

evaluated which mostly consists of the following:

Slab bridges (solid or voided) RCC T-beam and slab

RCC Box girder

Prestressed concrete (T-beam and deck slab and box girder)'

Arches - masonry and RCC

Majority of the existing and old concrete bridges are either simply supported spans or of cantilever or balanced cantilever construction. Accordingly, section capacity will be computed at the following locations:

L/4. U:1\ 3L/4 and supports for simply supported spans. Same for centrally suspended span in a balanced cantilever arrangement

Support and centre of cantilever span for cantilever bridges and at the articulation. Support section for arches are to be considered.

Any other critical location as deemed necessary by the rating engineer.

(ii) Due consideration will be given 10 the section capacities of the structural components of superstructure viz. deck slab. Tvbearns. box webs, arch ribs and supports etc.

Assessment of Reduction factor

The reduction factortnrwould represent the in-situ strength of the structure as on the date of field investigation and will be assessed based on subjective evaluation of the individual load carrying capacity of the ~truc~ure. T?ts will ?epend ~pon the extent of ?ist~ss/deteri~rati,on identified arsrte, as discussed In para 3 of these Guidelines. Considering the importance of such assessment in evaluating the bridge rating. this should be carried out by a qualified bridge engineer experienced in this field.

Although subjective in nature. the assessment of reduction factor should be made in a systematic manner through use of a marking system. The format of the marking system may be suitably decided by the rating engineer.

As an example, the following format is suggested for a systematic assessment of the reduction factor of a typical RC T-beam and slab type superstructure of a bridge.

25

}"]:i' ii', r:.:s

:·:(ii_;i'~ )_;i~) {!'OJ' [',IUX t'li c;c :.(\I!l_~;'iJliiilili C;i'Cl('l' rr';){;;;Uj o rr.ox rit}.:.;; '\_.i"U;';;; \~_;i:"(icr

iU

i:'-OUipillJ-l ~')tab :_~

I\rt~'·:,__'~; i~t(io:ls/Ccn -~nl' ;'1; ;-Jf,'.'S : 0

!:~:~p;,j il~; io 11 joi n i ~;/(:I;.:;.1 ri ',lgS

. , Thi:; woui« (icpcn6 on ~.hc v/cighlagc of t!lC individual components in relation to the: en.ire :;UPCl structure and to be; decided by the rating cngiucc. ~\~';er studying tile structural system. The marks mentioned aho'lc ai'C on;y indicative i!fJd for rile p~JrpOSL of cxplaming the rW.>llH)u.

As an example. if the total marks assigned are. say. 80 per cent, then an overall reduction factor o[O.S wii] be adopted. Similarly. for checking of component Sil fcty (e.g, deck slab) reduction Iactor will he con iidc rcd for (he marks assigned for the particular component

In case. the total marks assigned for the superstructure falls below a given limit, the bridge should be considered for traffic control or for closing to traffic. Depending upon the importance of such decision on the traffic now in the network, strategic importance. length ofdetour etc .. the rating engineer should decide about the above limit (such as 50 per cent or (,0 per cent of totai marks etc.) in close co-ordination with the bridge authority.

Also. decision for traffic control or closing the bridge to traffic may be required when one of the major structural components (c.g, deck slab. longitudinal girder. central hinge/articulation. bearings etc.) arc observed to be severely distressed and the marks assigned for that particular component (s) fall less than a particular value (say 40 or 50 per cent of the full marks for rha: component).

For bridges with reduction factor (overall and cornponcntwisc) above

26

tii:: pr(_;-~~.';S\g:Tl(;d i~,T~'it 'tIlt:' bridge \"f'iU be ra~cd/poSlCd as dixcusscd in -!iv: guidelir:i.:s.

Fur co!npl.i,i~aiiz-.'n (;f dc(_!\.i load moment ant) shear at the di~ferl:n1 ](;(:atiol1s in the ~-,pan. no reduction wili be made in tile cross-sccriona. areas or the superstructure. due to any spali.ng, ncneycornbing etC

Loads which will be conxiricrcci other than dcad.a nci iive load wili be 2;~ il"l(iiCaiCd in para 5.4.1. tH.T(;inbeCo:tc.

Step 4;,: Sdi .. exp~anG(>(;:ry

Step 5: Com~>d~~li~.Hii of Live Ln:;:~d Eg'.;,ct[j (in scconiance 'ifi~:h IHC: 6· E~(j(-~ Stcth:.n iT) Ccnsideration of transverse distribution of loads will be given. Analysis may be; based on any rational method such as Morice Little, HendryJacg:u or Grillage Analogy method.

j701' checking effect of rua ximum wheel ioaci on deck slab. any rational method such as Pigcaud's chart may be used (for slabs spanning in two directions). For slabs supported on two opposite sides, or for cantilever "labs, effective widthructhoci or any otherrational method may be use .. i,

For box gillins. effect of torsion due (0 eccentric loading, wiii be considered in 4!d.dirion '(0 flexure .

Step 6 & 7:

Fig. 6 shows the logic diagram indicating the algorithm of the steps involved in analytical rating of bridge superstructure.

5.7. Assessment of Safe Carrying Capacity of Substructures g:mci Foundations

5.7.1. 'When no detailed drawings of the existing substructure and foundations arc available, it may not be possible to make accurate computations for ascertaining the safe carrying capacity of the substructure and foundations. However, a qualitative evaluation may be made based Oil the followinginformation:

(3) Detailed insrl'(tion oft.hc.acccss~bl~ arc~s o~the ai:J~tments, pie,~'s an~l ~cll foundations/piie foundations Underwater inspccrion of the touncation may be essential in some cases.

(b) For such cases, where no drawings of substructure/foundations are available, approximate indication of carrying capacity may be obtained from load testing. For such cases, the test vehicles (para 6) may be so located us to result in maximum vertical reaction on the substructure. Vertical settlement or tilting of the substructure/foundations shall be continuously monitored during the load testing and afterwards. In case of no perceptible settlement/ tilting observed, approximate assessment of the minimum vertical load car .. lying capacity otthe substructure/foundation could be made accordingly.

;.;r .. \RT~ Tp

sTE!,:_1

S1f::r:4

SH:P:S

-
COMPlJfE MAXIMUM LL
MOMENT & SHEAR AT
SELECTED LOCAllONS FOR
STANDARD IRC LOADING
SPECTRUM (MI.!. & Yu_)
1
COMPARE I BRIDGE RATED FOR
CORRESPONDING 11K
MLL ..... ~1Ll. ! STANDARD LIVE LOADING,
VU._VL~ STEI':(l

28

(c) It ;81.0 be noted dU:1 by the above loadtesting procedure no information will be available regarding the lateral load capacity of the substructure/ foundetiona In absence of the relevant data, viz. depth of foundation below scour depth, details of piled/well foundations, reinforcement details in the "DUt:lteaJ.. pief~ and well steininj/piles, soil characteristics etc. any analytics.l computation will lcsd to approximate results.

5.7.2. \{lhCEl detailed drawings of the substructure and foundations are available, it is feasible to assess their load carrying capacity by analytical computations. The salient points for such assessment are mentioned below:

5.7.3. Bearing pressure at the founding level shall be examined analytically on the same principle as provided for in Clause122 afIRe: 5-1985 taking due cognizance of the maximum scour depth and for any other load combination specified earlier. The various loads to be considered shall be as mentioned inpara 5.4.1 hereinbefore. The maximum bearing pressure shall not exceed the safe bearing capacity of the soil by more than 25 per cent when wind/seismic loading is not considered and 33-1/3 per cent when effect of 'wind/seismic is taken into account

5.7.4. In deciding about the safe bearing capacity of the soil, previous soil investigation report, design. calculations, existing local knowledge and behaviour of structures in the vicinity shall be considered In absence of any soil data available, fresh soil exploration win be essential at the foundations under investigations.

5.7.5. Where the foundations and substructure are known to carry given extemalloads without any sign of distress or deterioration and the increase III live loadsover those already using the bridge does not cause . an increase of more than 25 per cent of the total loads at foundation level, the foundations and substructure of the bridge shall be assumed to be safe for the aforesaid increase in live loads.

5.7.6. The adequacy of substructure and foundations shall be examined for cases not covered by para 5.7.5 by analysis only and the maximum stresses under the worst combination of loads specified earlier shall not exceed tl}~ose specified hereinbefore.

5.7.7. Due allowance should be made in the assessment for any deterioration and signs of distress noticed in the substructure and foundations during detailed inspection. The salient information considered necessary in this respect has been provided in paras 3.2. and 33. hereinbefore.

29

5.7.8. The safe load carrying capacity cf the

shan be the

li;~ssi or value of the capacity of the superstructure (as discussed lp_l para 5.5 ;md para () of lll,;sc(l;'uidelinl's and tliat of the suh:·;tnlc;turr:/fopnrl8!ions discussed above). rfhe bridge f;3.tlng ,:;h~~i! l:',ir: dr:.cjdt,;d ;~(~:cordingly,

{i) The r.!fovi~f;nn?J s:j.f(~ ,,~.::!t; l02d~; {t"; ff.':r~;nt s!j?rv;., thic\.!iC.~;:~ nr ru,,:h Clf,;\T~~).d frorn tht~ 'r!(lrnO~~,r:11n in F~g. "/

0),::) i'or .lifd ir~~.ctly he

~\.;!p.i\'l Ti:f ",:-: i.(

O~) A.ss~.:;sn~cr:~t arrived ':1t from tJ-H: !tOn~l'I?'UUfJ ;~{~:: if"l t:':i'iFS maximum pro-

visional a.\~ic load (heforC'3Pf)Jyinrl"/:lripus f;;I'~o(s). \'Ihich r.iav he taken as t.he combined 10;;H.1 in case of ta'O(k.rn a~d·~'::~.

(iii) The allownble axle loads and th,:,dw th,~ r"t;:·, ; :;Ii:t!1 h,: :llTived at from thr provisional axle loads obtained above. by il'.t1itilJiying these loads bv appropriate profile factors, nlatc:rL~.J Llctor:;.ioint b(:to!".s, suonort factor-, ctc., specified in Appendix-d.

(i) Wherever possible, the strength oi'tk,; rei< hricI"cs shall he determined preIcrablv from analysis.

(iii Plain COil crete arches may also be cl:>.:;-;ilicd in i;,,, ,,,nil' manner as masonry arches vide 5.8.1 with a I11r!tcr'i:J! i'dCt.:H' of lj ap!)!kd ill the asscssmcn;

(i) The carrying capacity of these bridges shall be determined on the basis of analysis only.

(ii) However, the permissible axle loads for such slabs may also be determined by the ranid method of assessment using Table 2.

5.gA. Cirder hddlge§: When the details of the bridge structure. (whether reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete or steel girder deck) are known, the strength of the bridge structure shall be determined by analysis and, while doing so, the following shall be kept in view:

(i) consideration shall be given to the composite action of different member; that act together in carrying the live loads

(ii) examining separately the adequacy of the deck slab of such ~irdcr brid!~(', as may be necessary

30

d - The thickr~ess of rir:,g at Crown

h -- The average (~r:~th ofEE heL,vc;02n the road .':;~Jrr~'!.\.t~ ,<t.~d the ,~'[<,;h ring at the (:ro\'-/~1

EXAMPLE:

Span ,= <) ~.'ktrcs

Span/Rise Ratio '~<I

Spnf'JRise Factor = LO

Shape Factor ~,= 0,8

Profile Factor = 1 x n.!' ~, 0.8

Crown Thickness d = 4(yJ rnrn

Ring Factor = Ull

Fill Factor ~"ll90

Fill Depth h = 250 mrn

B

TOT'\L CF:OV,lr-J Ti~ICK>,;ESS

(' !>7,~(·:\.j-l.(;;IO-N.t\rJ l\~.zI.,E r.o/_!-';rr-.-:(_·i T0Ni\U~:~;

23

""'" 0.,:...: 20

1S

16

I?

III

<)

Width Factor ~"0.00

Depth Factor = LOU Mortar Factor = l.on

Joint Factor = 0.9 xlxl ,= O.'JO

Support Factor "" 0.95

Crack Factor = 0.90

Abutment Fault

Factor = O.P-O

Reduction Factor

For Impact = O.<JO

1.2. ,,0.4 xO.9 ,\l.21 -------oT:;---

LOgS

The provisional axle loading for an arch, 9 rn span with total crown thickness of 650 mrn is, from the nomogram 18.7 tonncs,

Allowable axle load = 18.7 xO.S x L085 xO.9 xO.95 xO.9{) xO,80 xO.9

Material Factor

= 8.95 tonnes.

NOTE: THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE ARCH IINDER CONSIDERA TI01\! IS SAFE FOR 12 T STANDARD TRUCK

for design purposes)

Fig. 7 . Nomogram for 1etermblin51 tile provisional allowable axle loading of existing masonry arch hl!1lges before 'lppiyi~g froc!ors(to be used only for rating and not

31

(iii) where proper shear connection between the decking and the girder exists, the distribution of the live load in the transverse direction will be considered depending upon the eccentricity of the live load on the deck

TABLE 2. SAFE AXLE LOAD FOR ace SLAS BRIDGES
Effective Thickness Safe Axle Effective Thickness Safe Axle
Span of Slab Load Span of Slab Load
(m) (mm) (T) (rn) (rnrn) (T)
150 9.5 300 10.Q
2 175 14.5 325 13.0
200 21.0 6 350 16.0
375 19.0
( 200 11.5 400 24.0
( 225 15.5
3 ( 250 20.0
( 275 25.5 325 9.0
350 11.5
225 9.5 7 375 14.0
250 13.0 400 17.5
4 275 17.0 425 21.0
300 21.5
( 250 9.0 f75 9.0
( -275 11.5 400 12.0
5 ( 300 15.0 8 425 15.0
( 325 19.0 450 18.0
( 350 23.0 475 21.5
Notes:
a Slab thickness includes a cover of 25 mm
b. A75 mm thick wearing coat is assumed over the slab
c. No separate allowance for impact need be made on the safe axle loads as the same
has already been accounted for.
6. LOAD TESTIN G . 6.1. When it is not possible to determine the rated capacity of a bridge due to lack of essential details, it may be determined by load testmg with gradual application of a proof load by test vehicles.

Rating by load testing is recommended for masonry arches and girder bridges.

32

6.2. Ve~~ncle for T~M~

It is extremely difficult to simulate in the field, theIRC standard bridge loadings for full scale load testing. Accordingly, the test vehicles will be from amongst those commercially available as specified in Fig.l. The test vehicle chosen will be the next heavier vehicle than the predominant heavy vehicles presently plying over the bridge. The next heavier vehicle may be considered for testing, if required, after the load testing with the first vehicle is complete and found to be satisfactory. Heavier vehicles, if available, is permitted for testing. Number of vehicles for test is to be worked out so as to produce the desired bending moment at the critical sections.

6.3. Deflection Meij5~relililent

6.3.1. Vertical deflections upto 25 rnm will be measured by suspended wire method utilising dial gauges having least count of 0.25 mm whereas the horizontal deflection or spread will be measured by means of dial gauges having least count of 0.01 mrn, fixed on finn support, independent of the structure to be tested and provided at location where deflections are to be measured.

6.3.2. For arch bridges, the measurement of vertical deflection will be made at crown along the arch crown line at three locations (at upstream end, at the centre and at the downstream end) over the transverse width of the arch.

The horizontal movement of spread of piers and abutment may be measured at three similar locations over the length of the pier and abutment near the springing level.

6.3.3. For girder bridges, deflection measurement will be taken at the centre of the span for all girders.

6.3.4. Corrections, if any, for the observed deflection areas to be applied for:

(a) settlement of bearings. and

(b) rotation of pier in the case of cantilever span under load testing

6.4. Positioning of Load for Testing

6.4.1. For arch bridges, total rear axle of a standard truck having only one rear axle, will be placed on the crown and in the case of twin

33

tandem rear axle, the rear twin tandem axles should be; placed symrnetrically about the transverse centre line of the bridge

6.4.2. Test vehicles will be placed at marked locations on the bridge so as to produce maximum moment effects on girders. While placing the test vehicles at the desired location on the deck, these will preferably be moved from both directions leading to their final positioning.

6.4.3. The maximum bending moment for which tl~e test programme will be worked out should be computed based on the maxim urn possible bending moment with nose to tail placement of normal predominant commercia! vehicles 'plying on the bridge.

6AA. For a two-lane bridge, three vehicles (trucks) can he placed abreast within the carriageway width of 7.S m.

6.5.1. For concrete girders prior to load testing, observations should be made for any crack in the structure and the cracks, if any, will be measured for their width and the cracks should be marked. For girder bridges, theoretical deflection can be obtained from external dimensions of the concrete sections.

6j.2. Prior to testing a whitewash should be applied at the critical sections forease of observation of behaviour of cracks and their new formations during the test

6.5.3. The load test should be done duri ng such period of the day when the variation in temperature is low. Preferably, the testing could be done in early hours of morning or after 4 p.m.

6.5.4. The test load shall be applied in stages following the given valuesO.5W, O.75W, O.90V/, l.OW., where "W' is the gross laden weight of the test vehicle.

6.5.5. For each stage, the correspondingly loaded test vehicle shall be brought to the intended/marked position and observation of deflec-

tions will be made' instantaneously and after five minutes. -

6.5.6. After the load placement, observation should also be made for development of any new crack and widening of the existing ones.

6.5.7. Prior to starting of the theoretical deflections at

various stages of loading should be plotted. In case. the ~n-situ deflections exceed these values by morethan IOper cent the testing procedure should be discontinued.

6.5.8. During the testing operations, the Imd-oeflection diagr~m should be plotted at site at CVCIY stage of loading. Attempt should De made to evaluate the anticipated deflection corresponding to each stage of loadina takinc the deflection measurement in field as the basis for

b - , . h l' d

prediction (by linear extrapolation). Deflection exceeding t, e predicte

value by less than 10 per cent wouldbe penr:i:sible.

6.5.9. For testing with nlUltipji~ test vehicles, the indivi~ual vehicles should be gmdu!llly broi:~!h" 1.0 positicn (lnd the deflections

under them should be continl;on i,!c;rliton~d

6.5.10. The test vehicle shodd 1;.:: [e;,ken off ',he bridge and instantaneous deflection recovery «(lei deflection recovcry S minutes after the removal of the load should be noted.

6.5.11. For assessment. the following values will be worked out:

(i) The value of deflection after .'i minutes or ]02(\i!'g (ii) For recovery the least of tl,e following:

Instantaneous recovery on unloading instantaneouSdeITcction-on-io~1(iln-g···

or

Recovery after 5 minutes of unloading Deflf.'Ctlon after5 mimrtesofiO:,-(ffi;,g

6.5.12. Next stage of load increment should be stopped under any of the following conditions:

(a) For Arch Bridges

(i) Crown deflection or spread of abutment as specified in 6.6.1. is reached (ii) The recovery of crown deflection or spread of abutment/pier is less than 80 per cent

(iii) Signs of distress in the shape of appearance of visible new cracks or perceptible widening of existing cracks in the arch rib are observed. Methods of measuring crack width have been discussed under para 3.6. hereinbefore.

(b) For Girder Bridges

(i) The deflection or the percentage recovery of deflection does not satisfy the limits specified in 6.6.2.

35

,I ....

(ii) Signs of distress in Inc shape of cracks with II! width more than OJ mm in the tensile zone of the girders for normal C&~e8 lind 0.2 mrn for structures exposed to very severe and adverse conditions or conspicuous diagonal cracks close to support are observed

the safe axle load will be 90 per cent of the total load on the twin rear axle. This safe load can be on one axle or spread over two axles which are at least 1.2 m apart

6.7.2. For girder bridges : For girder bridges, the safe carrying capacity should be based on bending moment The bending moment due to the rated load will depend on the vehicles position on the span and the configuration of the veh ic1e. A theoretical calculation will enable the rated load to be converted to the maximum bending moment on the span. The IRC class of load which produces nearly identical bending moment for the bridge will be the class which can safely ply over the bridge.

6.6. Acceptance Criteria

6.6.1. For r.!!"Icil I)!icli~e!il: Where no crack is observed, the liOt~d (err rating shall be taken as the' least of:

(i) The load on rear axle causing a deflection of 1.25 rnm in the care of tell! vehicles having single rear axle and for test vehicles having twin rear axles, the total load on the two rear axles causing Ii crown deflectioa elf 2.0 ml'im

(ii) The load causing a spread of abutment/pier of 0.4 mm and

(iii) The load causing recovery of crown deflection or spread of abutment/pier to a, value of 80 per cent

The load for rating shall be taken as half the axle load at which a new visible crack or perceptible widening of existing cracks -are observed.

7. BRIDGE POSTiNG

or

7.1. On completion of structural rating, posting will be made near approaches on either side of the bridge. Posting will be made for all bridges which are rated for IRC standard live load, except that for bridges rated for axle loads more than those using the bridge or likely to use in the near future, need not be posted.

All posting wi!! be made in terms of equivalent axle loads and/or gross vehicle weights (GVW) of the commercial vehicles plying on Indian roads and satisfying provision of the Motor Vehicle Act as shown in Fig. 1.

The overall dimensions of the commercial vehicles will be as mentioned in para 4 on Traffic Factors.

7.2. Method of Analytical Computation for Posting

Bridge structure rated for vehicles classes as per IRe: 6-1966 (Section II) will be posted for the commercial vehicles shown in Fig. 1 by establishing a correlation.

Correlation between a rated load and posting load will be established by comparing the maximum live load effects (bending moment and shear force effect, refer para 5.5. Step 5) due to standard IRe loading with those due to the commercial vehicles as shown in Fig. 1. The spacing and number of the commercial vehicles to be con-

6.6.2. lii(;1' ~iI'~®li' ~~Wi~\~8:: The load for rating should be;' S,dr$l£l 126 the least of:

(i) TIle load causing a deflection ofl /IS()() of the spa n in any of the main girders for simply supported spans,

for cantilever spans, the load causing a deflection of 1/800 of the cantilever span in any of the main girders

(ii) TIle load causing tension cracks of width more than 0.3 mm in any of the girders for normal cases and 0.2 mm for structures exposed to very severe and adverse conditions.

(iii) The load causing appearance of visible new diagonal cracks of width more than OJ rum for normal cases and 0.2 mrn for structures exposed to very severe and adverse conditions. or opening/widening of existing cracks close to the supports in concrete girders.

(iv) The load at which recovery of deflection on removal of load is not less than go per cent for R.c.c. structures and 90 per cent for prestressed concrete structures.

6.7. Pi'oc@iiW1.~ ~M btllllill,i iBre!~ PMtib~1J;

6.7.1. ]Frnr litrc~<jJ bf1if~1lIe§: The safe load which can ply over the bridge will depend on the configuration of the testing vehicle. In case of test with vehicles having single rear axle, the safe axle load will be 9{) per cent of tile rated load whereas for tests conducted with twin tandem axle.,

36

37

sidered for such computations will be as mentioned under para 5.4.3 of these guidelines. The other guidelines for computation of maximum bending moment aid shear for these commercial vehicles (e.g. minimum clearance i"rurn roadxcro, (ransvcrsc distrihuuon etc.) will be as mentioned in para j cntiucd iZanng ivi;;cilOoology. /vn overload factor of 1.25 will be considered for ail the commercial vehicles mentioned above (Refer para 1.4.)

The four ca of commercial vehicles as ~;}10\Vn in Fig. 1 will

only be considered for Ltr \iii rposes. or he maximum axle loads cor-

respond i ng to the n;srie~o:;_i ve CJ \/;;,l h ave bee:; j ndicated in the above figure. The logic diagram for posting procedure is shown in Fig. 8.

Depending u.pon the assessment ofthe bridge condition, the rating of the bridge, equivalent maximum allowable axle load and/or GV\V and the maximum axle lO;jd/fJV\Vofthe commercial vehicles plyingon the bridge, the rating engineer would decide the necessity of the following traffic restrictions on the bridge Irorn safety considerations :

(i) S!X't,J !~"3trkljor. - to be effective till the detailed investigations and :;tl\'ngthcfling or rehabilitation work and load testing (if required) on the repaired ,)ridfcC is complete and clearance is given by the specialised agency carrying out the work. The limiting speed of vehicles over the structure will be decided by the bridge authority depending upon the physical condition of the structure.

(ii) Ge()m~tj'ir.!I;i R!?~ii;dh);1 -- this \'I'C)Ldd involve curtailing the carriageway width to ensure lesser extent of live load on the bridge at a particular time and/or installation of heigh! barrier 011 either end approaches to restrict r~ls:;'-,g.c of CIT: 'o,,(kd or over .. sized commercial vehicle on the bridge.

(iii) ilir.rrFll'JWn:. IJi"::1\;!ITrll'- dqx;l:dini/. upon the structural condition of the footpath sLob, n:'s:rictiull on iO'l(1 OIl footpath may be imposed till (he distressed part is !ehl'li)\lilated. Hc;;lrictioT1 on footpath load may also be necessary in order to rcdl.:ce th= total load on the bridge superstructure.

The regulatory signs for the above, as shown in Fig. 9, may be installed on either side of bridge approach at adequate distance from the bridge abutments (mel at a number of road junctions leading to the posted bridge.

38

I_

Post Bridge

• Maximum GVW

• Maximum Axle Load

!----...,-,--

~

Operate Posted Bridll~

• Inspection

• Enforcement

• Permit for OOC

FIg. 8 . Bridge postiag procedure

1

L-- _

No Posting Required

e Speed Limit

II/! Frequent Inspection Ii> Lane Limits

lID Repair

39

-;:;;:

o """,'MIT

RED

LOAD \'

LIMIT \~

BRIDGE

-,:~:-'-. --,

8 w,m,<u""

WARNIN(; SIGN (WlZITIN(;S IN llL.ACK)

8 "uo"",""

I\U;\ JI.;\T()RY SIGN

/" R,\I~.lNC; POST ON LNTRY ANI) EXIT

(rr31) *

/?',l~ \ r"~n71'''m»?m'I1''/Tnrm.m?'1

\

r-:.- V BLACK WRITINGS

BRIDGE ON YELLOW

RAHI) BACKGROUND

TO CL

.11) R

DATE ()f RATING

RATING ~d(;N

40

Advance Warning Sign: For all bridges to be posted. an advance warning sign indicating a "Load Limit Bridge" will be placed at least 200 m from the abutments on both ends of the bridge and at a number of road junctions leading to the posted' bridge, starting from the earliest major junction,

Load Regulatory Sign: This will be placed at a sufficient distance (not less than 100 m) from the abutment, on both ends of the bridge so that truckers can make arrangements to use detours or to limit their loads to the maximum weight allowed

(\

Posting in the load restriction sign will consist of restriction of maximum axle loads and/or restriction of maximum gross loads of vehicles as under:

(i) For maximum single or bogie axle loads only for spans less than 5 m. (ii) For maximum single or bogie axle loads and for gross loads of vehicles specified in Fig. 1 for spans between 5 m and 12 rn, and

(iii) For only gross loads of vehicles specified in Fig, I for spans over 12 m.

7.5. Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions in respect of maximum axle load, GVW, speed on hridge and geometrical restrictions may be required for safety of the bridge, This may be ensured by the respective department through the administrative machinery of the State. For bridges of paramount importance (e.g. strategic locations, on highways carrying heavy traffic loads, bridges whose closure will involve very long detour etc.), specialised equipment may be used for such enforcement These may comprise:

(i) Portable or permanent weight bridges or weight-in-motion (WIM) appliances or computerised traffic management systems, presently available i 11<1 ige nously,

(ii) Doppler Radars for checking vehicle speed on the bridge.

(iii) Frame Barriers - suitably designed for specific applications (motorised and remote controlled from a traffic booth; if necessary), such as restricting height/width of vehicles,

(iv) Installation of close circuit TV to monitor traffic intensity on the bridge,

The options available to the rating engineer as alternatives to bridge load posting are as follows:

restrictions to speed limit

41

restrictions to vehicle dimensions (frame barrier) frequent inspections

lane limits

repair

strengthening

I~l addition to the posting sign at the distressed bridge site, the fol1?v.:ng met?ods may?e consi?ered by the enforcing authority for notifying public of the bndge posting to be suitably located at a number of road junctions leading to the posted bridge:

news release

special notice to trucking association legal notice

notice pasted at weigh stations weight limit maps or lists

. It is a normal practice throughout the world that posted bridges are reinspected more thoroughly or frequently than other structures.

&REPAIR, STRENGTHENING AND REHABILITATION OF BRIDGES

8.1. Pursuant to the detailed inspection, testing and assessment of the load carrying capacity of an existing distressed bridge, the various options available to the bridge owner and the follow up actions to be take~ woul~ be carefully evaluated Four possible options have been mentioned In IRC: S.P.-35. One of these options will be to undertake immediate repair, strengthening and rehabilitation of the bridge.

. The technical scheme for repair and strengthening of distressed bndge would depend on the nature and extent of the distress in the bridge superstructure, substructure and foundations. The objective must not always be to restore the original condition of the bridge. It can be quite sufficient both economically and technically to provide proper streng.thening ~hilst, at the same time, derating the safe load carrying capacity. In this respect, cost analysis can be of help. An estimate can ~lso be obtai~ed by studying the risks involved and giving consideration to the life of the structure as to the success of the repair/ strengthening measures proposed.

. Th~ ab?ve. subjects are covered in detail in a separate report entitled G.uldehnes for Methods and Techniques of Major Repairs. Strengthening and Rehabilitation on Bridges" under preparation by the IRe.

42

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges, OECD, Paris (December 1979).

2. Correlation of Bridge Load Capacity Estimates with Test Data. National Cooperative Highway Research Programme, Report 306, Transport Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC (June 1988).

3. IRC Special Publication 9 : Report on Rating of Bridges (1986).

4. Concrete Bridge Practice: Construction, Maintenance and Rehabilitation by Dr.

V.K. Raina, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi (1988).

5. Concrete International, Design and Construction, Bridge Evaluation 'Yields Valuable Lessons, Vol 6, No.6 (June 1984).

6. Inspection and Maintenance of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete StructuresFlP Guide to Good Practice (1988).

7. Conserving and Strengthening Pr~stressed Concrete Structures, Dieter Jungwirth, IABSE Proceedings P-112/87.

8. IRC : 6-1966 (Sec In: Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Rood Bridges - Loads and Stresses.

9. Report on Study of Axle Weight Limits for India prepared by Consulting Engineering Services (India) Private Limited, New Delhi (October 1988) for the Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing), Government of India.

10. IRC Special Publication 35: Guidelines for Inspection and Maintenance of Bridges.( 1990).

11. Paper No: 301 entitled "The Evolution of a New Highway Bridge Loading Standard for India", Thomas, P.K., IRC Journal (1975).

12. Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges (1978), AASHTO, Washington DC.

13. Transportation Research Record 950, Second Bridge Engineering Conference.

Vol-I, National Research Council Washington DC (1984).

14. Guidelines for Evaluation and Repair of Prestressed Concrete Bridge Members, National Cooperative Highway Research Programme Report 280, Washington

DC (1985).

15. Distribution of'Wheel Loads on Highway Bridges, Transportation Research Boord Report No: 111. Washington DC (1984).

43

PERMISSIBLE STRESSES IN DIFFERENT MATERIALS

APPENDIX·}

Where working stress method of analysis is done. the permissible stresses in different materials shall be as under:

(i) In structural steel and mild steel. 45 per cent extra shall be allowed over the values specified in relevant IRC Standard Specifications and Codes of Practices for Road Bridges.

(ii) ~n concrete and. in masonry. 33.3 percent shall be allowed over the values, specified III relevant IRC Standard Specifications and Codes of Practices for Road Bridges and Design Criteria.

Note: Permissible stresses in early steel shall be as given in Appendix-B.

44

-_

.........

,I il

APPENDIX-2

ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF SECTIONS AND SERVICEABILITY CONDITIONS

1. Ultimate Strength of Sections and Serviceability Conditions

1.1. For reinforced concrete sections. ultimate strength of sections in flexure. combined bending and axial load and in shear shall be computed according to the provisions of Clause B-3.2 to B-3.7 of IS: 456-1964.

1.2. For prestressed concrete sections. the ultimate capacity shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of clause 13 of IRC: 18-1983 "Design Criteria for Prestressed Concrete Road Bridges (Post-tensioned Concrete)."

1.3. For steel sections. the ultimate strength may be computed by any rational method.

However, due account shall be taken of the conditions ofinstability, buckling or failure of joints/connections causing local failures at ultimate load stage.

1.4. For a composite section, the ultimate flexural strength of the section and ultimate strength of shear connectors shall be computed as per the provision of IRC : 22-1986.

1.5. The maximum vehicular load (rating). WI on the bridge/structure shall be determined as follows:

f(WI) = Fu - 1.1 f(Wd) 1.8

or. f(WI) =Fu + f(Wd) 1.8

(when the effect of dead load is opposite to that of live load)

Where f (WI) is the particular generalised effect or effects due to WI being considered for strength evaluation, e.g. bending moment, shear a~ial load. etc.

f (W d) is the particular generalised effect or effects being considered due to the dead load of the structure

Fu is the ultimate strength of the section in bending, shear, axial, load. etc.

2. Serviceability Conditions

2.1. The check for ensuring proper serviceability shall be done with a load factor of 1.0 for dead and for live load. including impact

22. Limiting Crack Widths in Concrete.

22.1. No check shall be necessary for solid slabs.

45

~2. For.reinforced concrete beams with plain bars, IloO check' aluill be nece .

the maXImum dIameter of bar does not exceed the following vaJue~:' ssarylf

P~rcentage of Longitudinal (tensile) reinforcement to the cross section of concrete

Maximum dia of plain bar in mm

p < 1.0 p - 1.5 p < 2.0

20 32 4{)

2.2.3. In other cases. the maximum cracks width '

expression shall not exceed 0.3 mm for normal cases and 0 ~ ~:mtut~d by the following very severe and adverse conditions. . or s ructures exposed to

~ 3acr em.

I + 2 (ac{Cmin) (h - x)

Where. W max Cmin acr

is the maximum design surface crack width: is the minimum cover. to the tension steel'

is the perpe di I di .

n ICU ar istance from the poin t considered to the f f

the nearest longitudinal bar. sur ace 0

is the average s!rain at the level where cracking is being considered calculat~d allowing for the stiffening effect of the concrete in the tension

zone; this may be obtained from the equation: .

cl- [1.2.bth(d-x)[10-3

As (h - x) fy

em

em

where.

h el

is the width of the section at the centroid of the tension steel'

is.dththe ~isbta~ce from the compression face to the point at whic'h the crack

WI IS eing calculated; .

is the overall depth of the member.

is the ave~age ~train at the level where cracking is being considered. ~alculated ignonng the stiffening effect of the concrete in the tension zone:

~s the depth of the neutral axis found from the analysis to determineE

IS the area of tension reinforcement: I

characteristic strength of tension steel i.e .. I

f. . . mirumum va ue of 0.2 per cent

proo stress or YIeld stress.

x

46

-

A negative value ofe'm indicates that the section is uncracked. In assessing the strains the modulus of elasticity of the concrete should be taken as half the instantaneous

value.

2.3. Limiting Strains

2.3.1. No strain computations would be necessary. However. where there are external signs of distress, in the form of cracks and it is so considered essential by the Engineer rating the bridge. strain computation at the working load (load factor- 1.0) shall be made presuming elastic behaviour of the material and the member.

2.3.2. In reinforced concrete. when calculations are considered necessary to check the strain at working load. the value of conGrete strain shall not exceed 0.04 per cent and the steel strain shall not exceed 0.09 per cent. The above concrete strain value may be exceeded with closely spaced helical or lateral ties. at the discretion of the Engineer rating

the bridge.

2.4. Limiting Deflections

2.4.1. In case of concrete. the check for deflections need not be done if the following are satisfied:

Slabs Of beams in cantilever Slabs

Rectangular on T-beams

Span/depth S 10 Lddepth S 25 Lddepth S 12

Where Lo = distance between points of zero moment

2.4.2. The computation for limiting deflection shall be made for normal working loads (i.e. load factor = I). Such computations shall be necessary if the deflection is likely to affect the serviceability of the structures.

2.4.3. Deflections shall be calculated in accorrlance with the basic principles of theory of structures and structural mechanics considering modulii of elasticity as given in relevant IRC Codes of Practice for Road Bridges.

2.4.4. The maximum deflection due to live load plus impact shall not exceed 1/1500 of the span. the span length being considered from· centre to centre of bearings.

-----

47

APPENDIX·3

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE RATING THE EXISTING STEEL BRIDGES

I. Classification or Steel Bridges

Bridges with steel manufactured after 1895 AD shall be treated as conforming to present day standards. Those with steel manufactured before 1895 AD shall be treated as steel of early manufacture. whether it be wrought iron or mild steel. However. in cases where there is any doubt about the quality of the steel whether mild steel or wrought iron, or about the year of manufacture. its strength shall be decided by tests as indicated in para 4 herein

2. Permissile Stresses in Steel or Early Manuracture

For purposes of operational rating, the permissible stresses for such steels shall be taken as those specified in the relevant IRC Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges. For mild steel conforming to IS: 226 with a yield stress of23.6 kglmm2 without allowing any increase as suggested for present day steel bridges vide Appendix-I ;

3. Consideration fo:" Rating 3.1. Camber

In the case of bridges with spans over 35 metres if there is no camber (without live loads). the rated capacity assessed shall be reduced by 10 per cent

3.2. Deteriorations

While assessing the strength of individual members. the weakest (least) section concerned shall be measured and considered for strength assessment

4. Testing or Steel or Doubtful Quality

4.1. Test pieces shallbe made from representative members carrying direct stress and the permissible stress shall be based on the results of the tensile tests made on these.

4.2. For open web spans 20 pieces of metal shall be cut from at least4 different sec· tions of one or more spans.

4.3. For plate web spans. pieces shall be cut from at least4 different sections of one or more spans.

4.4. It shall be ascertained from rolling marks on the metal whether the material for all spans in a particular bridge is from the same source and if possible. rolled in the same year. If this is not the case, the number of pieces of metal indicated above shall be obtained for each different source of supply of the material. as may be feasible.

4.5. Test pieces shall. if possible, conform to the stipulations given in IS Code 1608 pertaining to method of tensile testing of steel products. Test pieces of smaller size or

48

. . rna be allowed provided the elongation is

miniature test pieces. If found necessary. y

measured on the appropriate gauge length.

t values it shall be permissible to repeat the

46 In the case of abnonnally low tes • onent as close as possible to the

., . . . . s cut from the same comp '11 b

test on two additional sp~lmen Th I west value of the additional tests WI e

location from where test pieces were taken e 0

considered in place of original test results. . d

. . kg/sq mm shall be determine

4.7. The permissible working stress in tension 111 •

from the expression

U1t Stress

f

(10 - % elongation)

3

1.9

Ultimate Stress

Subject to maximum value of 3

li d a It of the individual tests and the per-

4.8. The above formula shall be t~ ie o:t e50c per cent of the tests carried out

missible stress shall be the average 0 t e w 2

. be 94 kg/mm2 and 14.1 kg/mm .

4.9. When f determined ~ro~ tests above l::ou~e:~i~ed at by multiplying the dif-

the permissible stress shall be lO~r~ased bi the f ought iron and mild steel by the

ference between the safe permissible va ues or wr

factor:

f -9.4 14.1 - 9.4

. th e stresses in wrought iron shall exceed those given in

However. 10 no case .

para 2 above. 2

f d termined from the tests above is less than 9.4 kg/rum ', the per-

missib~ls~~e:~:1I :: o~tained by multiplying the respective permissible values 10 para 2

above by a factor f/9.4

49

APPENDlX-4

1.0

5

6

7

FACTORS FOR RATING MASONRY ARCH BRIDGES

A. PROFILE FACTORS

Serial No.

Span/Rise Ratio Span/Rise Factor (FSr)

Remarks

0.9
...
'"
w...
gj
0
r-- 0.8
~
L!..
I.J.l
CJ)
i:2
..._
~ 0.7
c,
CJ) The profile factor of an arch. F p shall be arrived at from the expression, Fp = F s, X Fs

Where F Sr - the span/rise factor and F s - the shape factor. shall be as given in Table :I and Figs. 10 & II.

TABLE 3

I.

For UR upto <4

1.0

For a given load. flat arches are weaker than those of steeper profile

although an arch with a very large

rise may fail due to the crown

acting as a smaller flatter arch. '

For L/R over 4 obtain factor from Fig. 10

1.0 to 0.6

a MATERIAL FACTORS

0.6 4

The material factor of an arch. Fm shall be arrived at from the expression.

Fm= (F~ + F(h) (d + h)

SPAN/RISE RATIO UR

Fig. 10. Spml rise factors for Ullllsnm'Y ol'ch bridg'~s

Where. d is the arch ring thickness. h is the depth offill F r " the arch ring factor and Ff - the fill factor shall be as in Tables 4 & 5.

Arch Ring

Ring Factor (Pr)

1.0

CJ)
w...
~
0
b 0.5
-<t:
e,
I.l.l
c,
-<
-
....
CJ)
0 0.90
0.75 0.80 0.85 WHERE

Rq. RISE .AT QlJARTER POINT

R. RISE AT CENTRE

TABLE 4

Granite and built-in-course masonry with large shaped voussoirs 1.50

Concrete blocks 1.20

Lime-stone. good random masonry and bricks in good condition 1.00

Masonry (of any kind) or brick work. in poor condition (many voussoirs

flaking or badly spalling. shearing. dilapidation is only moderate) 0.70

Rq/R.

50

51

TABLES

Filling

Fill Factor (Ff)

1.00 0.90 0.70 0.50

Concrete slab

Lime concrete or similar grouted material Well compacted material

Weak materials evidenced by tracking of the carriageway surface

C. JOINT FACTORS

The joint factor of an arch. Fj shall be arrived at from the expression.

Fj= FwFd Fmo

Where. Fw- the width factor. F d" the depth factor and Fmo- the mortar f~ctor shall be as given in Tables 6, 7 and 8.

TABLE (;

Width of Joint

Width Factor (Fw)

Joints with widths upto 6 mm Joints with widths between 6 mmand 12 mm Joints with widths over 12 mm

~--~--------------------------

1.0 0.9 0.8

TABLE 7

Depth of Joint

Depth Factor (Fd)

1.0

Pointed joints· in good condition

Unpainted joints, pointing in poor condition and joints with upto 12 mm from the the edge insufficiently filled

0.9

Joints with widths from 12 mm to one tenth of the thickness of the

ring insufficiently filled. 0.8

Joints insufficiently filled for more than one-tenth the

thickness of the ring At the discretion of the Engineer.

Interpolation between these values is permitted, depending upon the extent and position of the joint deficiency.

52

TARLE g

Condition of Joint

Mortar Factor (Fmo)

1.0 0.9

Mortar in good condition Loose or friable mortar

HATING OF mllDGES

D. SUPPORT FACTOR

Remarks

An abutment may be regarded as unsatisfactory to resist the full thrust of the arch if:

(a) the bridge is on a narrow embankment particularly if the approaches slope steeply upto the bridge;

0.90· (b) the bridge is on an

embanked curve;

0.80 (c) the abutment walls are very short and suggest little solid fill behind the arch.

Serial Condition of Supports Factor
No.
I. Both abutments satisfactory 1.00
2. One abutment unsatisfactory 0.95
3. Both abutments unsatisfactory O.'JO 4.

Arch carried on one abutment and one pier

Arch carried on two piers

5.

E. CRACKS FACTOR

Serial No.

Condition of Supports

Factor

Remarks

I.

Longitudinal cracks within 0,6 m of the edge of the arch; if wider than

6 mrn and longer than 1/10 of the span then in bridges

(a) wider than 6 m between parapets 1.0

(b) narrower than 6 m between

pa ra pets 0.8

Longitudinal cracks in middle third

of the bridge width:

(a) One small crack under 3 mm 1.0

wide and shorter than 1/10

of the span

2.

Due to an outward force on the spandrel walls caused by lateral spread or the fill. Fig. 12 (a)

Due to varying amount of subsidence along the length of the abutments. large cracks are danger signs which indicate that the arch ring has broken up into narrow independent rings. Fig. 12 (h)

(b) three or more small cracks 0.5

as above

(c) one large crack wider than D.S

6 mrn and longer than \/10

of the span

3.

Lateral ~HHI diagonal cracks less than J 111111 wid,' ,1Iltl ,horln than I/I() of the' ,tli:h width

Lateral (IIHJ di agonn l cracks wider than 6 mrn and longer 111<1:'1 1/10 of the arch width

Restrict the load class io 12 T or the calculated clHSS using ;111 other applicable Iucrors. wh ichcvt:r i."; less.

4.

5.

Cracks between the arch ring and spandrel or parapet walls greater

than 1/I0th ofthe span due to spread 0.')

of the fill.

Cracks between the arch ring and spandrel or parapet wall clue to a dropped ring.

Reclassify [rom the nomogram taking the crown thickness as that of the ring alone.

6.

F. I>FFOWV1ATION l'ACTOn

1.0 Lateral cracks. usually found ncar tile quarter points. are due 10 permanent deformation of the arch which may be caused hy partial collapse of the arch or abutment movements Di:lf''lnal cracks. usually starting ncar the sides of the arch at the springing and spreading towards the centre of the arch ai tile crown arc probably due to subsidence at the sides of the abutment. They indicate that the bridge is in a dangerous state.

Due to \ a) spreading of the fill pushing the wall outwards. Fig. 13 or (b) movement of a flexible ring away from a stiff fill, so that the two act independently. This type of failure often produces cracks in the spandrel wall near the quarter points, Fig. 14.

.. -_._-_._---_. __ .. _._---------_. __ -----

Deformation of the Arch Allowance to be made

---_._--_.----_._-------------

If the deformation ·is limited so that the rise over the affected portion is always positive

Discard the profile factor already calculated and apply the span/rise ratio of the affected portion to the whole arch.

54

Remarks

Arch ring deformation may be due to (a) Partial failure of the ring. observable in the ring itself and often accompanied by a sag in the parapet over approxi m.uclv Ihe same length. Fig. I' or (h) movement at thc' abunncn t.

Fig. 12. Longitudinal cracks in an arch ring

Fig. 14. Movement of the arch ring away from ~ stiff fill

MOVEMENT

Fig. 13. Cracks between the arch ring and the spandrel or parapet wall

Fig. 15. Deformation of the arch ling

55

Serial No.

Condition of Supports

G. ABUTME~JT FAULT FACTORS

Remarks

Factor

I.

Inward movement of the abutment:

--------. __ ._---_._------_._----

(a) old movement with well consolidatcd fill and slight hogging of the arch ring.

(b) recent movement or poor fill. 0.50

2.

Outward spread of the abutments. If movement has been small and appears to have ceased. apply factor based on type and condition offill.

Vertical settlement of one abutment. Apply factor varying from 0.9 for slight movement to 0.5 where the materials under each abutment are dissimilar

3.

Shown by hogging of the arch ring and parapet at the crown

0.75 and possibly open cracks in the intrados between the quarter points and the springing.

1.00 Usually causes change in the

to profile

0.5

0.9 The nature of the back fill and

to foundations can be discovered

0.5 only by probing, but this should be necessary only on important routes when the strength of the bridge is in doubt.

General Note on Cracks - Old cracks no longer operating and which probably occurred soon after the bridge was built can be ignored. Recent cracks usually show clean faces with perhaps small loose fragments of masonry. Although cracks may shear through bricks or stone. they normally fellow an irregular line through the mortar. Care must be taken not to confuse such cracks with mere deficiencies of the pointing material.

56