1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 WHY TO RATE A BRIDGE?

Deterioration and collapse of highway bridges has been a crucial problem across the
globe. Statistics from National Bridge Inspection Program in the US unfolded that
41% bridges in states are structurally inadequate and dangerous to use, and after
every two days a bridge sags, buckles or collapse (FHWA proposes Certification of
Bridge inspector, National Society of Professional Engineers, 1987). Inadequate sign
boards, poor alignment and approaches annually kill 1000 American (White et al.,
1992). To resolve this problem, National Bridge Inspection program in the US
developed a bridge rating and inspection system to maintain existing bridges and to
optimize their remaining service life. (White et al., 1992)

1.2 RESEARCH NEED IN PAKISTAN

The problem of bridge deterioration is extremely important for a developing country

like Pakistan. Reactive approach of authorities in the absence of any scheduled
maintenance programs, lack of trained bridge professionals, ill planning due to
excessive pressure of completion of a project, false construction practices, and rapid
industrialization have resulted in gradual deterioration of bridge infrastructure.
Many of the bridge structures have worn wearing surfaces, deteriorated expansion
joints, poor riding and are near to expire their service lives. Inadequate funding, lack
of attention and environmental effects have made the situation more adverse.
Although various Bridges and Flyovers have been constructed to mitigate the
problems of the commuters produced due to congestion of traffic, however great
room of improvement is still there.

There is an urgent need of thorough investigation of bridges through a well

formulated inspection and rehabilitation program. A practical and analytical
approach is required to be opted for this purpose. The situation in Pakistan is so

1
grim that not even a single highway authority has developed inspection manuals or
acquired bridge inspection equipment.

Figure 1.1: Poor Maintenance of Figure 1.2: False construction

Exp. joint, Bridge over Link Canal Practices

Fig. 1.1 highlights the poor maintenance practices across the country. The expansion
joint has been worn out with the passage of time, and in the absence of any
scheduled maintenance, the deck slab at the edges of joint deteriorated and locally
repaired several times. To avoid any mishap bricks have been inserted in the joint,
which is an improper way of maintenance.

Fig. 1.2 shows false construction practices in Pakistan. An under construction slab
bridge in Gujranwala city presenting inadequate provision of cover and improper
concrete mix (honey combed concrete). With the passage of time in the presence of
environmental agents, reinforcement will starts corroding and oxiding.

The recently constructed BRTS (Bus Rapid Transit System) Bridge has also started
deteriorating showing signs of improper construction practices. Within few months
after the inaugural, wearing surface has developed pot holes, drain pipes started
choking or leaking as shown in Fig. 1.3, emphasizing the need of bridge rating and
management system in Pakistan.

2
 Improper
Drainage

(a) (b)
Figure 1.3: Condition of recently constructed BRTS Bridge, a) Pot Holes in wearing
surface, (b) Drain Leaking/Choking

This qualitative study has focused on in depth inspection, maintenance and

assessment of adequacy of existing bridges based on the condition rating (individual
component performance), and load Ratings.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this research work are:

1. To introduce the concept of Bridge Rating in Pakistan.

2. To propose an index to check the overall performance of a bridge.

1.4 SCOPE OF WORK

Scope of this research work was to carry out condition and load rating of following
two bridges:
 “Mian Meer Bridge over railway track near Fortress Stadium, Lahore Cantt”
 “Sherpao Bridge over railway Track near Lahore Cantt Station.”

1.5 THESIS ORGANIZATION

There are five chapters in this thesis consisting of the following information.

3
Chapter 1 includes introduction of the research work, objectives, scope of work
and thesis organization.

Chapter 2 consists of literature review including the historical perspective of

bridge rating. All the basic concepts related to bridge rating have been described.
Basic concept and work methodology of bridge management system has been
described, where necessary using illustrations.

Chapter 3 describes the details of field work and in depth inspection procedures,
sample formats for condition evaluation of bridge components.

Chapter 4 includes load analysis and ratings of both bridges. It also explains the
development of a new analytical tool “Bridge Performance Index” (BPI).

Chapter 5 presents conclusions drawn from the analysis of results and

recommendations regarding implementation of bridge inspection and rating system
from inception to commencement in Pakistan.

4
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF BRIDGE RATING

Bridge condition evaluation and rating system was mainly started in 1967, when
Silver Bridge (Suspension bridge) on Ohio River failed and collapsed in West
Virginia, USA with loss of 46 lives. The incident set a record of twentieth century
causalities in a bridge collapse. As a result National Bridge Inspection Program was
started to pinpoint a bridge network, abolish potential hazards in it, and also to
address present and future needs (Wiley Structure Condition Assessment, 2010). It also
acknowledged the demand for recurrent & uniform bridge inspection program
(Texas DOT 2002).The first AASHTO inspection manual was issued in 1970, modified
in 1974, which provides the minimum information requisite for recording, rating and
assessing load capacity of bridges (Texas DOT 2002).

The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) were established in 1971 to

provide instructions and guidelines and to develop consistent and uniform criteria
for the various highway agencies. These standards were based on the AASHTO
Manual for Maintenance & Inspection of Bridges and required that each state
maintain a bridge inspection organization (AASHTO 1970).Bridges are inspected
after two years but frequency may be increased depending on the condition of
bridge (Texas DOT 2002).

At present, there is no system of scheduled condition evaluation and rating of

bridges in Pakistan. Two types of repair and maintenance funds are utilized named
as annually repair funds and special repair funds. However both these funds are
primarily utilized on bridges which have already shown some serious threat and
deterioration level. Furthermore due to lack of proper bridge rehabilitation and
engineering knowledge, funds are wasted on cosmetics of bridges rather than actual
requirements.

5
2.2 BRIDGE RATING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Bridge rating is basically a part of Bridge Management System. Bridge Management

System is a mechanism by which an agency starts caring a bridge structure right from its
inception till the end of its life. (Ryall., 2001)

2.2.1 Focus And Aims Of Bridge Management

Bridge Management system is essential to gather information, coordinate and

implement the steps requisite for the maintenance and upkeep of bridges. Primary
objectives of a management system are:

 To understand the maintenance needs and to optimize financial resources

 To maintain the safe usage of bridge structure.

 To develop repair and rehabilitation methodologies.

 To assess the performance of bridges based on some indicators.

There are well established electronic bridge management systems in the world. With
the development of such system, a bridge manager can remain informed about the
maintenance and health of a bridge at all the times. A manager can take better
decisions and control of bridge structures.

2.3 LIFE STAGES OF A BRIDGE

Following are the basic stages in the life of a bridge (Ryall., 2001)

Concept

Analysis

Design

Construction

Service

Collapse

Figure 2.1: Life of a Bridge Structure

6
2.4 EXAMPLES OF BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

2.4.1 United Kingdom

The most widely used Bridge management system in UK developed by High Point
Rendel(HPR) is called Highway Structures Management Information System
HiSMIS (Ryall.2001). Basic modules have been shown in Fig. 2.2. It is a very
comprehensive and user friendly system, it have adequate data storage capacity. Its
scope is not only limited to bridges, but is applicable to tunnels, culverts, etc. Actual
database is composed of 05 modules for INPUT; OUTPUT is dependent on the
enquiry and information of 06 modules.

History Inventory Inspection Maintenanc Study

e

HISMIS

Enquiry and reporting

Inspection Works Maintenance Financial Heavy load

Management order Management control routings

Bridge record
cards

Figure 2.2: HISMIS

2.4.2 USA

PONTIS is the primary BMS system adopted by various states in USA. It is very
good in transforming engineering decisions into meaningful and beneficial
maintenance costs. Bridge inspectors have 120 basic bridge elements to which they
7
assign condition state (Ryall.2001). After condition rating, deterioration models are
developed. It can also be used to calculate expected annual cost of a bridge
compared to alternative bridges designs for new crossings. In the end full life cycle
cost can be estimated which helps in choosing the final decision.

2.5 INSEPCTION

Each highway organization has to establish bridge maintenance and recording

department for examination, upkeep and rating of bridges. Type of inspection may
differ from time to time depending upon the service life and condition of a bridge.
Each type of inspection requires different level of concentration and severity. (White
et al; 1992.AASHTO 2000)

2.5.1 Types of Inspection

Following are the five types of inspection which permit a bridge owner to establish
an inspection type even and consistent with the structure. (White et al. 1992)

I. Inventory Inspection
This is very first inspection of a bridge, which becomes a record in the bridge
file. It helps in adaptation and alteration of a bridge later on.

II. Routine Inspection

Regularly scheduled inspections consisting of observations required to
determine the physical and functional condition of a bridge, to identify any
change in the condition of a bridge from its “initial” recorded condition.

III. Damage Inspection

An unscheduled inspection to assess the structural damage due to natural or
human conflicts. It determines the emergency need or closure of a bridge.

IV. In Depth Inspection

A close up or hands on inspection of a bridge member to diagnose any
deficiency not detectable from a routine inspection. These can be

8
 independently scheduled or it may follow up for damage or inventory
inspection.
V. Special Inspection
Special inspection is scheduled at the choice of a bridge owner. It is used to
monitor some particular deficiencies in a bridge element.
2.5.2 Inspection Frequency

Each Bridge should be inspected at regular intervals not to exceed 02 years or at

longer intervals as per the choice of bridge owner (White et al; 1992. AASHTO 2000).
However, the action of inspection at longer intervals be justified by past reports and
performance of the bridge. Provisional inspections can also be scheduled to review
and highlight some problem as per the requirement of a bridge owner

2.5.3 Inspection Requirements

2.5.3.1 Inspection Personnel

A team usually comprises of 5 to 6 personnel are required for this research work.
Team lead should be an experienced (ten years) bridge engineer and he should be
present all the time during inspection of a bridge. Rest of the team members should
have undertaken the training of bridge inspectors.

2.5.3.2 Safety
Safety of both public and inspection team is to be ensured by inspection plans. All
the tools, equipments and operations should be planned keeping in view the safety
concerns and local codes.

2.5.3.3 Equipment: (Standard Tools)

The tools needed for inspection includes: 30-m Measuring tape(cloth),Hammer

,Calipers, Plumb Bob, Straight Edge, Ambient Temperature Thermometer, Camera
,Safety Belts, Inspection Form, Screw Driver, Clip Board, Hard Pencil, Leather
Gloves ,10-m Extension Ladder, Compass

2.5.3.4 Specialized Equipment

9
Bridge inspection is a special task which requires more advanced machinery and
skilled labor as shown in Fig. 2.3. It is dilemma of this nation that none of the
Highway Authorities have bridge inspection equipment in Pakistan. Cherry Picker is
a movable single arm truck mounted inspection platform used worldwide. Snooper
type truck mounted platform which allows inspecting Bridge from existing
infrastructure. This costs about Rs.70.00 million

Figure 2.3: Snooper Truck used for inspecting a bridge

2.6 DOCUMENTATION & RECORDING

2.6.1 General

Each department or bridge owner should develop and maintain an up-to-date and
precise record of bridges under its administration. Condition evaluation forms
should be prepared keeping in view the requirements of the location and type of
bridge.

2.6.2 As-Built Drawings

Bridge record should contain as-built drawings showing the condition of bridge
with signature of team lead that has been responsible for recording the as-built
condition of bridge.

2.6.3 Specifications

10
Technical specification and designation under which the bridge was constructed
should be a part of bridge documentation and file record. The published version of
some general technical specification should also be mentioned with date and
signature of authority.

2.6.4 Correspondence

All the correspondence related to bridge including memorandums, letters, should be

included in record in chrono-logical order.

2.6.5 Photographs

At least two photographs one plan and one elevation of the bridge are to be included
in the file record. However the defects and deficiencies in the bridge should also be
endorsed with the related photographs.

2.6.6 Maintenance and Repair History

Maintenance and repair history since the initial construction of the bridge should be
included in details with date and description.

2.6.7 Accidents Record

Details of accident or damage occurred should be included along with investigation

reports in the bridge file record.

2.6.8 Posting & Permit Loads

Record of the most significant single trip permit along with calculations should be
included in bridge file. A summary of posting actions taken with signage used
should also be included.

2.6.9 Traffic Data

The history of a vehicle using the bridge with its variation over a year should be
available .ADT is an important parameter to assess the traffic on the bridge.

2.6.10 Flood Data

11
Structures over waterways should include history of major floods, with water marks,
scour depth and other critical features.

2.7 CONDITION RATINGS NUMERIC SYSTEMS

Condition ratings reflect deterioration or damage and do measure design deficiency.

For instance, an old bridge designed for a low load capacity but with little or no
deterioration may have excellent condition ratings while a newer bridge designed to
modern loads but with deterioration will have lower condition ratings.

2.7.1 FHWA Condition Rating System (FHWA 2004, Tex-DOT)

Condition rating is a judgment of the condition of a bridge component in

comparison to its original as-built condition. FHWA numeric condition ratings has
been used ranging from 0 – 9. Condition ratings are used to describe the existing, in-
place status of a component. Bridge inspectors assign condition ratings by
evaluating the severity of the deterioration or despair and the extent to which it
affects the component being rated. These ratings provide an overall characterization
of the general condition of the entire component being rated and not an indication of
localized conditions. Ratings of 5 or greater indicate a situation where maintenance
work and minor rehabilitation of the general component can return a bridge to a
high performance level. It is highly desirable to implement actions before the general
component reaches a rating of 4 or lower.

2.7.2 Raina Numeric Rating System (Raina 2008)

The criterion governing the rating to be assigned is “how well the element is
fulfilling its intended function”. In general, it can be said that conditional rating is
actually comparing the component with itself when it was new. FHWA condition
rating will be used.

Good: A rating of “good” corresponds to the FHWA rating of (7, 8, 9), that is the
element is free from section lost, spalling and it is as it was designed.

12
Fair: A rating of “fair” corresponds to the FHWA rating of (5, 6), that is the element
is at worst condition show minor section loss, cracking, but is not structurally
dangerous.
Poor: A rating of “poor” corresponds to the FHWA rating of (3, 4), that is the
element is seriously affected and it is no more structurally sound. This condition
show local failure.
Critical: A rating of “critical” corresponds to the FHWA rating of (0, 1), that is the
element is seriously deteriorated and it cannot perform its intended function & is
dangerous to use in future.

Table 2.1 Condition ratings by Dr.V.K.Raina, 2010

U Unknown Information is not available

N.A Not applicable
7 New No sign of distress
6 Good Condition No repair required
5 Fair Insignificant deterioration
4 Poor Immediate rehabilitation
3 Serious Str. capacity reduced
2 Critical Closing of bridge
1 Imminent Failure Danger of collapse
0 Failed Structure to be demolished

2.8 LOAD RATINGS

To ensure safety and adequacy of structures, analytical techniques along with field
inspections are required (AASHTO 1972). In order to evaluate a bridge regarding its
structural adequacy, capacity/load rating of bridges is required to be done at two
levels (White et al. 1992). For this purpose structural & construction drawings of the
bridge are required. Load rating in current research was carried out by allowable
stress method/design (ASD), because both these bridges were designed on using
ASD.

13
a) Inventory Rating Level:

The lower load level rating is called inventory rating. It corresponds to customary
design level of stresses but reflects the existing bridge and material conditions with
regards to deterioration and loss of section. It indicates the load level which a
structure can safely utilize for an indefinite period of time. (AASHTO 2000, White et
al. 1992)

b) Operating Rating Level:

The upper load level rating is called operating rating. It will result in absolute
maximum load permissible to which the structure may be subjected. The operating
rating may be considered as the maximum load that should be allowed on a bridge
under any circumstances. Allowing unlimited number of vehicles to use the bridge
at operating level may shorten the life of the bridge. (AASHTO 2000, White et al.
1992)

2.8.1 Rating Methods

 Allowable Stress Method

 Load and Resistance Factor Method.

2.8.1.1 Rating Equation

General expression of load rating of a structure: (AASHTO 2000, White et al. 1992)

Eq 2.1

Eq 2.2

Where,
RF = Rating factor
RT = Rating of bridge member in Tons
C = Capacity of member
D = Deal load effect
L = Live load effect
A1 = Factor for dead load
14
 A2 = Factor for live load
W = Live load on member

I = Impact Factor

Rating of a bridge will be controlled by the member with lowest rating level
(AASHTO 2000). Since the entire old highway bridges were designed on allowable
stress method, therefore main focus of this study will be on allowable stress method.

15
 . CONDITAT

3. CONDITION RATINGS

3.1 SCOPE OF WORK

Rating of Mian Meer bridge and Sherpao bridge near Lahore Cantonment has been
undertaken in this research work. The objective was to explore the rate and level of
deteriorations in both these bridges which have consumed half of their service lives.
Both of these bridges were designed and constructed by Punjab Highway
Department to reduce the traffic jams at the railway crossings in Lahore
Cantonment.

3.1.1 Dimensional Verification:

The first step was to have reconnaissance survey of the bridge, taking the crew and
verifying the dimensions of the bridge in full length and across its width as shown in
Fig. 3.5. Rating a bridge is primarily dependent on the accuracy of its physical
record, that’s why dimensional verification is a very important step. The tender
drawings of Mian Meer Bridge available in Punjab Highway Department record are
50% different from the structure on ground; it may be due to the practice of more
than one proposal of a bridge at that time and later on construction drawings would
be of final proposal. The most important aspect of bridge rating is to optimize the
service life of the bridge, and it cannot be achieved without knowing the actual
condition and requirements of a bridge.

3.2 INVENTORY

Table 3.1 and 3.2 present the Inventory record of both the bridges:

16
 Table 3.1: Mian Meer Bridge Inventory

GENERAL INFORMATION : Mian Meer Bridge

District / Tehsil:: Lahore / Lahore Cantt
Road: Mall Road
Location:
Crossings: Railway Track from Lahore-Karachi
Type of Service: Two Divided Carriageways
Construction: Year Built:1974 Year Rehabilitated:
Unknown
Executing Agency /Design: Punjab Highway Department Bridge Directorate
Maintaining Agency: EDO Works & Services, District Government, Lahore

TECHNICAL DATA
 Type Of Bridge Slab on Girder Bridge
 No of Spans 59 Each Carriageway
 Materials Used RCC primary members 8 No RCC T-Girders 36”
deep
 Type Of Piers Rectangular piers 3 ft X 2ft
 Type Of Pier Cap Non-Prismatic 3.5 ft X 2ft
 Type of Railing RCC Railing 4’-2” high
 Type of Wearing Surface Asphalt Concrete
 Type of Expansion Joints Concealed
 Type of Bearings Concealed
 Drain Open Drains
GEOMETRIC DATA
Metalled Width 28 ft
Max / -Min Span 95’ / 15’
Overall Length 1972 ft
Vertical Clearance 22 ft
Approach Roadway Width 28 ft
Bridge Width(Kerb to Kerb) 35’-3”
Bridge sidewalk width 5 ft
Vertical Kerb Height 5”
Bridge Median Width 2’-3”
Bridge Curved Y/N N
Skew Angle 38.25 Degree

STANDARD PHOTOS TAKEN

Approaches, Yes
Plan, Side Elevation. Yes

17
Figure 3.1: Mian Meer Bridge over Railway Track on Mall Road, Lahore Cantt

Figure 3.2: Another view of Mian Meer Bridge over Railway Track on Mall Road,
Lahore Cantt

18
 Table 3.2: Sherpao Bridge Inventory

Table 3.2 BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA

GENERAL INFORMATION : Sher Pao Bridge

District / Tehsil:: Lahore / Lahore Cantt
Road: Jaill Road
Location:
Crossings: Railway Tracks from Lahore-Karachi,LHR CANTT
STATION
Type of Service: Two Divided Carriageways
Construction: Year Built:1974 Year Rehabilitated: 2000
Executing Agency : Punjab Highway Department LDA
Maintaining Agency: EDO Works & Services, District Government, Lahore

TECHNICAL DATA
 Type Of Bridge Arch Bridge Slab on Girder Bridge
 No of Spans 85 33
 Materials Used Brick Masonry Prestressed Girders
 Type Of Piers Solid Wall/Piers Rectangular Piers
 Type Of Pier Cap Spandrel Beam Non-Prismatic
 Type of Railing Pipe railing/Guard rail Pipe railing/Guard rail
 Type of Wearing Surface Asphalt Concrete
 Type of Expansion Joints Not required Concealed
 Type of Bearings Not requierd Steel + Elastomeric
 Drain Open Drains
GEOMETRIC DATA
Metalled Width 27.25 ft
Max / Min Span 98’ / 23.25’
Overall Length 3000 ft
Vertical Clearance 22 ft
Approach Roadway Width 28 ft
Bridge Width(Kerb to Kerb) 36 ft 23’-6”
Bridge sidewalk width No
Vertical Kerb Height N/A
Bridge Median Width NO
Bridge Curved Y/N Yes Sharp Curvature Radius 597 ft
Skew Angle 36 Degree

STANDARD PHOTOS TAKEN

Approaches, Yes
Plan, Side Elevation. Yes

19
Fig 3.3: Sherpao Bridge over Railway Track on Jail Road, Lahore Cantt

Fig 3.4: Carriageways of Sherpao Bridge

20
 (a) (b)

Figure 3.5: Dimensional Verification of bridges, a)- Mian Meer Bridge, b) Sherpao
Bridge
3.3 CONSTRAINTS

In the absence of any integrated bridge management system, it was very difficult to
coordinate with various public or private agencies to collect data and gather
information required for rating of a bridge. Situation becomes worse when one
needs to gather information, collect drawings and other data for 40 years old bridge.
It has also been realized that some officers may have the record but they hesitate in
providing for a research work. The attitude may be due to lack of trust amongst
engineering community in Pakistan. First 04 months were consumed in arrangement
of necessary documents to kick off the research work. Non-Professional attitude of
officers and staff is another common cause of delaying milestones in Pakistan.

Fig.3.4 show that in the absence of proper equipment required for inspection of
bridges, ordinary ladders can be helpful for bridge inspection and monitoring.
Following are some of the major constraints that were being faced in completing this
research task.

21
 Obtaining no objection certificate from Chief Engineer District Government,
Lahore, for undertaking this research work.

 Co-ordination and Information to 11, 10 Div Units, Pakistan Army.

 Security hazards for Qurban Lines Police Department.

 Accidents record collection from District Emergency office and Control Room
in-charge of Rescue 1122.

 Arranging 5 personnel for each visit and financing them.

 Abrupt change in the traffic volumes.

 Arrangement of Cranes, typical cranes for loading and unloading as well as

those used for installing lightening system in Pakistan were not favorable for
inspecting bridges because of limited vertical and horizontal clearence.

 High tension wires crossing the Railway Spans

(a) (b)

Figure 3.6: Field work: a) Ladder is being tied for field work; b) crew is setting up
22ft ladder for inspecting Girders of Sherpao bridge

22
3.4 AS-BUILT DRAWINGS

In the absence of any as built drawings, very next step after dimensional verification
is to prepare as built Plan, cross sections and elevation of the bridges. At present, no
highway authority practices to prepare as built drawings of bridges and keep them
in record. Fig. 3.7 and Fig. 3.8 present the As-built cross section of Mian Meer and
Sherpao bridge respectively.

Figure 3.7: As-Built Cross section of Mian Meer Bridge

Figure 3.8: As-Built Cross section of SherPao Bridge

23
3.5 CONDITION EVALUATION PERFORMA

Field visits in Pakistan seldom utilize the literature and pre-visit desk work for
inspection of a bridge. Ultimately the purpose of a visit is not accomplished and the
outcomes have errors and omissions. In order to visualize and assess a bridge it is
prerequisite to go through the literature and available standard manuals, develop a
strategy of inspection, and find out the causes of deterioration or problems in a
bridge component.

Condition evaluation performas for following components were utilizing the

knowledge from literature enlisted below.

 Wearing Surface

 Railing and Barrier

 Expansion Joints

 Drainage System

 Primary Members (RCC, Post Tensioned-Girder)

 Diaphragms

 Deck Slabs

 Bearing System

 Pier Caps

 Pierss

 Abutments

 Sidewalk

 Arch Spans ( For Sherpao bridge only)

Table 3.3 presents a sample performa for inspecting wearing surface. Ther
performas for other members are presented in the appendix.
24
Table 3.3: CONDITION EVALUATION PERFORMA FOR WEARING SURFACE
(WS):

PROBLEM CAUSE REMARKS

 Physical
Condition
 Concrete
Overlays?
 Map Cracking Due to Excessive deflection,
drying of asphalt
 Edge Cracks Longitudinal Cracks near the
edge, due to lack of lateral
support, drying of asphalt
 Lane joint Longitudinal Separation
cracks between Paving lanes
 Reflection No set Pattern, Cracks in
Cracks underlying concrete slab
 Slippage Lack of Bond b/w slab and
cracks asphalt overlay
 Channelized Lateral Movement of Surface
(ruts) under traffic
 Depressions Settlement of Concrete Deck
 Potholes Bowl shaped holes of various
sizes, localized disintegration
of asphalt
 Raveling Separation of Particles, due to
low asphalt content and poor
construction
Condition Rating:

Condition of various bridge components has been assessed and rated out of 9.Then
the average condition has been calculated based on the results of the entire spans.
25
For this purpose, the work was carried out from the top most bridge component
(railing) to the bottom one (piers).

3.6 CONDITION RATING

3.6.1 Condition Rating of Railing(RG) + Barrier (BR):

3.6.1.1 Mian Meer Bridge:

Mian Meer Bridge comprises of 4’-2” RCC railing as shown in Fig. 3.9. The thickness
of the railing is 7”, however in each span, there are three posts, one in the mid and
two at the ends. The thickness of the railing at post is 10”. Railing in most of the
spans is in very good condition. Its soundness was checked with hammer.
Aesthetically railing look appealing due to the application of Graffiti. Highest
condition rating amongst all the spans is 8, and lowest is 6. However the average
condition rating (ACR) is found out to be 7 which mean railing is in good condition.
Following is the extent of deterioration:

 Total area Inspected = 16,450 sft

 Deteriorated Area = 84 sft

 %age Deterioration = 0.5%

Figure 3.9: RCC Railing Mian Meer Bridge

ACR = 7

26
3.6.1.2 Sher-Pao Bridge

Sher-Pao Bridge comprises of 3’-0” high New Jersy (NJ) barrier. The thickness of the
barrier is 7” and the width at the base is 1’-4”.Pipe railing/guard rail has been
affixed over it with height of 2’-0”as shown in Fig. 3.10.

In general, barrier is in good condition. However there are continuous collision

marks on the barrier on both sides’ carriageways. Over speed vehicles frequently
collides with the central barrier as well as end barriers. Due to collision, pipe railing
has also been broken at some places particularly near the sharp curvature. Central
barrier has developed vegetation at some places particularly near light poles. The
average condition rating is 7. Following is the extent of deterioration is:

 Total area Inspected = 27,000 SFT

 Deteriorated Area = 800 SFT

 %age Deterioration = 3%

Figure 3.10: NJ Barrier with Railing SherPao Bridge

ACR = 7

3.6.2 Condition Rating of SideWalk/Footpath (FP)

27
3.6.2.1 Mian Meer Bridge:

Mian Meer Bridge has a 5’-0” wide sidewalk. Tuff tiles have been used on the
sidewalk, however in majority of spans the level of the tuff pavers is uneven causing
tension in the tiles, that’s why cracks were observed in the tiles as shown in Fig. 3.11.
Due to unevenness, water has been stagnating causing efflorescence in tiles. Average
condition rating is 6. Following is the extent of deterioration:

 Total Area inspected = 24,600 sft

 Deteriorated Area = 295 sft

 %age Deterioration = 1.2 %

Figure 3.11: Side Walk Mian Meer Bridge

ACR = 6

28
3.6.2.2 Sher-Pao Bridge:

There is no sidewalk in Sher-Pao Bridge. Previously the old arch bridge had 4’ wide
sidewalks on either side, however after re-modeling and widening of the bridge,
sidewalks have been omitted.

3.6.3 Condition Rating of Wearing Surface (WS)

3.6.3.1 Mian Meer Bridge

Wearing Surface of the bridge is in very good condition, seems to be recently laid. It
has also been observed that more than 02 times wearing surface has been laid on the
bridge. Because the vertical face of the curb which should be 11”is now only 5” at the
site. It shows that the older carpet was not scarped and new surface was laid. There
are no potholes, no raveling or patching of the surface as shown in Fig. 3.12. Average
condition rating is 8. Following is the extent of deterioration:

 Total Area Inspected = 110,242 sft

 Deterioration = Negligible

Figure 3.12: Wearing Surface Mian Meer Bridge

ACR = 8

29
3.6.3.2 Sher-Pao Bridge

Wearing Surface of the bridge is also in very good condition, seems to be recently
laid. However at the interface of the old arch structure and widened portion a
longitudinal crack spanning the entire bridge length was observed as shown in Fig.
3.13. Bridge has worn out expansion joints which cause noise when the traffic passes
over them. There are no potholes, no raveling or patching of the surface. Average
condition rating is 8.Following is the extent of deterioration:

 Total Area Inspected = 170875 sft

 Deterioration = Negligible

Figure 3.13: Wearing Surface Sher-Pao Bridge

ACR = 8
3.6.4 Condition Rating of Expansion Joint (E.J):

3.6.4.1 Mian Meer Bridge

Mian Meer Bridge has concealed or buried type of expansion joints which are mostly
employed for short spans bridge as shown in Fig. 3.14. Due to poor maintenance
most of the joints have been worn out with the passage of time. Water has been

30
penetrating through them to the structural components beneath. Average condition
rating of Expansion joints is 6.Following is the extent of deterioration:

 Total Joints = 122

 % Water leaking joints = 30 (25%)

(a) (b)
Figure 3.14: Expansion Joint Mian Meer Bridge a)- Concealed Exp. Joint, b)-Water
peneteration from expansion joint

ACR = 6

3.6.4.2 Sher-Pao Bridge

Carriageway from Lahore cantt to City is an arch bridge which does not have any
expansion joint except in railway spans, and provides a very smooth surface to the
commuters. Carriageway from city to Cantt has expansion joints as shown in Fig.
3.15 that have been worn out severely only in 14 years. Almost 4” deep deterioration
was observed in the joint space. Water has been penetrating into the structure.
Average condition rating is 5. Following is the extent of deterioration:

 Total Joints = 35

 % Deterioration = 20 (55 %)

31
 (a) (b)
Figure 3.15: Expansion Joint SherPao Bridge, a)-Worn out expansion joint , b)- Water
penetration from expansion joint

ACR= 5

3.6.5 Condition Rating of Drainage System (Dr):

3.6.5.1 Mian Meer Bridge

Mian Meer Bridge has 2” diameter drain pipes as shown in Fig. 3.16. It was observed
that the poor maintenance of the bridge has lead to clogging of drain pipes.
Additional wearing surfaces have also blocked some of the drains. One of the most
critical causes of efflorescence in the structure is due to full or partial clogging of
drain pipes. Following is the extent of deterioration:

 Total Drain pipes = 236

 Deteriorated = 60

Figure 3.16: Choked pipe leading to efflorescent in surrounding concrete

ACR = 5 32
3.6.5.2 Sher-Pao Bridge

Drainage condition in case of Sher-pao Bridge is no more different from Mian Meer
Bridge. Water remains stagnant on sharp curvature on carriageway from cantt to city
due to clogging of drain pipes as shown in Fig. 3.17. Old arch spans are severely
damp due to improper drainage created after remodeling of the bridge as shown in
Fig. 3.17. The condition is worse in arch rings near railway spans. Establishment of
Parking lots by private companies is also creating a hazardous situation. The water
coming down from drain pipes remains stagnant in parking lots. It can harm the
shallow footing of old arch bridge. Following is the extent of deterioration:

 Total Drains = 163 Deteriorated = 40

(a) (b)

Figure 3.17: Poor Drainage Condition of SherPao Bridge, a)-Underneath view of

drainage system, c)- Dampness in arch ring due to poor drain

ACR = 6
33
3.6.6 Condition Rating of Deck Slab (DS)

3.6.6.1 Mian Meer Bridge

Deck slab is in good condition, except the edges of the slab near the expansion joints,
which have been damped, and deteriorated as shown in Fig. 3.18. It is due to water
penetration from the joint causing efflorescence and delamination of concrete
adjacent to the expansion joint. Span 6 of carriageway from Cantt to City is the most
critical portion. Oxidation of reinforcement has started near edges. When an edge
was hammered, concrete spalled off showing rust marks of steel and showing that
the bond between reinforcement and concrete has already been lost.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 3.18 Condition Rating Deck Slab Mian Meer Bridge, a)-Deteriorated Edge of
deck slab near expansion joint, b)-unsound concrete when hammered spalled off, c)-
Oxidation marks on the broken part of slab
ACR = 6
34
3.6.6.2 Sher-Pao Bridge:

The condition of Deck slab is better compared to Mian Meer Bridge. Light to
moderate dampness was observed in some spans as shown in Fig. 3.19. Average
condition rating is 7. Following is the extent of deterioration:

 Total Area inspected = 1,80,792 sft

 Deteriorated = 3,615 sft (2%)

Figure 3.19: Condition Rating Deck Slab SherPao Bridge

ACR = 7

3.6.7 Condition Rating of Girders:

3.6.7.1 Mian Meer Bridge:

Primary member of Mian Meer Bridge are in very good condition as shown in Fig.
3.20 (a). Each carriageway is composed of 8 no RCC T-Girders which are in good
condition. Concrete quality is good as well as no structural cracks encountered. ACR
is 7. Main railway span is of pre-stressed post-tensioned girders as shown in Fig.3.19
(b). Fressynet system of stressing was used in design as verified by visual hands on
inspection of the end zone of the exterior girder. Exterior girder of carriageway from
city to cantt shows the cover to the pre-stressing wires at the end has not been

35
provided. Although girders are in good condition, yet it is expected that, pre-
stressing wires may get corroded with time. ACR of Pre-stress Girders is 7.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.20: Condition Rating of Mian Meer Bridge, a)-RCC Girders, b) - Prestress
Girders
ACR = 7
3.6.7.2 Sher-Pao Bridge:

Primary member of Sherpao Bridge are in very good condition as shown in Fig. 3.21.
Each carriageway is composed of 3 no post-tensioned girders on widened portion of
carriageway from city to cantt. Main railway span is of pre-stressed girders; however
side spans are RCC T-Girders which are in good condition. Concrete quality is good
as well as no structural cracks encountered. Average condition rating is 7.

(a)

(a) (b)

Figure 3.21: Condition Rating of Girders SherPao Bridge, a)- Prestress ,b)- RCC
ACR = 7

36
3.6.8 Condition Rating of Diaphragms:

3.6.8.1 Mian Meer Bridge:

Mian Meer Bridge has typical 35’-0” RCC T-Girders. Each deck has 03 no of RCC
diaphragms, one at the mid and two at the ends. The diaphragms are in good
condition, however light to moderate efflorescence and delamination was found out
in end diaphragms due to percolation of water from expansion joints as shown in
Fig. 3.22. ACR of diaphragms is 6. Main railway span is composed of composite
section; there are 05 no of RCC diaphragms in skew direction for supporting the
deck. Diaphragms are in good condition. ACR is 7.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.22: Condition Rating of Diaphragms Mian Meer Bridge, a)- End diaphragm,
b)- Closer View of dampness in diaphragms
ACR = 6

3.6.8.2 Sher-Pao Bridge:

Carriageway from city to cantt is comprises of widened portion of the bridge, except
04 feet wide part from arch bridge. Widened portion has 71’-3” typical pre-stressed
spans, each spans has 03 no of diaphragms with one at mid and two at ends as
shown in Fig. 3.23. All the diaphragms are RCC. Diaphragms are in good condition.
Average condition rating is 7.

37
 (a) (b)

Figure 3.23: Condition Rating of Diaphrgms Sherpao Bridge

ACR = 7

3.6.9 Condition Rating of Bearing System & Pier Cap:

3.6.9.1 Mian Meer Bridge:

Bearing system is one of the most critical components of Mian Meer Bridge. Most of
the bearings have been jammed particularly on carriageway from cantt to city. Due
to jamming of bearing, the stresses have been transferred to pier cap as shown in Fig.
3.24. ACR is 5. Following is the extent of deterioration

 Total Quantity inspected = 960 No

 Deteriorated = 134 (14%)

(a) (b)
Figure 3.24: Condition Rating of Bearings Mian Meer Bridge, a) End girder
bearing jammed, b) - Multi-girder bearings jammed
38
ACR = 5
3.6.9.2 Sher-Pao Bridge:

Bearing system of Sher-pao bridge is working better compared to Mian Meer bridge.
Arch bridge does not require any bearing system. For RCC spans, steel plate bearing
system was installed which shows slight rusting of plate in some spans. Wooden
wedges used to launch a girder have not been removed in some spans.For Pre-stress
girders, Elastomeric neoprene bearing 2” thick were incorporated for pre-stressed
girders as shown in Fig. 3.25.

Bearings are performing well, however some cracks were observed underneath
girder no 4 from exterior side in railway span of carriageway from city to cantt.
Average condition rating is 7.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.25: Condition Rating of Bearings SherPao Bridge, a)- Steel Bearing, b)-
Elastomeric
ACR = 7

3.6.10 Condition Rating of Old Arch Sher-pao Bridge:

3.6.10.1 Arch ring:

Old arch bridge is a masonry structure with 23’-9” typical spans. Arch ring has been
in good condition despite lapse of 40 years life. Collision scratch marks were
observed in spans where provision of u-turns for movement of traffic is provided.
Some of the arch spans have been severely damp as shown in Fig. 3.26. Average
condition rating is 7.

39
 Figure 3.26: Severe dampness in arch ring SherPao Bridge
ACR = 7

3.5.10.2 Arch Spandrel Beam:

The stability of the arch is dependent on the geometry and properties of Spandrel
beam. Spandrel beams are in good condition. However at some places slight rusting
of reinforcement was observed due improper cover as shown in Fig. 3.27. It should
be given a higher priority in developing maintenance plan of this bridge. Average
condition rating is 6.

(a) (b)

Figure 3.27: Condition Rating of Arch spans SherPao Bridge, a) - Spandrel Beam,
b) - another of spandrel beam showing rusting of bars within the concrete
ACR = 6

40
3.6.11 Condition Rating of Piers:
3.6.11.1 Mian Meer Bridge:
Each carriageway of Mian Meer bridge has been supported on rectangular piers of 3’
x 2’. Piers are in very good condition. Except light to moderate scaling was observed
in railway side spans as shown in Fig. 3.28. It may be due to weathering action,
water remain stagnant and then evaporates. It leads to separation of mortar from the
mix. It may be given top priority in maintenance plan. Rest of the piers is in very
good condition. Average condition rating is 7. Following is the extent of
deterioration:
 Total Area inspected= 2160 sft
 Deteriorated = 54 sft (2.5%)

Figure 3.28: Condition Rating of Piers Mian Meer Bridge

ACR = 7
3.6.12 Sher-Pao Bridge:
3.6.12.1 RCC Piers:
Widened portion of the bridge comprises of square pier of 5 ft x 5 ft and in very
good condition as shown in Fig. 3.29. Railway spans and side spans in both
carriageways have Square piers of 2ftx 2ft size. Each carriageway of old structure is
supported on 04 rectangular piers in railway spans. Widened portion of railway
span is supported on 03 no of rectangular piers. Piers are in very good condition. No
mortar loss or structural crack was observed in the inspection of piers that’s why
Average condition rating is 8.

41
 Figure 3.29: Condition Rating of Piers Widened portion SherPao Bridge

ACR = 8

3.6.12.2 Arch Brick Piers & Abutments:

Arch spans are being supported with masonry brick piers 3’-6” wide. As the height
of piers increases batter has been provided for its stability and aesthetics. Brick piers
are in satisfactory condition. At turn vehicle collision marks with piers suggest to
protect and repair them at certain places. Brick piers have been subjected to serious
dampness and water intrusion in railway side spans towards cantt side. Inadequate
drainage system is adding a fur into it as shown in Fig. 3.30. Average condition
rating of Piers is 7 and of abutment -are 6. The figure shows that the abutment before
railway spans have started settling although the settlements seems to be very
minute, however it can be harmful if not given attention.

-
(a) (b)

Figure 3.30: Condition Rating of Brick Piers & Abutments SherPao Bridge, a)- Brick
Pier and abutment, b)- closer view of abutment
42
3.6.13 Condition Rating of Retaining walls:
3.6.13.1 Mian Meer Bridge.
Initial spans of this bridge has been started just at the NSL, that’s why the retaining
walls are not required. Masonry wall has been constructed on both ends but it does
not suits to be considered as retaining wall as shown in Fig. 3.31. Because structure
beneath is visible from broken area of brick wall. These walls have been constructed
to protect the structure from debris of nearby locality like Basti Syedan Shah as well
as from direct collision of any vehicle into the structure.

Figure 3.31: Temporary Brick wall constructed in end Spans of Mian Meer Bridge

3.6.13.2 Sher-Pao Bridge

3.6.13.2.1 RCC retaining wall
Widened portion of Sherpao bridge has reinforced concrete retaining walls on both
sides of approach roads as shown in Fig. 3.32. No signs of settlement of failure of
wall were observed. However some vegetation has been observed in top of the
carriageway near wall towards cantt side approaches, it may due to water
percolation into the road structure beneath. Average condition rating is 7.

43
 (a) (b)
Figure 3.32: Condition Rating of RCC Retaining wall SherPao Bridge, a) - City
Side, b)- Cannt side
ACR = 7
3.6.13.2.2 Masonry retaining wall:
Old Arch Bridge has brick masonry retaining walls. Mortar has been lost at some
places as well as it has some collision marks as shown in Fig. 3.33. Maintenance of
masonry wall should be given priority level in developing maintenance plan of this
bridge. Average condition rating is 6. Following is the extent of deterioration:
 Total Length = 772 ft

 %age deterioration = 193 ft (25%)

(a) (b)

Figure 3.33: Condition Rating of Brick Masonry Retaining Wall SherPao Bridge, a) -
Mortar loss, b)- Another view of Masonry wall
ACR = 6 44
3.7 Cumulative Deterioration Trends

Based on the condition rating of different bridge components, following graph has
been developed which shows cumulative deterioration trend in both these bridges.
Expansion Joint, drainage, deck Slab, diaphragm, bearings, masonry abutment, and
arch ring are more vulnerable to deterioration compared to other bridge components
as shown in Fig. 3.34. It also underlines that the expansion joint and drainage system
are directly affecting the condition of five other bridge components likewise deck
slab, diaphragm, pier cap, and arch ring as highlighted with circle.

Frequency of inspection of bridge components should be based on the deterioration

trends in Pakistan. Theses Bridge components don’t require large amount of
financial resources to be maintained but inspection and maintenance awareness in
this regard is important.

Figure 3.34: Cumulative Bridge Deterioration Trends in Pakistan

45
 4. LOAD RATINGS & BRIDGE PERFORMANCE INDEX
4. LOAD RATINGS AND BRIDGE
PERFORMANCE INDEX

4.1 Load Ratings & Posting Limitation:

Load ratings have already been defined in the definitions. Primary purpose of this
rating is to ensure structural safety for load actually plying on a bridge (AASHTO
2000). It requires engineering judgment in determining a level of rating that is
important to maintain safe utilization of a bridge, and then to decide posting and
weight limitations and permit decisions to vehicles. Load rating of a Girder should not
be less than 3 Tons in any Case. Otherwise the bridge should be closed. (AASHTO 2000).
Bridge load ratings are dependent on the information provided in a bridge file
record, which in turn utilizes the outcomes of a recent bridge inspection.
4.1.1 Legal Loads:
Following are practical truck manufactures in United States as shown in Fig.4.1. It
has been conceptual to utilize a structure for practical load utilizing it, rather than
hypothetical design loads (AASHTO 2000, White.et.al 1992). In Pakistan there is no
standard dimensions of trucks, that is why the analysis in load ratings have been
done based on legal loads of states and standard design loads of Pakistan West Code
of Practice for Highway Bridges 1967.

Figure 4.1: Legal State Truck Loads in United States

46
4.1.2 Standard Loadings:

West code of practice for Highway Bridges 1967 is the standard reference document
used for design of bridges in Pakistan. Bridges under study were also designed as
per the above standard document. It is important to analyze the bridge based on
actual dimension on standard loadings. There three main types of loadings:
 Class A loading
 Class AA Loading
 Class B Loading
 Class A loading

Figure 4.2: Class A Truck Train Loading

 Class AA Loading

Figure 4.3: Class AA Military Tank Loading

47
The rate of deterioration and depth of deterioration in different bridge components
have been found out after the field verifications and condition ratings of different
components. Although bridge is performing well against live loads, however it is
important to conduct live load ratings of structural members. Basic equation of
rating factor shown below, whereby Mr is the resisting moment (lesser of Ms or Mc),
Md is the applied dead moments and M(L+I) is the moment due to live load plus
impact.
Eq 4.1

4.2. Load rating of RCC Girders Mian Meer Bridge

4.2.1 Assumptions
The safe load capacity of a bridge is based on the existing structural conditions. In
order to maintain this capacity of a bridge it is assumed that a bridge is undergone
through competent inspection often.
Bridge rating is primarily dependent on engineering judgment of the in charge in
field as well as in the desk work. Assumption regarding area of reinforcement has
been made logically whereby difference in cross section of member and span was
encountered compared to the data available in old drawings. An excel sheet has
been developed to check the rating of main girders for live loads plying over it. An
exterior girder of typical 35 ft span has been selected for this purpose. Actual
dimensions and additional loads from surface treatments laid more than once has
been taken into account. Load rating has been done on two levels:
4.2.2 Inventory Level:
Allowable stresses at this level has been chosen as: (AASHTO 2000, 6.6.2.4.1, 6.6.2.3)
 Stress in concrete = fc = 1200 Psi Eq 4.2

 Stress in Steel = fs = 18000 Psi (Grade 40)

Eq 4.3

4.2.3 Operating Level:

Eq 4.4
 Stress in concrete = fc = 1500 Psi
 Stress in Steel = fs = 25000 Psi (Grade 40, year after 1954)
Eq 4.5
48
4.2.4 Mian Meer Bridge RCC Girder Load Rating:
Basic Data:
 Simple Span 35 ft (Exterior girder )
 Girder depth = 3’-0”
 Girder spacing = 4’-4”
 Fc’ = 3000Psi
 Fy = 40 ksi
 Year built = 1974
 Equiv.Width Supported = 4’-4”
 Ec Concrete = 57000√(fc'
= 2850000 Psi
 Overhang(outer) = 3.17 ft
 Overhang(inner) = 1.75 ft
 Deck slab = 7” thick
 Moduler ration =Es/Ec = 10.175 (take as 10)

Figure 4.4: Exterior Girder of Mian Meer Bridge

49
Sectional Properties:

3 Layers of reinforcement (3 #9+3#9+3#8)

 As of 01 bar(#8) = 0.79 in2

 As of 01 bar(#9) = 1.00 in2

 Area of steel provided (As) = 8.37 in2

 Rho provided(As/bd) = 0.0042

Taking moment about bottom of the girder:

 C.G of steel = 3.71 “

 Depth of composite section = 39.29”

Dead Loads:

 Self wt of girder = 0.475 k /ft

 Slab 7” thick = 0.379 k/ft

 AC(Asphalt concrete) = 0.253 k/ft

 Railing (4’-2” High) = 0.200 k/ft

 Sidewalk(5’ Wide) = 0.638 k/ft

 Utilities( 4 “ dia pipe) = 0.043 k/ft

 Total D.L = w = 1.987 k/ft

 Md.l = WL2/8 = 304.2 k-ft

Diaphragm Loads:

0.97 k 0.97 k 0.97 k

50
  Load of one dipahramg = 0.97 k

 Mdiaphr = 8.52 k-ft

Total Dead Moment = 313 k-ft

Finding Capacity of T-Section:

Location of N.A

 K = √ (2*ρ*n)+( ρ*n)2- (ρ*n)

 K = 0.25

 J = 1 - k/3

= 0.917

 d(Composite Section) =39.89”

Capacity of Section if Concrete Stresses controls:

Eq 4.6
 Mc =

= 959 k-ft
Capacity of Section if Concrete Stresses controls:

Ms = A s fs J d Eq 4.7

= 452 k-ft

Since Ms < Mc, Ms controls

51
Live Load Analysis: Class AA Live Loading

(Courbon’s Classical Method)

CL of loading 11ft

CL of roadway 17.63ft

CL OF ROADWAY AND LIVE LOAD

 C.L of roadway = 17.63 ft

 C.L of Loading = 11 ft

 Ecentricity of live loading = 6.63 ft (79.5”)

 Impact I = 1.1 for span > 30 ft

Distribution factor (D.F) for Exterior Girder:

 n =number of girders = 8

 i = number from one side = 1 (ext.girder)

 a = spacing of girders = 51.96”

 D.F = 0.253

 UDL of Class AA loading = 13.067 k/ft

M L.L (Impact+D.F) = 316 k-ft

52
Rating Factor (INVENTORY): (AASHTO 2000, EQ 6-1(a))

R.f =

= 0.564

Rating Factor (Operating): (AASHTO MANUAL 6.5.2 & 6.6.2.4)

R.f =

= 1.12

Live Load Rating:

Inventory Rf X Load = 40 Tons

Operating Rf X Load = 78 Tons

Minimum rating should be greater than 3 tons in any case, otherwise bridge should
be closed. (AASHTO 2000)

4.3 Discussion of RCC Girder Live Load Rating :

The above results states that if a military tank weighing 40 tons will utilize this
bridge for indefinite period of time, there will be no harm to the service life of the
bridge. However if military tank weighs 78 ton, it is important to give this vehicle
trip wise special permission, and to lemmatize its passes over the bridge, so as to
optimize its service life.

Bridges are posted for weight limitations when they have been deteriorated from a
certain level of condition. In order to post weight limitation on a bridge, it is
suggested to choose value in between of Inventory and operating level rating. It will
be much feasible compared to posting the bridge on posting level or on inventory
level. For example, if Mian Meer Bridge is to be posted the maximum allowable
weight of a vehicle should be in between of Inventory and operating level weight in
tons (65 Tons).
53
4.4 Load Rating of Pre-Stress Girders

Load rating of Pre-stress girders is required to be established as per the criterion

mentioned by AASHTO Manual of Condition Evaluation 6.6.3.3 and briefly
discussed in APPENDIX-D1.

4.4.1 Pre-Stress Girder Rating Equation: (AASHTO MANUAL 6.6.3.5)

Inventory Rating:

Concrete Tension, RF = Eq 4.7

Pre-stressing steel, RF = Eq 4.8

tension,

Table 4.1: Load Rating of Pre-stress Girder

Inventory Level Operating Level

Tension in Concrete R.F = 1.2 R.F = 1.1

Eq(4.7)

Prestressing Steel R.F = 1.3 R.F = 1.45

Tension

Eq(4.8)

4.5 Discussion of Pre-Stress Girder Rating:

Load rating of pre-stressed members has been undertaken as per AASHTO

reference. Fressineyt system has been employed in old bridges consisting of 12/7mm
pre-stressing wires. At various stages stress levels has been assessed based on true
dead and live load as described briefly in APPENDIX. Outcomes are presented in
Table 4.1.

54
If rating factor at operating level is greater than 1, it means the member is already
safe and performing well under prevailing loading condition. For example in the
above calculations, rating factor found out for Class A loading for flexural and shear
at operating level is 1.2, it means the member has 20% more strength than applied
live loading and it is safe to resist Class A loading.

4.6 Load Rating of Deck Slab Critical Panel:

The most critical panel of deck slab is Span 6 of carriageway from cantt to city, Mian
Meer Bridge. Condition rating of this panel is 4, which shows that the member has
undergone serious deterioration.

It is important to check the limitation of maximum axle load on this deck slab panel
and ultimately this axle load controls for axle limitation to the whole bridge
structure.

Table 4.2 explains the load rating outcomes of critical slab panel, the maximum
allowed axle load on Mian Meer bridge should be in between of Inventory and
operating rating ” 10” tons. The data obtained and analyzed as below.

 Designed depth = 7” Section lost = 2.5”

 Depth available = 4.5”

 Effected Span 4 ft x17 ft

 Main steel #5@ 6 “ c/c

 Distribution #4@ 6 “ c/c

 As provide = 0.58 in2

 As available = 0.29 in2

 Checking the safe capacity of slab for standard loading

 ML+I = 4 k-ft M total = 4.24 k-ft

55
 Table 4.2: Live Load Rating Deteriorated deck Slab Panel

Inventory Level Operating Level

Deck Slab Live Load R.F = 0.4 R.F = 0.54

Rating
08 Tons 12 Tons

4.7 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RECORD (RESCUE 1122):

In order to ascertain the safety conditions of a bridge, it is pertinent to know the

accidents record occurred on bridge.Accident record of Mian Meer and Sher-Pao
bridges obtained from Rescue 1122 for year 2010 to 2013 is presented in table 4.3.
(DE, CR, Rescue 1122).

Table 4.3: Traffic Accident Record Rescue 1122

 Sherpao Bridge  Accidents occurred 299

 Mian Meer Bridge  Accidents occurred 159

4.7.1 Assessment of the Geometry of Curve (Sherpao Bridge):

The above record shows that every 4th day an accident occurred on Sherpao Bridge.
It may be due to sharp curvature on the bridge. Drivers don’t obey the design speed
limits and ultimately these results into more frequent accidents on the bridge.

56
Radius of curvature has been found out from the help of Google earth image as
shown in Fig. 4.5. Based on the deck width already known, it is easier to trace out the
centre of the arc on exact scale, and radius of curvature is found out as 597 ft.

Figure 4.5: Google Map of Sharp Horizontal Curve Sherpao Bridge

The adequacy of this curvature has been checked as follows:

• Radius of Curve Provided = 597 ft

• Super-elevation = 4%

• Design Speed = 60Km/h

4.8 DISCUSSION ON CURVE GEOMETRY

For design speed of 60KM and prevailing road conditions, minimum radius of
curvature required: (AASHTO Geometric design policy- 3.10)

Eq 4.9

In the above equation,

v is the velocity of vehicle in miles/hours, and f is the side friction, solving above
equation Rmin is found out to be 537 ft. It means radius of curvature provided is

57
satisfying minimum condition required. But it is important to note that drivers don’t
obey this speed limit, the site condition shows that average speed of vehicles on this
bridge is 75-80 Km/h.

For such high speeds, the radius of curvature required is as below:

• Speed 80 KMH R required 900 ft

• Speed 90KMH R required 1150 ft

It is very important to post serious consideration to speed limit signage and speed
reducing devices on this bridge. This will help in reduction of traffic accidents on the
bridge.

4.9 COMPONENTS/BREAK UP OF BRIDGE PERFORMANCE INDEX (BPI):

 A new index design to check the performance and adequacy of bridges

ranging from 0 – 10, based on:

 Structural.

 Non- Structural.

 Geometrical and Safety features of the bridge.

In developing BPI, 50% importance has been given to the structural components,
25% to non-structural components and 25% to geometric and safety features of the
bridge. Refer to table 4.4, Item (A) and (B) are qualitative based on the average
condition rating of different bridge components already calculated in chapter 3.

Column 3 indicates the importance assigned to a component based on this research

work. Since the non-structural components are seriously affecting the structural
components, that’s why they are also important for assessing the performance of a
bridge. In column (2), bearing system alone has been given importance equal to piers
+ foundation, because bearings are more deteriorated in Pakistan compared to piers
and footings.

58
 Table 4.4: Break up of Bridge Performance Index (BPI)

Description Bridge Element Importance Mian Meer Sherpao

Factor Weighted Weighted
(Column 1) (Column 2 ) (Column 3) Number Number
(Column 4) (Column 5)
A)- Girder + Diaph 15 % 1.17 1.2
Structural
Deck+ wearing 5% 0.37 0.38

Bearings 10% 0.55 0.7

Pier Cap 10% 0.55 0.7

Piers+ 10% 0.77 0.72

Foundation
3.37 / 5 3.7/5

B)-Non- Drainage 10% 0.45 0.6

Structural

Expansion Joint 10% 0.65 0.25

Utilities (Poles, 5% 0.4 0.3
etc)
1.5 / 2.5 1.15 / 2.5

C)-Level of Traffic Capacity 15% 1.0 0.9

Service
Geometry + 10% 0.75 0.6
Safety
(Clearance,
Alignment,
Signage)
1.75 / 2.5 1.5 / 2.5

TOTAL 100% 6.6/10 6.4/10

(66%) (64%)

Items (c) are not qualitative; traffic capacity of a bridge depends on Level of service it
is offering either for ADT or for peak hour traffic. However no traffic counts have
been conducted by any agency in Lahore and in the absence of any traffic count and
traffic growth, it is assumed that the bridge is offering LOS C (Level of Service) to
59
the commuters which show a stable condition. (AASHTO Geometric design policy, 2-
31, 2-32). Engineering judgment is important in assigning importance factor and
weighted number for items (c).

Geometric and safety features includes the alignment of the bridge, preferably it
should be right angle and straight. Vertical clearance should be provided as per
requirements of Railways or Irrigation systems. Proper Signage is important to
address faulty alignments particularly on sharp curves to reduce number of fatalities
and essentially required on Sharpao bridge.

BPI will be very helpful in dictating the funding allocation and financial
requirements of a bridge as under:

 BPI >7, Bridge is In Very Good Condition, Satisfying Present Need of

Commuters and does not require any repair work.
 7<BPI>5, Bridge is in Fair Condition, Requiring Minor Repair which can be
delayed if no funds are available.
 BPI <3, Bridge is in Critical Condition, requiring Urgent Rehabilitation. Should
be closed for Service

4.9.1 Discussion on BPI

In developing BPI, importance factor assigned to various bridge components is

based on this research work, however it can be changed as per the requirements of a
bridge structure. Various assumptions have been ascertained like LOS, traffic
capacity which should be fixed after traffic counts and growth conducted as per
AASHTO guidelines.
BPI of Mian Meer Bridge is 6.6 and BPI of Sherpao Bridge is 6.4. It means both these
bridges fall in category of bridges in fair condition requiring minor repair work. In
Pakistan, there is no system to prioritize repair and rehabilitation funds for bridge
structures. With BPI, highway agencies can prepare a list of their bridge repair
works and demand of funds and their utilization can be prioritized in this way.

60
 5. 5.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATIONS
AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS:

1. Improper functioning of expansion joints, bearing system and drainage

system are the primary contributor of the bridge deterioration. Bridge
performance Index (BPI) is a new tool designed to check the performance of
bridges. Compared to other Indices developed in world, it can be truly
applicable for conditions in Pakistan. BPI of Mian Meer 6.6/10 and Sherpao
Bridge 6.4/10 fall within the good performing bridge. These only require
minor repair work. Funding on bridges can be optimized with BPI and so
much money can be saved and well utilized on public works

2. A bridge component which is not visible is generally ignored by the

maintenance agencies e.g. bearing systems. Most of the maintenance and
repair (M & R) funds are utilized on cosmetics.

3. Highway agencies are not aware of bridge inspection and maintenance

principles. Very limited awareness of Bridge Rating exists at present in the
country.

4. Lack of sense of responsibility, trust, non-professional and reluctant attitude

of officers and staff exists in Pakistani Engineering Community. This attitude
seriously disturbs the health and maintenance of bridges and allied
structures.

5. For VVIP movements, new wearing surface is laid without scraping the older
one. This practice may affect the capacity of the structure and the sidewalk
efficiency as well as.

61
5.2 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Re-modeling of a bridge should be properly recorded. If an agency has

constructed a bridge e.g. Sherpao bridge, and then its remodeling has been
done by another agency, the previous agency should also be provided
suitable data for record upkeep.
2. Frequency of Inspection is to be planned based on local conditions.

• Drainage System once a year before rainy season ,Roding and flushing

• Expansion Joints once a year

• Bearing System after 2 years

3. Due to less service life and less impact durability of joints in Pakistan,
expansion joints when laid or rehabilitated, they should be provided with a
perforated channel so as to collect water and discharge it into a downpour.

4. It is recommended to conduct special traffic counts for big bridges at least

after 05 years. So that satisfactory LOS Bridge can be assessed.

5. If a structural member has Condition rating > 5, No need to perform load

rating. If a structural member have Condition rating <5, Go for load ratings

and check posting limitations.

6. Highway authorities should procure state of the art technology for inspection

of bridges. Establishment of a Bridge Rating and Monitoring Unit (BRMU) in

each highway authority/agency.

7. There is a dire need to develop an integrated Bridge Management System

(BMS) in Pakistan.

62
 REFERENCES

1. AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Roads & Streets, 2004.

2. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, American Association for State

and Highway Testing Officials, 2010.

3. AASHTO Manual of Condition Evaluation for Bridges, 2nd ed. (2000 Interim
Revisions), American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.

4. Code of Practice, “Manual of Bridges”, West Pakistan, 1967.

5. Department of Transportation, Texas, “Bridge Inspection Manual”, 2002.

6. District Emergency Officer, Rescue 1122, Control Room, Main Ferozpur

Road, Lahore

7. Dr. V. K. Raina, “ Concrete Bridges, Inspection, Repair, Strengthening,

Testing, Load Capacity Evaluation, Guide Specification for Strength
Evaluation of Existing Steel and Concrete Bridges, Shroff Publisher &
Distributor, 2010.

8. FHWA, National Bridge Inspection Standards, Status of US Bridges,

Performance and condition, 2004.
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2004cpr/chap3c.htm#body).

9. FHWA proposed NICET Certification for Bridge Inspection, “Professional

Engineering News, National Society of Professional Engineers”, Alexandria,
Virginia Fall, 1987.

10. “Highway Design Manual”, Communication & Works Department, Lahore.

11. Maxwell, J.W.S, “Highway Bridge Management”, First international

conference on Bridge Management, Elsevier, London, 1990

12. Robert T. Ratay, “Structural Condition Assessment”, Wiley Publications

63
13. Ryall, M.J., “Bridge Management”, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001.

14. White, K.R., Minor, J., Derucer, K.N., “Bridge Maintenance, Inspection, and
Evaluation”, 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc, 1992.

64