KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2013) 17(3):556-567 Load Rating and Assessment of Bridges

DOI 10.1007/s12205-013-0007-8
www.springer.com/12205

Load Rating of Highway Bridges by Proof-loading

Joan R. Casas* and Juan D. Gómez**
Received January 10, 2013/Accepted February 19, 2013

···································································································································································································································

Abstract

Aging and lack of maintenance are a matter of increasing concern for most bridges that are part of the road and railway systems of
the European Union. Many of these bridges are very old and without documentation and as a consequence load rating by analytical
tools is not possible. This paper explains how a possible way to assess their capacity is by means of a so-called “proof load test”. The
work was developed as part of the Project ARCHES (Assessment and Rehabilitation of Central European Highway Structures)
funded by the VI Framework Program of the European Union. A methodology of proof load testing for existing highway bridges is
proposed and applied to the traffic conditions of several European Countries. The final objective is to provide guidance on the
appropriate target proof load to be used based in very simple parameters of the bridge as span-length and percentage of heavy traffic.
Keywords: bridges, assessment, structural reliability, field testing, loads, nondestructive testing
···································································································································································································································

1. Introduction
Existing bridges in several parts of the world, including Europe,
are aging. This is because of the great expansion in road and
railway construction occurred during the post-World War period,
the fifties and sixties. For this reason the assessment and
maintenance of the existing structures is every day more and
more important.
The increase of traffic and specifically of the vehicles load
capacity causes a greater effect on bridges. This increase along
with a deficient maintenance has caused in some countries the
deterioration of these structures. The consequences are serious in
main highway bridges and can be enhanced due to fatigue,
corrosion and other forms of material deterioration.
During the last years, new codes for the assessment of existing
bridges have been developed in several European countries as
UK, Denmark and Switzerland. Building on the experience from
the various national codes and recent research developed in
different European Projects (BRIME, 2001; COST345, 2004;
SAMARIS, 2006; SUSTAINABLE BRIDGES, 2007; ARCHES,
2009), the possibility of developing a new Eurocode for Bridge
Safety Assessment is under consideration. This Code should be
based on the most advanced techniques for load rating and
assessment of existing bridges and therefore, must include the
following key elements: 1) the possibility of directly using
reliability-based methods, 2) the inclusion of structural system
redundancy and robustness, 3) the use of site-specific live loads
and dynamic amplification factors, 4) the incorporation of field
measurements and diagnostic test data and 5) the use of proof
load testing. Development of items 1 to 4 has been carried out
elsewhere (Casas, 2000; Casas, 2010; Wisniewski et al.,
2009a,b; Casas and Wisniewski, 2011; Ghosn and Casas, 1996;
Rodrigues et al., 2011; Cavaco et al., 2011; Cavaco et al., 2013;
Anitori et al., 2011; Anitori et al., 2012; Anitori et al., 2013). The
objective of the present paper is to deal with proof load testing,
explaining the safety background behind the method and then
showing its implementation in a practical case.
The load rating of a bridge tries generally: a) to confirm the
maximum load that the structure can support under acceptable
safety conditions or b) to increase the service load limit.
Nevertheless, usually the standard theoretical methods used in
the capacity assessment give very conservative results and the
actual resistance is usually much higher. This is because many of
the methods do not exactly reflect the complex structural behavior.
The normal methods for calculating the bridge resistance tend to be
conservative and often do not take into account some reserve
capacity that comes from additional and/or hidden sources of
strength (composite action between slab and girders in bridges
that were designed as non-composite, rigid or semi-rigid connections
that were designed as flexible, …). Thus, the objective of load
testing is to optimize bridge assessment by finding hidden
reserves in the load carrying capacity. Savings in such optimized
assessment and, consequently, in less severe rehabilitation
measures on deteriorating structures, can be significant.
Another problem when evaluating old structures is the difficulty
to identify the actual properties, as well as the selection of a

*Professor, Dept. of Construction Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), 08034 Barcelona, Spain (Corresponding Author, E-mail:
joan.ramon.casas@upc.edu)
**Engineer, Integral S.A., Carrera 46 52-36 Piso 10. Medellín, Colombia (E-mail: gomezjd@hotmail.com)

− 556 −
 Load Rating of Highway Bridges by Proof-loading
suitable safety level, especially considering the load regulations
of new trucks.
All these situations are an actual problem at the European
Union (EU) as consequence of incorporation of New Member
States (NMS), many of them from East Europe. The increasing
volume of European transport urgently requires an effective road
and rail system in Central and Eastern European countries. To
bring this transport infrastructure up to modern European
standards will require an immense investment (estimated by the
European Commission to be about €100 billion), and therefore
difficult to achieve in the medium term taking into account the
actual economic situation. New motorways will be required with
many new bridges, but, more important, numerous existing
bridges will need to be assessed, and a large portion of them
improved or replaced. Thus, it takes great importance the
development of more appropriate bridge capacity assessment
techniques and procedures to avoid unnecessary interventions
(repairs/replacements) in the existing road network. One of these
techniques can be obtained by means of a proof load test where
existing bridges are proven (Moses et al., 1994). During the
proof load test performed, often, the structure reveals resistance
reserves, due to the contribution of nonstructural elements,
supports behavior, better materials properties, etc. (Minervino et
al., 2004).
The main difficulty in the execution of a proof load test is in
the estimation of the value of the proof load to apply during the
test, so that this is sufficiently representative to evaluate the capacity
of the bridge with an appropriate safety level, and without causing
irreversible damages or the collapse of the structure.
In this paper, proof loading is presented. The correct application
of the method should combine an accurate execution and
monitoring of the loading process and the accurate estimate of
the actual traffic in the bridge. This can be achieved by the most
advanced WIM techniques available, also developed and applied
within the ARCHES project (ARCHES-D08, 2009).
2. Proof Load Testing
This test is used to verify component and system performance
under a known external load and is normally aimed to provide a
complementary assessment methodology to the theoretical
assessment. The use of such tests, due to the risks of collapse or
of damaging essential elements of the structure, must be
restricted to bridges that have failed to pass the most advanced
theoretical assessment and are therefore condemned to be posted,
closed to traffic or demolished. It is also important that the bridge
has a high level of redundancy to be a good candidate. Furthermore,
some balance has to be found between the risk of failure under
the test load and the benefit of an updated reliability of the
bridge.
In some cases when the bridge is in poor condition due to lack
of maintenance or because of an extreme loading event, such as
flooding or impact, the actual resistance of the remaining bridge
is difficult to assess without a detailed inspection, but it can still
Vol. 17, No. 3 / April 2013
carry a high percentage of design load. The actual resistance of
the bridge is difficult to assess without a detailed inspection.
Even in the case that this information is provided thanks to an
inspection process, the theoretical models to obtain bridge
resistance can be hardly adopted. In such cases, a proof load can
be also of interest to define the allowable load in the bridge. Of
course, to follow up the loading sequence and the bridge
response accurately and not produce more damage in the bridge
or even its failure, it is mandatory to use an accurate monitoring
system. The use of this type of test may be also recommended in
the case of bridges with high redundancy level and where an
accurate theoretical model of behavior or an accurate definition
of geometry and material properties is not possible due to lack of
information (no drawings). This can be, for instance, the case of
old masonry arch bridges. If the failure could be sudden, without
warning, proof testing should not be used.
In this test, the bridge is loaded with a high percentage of the
design loading to prove that its behavior is in compliance with
the design or to a high percentage of the actual traffic to prove
that the bridge can carry the existing traffic. One of the main
concerns when executing a proof load tests is the level of
damage and risk due to the high load applied. The load is applied
incrementally and the most important decision is when the
loading increase must stop in order not to permanently damage
the bridge or even cause a failure. The way to control the risk is
by appropriate monitoring during the test. However, it should be
pointed out that the possibility of incurring permanent damage
with the test is extremely small (of the more than 250 bridge tests
conducted in Ontario, not a single bridge suffered any damage
because of testing), providing the test is planned and executed
carefully and methodically monitored (ISIS, 2001).
Proof load testing provides an alternative to analytically
computing the load rating of a bridge. A proof test “proves” the
ability of the bridge to carry its full dead load plus some
“magnified” live load. Normally, a higher load than the live load
the bridge is expected to carry is placed on the bridge. This is
done to provide a margin of safety in the event of an occasional
overload during the normal operation of the bridge.
Before the execution of the test, the target proof load has to be
defined. The maximum target load should be applied in several
increments while observing structural response. Also in this case,
the measurement of the temperature during the period of
execution is necessary to correct the results of the test according
to the temperature variations. The first-stage loading should not
exceed 25% of the target proof load, and the second stage
loading should not exceed 50%. Smaller increments will be
implemented when the applied proof load approaches the target
load.
Before a new loading scheme is applied, it is mandatory to
remove from the deck all loads corresponding to the previous
loading scenario. This is not necessary in the case of simply
supported bridges.
The bridge is carefully and incrementally loaded in the field
until the bridge materials approaches their elastic limit, but never
− 557 −
 Joan R. Casas and Juan D. Gómez
exceeding it. At this point, the loading is stopped and the
maximum applied load and its position on the bridge is recorded.
The maximum applied load can be lower than the target proof
load and the percentage of total traffic loading according to that
maximum can be evaluated.
Monitoring at critical locations should be performed during the
loading increase to determine the onset of non-linear behavior.
Once any non-linearity is observed, the bridge should be unloaded
immediately and the deflection recovery recorded. The strain in
the materials in the most critical sections of the bridge should
also be measured in order to guarantee that the elastic limit of the
materials (if known) is not reached.
The load is applied in accordance to a loading scheme and
held for a certain time period. Loads must be moved to
different positions to check all load path components. Upon
execution of a proof load test and load removal, the bridge
should be inspected to see that no damage has occurred
(excessive crack width, deflection, opening of cracks in prestressed
concrete structures…)
The personnel in charge of the execution should have a proved
qualification and experience in the execution of similar tests. In
certain situations, safety shoring may be erected underneath the
bridge to provide safety in case of failure.
3. Safety Assessment by Proof Load Testing
The proof load level should be sufficiently higher to ensure the
desired level of safety if the bridge passes the test. A load higher
than the one the bridge is expected to carry along its entire service
life is placed on the bridge. This account for uncertainties, in
particular the possibility of bridge overloads during the normal
operation and the impact factor, because proof load tests are
normally executed in a static way. Different alternatives are
available to define both representative loads (target and maximum
proof load) as presented in AASHTO – LRFR (2003) and
DAfStb (2000).
The method proposed in the ARCHES project (ARCHES-
D16, 2009) is based on the same philosophy as for the AASHTO
recommendations. The idea is to use a reliability-based approach
to obtain the target proof load that guarantees a required safety
level on the bridge against the actual traffic. However, the
method is not restricted to the assumption of Normal distributions
for all variables involved. In particular, the traffic action is
considered as Gumbel distributed. The final objective was to
derive a simple method based on figures, charts and tables that a
bridge evaluator without specific knowledge of reliability theory
can easily apply and obtain calibrated target proof load factors to
derive the load level to be reached, depending on the safety level
also prescribed by himself.
3.1 Theoretical Background
The assessment via proof load test is analyzed from a reliability-
based perspective. If R and S are the resistance and action
variables respectively, the limit state function is defined as:
− 558 −
G ( x ) = R – S = R – G – Q = R′ – Q (1)
And the failure probability:
Pf = P ( R – S ≤ 0 ) = P ( Z ≤ 0 ) (2)
Where R, G and Q are the resistance and the effects of the
permanent and variable actions respectively. R' = R-G is the
margin of resistance for additional variable actions.
If R and S are independent variables with Normal distributions,
the reliability index β can be defined in function of the inverse
normal probability distribution as:
µR – µs
β = Φ–1 ( –Pf ) = -------------------
- (3)
σR + σS
2 2
R is the resistance, S = actions effect and µ, σ = mean and
standard deviation of the variable.
Once the safety level in the bridge is defined through the
definition of a target reliability index, it is possible to obtain the
required resistance and the corresponding target value of the
proof load for a predefined level of traffic load. Of course, first,
the type of distribution as well as the main parameters (mean and
standard deviation) of the variables involved should be defined.
For example, in the case that both resistance and actions are
defined as Normal variables, the target value of the proof load,
can be calculated from Eq. (3) as follows:
( µR – µD ) – ( µQ + µDad )
β = ---------------------------------------------------
- (4)
σ 2R + σ 2D + σ 2Q + σ 2Dad
R is the resistance, Q = variable actions effect (traffic); D =
Effect of the permanent actions and self-weight during the test
load, Dad = additional dead load effect expected to be added to
the bridge after the proof-load test, such as that of an overlay; µ,
σ = mean and standard deviation of the variable.
According to Eq. (4), once the target safety level is defined (β),
then, the target proof load to introduce in the bridge to guarantee
a mean value of the resistance can be easily estimated provided
that the rest of parameters have been also defined. This is the
case when all random variables involved are Gaussian-type.
In the present study, the aim is to obtain the target value in the
case that the traffic action is modeled with more appropriate
distributions (Lognormal, Gumbel) and for different values of
the target reliability index. The objective is also to define the
target proof load depending on the actual traffic load in the
bridge obtained by WIM techniques or similar, and not on a
nominal value defined in the Code that many bridges in the road
network will never experience. The actual traffic load can take
into account the characteristics of the traffic composition depending
on the bridge location (site-specific or country-specific). For this
reason, the objective is also to develop the target values for five
different traffics (one from Western Europe and the rest from
Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC), representative
of the traffic in CEEC and the possible differences of traffic
patterns between new and old Member States in Europe. The
countries considered are: The Netherlands, Czech Republic,
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Load Rating of Highway Bridges by Proof-loading

Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Table 1. Lifetime Load Effects for Traffic Recorded in 5 European
The case where the statistical distribution of R is available or Countries. Simply-supported Spans
may be evaluated (thanks to existence of drawings, inspections …) Mid-span Moment (kNm)
Lane Span
Site
as well as the case where it is un-known, will be considered. Factors (m) Characteristic 50-Year 50-year
Value Mean COV
15 4095 3714 5.9%
3.2 Definition of the traffic action
25 8877 8023 5.9%
The target proof load achieved should guarantee the normal High
35 14274 12926 5.9%
operation of the bridge under the traffic action with a predefined
The 45 20518 18238 6.2%
(by the user) level of safety. Therefore, two important requirements Netherlands 15 3113 2917 3.4%
arise concerning an accurate assessment of the bridge capacity
25 7195 6706 4.5%
by proof load testing: Low
35 11755 10874 4.7%
● An accurate estimate of the actual traffic action in the bridge 45 16881 15733 4.3%
● A statistical definition of the traffic action, allowing the 15 3131 2832 5.6%
definition of the required safety level with a certain level of 25 6773 6129 5.6%
confidence. High
35 10766 9853 4.9%
Both requirements need the recording and analysis of several 45 15170 13877 4.8%
Czech
days or weeks of traffic measured in the bridge. Nowadays this Republic 15 2878 2604 5.2%
can be effectively achieved by the use of Weigh-In-Motion 25 5855 5419 4.2%
(WIM) systems (Ghosn and Moses, 1984). Low
35 9539 8592 5.2%
Several procedures exist for estimating the maximum expected 45 13671 12322 5.3%
load effect due to traffic on a highway bridge. For a safety 15 3051 2756 5.5%
assessment, deterministic models are not of interest. The statistical 25 6584 5797 6.3%
High
models include methods based on the probability convolution 35 10548 9383 6.2%
approach, extreme value distributions, Monte Carlo simulations 45 14800 13097 6.3%
Slovenia
and simplified statistical projection techniques (Sivakumar et al., 15 2766 2513 5.2%
2009). These procedures explain how site-specific truck weight 25 5630 5240 4.2%
Low
and traffic data collected using Weigh-in-Motion Systems (WIM) 35 8905 8220 4.4%
can be used to obtain estimates of the maximum live load for the 45 12893 11497 6.4%
design life of a bridge. The models require as input the WIM data 15 3091 2853 4.4%
collected at a site after being filtered to remove WIM measurement 25 6388 5951 4.4%
High
errors. Within the European Project ARCHES, WIM data from 35 10202 9441 4.7%
five different countries has been analyzed and the corresponding 45 14413 13170 5.2%
Poland
traffic models were derived according to the methods and 15 2674 2449 4.7%
algorithms described in ARCHES-D08 (2009). 25 5656 5160 4.6%
Low
It was necessary to estimate as accurately as possible the 35 8631 8136 3.3%
probable maximum bridge load effects (bending moments, shear 45 12208 11396 3.9%
forces) over a selected lifetime. For assessment, this can be 5 to 15 2995 2643 6.2%
10 years, whereas for design it may be between 75 to 100 years. 25 6233 5573 6.7%
High
The approach used in ARCHES was to build a detailed Monte 35 9862 8776 6.9%
Carlo simulation model, without any restrictive assumptions, and 45 13806 12112 7.3%
Slovakia
to calibrate it against extensive WIM data collected for over half 15 2731 2506 4.7%
a million trucks at each of two European sites in the Netherlands 25 5341 5001 3.8%
Low
35 8368 7864 3.5%
and Slovakia in 2005 and 2006. The model is designed to
45 11885 11035 4.1%
extrapolate both vehicle weights and types (axle configurations),
and while this extrapolation is based on assumptions which will
influence the results, it is considered to give a more realistic characteristic value corresponds to the 1000 year return period.
estimate of lifetime loading. According to the definition of the characteristic value of the
The model is then applied to WIM data collected in three other traffic action in the Eurocode, this corresponds to a value that is
Central European countries (Czech Republic, Slovenia and exceeded only 5% of the times in the distribution of the
Poland) and is used to calculate lifetime load effects within a maximum traffic effect over a period of 50 years. Similar values
certain reference period for typical bridges. As an example, in were obtained for shear in simply supported bridges as well as
Table 1 are presented the main values (mean and coefficient of hogging moment for two-span continuous bridges. In Table 1,
variation COV) corresponding to the mid-span bending moment the lane factor measures the effect that the vehicle in one lane
of simply-supported bridges with different span lengths. The produces in the adjacent lane. It depends basically on the cross-

Vol. 17, No. 3 / April 2013 − 559 −

 Joan R. Casas and Juan D. Gómez

sectional properties of the bridge. The WIM data corresponds to likely it is to have many heavy vehicles simultaneously on
a two lane bridge with the traffic in the same direction (except for the bridge. Similarly, the heavier the truck traffic is the
Slovenia) and is recorded in a highway location representative of more likely it is to have many heavy vehicles on the
the most heavy traffic conditions within each country. Therefore, bridge. Values of H are tabulated for different span lengths,
the values can be assumed as representative of the country. truck traffic intensities and projection periods (or service
However, they may be excessive when looking at second class or lifespan).
local roads. To take into account this possibility, simplified traffic
A model such as the one proposed in Eq. (5) is extremely
loads that can use WIM data specifically recorded in a particular
powerful for traffic load modelization because of its flexibility
location were also developed and checked (ARCHES-D08, 2009).
and adaptability to any individual bridge site, local, state or
national jurisdiction. For this reason Ghosn and Casas (1996)
3.2.1 Definition of the General Traffic Action
checked if the proposed model, although calibrated for US traffic
As shown in Gómez and Casas (2008), the coefficient of
conditions, could be also extrapolated to the traffic in other parts
variation of the traffic action has a higher influence than the type
of the world. As presented in Ghosn and Casas (1996), the model
of distribution (Normal, Lognormal, Gumbel). In addition, Gumbel
predicts very accurately (maximum error = 6%, average error =
distribution produces the highest values of the target proof load.
3%) the results of the simulation of the maximum traffic action
Therefore, the Gumbel distribution is used to characterize the
in a period of 50 years for the traffic conditions in 3 European
randomness in the traffic action. The next step is to obtain the
countries: The Netherlands, Switzerland and Spain. Within the
two parameters (or alternatively the mean and coefficient of
scope of ARCHES project, the model was checked again with
variation) of the Gumbel distribution representing the traffic
the results of the simulation of traffic actions with updated
load.
parameters of the traffic obtained via WIM in five different
Ghosn and Moses used a convolution method to calibrate an
countries: Czech Republic, Holland, Poland, Slovakia and
empirical formula that is valid for the calculation of maximum
Slovenia. The results were obtained for a 1000 year return period
traffic effects in a reference period for typical US traffic patterns
and for a simply supported bridge with different span lengths
on two-lane highway bridges (Ghosn and Moses, 1984). The
ranging from 15 to 35 meters. The results obtained by simulation
proposed formula is:
(Table 1) were compared with those obtained with Eq. (5). With
M = amW95 H (5) the mean value of the maximum traffic action derived according
to Eq. (5), the coefficient of variation of the traffic effect
M is the median of the maximum expected lifetime moment,
distribution should be estimated to derive the 1000 year return
a is the moment effect of a representative vehicle with a
period value. The results accuracy show a high dependence on
typical configuration and a one unit total gross weight. a is
the COV used. The values of H and the coefficient of variation of
a deterministic value and can be calculated from the
H are those proposed in Ghosn and Moses (1984), 10% for short
influence line of the bridge. It was found that for typical
spans and 7% for spans longer than 20 m. The coefficient of
US truck traffic composition, it is best to use a representative
variation of W95 is taken as 15% for short spans (2 axle trucks
semi-trailer truck configuration for spans greater than 15
dominate) and 10% for longer spans (more than 20 m, where the
meters, while a single unit truck gives more consistent
5 axle trucks control), as proposed in the same reference. This
results for the shorter span lengths. m is a random variable
results on a total COV of the traffic actions of 18% for spans up
representing the variation of the effect of a random truck
to 20 m and 12% for longer spans. From the results obtained in the
from the effect of the representative truck. If the
comparison carried out within the ARCHES project (ARCHES-
representative vehicle has the configuration of an average
D16, 2009), it may be concluded that the traffic model represented
truck, m is then close to 1.0 with a coefficient of variation
by Eq. (5) is not only general in space (valid for different
that varies from 15 to 4% depending on the span length.
countries) but also in time, as far as the main parameters of actual
W95 is the characteristic value representing the intensity of the
traffic (mainly the COV) are introduced. In fact, the model gives
gross weight histogram. The 95 percentile value was chosen
good results in the case of The Netherlands, both for the traffic
as the representative gross weight. For the spans where the
data from 1978 (Ghosn and Casas, 1996) as well as for the traffic
single unit trucks dominate the response, i.e., spans less
data collected in the year 2003 by the team of the University
than 15 m for typical US sites with 20% single unit trucks,
College Dublin (Getachew and O´Brien, 2007). The sites were
W95 is obtained from the gross weight histograms of the
R04 highway (Amsterdam), R16 highway (Utrecht) and R12
single trucks. For longer spans, the gross weight histogram
highway (Dordrecht).
of the semi-trailer trucks is used.
H is the headway multiplicative factor. It reflects the number
3.2.2 Definition of Specific Traffic Action
of typical trucks with the W95 weight needed to produce
The differences between the simplified model represented in
the maximum lifetime load effect. H was found to be a
Eq. (5) and the simulation (Table 1) are due to the assumed
function of the span length and traffic composition
coefficients of variation for the traffic action because equation
reflecting the fact that the longer the span length the more

− 560 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Load Rating of Highway Bridges by Proof-loading

(5) only gives the mean value of the distribution, but not the
coefficient of variation. In fact, the values of COV used in the
comparison (12 and 18%) are those obtained in the study carried
out in the US and proposed by Ghosn and Moses (Ghosn and
Moses, 1984). However, the coefficients of variation are site
specific, mainly the one corresponding to W95, and those derived
in the US in the 1980s cannot longer apply to nowadays traffic
conditions in European countries.
For this reason, a simplified method to obtain a more accurate
value of the coefficient of variation of the traffic action for a
specific site supported by a particular bridge is proposed here.
The methodology is as follows:
● The most representative vehicle for the bridge is defined
from the obtained WIM data and the effect on the bridge is
evaluated (calculation of am)
● From the WIM data the value W95 for the most representative
vehicle is obtained
● With the previous calculated values and the values defined in
Ghosn and Moses (1984) for H calculate the mean value of
the maximum traffic effect for 50 year reference period using
Eq. (5). H is a function of the average daily truck traffic and
span length, which data can be also easily obtained on site
● Use the simplified method proposed by Getachew and
O´Brien (2007) to obtain the 1000 year return period effect.
This corresponds to the characteristic value (percentile of
upper 10%) of the maximum traffic effect for a 50 year time
period. The simplified method requires only the values of the
1000 year and 1 week return period Gross Vehicle Weight
(GVW). These values can be easily obtained by extrapolation
on the WIM data available for a period of some weeks or
months.
● Assuming that the random variable “maximum traffic action
within a period of 50 years” is of the Gumbel type, the
coefficient of variation of the distribution can be calculated
from the mean and characteristic values previously calculated.
As an example, in Table 2 are presented the results of the
application of the method to the traffic WIM data from Slovakia.
As can be seen, the actual value of COV of the traffic action,
calculated in the way that the values in the columns for the 1000
year return period and Getachew and Obrien coincide, is in the
order of magnitude of 14% for the short spans and 7% for the
longer spans. In this case is in quite good agreement with the
values obtained in US (18% and 12% respectively).
In Table 3, a similar calculation is carried out for the traffic
data from The Netherlands. In this case, the coefficient of
variation of the actual traffic action is around 11% for short spans
and 5% for longer spans. These values are lower than those
reported in the US traffic and in the case of Slovakia.

Table 2. Traffic Action in Slovakia (Adjustment of COV of Ghosn & Moses model with Getachew & O'Brien model.)
W95 amH W95 COV Mean 1000 year Return Getachew
Span (m) H
(kN) (kNm) (adjusted) (kNm) (kNm) ( kNm)
10 2.7 443 1424 0.146 1459 1858 1858
15 2.8 443 2479 0.109 2524 3040 3040
20 2.8 443 3891 0.095 3953 4657 4657
25 2.9 443 5515 0.080 5589 6424 6424
30 2.9 443 7235 0.053 7298 8015 8015
35 3.0 443 9097 0.054 9178 10104 10104

Table 3. Traffic Action in The Netherlands (Adjustment of COV of Ghosn & Moses model with Getachew & O´Brien model.)
Span W95 amH W95 COV Mean 1000 year Return Getachew
H
(m) (kN) (kNm) (adjusted) (kNm) (kNm) ( kNm)
10 2.7 656 2110 0.113 2149 2603 2603
15 2.8 656 3671 0.061 3708 4130 4130
20 2.8 656 5726 0.075 5796 6607 6607
25 2.9 656 8149 0.058 8228 9121 9121
30 2.9 656 10695 0.036 10759 11477 11477
35 3.0 656 13472 0.035 13550 14436 14635

Fig. 1. L: Crane with 10 Axles and Total Weight of 1100 kN, R: Low-loader with 12 Axle and Total Weight of 1650 kN

Vol. 17, No. 3 / April 2013 − 561 −

 Joan R. Casas and Juan D. Gómez
A correction factor equal to 1.56 has been considered in the
definition of the value of W95 for the 5-axle truck (656 = 1.56 ×
420.5) in the case of the Dutch traffic. This factor takes into
account the fact that in the simplified model of Getachew and
O´Brien (2007), the load is notional and not intended to reflect a
realistic loading scenario. As in the Dutch traffic many non-
standard vehicles are present (see Fig. 1): 1) “low loaders” which
are characterized by a set of closely spaced front axles, followed
by a large axle spacing (about 11 m) and completed by a second
set of closely spaced axles, and 2) cranes and crane-type vehicles
characterized by a small value for the maximum axle spacing
(typically 3 m or less), the extrapolation to find the characteristic
1 week and 1000 year values generates unrealistically heavy 5
axle-vehicles. However, in the model of Eq. (5), the possibility of
such rare vehicles is not considered. It must be pointed out that
these exceptional loads are present in the normal traffic flow, not
being escorted. Therefore, both models cannot be compared
directly in the case of Dutch traffic. This problem can be solved
in 2 ways: removing from the traffic data all this “rare” vehicles
and perform a new simulation process to define new values of 1
week and 1000 year return periods, or, alternatively, use a virtual
value of W95 that reflects this situation. This last option has been
considered here. The calculation of the correction factor has been
as follows: In the simplified model of Getachew and O´Brien
(2007), the 1000 year return period 5-axle truck has a weight of
1530 kN and 980 kN for the traffic data in Holland and Slovakia
respectively. Because the standard 5-axle truck has a very close
configuration in axle-loads and axle-spacing in both countries, as
was found from the gathered WIM traffic data, then a similar
coefficient 1530/980 = 1.56 can apply to the W95 values for the
two traffics.
In ARCHES-D16 (2009) and Gómez (2010) are obtained
similar results to those of Tables 2 and 3 for the site-specific
COV obtained in Poland, Slovenia and Czech Republic. It
should be pointed out that in all cases, the 5-axle truck is the one
producing the highest bending moment at mid-span, for all span-
lengths, even for the short ones.
4. Application to European Highway Network
With the coefficients of variation of all variables involved
(including traffic as explained in 3.2), the corresponding reliability
index related to the proof load execution can be calculated using
a FORM (Fist Order Reliability Method) algorithm or similar.
(Nowak and Collins, 2000).
Alternatively, if a target reliability index is previously defined,
the target proof load to be introduced in the test to guarantee the
passage of the actual traffic with the previously defined safety
level can be also calculated by and iterative use (trial and error)
of a FORM algorithm (Gómez, 2010; Gómez and Casas, 2010;
Casas, 2010).
In section 3.1, the reliability-based methodology has been
explained to derive the target value of the proof load according to
the traffic characteristics present in the bridge. The method
− 562 −
requires the statistical definition of the random variables involved
as well as the calculation of the reliability indices. This may be a
difficult and cumbersome task for a professional engineer not
directly involved and used to such approach. Therefore, in order
to facilitate the work to the bridge evaluator, a calibration
procedure has been developed with the objective to obtain the
target proof load from charts and figures using very few and
simple parameters of the bridge under investigation. The
calibration has been developed taking into account the following
parameters:
− Safety level: Target values of reliability index considered are:
2.3, 3.6, 5.0. These are feasible values. The lower one takes
into account an inspection every two years and is the value
assumed by AASHTO in USA. A value of 3.6 is similar to
the required safety level for the design of a new bridge as
defined in the Eurocode, for instance. The value 5.0 can be
seen as an upper value when a relatively high safety level
needs to be considered.
− Span length: 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 m. This covers most of
the span lengths in standard bridges encountered in the
European highway network.
− Bridge type: The longitudinal profile is a simply supported
structure. Concrete bridges with pre-cast beams with upper
slab, massive and voided slab and box-girder cross-sections
are considered.
This covers most of the encountered cross-sections in concrete
bridges for the span lengths accounted for. The parameter
considered is the ratio between the effects (bending moment at
mid-span) of the permanent load (G) and the traffic load (Q) as
defined in the Eurocode of actions on highway bridges (EN,
1991-3). Depending on the defined cross-section type, the values
presented in Table 4 for the ratio moment due to permanent load/
moment due to traffic action in EC-1 were obtained. Therefore, a
range of values from 0.5 to 3.5 were taken into consideration in
this study.
− Traffic action: Two traffic scenarios have been considered,
one representative of Western Europe (The Netherlands) and
other representative of Central and Eastern Europe (Czech
Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). Therefore, five
different country-specific traffics were studied.
The traffic from the Netherlands comes from A12 (E25/E30)
highway, near Woerden, 30 km east of the port of Rotterdam.
20 weeks of traffic were recorded in 2 lanes in the same
direction, from 7th February to 25th of June, 2005. A total of
Table 4. Ratio of MG/MQEC-1 for Different Cross-section Types
Span-length (m)
Type
10 15 20 25 30 35
Precast beam + upper slab 0.32 0.45 0.61 0.83 1.06 1.32
Slab (concentrated stiffness) 0.42 0.68 0.98 1.30 1.63 1.99
Slab (distributed stiffness) 0.47 0.90 1.42 2.02 2.68 3.39
Box-girder 0.4 0.59 0.78 0.98 1.18 1.39
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Load Rating of Highway Bridges by Proof-loading
646,548 trucks were recorded, which represents and Average
Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT) equal to 4,618 trucks/day.
In Slovakia, the traffic corresponds to the 4-lane D1 (E50)
highway near the eastern entrance to the Branisko tunnel,
between the towns of Levoca and Presov. The traffic data
corresponds to the slowest lanes in opposite directions. Data
was provided for a 19 month period, from 1st June 2005 to
31st December 2006. A total of 748,338 trucks were recorded
in this case, giving ADTT = 1,313 trucks per day.
In Slovenia, the traffic corresponds to 2 same-direction lanes
(slow and fast) in the location of Vransko with a total of
142,131 trucks in lane 1 and 5,621 trucks in lane 2.
In Poland, the traffic corresponds to 2 same-direction lanes
(slow and fast) in the location of Wroclaw with a total of
398,044 trucks in lane 1 and 31 636 trucks in lane 2.
In Czech Republic, the traffic corresponds to 2 same-direction
lanes (slow and fast) in the location of Sedlice with a total of
684,345 trucks in lane 1 and 45 584 trucks in lane 2.
The coefficient of variation of the traffic action depends on
the site location as well as the span-length (Casas and
Gómez, 2010). For a specific measurement site, the values
vary in the range from 5 to 15%. The gathering of traffic data
from other locations will derive in larger coefficients of
variation due to the traffic variability from site to site. To
take into account this effect, according to other traffic studies
(Sivakumar et al., 2009), in the present report the analysis
and calculation of target proof load factors have been done
with a coefficient of variation of the traffic effect of 20%. Of
course, in the case that particular traffic data from a specific
bridge site would be available, the simplified method
presented in 3.2.2 can be used to derive a more accurate
COV for the bridge site and a reliability analysis executed to
define a more accurate target proof load factor.
− Permanent additional load: The additional dead load that
may appear in the bridge after the execution of the proof
load, is modeled with a Normal random variable with mean
equal to the nominal value (BIAS factor = 1) and a coefficient
of variation of 25%. This additional permanent load normally
reflects the increment of the pavement thickness due to
repaving.
− Existing bridge documentation: Two cases are considered:
the existence or not of bridge documentation and information
(drawings, materials specifications, …) to calculate the nominal
value of the resistance and dead load at the time of test
execution, or the parameters (mean and standard deviation)
of the variables R and D assumed as Normally distributed. In
the case that the nominal value of the resistance is unknown
the assumption is that the proof load introduced in the bridge
with the test execution is precisely the nominal value.
4.1 Bridge Documentation Available
In this case from the information on bridge geometry and
materials available from the design documentation and drawings,
it is possible to calculate the nominal value of the Resistance (R).
Vol. 17, No. 3 / April 2013 − 563 −
Considering this actual resistance as a certain percentage of the
value Rn, defined as:
Rn = γD Gn + γL Q (6)
with Gn, Qn = nominal value of permanent and traffic load, and
γD , γL the partial safety factors for permanent and traffic action
(1.35 and 1.50 respectively), the ratio R/Rn is obtained as a
parametric value. The nominal value of traffic action, Qn, is
obtained according to the Eurocode 1 (EN 1991-3). The limit
state function:
Z = R – G – Q – D ad = R′ – Q – Dad (7)
is used to obtain the target reliability index defined, being the
target proof load (or the target proof load factor, γPL) the
corresponding variable. In the calculation of the reliability index
corresponding to limit state in Eq. (7), the following values are
considered:
R/Rn ranging from 0.5 to 1.0
●
G is a random variable normally distributed with BIAS=
●
1.05 and COV= 0.10.
The nominal value of G, Gn, can be obtained from the bridge
●
documentation. However, in the case of concrete bridges for
span-lengths from 10 to 35 m, a range of values of Gn
between 0.5 and 3.5 times Qn was considered (Table 4).
Therefore, a range Gn/Qn from 0.5 to 3.5 was investigated.
R is a random variable normally distributed with BIAS =
●
1.12 (reinforced concrete in bending) and COV = 0.14
R' is a random variable normally distributed and truncated in
●
the lower part by the value γPLQn (see Fig. 2), where γPL is the
target proof load factor, which indicates the number of times
that the nominal value of the live load has to be applied in the
bridge during the proof load test. The mean value and
standard deviation of R' is the corresponding to the random
variable R-G.
Q is a Gumbel random variable with a mean value calculated
●
according to Eq. (5) and a COV = 0.20 to take into account
site to site variability of traffic action within the same country.
Dad is a normally distributed random variable with BIAS =
●
1.0 and COV = 0.25. The nominal value corresponds to a 10
cm pavement overlay (density = 23 kN/m3).
Fig. 2. Reliability Model (Load and resistance distributions: Docu-
mentation available)
 Joan R. Casas and Juan D. Gómez

Fig. 3. Target Proof Load Factors for Slovak Traffic (Reliability level = Fig. 4. Target Proof Load Factors for Dutch Traffic (Reliability level
5.0/Span-length = 15 m) = 3.6/Span-length = 25 m)

The results show a very low dependence on the Gn/Qn ratio,
that represents the different bridge types (beams, slab, box-
girder) independent of the ratio R/Rn and the span-length
(Gómez, 2010). As an example, in Figs. 3 and 4 are presented
two cases obtained from the traffic in Slovakia and Holland.
According to this result, the values in Table 4, and the fact that
most concrete bridges are of the type precast girder+upper slab,
the variable G/Q (cross-section type) was eliminated from the
parametric study, adopting in each case the most unfavourable
value in order to get values in the safe side
In Tables 5 to 9 is presented a summary of the results obtained
for all safety levels considered in the study, the span-length in
meters and the ratio R/Rn for the five studied countries. A
complete description of the results can be found in Gómez
(2010). As seen in Table 7, the target proof load factors obtained
for the Dutch traffic are much higher than in the rest of the

Table 5. Target Proof Load Factors for Czech Republic Traffic and Reliability Levels = 2.3, 3.6 and 5.0
β=2.3 β=3.6 β=5.0
Span-length (m) Span-length (m) Span-length (m)
R/Rn R/Rn R/Rn
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35
1.0 - - - - - - 1.0 0.66 0.72 0.81 0.87 0.94 0.95 1.0 1.27 1.33 1.49 1.59 1.67 1.66
0.9 0.08 0.19 0.33 0.38 0.48 0.50 0.9 0.76 0.81 0.92 0.99 1.10 1.11 0.9 1.34 1.40 1.55 1.65 1.71 1.71
0.8 0.48 0.53 0.61 0.66 0.72 0.73 0.8 0.86 0.91 1.04 1.12 1.20 1.20 0.8 1.40 1.45 1.59 1.69 1.75 1.74
0.7 0.59 0.64 0.73 0.78 0.84 0.85 0.7 0.94 1.00 1.12 1.20 1.25 1.26 0.7 1.43 1.48 1.61 1.71 1.77 1.76
0.6 0.67 0.72 0.81 0.87 0.93 0.94 0.6 1.00 1.05 1.16 1.24 1.30 1.29 0.6 1.45 1.50 1.63 1.73 1.78 1.78
0.5 0.73 0.78 0.86 0.93 0.97 0.98 0.5 1.04 1.08 1.18 1.26 1.31 1.31 0.5 1.47 1.51 1.64 1.74 1.78 1.78

Table 6. Target Proof Load Factors for Poland Traffic and Reliability Levels = 2.3, 3.6 and 5.0
β=2.3 β=3.6 β=5.0
Span-length (m) Span-length (m) Span-length (m)
R/Rn R/Rn R/Rn
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35
1.0 - - - - - 0.31 1.0 0.62 0.78 0.94 1.08 1.16 1.17 1.0 1.16 1.47 1.71 1.85 1.89 1.89
0.9 - 0.28 0.45 0.55 0.59 0.61 0.9 0.72 0.89 1.10 1.23 1.28 1.29 0.9 1.25 1.53 1.77 1.89 1.93 1.93
0.8 0.44 0.58 0.69 0.78 0.82 0.84 0.8 0.80 1.01 1.21 1.32 1.36 1.37 0.8 1.31 1.57 1.79 1.91 1.95 1.95
0.7 0.55 0.69 0.82 0.94 0.96 0.98 0.7 0.88 1.10 1.28 1.37 1.40 1.41 0.7 1.35 1.60 1.81 1.93 1.97 1.97
0.6 0.63 0.78 0.92 1.00 1.04 1.05 0.6 0.94 1.14 1.30 1.39 1.43 1.44 0.6 1.37 1.62 1.82 1.94 1.98 1.98
0.5 0.69 0.84 0.96 1.04 1.07 1.09 0.5 0.98 1.17 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.45 0.5 1.39 1.63 1.82 1.95 1.99 1.99

Table 7. Target Proof Load Factors for Dutch Traffic and Reliability Levels = 2.3, 3.6 and 5.0
β=2.3 β=3.6 β=5.0
Span-length (m) Span-length (m) Span-length (m)
R/Rn R/Rn R/Rn
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35
1.0 - - - 0.18 0.38 0.49 1.0 1.34 1.45 1.61 1.74 1.80 1.84 1.0 2.17 2.26 2.43 2.57 2.63 2.67
0.9 0.61 0.70 0.84 1.07 1.16 1.22 0.9 1.45 1.54 1.68 1.80 1.85 1.89 0.9 2.20 2.29 2.45 2.59 2.65 2.69
0.8 0.86 0.98 1.14 1.26 1.31 1.35 0.8 1.51 1.59 1.73 1.84 1.89 1.93 0.8 2.22 2.30 2.47 2.61 2.67 2.72
0.7 1.04 1.12 1.26 1.33 1.37 1.41 0.7 1.55 1.63 1.76 1.86 1.91 1.95 0.7 2.23 2.32 2.46 2.62 2.68 2.73
0.6 1.11 1.18 1.28 1.37 1.41 1.44 0.6 1.57 1.65 1.77 1.88 1.93 1.96 0.6 2.25 2.34 2.48 2.63 2.69 2.73
0.5 1.14 1.20 1.30 1.39 1.44 1.46 0.5 1.59 1.66 1.77 1.89 1.94 1.97 0.5 2.26 2.35 2.48 2.64 2.70 2.74

− 564 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Load Rating of Highway Bridges by Proof-loading

Table 8. Target Proof Load Factors for Slovenian Traffic and Reliability Levels = 2.3, 3.6 and 5.0
β=2.3 β=3.6 β=5.0
Span-length (m) Span-length (m) Span-length (m)
R/Rn R/Rn R/Rn
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35
1.0 - - - - - - 1.0 0.62 0.70 0.79 0.86 0.93 0.94 1.0 1.16 1.30 1.46 1.56 1.65 1.65
0.9 - 0.17 0.31 0.37 0.47 0.50 0.9 0.72 0.80 0.90 0.98 1.08 1.09 0.9 1.25 1.37 1.52 1.62 1.69 1.70
0.8 0.44 0.51 0.59 0.65 0.72 0.73 0.8 0.80 0.89 1.01 1.10 1.18 1.19 0.8 1.31 1.42 1.56 1.66 1.73 1.73
0.7 0.55 0.63 0.71 0.77 0.83 0.84 0.7 0.88 0.98 1.10 1.18 1.24 1.25 0.7 1.35 1.45 1.59 1.69 1.75 1.75
0.6 0.63 0.70 0.79 0.86 0.92 0.93 0.6 0.94 1.03 1.14 1.22 1.28 1.28 0.6 1.37 1.48 1.61 1.71 1.77 1.76
0.5 0.69 0.76 0.85 0.92 0.96 0.98 0.5 0.98 1.06 1.16 1.25 1.30 1.30 0.5 1.39 1.49 1.62 1.72 1.79 1.77

Table 9. Target Proof Load Factors for Slovakian Traffic and Reliability Levels = 2.3, 3.6 and 5.0
β=2.3 β=3.6 β=5.0
Span-length (m) Span-length (m) Span-length (m)
R/Rn R/Rn R/Rn
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35
1.0 - - - - - - 1.0 0.71 0.74 0.88 0.97 1.04 1.10 1.0 1.37 1.42 1.62 1.73 1.78 1.82
0.9 0.15 0.19 0.40 0.49 0.54 0.58 0.9 0.82 0.84 1.02 1.14 1.19 1.24 0.9 1.44 1.49 1.67 1.77 1.82 1.86
0.8 0.51 0.53 0.66 0.72 0.77 0.80 0.8 0.92 0.95 1.14 1.23 1.28 1.32 0.8 1.49 1.53 1.70 1.80 1.85 1.88
0.7 0.63 0.65 0.78 0.85 0.90 0.94 0.7 1.01 1.05 1.20 1.29 1.33 1.37 0.7 1.52 1.56 1.76 1.83 1.87 1.90
0.6 0.72 0.74 0.88 0.94 0.99 1.02 0.6 1.07 1.10 1.24 1.32 1.36 1.39 0.6 1.54 1.58 1.74 1.84 1.89 1.92
0.5 0.78 0.80 0.92 0.99 1.03 1.06 0.5 1.10 1.12 1.26 1.34 1.38 1.41 0.5 1.55 1.59 1.76 1.85 1.89 1.93

Table 10.Target Proof Load Factors of Concrete Bridges in Bending Proposed for CEEC as Function of Actual Resistance and Span-
length (Reliability index β = 2.3, 3.6 and 5.0)
β=2.3 β=3.6 β=5.0
Span-length (m) Span-length (m) Span-length (m)
R/Rn R/Rn R/Rn
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35
1.0 - - -- - 0.31 1.0 0.71 0.78 0.94 1.08 1.16 1.17 1.0 1.37 1.47 1.71 1.85 1.89 1.89
0.9 0.15 0.28 0.45 0.55 0.59 0.61 0.9 0.82 0.89 1.10 1.23 1.28 1.29 0.9 1.44 1.53 1.77 1.89 1.93 1.93
0.8 0.51 0.58 0.69 0.78 0.82 0.84 0.8 0.92 1.01 1.21 1.32 1.36 1.37 0.8 1.49 1.57 1.79 1.91 1.95 1.95
0.7 0.63 0.69 0.82 0.94 0.96 0.98 0.7 1.01 1.10 1.28 1.37 1.40 1.41 0.7 1.52 1.60 1.81 1.93 1.97 1.97
0.6 0.72 0.78 0.92 1.00 1.04 1.05 0.6 1.07 1.14 1.30 1.39 1.43 1.44 0.6 1.54 1.62 1.82 1.94 1.98 1.98
0.5 0.78 0.84 0.96 1.04 1.07 1.09 0.5 1.10 1.17 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.45 0.5 1.55 1.63 1.82 1.95 1.99 1.99

countries, due to the presence of exceptional non-escorted

vehicles in the traffic flow.
The analysis of results presented in Tables 5, 6, 8 and 9,
corresponding to the traffic characteristics in CEEC are used to
derive global factors representative of CEEC conditions as
presented in Table 10.

4.2 Bridge Documentation Not Available

The same limit state function (Eq. 7) is used for the calibration
of the target proof load factor. However, because in this case the
nominal value of the variable R' = R-G can not be evaluated due
to the lack of information, it is assumed that it corresponds to the
target value achieved in the proof test: γPLQn (Fig. 5). The
methodology is similar to the one presented in Eq. (4) where all
variables are assumed Normally distributed. However, this is not
the case of the present study, where the traffic action is considered
as Gumbel distributed, what makes necessary an iterative
procedure to obtain the target proof load factor, γPL, as a function
of the target reliability index β assumed. The characteristics of the
rest of variables assumed in the present study are the same as for
Fig. 5. Reliability Model (Load and resistance distributions: Docu-
mentation not available)
the case of bridge documentation available. The values presented
in Table 11(a to f) were obtained for the considered countries.
According to the small differences obtained for the 4 CEEC
(Czchec Republic, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia), the values in
Table 11(f) are recommended as representative of the traffic
conditions in these countries.

Vol. 17, No. 3 / April 2013 − 565 −

 Joan R. Casas and Juan D. Gómez

Table 11. Proposed Target Proof Load Factors for Non-documented Bridges
a. Czech traffic conditions b. Polish traffic conditions c. Slovenian traffic conditions
Span length β Span length β Span length β
(m) 2.3 3.6 5.0 (m) 2.3 3.6 5.0 (m) 2.3 3.6 5.0
10 0.79 1.07 1.49 10 0.75 1.02 1.41 10 0.75 1.02 1.42
15 0.84 1.12 1.54 15 0.89 1.20 1.65 15 0.82 1.11 1.51
20 0.92 1.21 1.66 20 1.01 1.36 1.85 20 0.90 1.20 1.64
25 0.98 1.29 1.76 25 1.08 1.4 1.97 25 0.97 1.2 1.74
30 1.01 1.33 1.81 30 1.11 1.46 2.00 30 1.00 1.31 1.77
35 1.02 1.34 1.82 35 1.12 1.48 2.01 35 1.02 1.33 1.79

d. Slovak traffic conditions e. Dutch traffic conditions f. CEEC countries

Span length β Span length β Span length β
(m) 2.3 3.6 5.0 (m) 2.3 3.6 5.0 (m) 2.3 3.6 5.0
10 0.83 1.13 1.57 10 1.18 1.61 2.25 10 0.83 1.13 1.57
15 0.89 1.19 1.64 15 1.23 1.67 2.33 15 0.89 1.20 1.65
20 0.97 1.29 1.77 20 1.33 1.80 2.51 20 1.01 1.36 1.85
25 1.03 1.36 1.87 25 1.40 1.91 2.64 25 1.08 1.44 1.97
30 1.06 1.40 1.91 30 1.45 1.95 2.70 30 1.11 1.46 2.00
35 1.09 1.44 1.95 35 1.49 1.99 2.75 35 1.12 1.48 2.01

5. Conclusions 16332 are highly acknowledged.

Proof load testing has been proved as very efficient in the
capacity assessment of existing bridges. The target proof load to
be introduced in the bridge during the test can be evaluated on
the basis of reliability theory as many variables involved are of
random nature. The target proof load can be obtained as the
nominal traffic load described in the Code of actions multiplied
by a so-called target proof load factor. In the present study, the
Code considered was the Eurocode 1. In order to get values of
the target proof load factor representative for several countries
from Central and Eastern Europe to facilitate the execution of
such tests, actual traffic data is mandatory. The paper shows how
the traffic data from 5 European countries, obtained via WIM,
has been used to propose a set of target proof load factors
applicable to the existing bridge in those countries or in a group
of them. In order to be general, they are based on the most heavy
traffic conditions that can be encountered. Therefore, the
proposed target proof load factors may become too conservative
for many bridges located in local or secondary roads that will
never experience such level of loading. For this reason, additionally,
the paper presents a simplified method that with very common
traffic data easily recordable by WIM systems may predict
accurately the most critical traffic actions for any specific bridge
under assessment. The paper shows a simple method, based in
figures and tables, that helps to calculate the target load to be
introduced in a proof load test for bridge assessment.
Acknowledgements
The financial support provided by the European Commission
through ARCHES Project and the Spanish Ministry of Education
through grants INNPACTO-IPT-370000-2010-29 and BIA2010-
References
AASHTO LRFR (2003). Guide manual for condition evaluation and
Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) of highway bridges,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, USA.
Anitori, G., Casas, J. R., and Ghosn, M. (2011). “Reliability and
redundancy of bridge systems under lateral loads.” Proc. ASCE
Structures Congress, Las Vegas, USA.
Anitori, G., Casas, J. R., and Ghosn, M. (2013). “Redundancy and
robustness in the design and evaluation of bridges: European and
north american perspectives.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE
(Submitted).
Anitori, G., Casas, J. R., Ghosn, M., and Jurado, S. (2012). “Enhancement
of bridge redundancy to lateral loads by FRP strengthening.” Proc.
6th International conference on bridge maintenance, Safety and
Management, IABMAS’ 12. Stresa, Italy.
ARCHES-D08 (2009). Recommendations on the use of results of
monitoring on bridge safety assessment and maintenance, Deliverable
D08 [On line]. ARCHES Project. VI EU Framework Program.
Brussels. [cited 16 Feb, 2010], Available from Internet: <http://
arches.fehrl.org >.
ARCHES-D10 (2009). Recommendations on dynamic amplification
allowance, Deliverable D10 [On line]. ARCHES Project. VI EU
Framework Program. Brussels. [cited 16 Feb, 2010], Available from
Internet: <http://arches.fehrl.org >.
ARCHES-D16 (2009). Recommendations on the use of soft, diagnostic
and proof load testing, Deliverable D16 [On line]. ARCHES
Project. VI EU Framework Program. Brussels. [cited 16 Feb, 2010],
Available from Internet: <http://arches.fehrl.org >.
ARCHES (2009). ARCHES Newsletter, [On line]. ARCHES Project. VI
EU Framework Program. Brussels. [cited 16 Feb, 2010], Available
from Internet: <http://arches.fehrl.org >.
BRIME (2001). Guidelines for assessing load carrying capacity-
deliverable D10, Bridge Management in Europe-IV EU Framework

− 566 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Load Rating of Highway Bridges by Proof-loading
Program. Brussels
Casas, J. R. (2000). “Permit vehicle routing using reliability-based
evaluation procedures.” Transportation Research Record, 1696, Vol.
2, pp. 150-157.
Casas, J. R. (2010). “Assessment and monitoring of existing bridges to
avoid unnecessary strengthening or replacement.” Proc. 5th
International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and
Management, IABMAS’ 10. Ed. by Dan M. Frangopol, Richard
Sause and Chad S. Kusko, Philadelphia, USA.
Casas, J. R. and Wisniewski, D. (2011). “Safety requirements and
probabilistic models of resistance in the assessment of existing
railway bridges.” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/15732479.2011.581673.
Cavaco, E., Casas, J. R., Neves, L. A., and Huespe, A. E. (2013).
“Robustness of Corroded Reinforced Concrete Structures. A structural
performance approach.” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol.
9, No. 1, pp. 42-58, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2010.515597.
Cavaco, E., Neves, L. A., Gonçalves, R., and Casas, J. R. (2011). “A
reliability-based measure of robustness for concrete structures
subjected to corrosion.” Proc. 11th International Conference on
Application of Statistic and Probability in Civil Engineering,
ICASP-11. Zürich, Switzerland.
COST 345 (2004). Procedures required for assessing highway structures-
numerical techniques for safety and serviceability assessment,
European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical
Research, Brussels.
DAfStb (2000). DAfStb-Richtlinie: Belastungsversuche an Betonbauwerken.
Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Berlin (in German).
CEN (2003). EN 1991-2. Eurocode 1: Basis of design and actions on
Structures-Part 2: Traffic loads on Bridges, Brussels.
Getachew, A. and O´Brien, E. (2007). “Simplified site-specific load models
for bridge assessment.” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 3,
No. 4, pp. 303-311, DOI: 10.1080/15732470500424245.
Ghosn, M. and Casas, J. R. (1996). “Evaluation of existing highway
bridge systems.” Monograph CIMNE-30, Barcelona: International
Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering.
Ghosn, M. and Moses, F. (1984). A comprehensive study of bridge loads
and reliability, Report No. FHWA-OH-85-005, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., USA.
Gómez, J. D. (2010). Structural assessment through proof load testing
of existing bridges, application to road bridges in Europe. PhD
Thesis (In Spanish), Department of Construction Engineering, UPC,
Barcelona, Spain, p. 382.
Gómez, J. D. and Casas, J. R. (2008). “Assessment of bridge capacity
Vol. 17, No. 3 / April 2013 − 567 −
through proof load testing.” Proc. 4th International Conference on
Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management, IABMAS’ 08. Ed.
by Hyun-Moo Koh and Dan M. Frangopol, Seoul, Korea.
Gómez, J. D. and Casas, J. R. (2010). “Target proof load factor for
highway bridge assessment in Central and Eastern European
Countries (CEEC).” Proc. 5th International conference on bridge
maintenance, Safety and Management, IABMAS’ 10. Ed. by Dan
M. Frangopol, Richard Sause and Chad S. Kusko. Philadelphia,
USA.
ISIS (2001). Guidelines for structural health monitoring-design manual
N. 2, Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures, Canada.
Minervino, C., Sivakumar, B., Moses, F., Mertz, D., and Edberg, W.
(2004). “New AASHTO guide manual for load and resistance factor
rating of highway bridges.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 9,
No.1, pp. 43-54.
Moses, F., Lebet, J. P., and Bez, R. (1994). “Applications of field testing
to bridge evaluation.” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 120,
No. 6, pp. 1746-1762.
Nowak, A. and Collins, K. (2000). Reliability of structures, McGraw-
Hill Science, Boston.
Rodrigues, F., Casas, J. R., and Almeida, P. (2011). “Fatigue-safety
assessment of RC bridges. Application to the Brazilian highway
network.” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/
15732479.2011.598939.
SAMARIS (2006). State of the art report on assessment of structures in
selected EEA and CE countries-Deliverable D19, Sustainable and
Advanced Materials for Road Infrastructures, V EU Framework
Program, Brussels.
Sivakumar, B., Ghosn, M., and Moses, F. (2009). Protocols for
collecting and using traffic data in bridge design, NCHRP Project
12-76, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., USA.
Sustainable Bridges-SB-9.2 (2007). Overall project guide, Sustainable
Bridges, VI EU Framework Program, Brussels.
Sustainable Bridges-SB-LRA (2007). Guideline for load and resistance
assessment of railway bridges-advices on the use of advanced
methods, Sustainable Bridges, VI EU Framework Program, Brussels.
Wisniewski, D., Casas, J. R., and Ghosn, M. (2009a). “Simplified
probabilistic non-linear assessment of existing railway bridges.”
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 439-453,
DOI: 10.1080/1573247070/639906.
Wisniewski, D., Casas, J. R., Henriques, A., and Cruz, P. (2009b).
“Probability based assessment of existing concrete bridges. Stochastic
resistance models and applications.” Structural Engineering International,
Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 203-210, DOI: 10.2749/101686609788220268.