Indian Roads Congress Special Publication 37

\ GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION .OF LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF BRIDGES

Published by:

The Indian Roads Congress

Copies can be had from

The Secretary, Indian Roads Congress, Jamnagar House, Shahjahan Road, New oeu.noou

NEW DELHI 1991

Price Rs IiiQJ'(KJ (Plus packing & postage charges)

Published in June. 1991

MEMBERS OF TH~ BRIDGES SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE

(The Rights oj Publication and Translation are reserved)

I. Ninan Koshi
(Convenor)
2. MK Mukherjee
(Member-Secretary)
3. S.R Aggarwal
4. CR. Alimchandani
5. Dr. AS. Arya
6. L.S. Bassi
7. M.K Bhagwagar
8. P.e. Bhasin
9. AG. Borkar
10. S.P. Chakrabarti
11. S.S. Chakraborty
12. Dr. P. Ray Chaudhuri
13. AN. Choudhury
14. N.N. Chatterjee
15. .B.1. Dave
16. Dharm Vir
17. Dharm Pal
18. Achyut Ghosh
19. P.S. Gokhale
20. D.T. Grover
21. P. Kanakaratnam
22. V. Krishnarnurthy
23. AK La! Edited and Published by Shri D.P. Gupta, Secretary, Indian Roads Congress, Printed at Sagar Printers & Publishers, New Delhi

(2000 copies)

... Addl. Director General (Bridges), Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi

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

Director, Research Designs & Standards Organisation, Lucknow

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

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

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

Consulting Engineer, Engg. Consultants Pvt, Ltd, New Delhi

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

... Chief, Transport & Communications Division, BMRDA, Bombay

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

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

148, Sidhartha Enclave, New Delhi

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

Chief Engineer PWD (Roads), Directorate, West Bengal

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

Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), HIG-A-377, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016

Engineer-in-Chid. HP. PWD. Shimla

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

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

.. , Chief Engineer (H&RW), Tamil Nadu

Chief Engineer, PWD NH, Kamataka Engineer-in-Chlef-cum-Spl. Secy, PWD, Road Cons tn. Deptt, Patna

24. CB. Mathur

25. N.V. Merani

26. Dr. AK Mullick

27. P.Y. Naik

28. G. Raman

29. Dr. T.N. Subba Rao

30. Dr. G.P. Saha

31. M.V. Sastry

32. S. Seetharaman

33. RP. Sikka

34. 1.S. Sodhi

35. KB. Sarkar

36. B.V. Subramanyam

37. N.C Saxena

38. Dr. M.G. Tamhankar

39. Mahesh Tandon

40. The Director

... Chief Engineer & Add!. Secy., Rajasthan PWD B&R. Jaipur

... Principal Secretary to the Govt of Maharashtra PWD, Bombay

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

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

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

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

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

... Chief Engineer(Bridges)(Retd.). H-Block, Flat No. 33A DDA Self Financing Scheme. Saket, New Delhi-I 10017

... Add!. Director General (Roads). Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi

... Chief Engineer (Retd.), 546/Sector-16. Chandigarh ... Chief Engineer (Bridges). Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing). New Delhi

... Chief Engineer (Design) CP.WD .. Central Design Organisation, New Delhi

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

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

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

Highways Research Station. Guindy, Madras

FORE WARD

The Indian Roads Congress had brought out the Special Publication No.9 on Rating of Bridges in 1972. In view of the latest revisions in the codal provisions, revised Motor Vehicle Act 1995 and review of International practices, the Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Committee finalised the Guidelines on Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges superseding the Special Publication No.9. The draft was approved by the Council in December, 1990.

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

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

New Delhi, Apri11991.

(KK. SARIN)

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

41. The President ... Indian Roads Congress (V.P. Kamdar), Secretary to

the Govt of Gujarat, P.W.D. - Ex-officio

42. The Director General... (Road Development) & Add!. Secretary to the Govt,

of.India (KK Sarin) - Ex-officio

43. The Secretary

44. Dr. K Rajagopalan

45. Dr. V.K Raina

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

Corresponding Members

... Indian Institute of Technology, P.O. : lIT, Madras ... United Nations Expert in Civil Engg. (B&S), Clo U.N.D.P. P.B. No. 558, Riyadh-I 1421 (Saudi Arabia)

GVW FAW RAW AXR Mcap Vcap '1

MDL VDL MLL

VLL

MLL VLL L WIM ODC

LEGEND

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weight-in-Motion

Over dimensioned Consignment

I. Introduction

2. Scope

3. Assessment of Condition of Bridge

4. Traffic Factors

5. Rating Methodology

6. Load Testing

7. Bridge Posting

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

9. Bibliography

TABLES

Table I. Bridge Rating Systems

Table 2. Safe Axle Load for RCC Slab Bridges APPENDICES

Appendix I Appendix 2

Permissible Stresses in Different Materials ... Ultimate Strength of Sections and Serviceability Conditions

Factors to be Considered While Rating Existing Steel Bridges

Factors for Rating Masonry Arch Bridges ...

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

Page 1 3 4

8

16 32 37 42 43

18 32

44 45

48

50

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF BRIDGES

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. A Bridge Maintenance & Rehabilitation Committee (B-10) was constituted by the Indian Roads Congress in January 1988 in order to look into the various aspects, policies and guidelines for the general subject of bridge maintenance and rehabilitation The above Committee after detailed deliberations, decided to set up three subcommittees to prepare drafts of guidelines on the following subjects:

(i) Inspection and maintenance of bridges

(ii) Evaluation of load carrying capacity of bridges

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

The personnel of the Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Committee (B-10) is given below:

N.V. Merani

... Convenor

AG. Borkar

... Member-Secretary

Members

CiR. Alimchandani P.e. Bhasin

S.S. Chakraborty B.J. Dave

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

RK Mathur AD. Narain M.G. Prabhu

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

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

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

Rep. of West Bengal PWD (A. Mukherjee)

Director, HRS, Madras

Ex-officio

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

Corresponding Members

M.R Vinayak Rep. of National Council

Rep. of Structural for Cement and Building

Engg. Research Centre Materials

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

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

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

S.S. Chakraborty

Dr. P. Ray Chaudhury B.1. Dave

M.S. Kapla

A.D. Narain

M.V.B. Rao

B.v. Gururaj

... Convenor ... Member ... Member ... Member ... Member ... Member ... Member

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

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

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

Further the Guidelines were considered and approved by the Bridges Specifications and Standards Committee in their meeting held at New Delhi on the 7th and 8th November, 1990 subject to certain modifications. Later on the modified guidelines were approved by the Executive Committee and the Council in their meetings held at New Delhi and Calcutta on the 18th November, 1990 and 8th December, 1990 respectively.

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

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

(i) subsequent revisions in the codal provisions

2

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

The present guidelines would supersede the IRC Special Publication 9 entitled "Report on Rating of Bridges", 1986.

2. SCOPE

2.1. Objective of these guidelines on evaluation of load carrying capacity of bridges is as follows:

(a) to establish a common procedure for assessing the strength and specify methods of evaluating the safe permissible load carrying capacity or rating of the existing bridges including load testing methods

(b) to establish a common procedure for posting of structurally deficient bridges

These procedures are meant to serve only as a guide. They are intended for use for the type of bridges as mentioned in para 2.2 below. Large and unusual structures require special study and consideration?f even secondary and other effects which may normally be neglected m simple structures while assessing their strength and do not fa~l within the scope of these criteria. These guidelines are also not apphcable to timber bridges.

Rating of a bridge will be essential when:

(a) the design live load is less than that of the heaviest statutory commercial vehicle plying or likely to ply on the bridge

(b) the design live load is not known nor are the records and drawings available

(c) if during the inspections (routine. principal, special) any bridge is found to indicate distress of serious nature leading to doubt about structural and/or functional adequacy.

The rating of a bridge is a complex procedure involving subjective decisions in certain cases. As such, it will be carried out by bridge engineers with adequate experience and/or knowledge on the subject

2.2. Classification of Bridges

The following types of bridges are covered under these guidelines: (i) Simply supported spans

(ii) Cantilever with suspended spans and

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

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

3

3. ASSESSMENT OF CONDITION OF BRIDGE

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

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

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

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

3.2. Data Needed for Assessment

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

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

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

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

(iv) in-situ strength of materials

(v) hydraulic data covering scour, HFL. afflux, erosi~n .at a?utme~ts variation if any in ground water table arising out of new irrigation projects or any

other reason.

(vi) effectiveness and condition of ~tructural joints viz. bolted, rivetted and welded connections for steel bndges

(vii) condition of expansion joints. bearings and articulations hinges

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

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

3.3. Collection of Data

To the extent available, following documents are to be procured:

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

(i) contract drawings, updated to reflect as built details

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

assumptions on which the original design was based

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

(v) post-construction inspection and maintenance reports

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

and

(viii) Seismic and environmental data

3.4. Preliminary Assessment

Preliminary assessement of the structural condition can be ~ade by ob&erving for visible deterioration in the form of large de~ect1ons and/or extensive cracking, and spalling of concrete. In such distressed bridges, there will normally be time .for a preli~inary assessment of the distress and its reduced load carrying capacity,

For proper assessment of the structural capacity, its vertical profile survey should be conducted on the deck level both on the u~stream and downstream sides of the carriageway and plotted on a suitable scale. This may be carried out once in a month or two ~onths a~d profiles . compared in order to detect indication of in_crease in deflection or any unusual break in the profile. This has been discussed further under para

5

4

3.9. herei?after. The movement of the expansionjG-ints (both horizontal and verncal) should, likewise, be monitored from time to time.

A st~dy of d.rawings and calculations (where available or prepared ~y t~e ratm? engineer based on site measurements) together with an inSItu mspechon would generally give indication whether the structural component has b~en overloaded or whether reserves are still available. Wh~re necessary, Immediate. measures should be taken to complete the detaI~ed assessment and decide upo~ the Various options available e.g. deratmg, closure, replacement, repair; strengthening or no action.

3.5. Detailed Assessment

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

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

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

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

3.6. Techniques of Inspection and Testing

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

The possible assessment methods and tests for such cases have been indicated in Appendices-7 & 8 of IRC: SP-3S.

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

3.7. Assessment of Strength of Materials

In-situ testing or sampling normally produc~ r~s~lts with s~me degree of divergence due to various reasons (viz. variability of matenals, concrete batching etc.).

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

Cutting of samples for assessing the material stre~gth of concrete or steel members should be carried out only when essential as, such sampling entails some risks to the structure. Samples cut .from steel structures may lead to fatigue weakness while cores dnlled 10. weak concrete, members may' act as crack inducers. Therefore, such. w_ork should be carried out under close supervision and only after obtaining ~pproval fr?m the Design Engineer with respect to the location and details of samphng proposed.

3.8. Sectional Areas of Structural Members and Location of Reinforcement and Tendons

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

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

(ii) Study of existing documents - this should include all the documents as mentioned under para 3.3. hereinabove.

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

(iv) Assessment of behaviour of the structure under dynamic loading e.g. excessive vibrations and amplitude.

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

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

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

6

7

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

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

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

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

3.10. Full Scale Load Test on Bridges

This has been dealt with separately in para 6.

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

4.2. Review of Axle and Vehicle Weights

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

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

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

6.0 tonnes 10.2 tonnes 19.0 tonnes

4. TRAFFIC FACTORS

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

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

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

Thereafter, the maximum safe laden weight is determined by the combination of single axle, with two or four tyres, and tandem axles. A four-axle semi-articulated vehicle. comprising a tractor with two tyres on the front axle and four tyres on the rear and a trailer having tandem axle with eight tyres on the rear could carry a maximum 01'35.2 tonnes. This has been shown in Fig. I.

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

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

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

8

9

1. STANDARD TRUCK (TATA LPT 1210/32)

MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE

... ---...... WEIGHT GVW

~ ql 16.2 TONNES

~t 3.20 i~ ® ~

2. HEAVY TRUCK (TAURUS 2ST/46)

25 TONNES

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

35.2 TONNES

7.25

o

INDICATES PERCENTAGE OF WEIGHT PER AXLE (All Dimensions in metres)

Fig. 1 • Commercial vehicles predominantly operating in India

10

1~1 ~~~~~~

~

~~8~;:Eo;: - ,...;,...;~...;...;"';

£ , j E ~§~~ ~~
~ s
j , E c ;§§§~§
; ~ S
Ii " E " ~~S~~~
~ ~ E. 11

>
0
s
1; ;ti.
'""
~ J: .s
'" o
... ~ 2~1
0
z
Q
o
z
..,
:I:
'"
"'
>
0 I:l
~
g
E ?;
...
:I: "
,.. o
o ~
z
"'
..J
Q
"'
"'
Q '$
.., §
3 "
"' t;
~ z
w
.... _,
'" "' :l ::;:
e; '" ~
:I: ::;:
~ " w
0 ~ ""
.... '"
L:JW Z
"'- 0
.... '" Vi
z< z
we; w
vI.<. ::;:
~O 15
..J
X
"
....
z
0
f: w o ...J Z

- - - ~

'" u

12

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

of transportation.

In view of the present modernisation of the commercial vehicle fleet in India, there is likelihood of increase in the GVW of these vehicles, It is necessary that the standard commercial vehicles and their GVW, RAW and FA Was depicted in Fig. 1 be updated at a regular intervals of, say every 5 years. However, if the GVW of a rigid body 2 axle truck is known, the RAW and FAW may be evaluated based on an empirical relationship for the FAW/RA W ratio (i.e. Axle Weight Ratio,

AXR) as shown in Fig. 4.

,.9 , ·8 ,·7 .,·6

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

REGRESSION RELATIONSHIP BASED ON 1631 AXLE WEIGHT OBSERVATIONS:

AXR = 1.86 (RAW·O.6)

0·5

o.~~~~~::::~~====!

0.3 1 10 " '2 13 ,~ 15 16 17 18 19 ZO

REAR AXLE WEIGHT TONNES (RAW)

Fig. 4 • Regression relationship for axle weight ratio

13

4.3. Vehicle Dimensions

(a) Height

According to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the maximum height for vehicle oth7r than a d~uble~decker. is 3.8 metres, unless it is carrying an ISO series I Freight Con tamer, m which case the height must not exceed 4.2 metres. A double-decker vehicle must not exceed 4.75 metres.

(b) Width

A public service vehicle or transport vehicle other than a motor cab must

not exceed 2.5 metres in width. '

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

4.5. Traffic Composition

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

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

(c) Length

A rigid truck must not exceed 11 metres. On routes or in areas approved by the .State Government, buses may go upto 12 metres in length. Articulated vehicles must not exceed .16 metres, whereas truck/trailer combinations have a maximum limit of 18 metres.

. .

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

manual counts and static weighingofa small-sample ofvehic1es(1O percent of 'vehicles of any particular category)

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

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

(b)

(a)

4.4. Speed Limits and Overload Factor

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

50 kmph for semi-articulated vehicles; and 40 krnph for truck/trailer combinations

. There is a wide va~ety of vehicles currently using highways. A re~Iew of the data re?ardmg the heavy commercial vehicles currently ?emg manufactured m the country reveals that vehicle manufacturers m general follow the limitations of glioss vehicle weight as laid down in the !"10t~r Vehicle Act It ha.s h?wever, been noted that overloading of vehicles ~s a common .p~achce ill the trucking industry. The extent of overl?admg of 2 axle rigid vehicles in the general freight market is comparahvely ~ore than multi-axle rigid vehicles. The result of abrief survey conducted ~n the country, revealed that the minimum charge for a full truck ~oad IS quoted for 12 tonnes payload as against 10 tonnes rated capacity and the carriage ofload upto 14 tonnes is quite common while upt? 16 to~n~s on certain National and State Highways network in the plain terrain IS frequently practised. As per survey conducted by OECD, over1o~ds commonly observed for road trains in the OECD member countnes m~y b~ upto 20 per cent Studies conducted in various parts of the country indicate that the extent of overloading may be quite high. However. for the purpose of these guidelines, an average overload of 25 per cent over the registered GVW has been catered for. An overload factor

(c)

4.6. Review of Existing IRC Design Live Loads

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

14

15

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

.A c?mparative survey of the IRC loadings vis-a-vis design loadings m other developed countries, indicates that IRC loadings appear to be the heaviest for single lane traffic. However, they are lighter than those of the French, West Germany, Japanese and the HA loadings of BS when two lanes are considered.

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

5. RATING METHODOLOGY

5.2.1. Loads: The loads used by various countries for rating pur-

poses, are of three types:

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

(iii) specific loads for rating purposes only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2. Review of Global Practices

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

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

16

17

I<l
....
=
;:;; ~
~
~
'"
Ol)
.S
..
..:
~
'i3
'"
0
..J
Ol)
.S
..
I>:i 18

o

Z

o

Z

o Z

o

Z

o Z

~ ~

.~

~

~ e "iii .g

" u e = 0'" en ~

o Z

o

Z

o

Z

.~ o

~
" " .\!
" E ODe
e ].g~ ~ ..
~ .0;, oj a
" ,., c .!! a:t u t';S ee
Q.,.D U .!!
OD'" ~ OJ ]~~a ~
c " ·n
.g E :g " C C c: c '0
1>:i.E ee ~ ll808 z
:!! 2 tl :!! ~ ~ ~ :!! tl
~ .!!
i;l ti !!l i;l c =",
S oJ: =g.; " ~ g
6 '" c'" \'l e
;:,..!.l " o oj 0-.0-= ~ e..J
.D e ".2 e (.! 'i ... 00 i;l
~ " '" ~ ~ -e ~c~:5 -0 ~
c::::": C ee C
'" ~ "1l " "1l 4) 55 S ca " "1l u
s::; ti: e 0 ti: e ·c 'Vi ..2 ~ ti: e
oj u -e " o

_ '"

" '"

.~ .2

..J_

So~

.~ ..J

o 0

::E
z 00
~ ~O
Z 0 f-l) ..:
:;;:: UJ ~~
~ '"
Q., ;:,
'" '"
19 Tabl~ I fur~ishes a comparative osition of . .

tern used m various countries of the world. the bndge rating sys-

5.3. RatingSystems

The following three t

bridge structures: sys ems may be followed for rating of

(i) Anal~ical Method - applicable when the -br . .

specifications folIowed are availabl vh uilt or contr~ct'drawlngs and

db' e or w en such drawings can b

pare . y Site measurement to an acceptable lev I f e premasonry or com osite brid e 0 accuracy (e.g. for steel

drawings shall b~ verified a7e:i~e.In any case correctness of the available

(ii) Load Testing Method - applicable when n ' ..

specifications originally followed are availablo con~ructlOn dra';lngs and possible to be obtained fromsite Guid li f e or~ en such details are not vided in para 6. . I e mes or this method have been pro-

(iii) Correlation Method - In certain ca fb .

ascertain the safe carrying capacity se; th ndge structures, it is possible to tional details of the structure wit I 0 e ~truc!ure by correlating the sectional details whose s f . h those o.f.ldentlcalspecifications and sec-

a e carrymg CapaCIties are known.

Even in this case, it is necessary to know th . .

structures vis-a-vis the details f th e actual details of the existing capacities are known so tha 0 ose structures whose safe carrying if the physical condi'tion 0: f:~~e~ :sse~smehnt b~ corre!a tion can be made

n ge IS ot erwise satisfactory.

5.4. Analytical Method of Bridge Rating

5.4.1. Loads for rating:

. (I) Dead Loads: Dead load of the structure shall .

::l~~a~:s~l1s~ructure p~us attachments thereto. The u~~~~~~tt~~ e assume as set forth in Clause 205 of IRC: 6-1966.

I (19 Live Loads: The different live loads to be consid d for eva uatlOn of load carrying capacity of a bridge will include ~re

design live loads as per IRe 6-1966 (fo ti

. r ra mg purpose)

presently allowed commercial v hi I

(Refer Fig. I) for posting purpo:e. IC es as per current Motor Vehicle Act

Bridges should not be rated . for an b

dimensioned consignment but should b y a no.rmal loads ?r overseparately on a case-to-case basis. e examined for then safety

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

20

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

(IV) Impact

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

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

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

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

(V) Horizontal Forces

(i) For the purpose of rating of bridge superstructure covered by the guidelines. all horizontal forces may be neglected.

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

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

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

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

(iii) Wind Forces - Wind effects will be duly considered but wind and seismic forces will not be considered simultaneously. Wind pressures will be in

accordance with IRC: 6-1966. .

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

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

For the combination of forces/stressesdue to different effects, the

21

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

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

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

(i) Standard and Heavy Trucks - A closer spacing of vehicles in urban areas (particularly in congested traffic situation) is a frequent possibility. However, urban traffic is mixed and slow. For such cases previous studies and experience indicate that it would be appropriate to consider the entire bridge deck loaded with series of standard or heavy trucks in a single lane with a clear nose to tail spacing of half the overall length of the truck

(ii) Articulated Vehicles - As these multi-axle vehicles resembles those under IRC Class A train of vehicles (and the probability of occurrence of a congested situation with series of such vehicles, all with maximum payload is extremely low), the clear nose to tail spacing for such vehicles will be considered same as those in IRC: 6- I 966. which is I iI.5 m. A single lane of such vehicles would be considered on the deck and no other simultaneous vehicular load will be taken.

CLEAR CARRIAGEWAY WIDTH ~

I • 1

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

i.:ill. __ ,ill. ,_:w._J_,wlfbr

Fig. S ; Minimum clearance of vehicles

, f exi f bridges' For working

5 4 5 Allowable stresses for ratmg 0 eXIS mg . . h hi h

.. : . h llowable stresses to be considered will be t e tg er

stress design, tea b I' it d to the value prescribed under (c),

value of (a) and (b), ut inn e

as follows:

Allowable stresses considered in original con!ract. documents such as

(a) original design calculations and technical speCificatIOns

(b) As provided in Appendix-l.

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

investigations

5 4 6 Design method: Either the working stress method o~ loa~

. . . b used for the computation based on the option 0

factor method may e . f. und that load factor method may

the ratin~ engineer. It h:S ofte~ ~e~; t~e structure than that provided by allow a h~gher load to the c:r;~erefore. caution is needed in doing this the working stress me ki . the older design and a complete re-

. th re may be wea nesses m di .

since e h Id b done before any upgra mg 1S

calculation of the structure s ou e

d~d ,

d to be followed for the assessment of ultimate

The proce ure . b T condition to be catered for,

strength of ~ections and the servlt~arll:~fumished in Appendix 2. For while adoptmg the load factor me oo,

23

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

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

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

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

Clear Carriageway Width

g

f

5.5 m to 7.5 m

Uniformly increasing 150 mm for all from 0.4 m to 1.2 m carriageway widths

22

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

1.I for dead load where its effect is additive to that of live load 1.0 for dead load where its effect is opposite to that of live load 1.8 for live load including its impact effects; and

1.0 for both dead and live loads while checking for the serviceability conditions to be catered for.

5.5. Steps to be followed for Analytical Methods (for superstructures only) - All the steps are explained in detail below.

Compute moment and shear resisting capacity of the section at selected critical locations (defined as Mcap & V cap respectively).

Based on assessment of condition of the bridge (para 2). decide about the reduction factor (11) to be applied for the net effective strength of the

sect~on. This, obviously, will be a subjective assessment by the rating engineer based on detailed condition evaluation made at site on a given date.

Compute effect (moment and shear) of all loads other than live loads at the same selected critical section as considered in Step I (defined as MDL and VDL respectively).

Compute MLL and VLL (Net Resisting Capacity minus effect due to all loads other than live loads) at the same selected critical sections as in

Step 1.

Compute the m~ximum possible effect MLL and YLL (moment and shear) on the bndge due to standard IRC loading as per IRC: 6-1966.

Section II (latest revision) including impact effects. For rating of all bridges on national highways, following standard loads will be considered, stipulations for number of loaded lanes will be as inIRC: 6- 1966 (Section II)

- Class AA tracked and wheeled

- Class A

- Class 70R, 6OR, 50R, 4OR, 30R, 24R, 18R, 12R

Step 6: Compare MLL and VLL with the values ofMLL and VLLcomputed from Step 5 at thecorresponding critical sections. Identify the IRC loading class whose effect is just below the corresponding value of MLL or

VLL'

Step 7: Finalise the rating of the bridge as the IRC load class identified above.

This rating will be correlated to the date of field assessment of the bridge.

Step 1 :

Step 2:

Step 3:

Step 4:

Step 5:

Step 2:

5.6. Explanatory Note for the Steps to be followed f~r Analytical Method of Rating

evaluated which mostly consists of the following: _ Slab bridges (solid or voided)

_ RCC T-beam and slab

_ RCC Box girder

_ Prestressed concrete (T-beam and

deck slab and box girder)' _ Arches - masonry and RCC

Majority of the existing and old concrete bridges a~e either simply supported spans or of cantilever or balanced cantilever construction. Accordingly. section capacity will be computed at the follow-

ing locations:

L/4. L/2. 3L!4 and supports for simply supported spans. Same for centrally suspended span in a balanced cantilever

arrangement.

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

be considered.

_ Any other critical location as deemed necessary by the

rating engineer.

Due consideration will be given to the section capacities of the structural components of superstructure viz. deck slab. Tsbeams.

box webs, arch ribs and supports etc.

Assessment of Reduction Factor

The reduction factor Ut) would represent the in-situ strength of the structure as on the date of field investigation and will be assessed based on subjective evaluation of the individual load carry.ing capaci~ of ~he structure. This will depend upon the extent of dlstress/detenoratlOn identified at site. as discussed in para 3 of these Guidelines. Con~ideri~g the importance of such assessment in evaluating the bridge r~tmg. th.ls should be carried out by a qua1ified bridge engineer experienced in

this field.

(ii)

Although subjective in nature. the assessment of reducti?n factor should be made in a systematic manner through use of a marking system. ~he format of the marking system may be suitably decided by the ratmg

engineer.

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

Step 1: Computation of Section Capacity

(i) calculation method will depend on the type of the old bridge to be

~ ~

Assessment of Reduction Factor (Concrete Superstructure) the pre-assigned limit. the bridge will be rated/posted as discussed

[Example only] in the guidelines.

Step 3: Effect of all Loads other than Live Load

SI. No.

Structural Component

Full* Marks

Marks Assigned

% Marks % Marks

Componentwise Overall

For computation of dead load moment and shear at the different locations in the span. no reduction wiIl be made in the cross-sectional areas of the superstructure. due to any spalling, honeycombing etc.

Loads which will be considered other than dead and live load will be as indicated in para 5.4.1. hereinbefore.

Step 4 : Self-explanatory

Step 5 : Computation of Live Load Effects (in accordance with IRe: 6-1966, Section II) Consideration of transverse distribution of loads will be given. Analysis may be based on any rational method such as Morice Little, HendryJaegar or Grillage Analogy method.

For checking effect of maximum wheel load on deck slab, any rational method such as Pigeaud's chart may be used (for slabs spanning in two directions). For slabs supported on two opposite sides, or for cantilever slabs, effective width method or any other rational method may be used.

For box girders, effect of torsion due to eccentric loading, will be considered in addition to flexure.

Self-explanatory

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

Step 6 & 7:

2 3 4 5 6
1. Deck Slab 25
2. Soffit slab (for box girder) 15
3. Longitudinal Girder 30
(T-beam or box ribs)
4. Cross Girder 10
5. Footpath Slab 5
6. Articulations/Central hinges 10
7. Expansion joints/bearings 5
Total Superstructure 100
for each bridge * This would depend on the weightage of the individual components in relation to the entire superstructure and to be decided by the rating engineer after studying the structural system. The marks mentioned above are only indicative and for the purpose of explaining the method.

As an example, if the total marks assigned are, say, 80 percent. then an overall reduction factor of 0.8 will be adopted. Similarly, for checking of component safety (e.g. deck slab) reduction factor will be considered for the marks assigned for the particular component

In case, the total marks assigned for the superstructure falls below a given limit, the bridgeshould be considered for traffic control or for closing to traffic. Depending upon the importance of such decision on the traffic flow in the network, strategic importance, length of detour etc., the rating engineer should decide about the above limit (such as 50 per cent or 60 per cent of total marks etc.) in close co-ordination with the bridge authority.

Also, decision for traffic control or closing the bridge to traffic may be required when one of the major structural components (e.g. deck slab. longitudinal girder. central hinge/articulation, bearings etc.) are observed to be severely distressed and the "marks assigned for that particular component (8) fall less than a particular value (say 40 or 50 per cent of the full marks for that component).

For bridges with reduction factor (overall and componentwise) above

5.7. Assessment of Safe Carrying Capacity of Substructures and Foundations

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

(b)

Detailed inspection of the accessible areas of the abutments. piers and well foundations/pile foundations. Underwater inspection of the foundation may be essential in some cases.

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

(a)

26

27

28

STARTUP

STUDY ALL AVAILABLE DETAILED FIELD/LAB
DATA. DRAWINGS ETC.
OF THE BRIDGE INVESTIGATIONS
l l
COMPUTE SECTION CAPACITY
IN MOMENT AND SHEAR ~ ASSESS REDUCTION
AT SELECTED LOCATIONS FACTOR"
(Me'\]> & Yew)
1
~ COMPUTE I-
MCAP &- -VCAP
1
LOMPUTE EFFECT OF ALL
LOADS OTHER THAN LIVE
LOADS AT SELECTED
LOCATIONS MDL & VOL.
1
COMPUTE
Mu ='lMCAP - MOL
VLL ="'lVCAP - VDL
AT SELECTED LOCATIONS
1
COMPUTE MAXIMUM LL
MOMENT & SHEAR AT
SELECTED LOCATIONS FOR
STANDARD IRC LOADING
SPFCTRUM (MlL& ViL.)
1
COMPARE BRIDGE RATED FOR 6::
MLL ..... MLL CORRESPONDING IRC OJ
VLL_VLL STANDARD LIVE LOADING. I;; (c) It Is to be noted that by the above load testing procedure no information will be available regarding the lateral load capacity of the substructure/ foundations. In absence ofthe relevant data. viz. depth of foundation below scour depth, details of piled/well foundations. reinforcement details in the abutment, piers and well steining/piles, soil characteristics etc. any analytical computation will lead to approximate results.

STEPS: 1&2

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

5.7.3. Bearing pressure at the founding level shall be examined analytically on the same principle as provided for in Clause122 oflRC: 5-1985 taking due cognizance of the maximum scour depth and for any

. other load combination specified earlier. The various loads to be con, sidered shall be as mentioned in para 5.4.1 hereinbefore. The maximum bearing pressure shall not exceed the safe bearing capacity of the soil by more than 25 per cent when wind! seismic loading is not considered and 33-1/3 percent when effect of wind/seismic is taken into account

5_7.4. In deciding about the safe bearing capacity of the soil, previous soil investigation report, design calculations, existing local knowledge and behaviour of structures in the vicinity shall be considered''In absence of any soil data available, fresh soil exploration will be essential at the foundations under investigations.

5.7.5; Where the foundations and substructure are known to carry given external loads without any sign of distress or deterioration and the increase in live loads'over those already using the bridge does not cause an increase of more than 25 per cent of the total loads at foundation level, the foundations and substructure of the bridge shall be assumed to

. be safe for the aforesaid increase in live loads.

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

5.7.7_ Due allowance should be made in the assessment for any deterioration and signs of distress noticed in the substructure and foundations during detailed inspection. The salient information considered necessary in this respect has been provided in paras 3.2. and 3.3. hereinbefore.

STEPJ

STEP:4

STF.P:)

STEP:6

Fig. 6 ; Logic diagram for analytical rating system for bridge superstructure

29

d - The thickness of ring at Crown

h - The average depth of fill between the road surface and the arch ring at the Crown

5.7.8. The safe load carrying capacity of the bridge shall be the lesser value of the capacity of the superstructure (as discussed in para 5.5 and para 6 of these, guidelines and that ofthe substructure/foundations (as discussed above). The bridge rating shall be decided accordirr".

5.8. Method of Assessment of Safe Carrying Capacity of Superstructure for Different Types of Bridges

5.8.1. Masonry arch bridges:

(i) The provisional safe axle loads (before applying various factors) for different spans. thickness of arch ring and depth of cushion may directly be read from the nomogram in Fig. 7.

(ii) Assessment arrived at from the nomogram are in terms of a maximum provisional axle load (before applying various factors). which may be taken as the combined load in case of tandem axles.

.ARCH SPAN METRES

B

TOTAL CROWN THICKNESS

[h-i-d) mm

18m

A

1.890 1600

1400 1200

1000 900

... -___ 800

-. 700 ... 600

9m _

C PROVISIONAL AXLE LOADING TONNES

45 40 35

15m

12m

500

6m

(iii) The allowable axle loads and thereby the rating shall be arrived at from the provisional axle loads obtained above. by multiplying these loads by appropriate profile factors. material factors, joint factors, support factors, etc., specified in Appendix-e.

400

5.8.2. Concrete arch bridges:

(i) Wherever possible, the strength of the arch bridges shall be determined preferably from analysis.

10 9 8 7

3m

(ii) Plain concrete arches may also be classified in the same manner as masonry arches vide 5.8.1 with a material factor of 1.5 applied in the assessment

EXAMPLE:

Span = 9 Metres

Span/Rise Ratio = 4

Span/Rise Factor = 1.0

Shape Factor = 0.8

Profile Factor = I x 0.8 = 0.8

Crown Thickness -d = 400 mm

. . =1.20

=0.90

Width Factor Depth Factor Mortar Factor Joint Factor Support Factor Crack Factor Abutment Fault

5.8.3. RCC slab bridges:

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

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

Ring Factor Fill Factor Fill Depth h

Factor = 0.80

Reduction Factor

For Impact = 0.90

=250 mm

Material Factor

1.2. xO.4 xO.9 xO.25 0.65

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

1.085

The provisional axle loading for an arch, 9 m span with total crown thickness of 650 mm is, from the nomogram 18.7 tonnes,

Allowable axle load = IS.7 xO.S x LOSS xO.9 xO.95 xO.90 xO.SOxO.9

= 8.95 tonnes.

NOTE: THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE ARCH UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SAFE FOR 12 T STANDARD TRUCK

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

(ii) examining separately the adequacy of the deck slab of such girder bridges as may be necessary

=0.90 =1.00 = 1.00

= 0.9 xlxl = 0.90 =0.95

=0.90

Fig. 7 . Nomogram for determining the provisional allowable axle loading of existing masonry arch bridges before applying factors (to be used only for rating and not for design purposes)

30

31

Effective Span (m)

Effective Span (m)

Thickness Safe Axle
of Slab Load
(mm) (T)
( 300 10.0
( 325 13.0
( 350 16.0
( 375 19.0
( 400 24.0
( 325 9.0
( 350 11.5
( 375 14.0
( 400 17.5
( 425 21.0
( 175 9.0
( 400 12.0
( 425 15.0
( 450 18.0
( 475 21.5 6.2. Vehicle forTesting

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

(iii) whe~ p~p~r shear connection between the decking and the girder exists, the dlst?button of the live load in the transverse directionwill be considered depending upon the eccentricity of the live load on the deck

TABLE 2 . SAFE AXLE WAD FOR RCC SLAB BRIDGES

6

7

6.3. Deflection Measurement

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

deflections are to be measured.

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

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

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

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

(a) settlement of bearings, and

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

Thickness of Slab (mm)

Safe Axle Load (T)

8

Notes:

2

( 150 9.5
( 175 14.5
( 200 21.0
( 200 11.5
( 225 15.5
( 250 20.0
( 275 25.5
( 225 9.5
( 250 13.0
( 275 17.0
( 300 21.5
( 250 9.0
( . '275 1l.5
( 300 15.0
( 325 19.0
( 350 23.0 a b.

Slab thickness includes a cover of 25 mm

A 75 mm thick wearing coat is assumed over the slab

No separate allowance for impact need be made on the safe axle loads as the same has already been accounted for.

6. LOAD TESTING

. 6.1. When it is not possible to determine the rated capacity of a ~mdg~ due to lack of essential details, it may be determined by load testmg WIth gradual application of a proof load by test vehicles.

. Rat~ng by load testing is recommended for masonry arches and

girder bndges. .

c.

32

3

4

5

6.4. Positioning ~f Load for Testing

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

33

6.5. Procedure for Load Testing

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

65.2. Prior to testing a whitewash should be applied at thecritical sections for ease of observation of behaviour of cracks and their new formations during the test

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

6.5.4. The test load shall be applied in stages following the given values O.5W, 0.7SW, O.90W, l.OW, where "W' is the gross laden weight of the test vehicle.

6.5.5. For each stage, the correspondingly loaded test vehicle shall be brought to the intended/marked position and observation of deflections will be made instantaneously and after five minutes.

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

6.5.7. Prior to starting of testing, the theoretical ?efl~ctions at various stages of loading should be plotted In case the ~n-sltu de~ections exceed these values by more than 10 per cent the testmg proce ure

should be discontinued.

65 8 During the testing operations. the load-deflection diagram should b~ plotted at site at every stage of loading. Attempt should be made to evaluate the anticipated deflection correspondmg to each ~tale of loading taking the deflection measurem~nt in fiel~ as the basl~ or prediction (by linear extrapolation). Deflection ~x~eedmg the predicted value by less than 10 per cent would be penmsslble.

6 5 9 For testing with multiple test vehicles, the indivi~ual vehicl~s' ~hould be gradually brought to ~osition and the deflectlOns under them should be continuously monitored.

6.5.10. The test vehicle should be taken off the bri~ge and instantaneous deflection recovery and deflection recovery 5 minutes after the removal of the load should be noted.

. I '11 b orked out·

6.5.11. For assessment, the following va ues WI e w .

(i) The value of deflection after 5 minutes of loading

(ii) For recovery the least of the following:

Instantaneous recovery on unloading instantaneous deflection on loading

or

Recovery after 5 minutes of unloa?ing Deflection after 5 minutes of loading

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

(a) For Arch Bridges

'tied in 66 I is reached

(i) Crown deflection or spread of abutment as speci 1 . . .

(i~) The recovery of crown deflection or spread of abutment/pier is less than 80 per cent

(iii) Signs of distress in the shape of ap?earanceho~~isibleb ne~ec~a~:t~~:se~~

tible widening of existing cracks in the arc n are 0 se .

cep, k idth have been discussed under para 3.6, herembefore.

measunng crac W1

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

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

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

6.4.4. Fora two-lane bridge, three vehicles (trucks) can be placed abreast within the carriageway width of 7.5 m.

(b) For Girder Bridges .

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

35

34

(ii) Signs of distress in tlie shape of cracks with a width more than a.3mm'in the tensile zone of the girders for normal cases and 0.2 mm for structures exposed to very severe and adverse conditions or conspicuous diagonal cracks close to support are observed

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

are at least 1.2 m apart

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

the bridge.

6.6. Acceptance Criteria

6.6.1. For arch bridges: Where no crackis observed, the load for rating shall be taken as the least of:

(i) The load on rear axle causing a deflection of 1.25 mm in the case of test vehicles having single rear axle and for test vehicles having twin rear axles, the total load on the two rear axles causing a crown deflection of 2.0 min

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

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

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

6.6.2. For girder bridges: The load for ratingshould.betaken as the

least of: .

(i) The load causing a deflection of "1/1500 of the span in any of the main girders for simply supported spans,

7. BRIDGE POSTING

or

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

All posting will be made in terms of equivalent a~e loads ~nd/or gross vehicle weights (GVW) of the commercial vehlcles. plying on Indian roads and satisfying provision of the Motor Vehicle Act as

shown in Fig. 1.

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

7.2. Method of Analytical Computation for Posting

Bridge structure rated for vehicles classes .as per IRC: ~-19~6 (Section II) will be posted for the commercial vehicles shown in Fig, I by

establishing a correlation.

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

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

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

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

(iv) The load at which recovery of deflection on removal ofload is not less than 80 per cent for RC.C. structures and 90 per cent for prestressed concrete structures.

6.7. Procedure for Rating and Posting

6.7.1. For arch bridges: The safe load which can ply over the bridge will depend on the configuration of the testing vehicle. In case of test with vehicles having single rear axle, the safe axle load will be 90 per' cent of the rated load whereas for tests conducted with twin tandem axle,

36

37

sidered for such computations will be as mentioned under para 5.4.3 of these guidelines. The other guidelines for computation of maximum bending moment and shear for these commercial vehicles (e.g. minimum clearance from road kerb, transverse distribution etc.) will be as mentioned in para 5 entitled Rating Methodology. An overload factor of 1.25 will be considered for all the commercial vehicles mentioned above (Refer para 4.4.)

The four categories of commercial vehicles as shown in Fig. 1 will only be considered for posting purposes. The maximum axle loads corresponding to the respective GVW have been indicated in the above figure. The logic diagram for bridge posting procedure is shown in Fig. 8.

7.3. Traffic Restrictions

Depending upon the assessment of the bridge condition, the rating of the bridge, equivalent maximum allowable axle load and/or GVW and the maximum axle load/GVW of the commercial vehicles plying on the bridge, the rating engineer would decide the necessity of the following traffic restrictions on the bridge from safety ·considerations :

(i) Speed Restriction - to be effective till the detailed investigations and strengthening or rehabilitation work and load testing (if required) on the repaired bridge is complete and clearance is given by the specialised agency carrying out the work The limiting speed of vehicles over the structure will be decided by the bridge authority depending upon the physical condition of the structure.

Inventory and Field Inspection

Structural Strength Evaluation

Post Bridge

.. Maximum GVW

.. Maximum Axle Load

(ii) Geometrical Restriction - this would involve curtailing the carriageway width to ensure lesser extent of live load on the bridge at a particular time and/or installation of height barrier on either end approaches to restrict passage of overloaded or over-sized commercial vehicle on the bridge.

(iii) Footpath Loading - depending upon the structural condition of the footpath slab, restriction on load on footpath may. be imposed till the distressed part is rehabilitated Restriction on footpath load may also be necessary in order to reduce the total load on the bridge superstructure,

Operate posted Bridge .. Inspection

.. Enforcement

.. Permit for ODe

7.4. Posting Sign

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

Fig. 8 • Bridge posting procedure

38

No Posting Required

• Speed Limit

• Frequent Inspection

• Lane Limits

• Repair

39

(200 METRES) WARNING SIGN (WRITINGS IN BLACK)

o

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

~

Load Regulatory Sign: This will be placed at a sufficient distance

(not less than 100 m) from the abutment, on both ends of the bridge so that truckers can make arrangements to use detours or to limit their loads to the maximum weight allowed

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

SPEED LIMIT

8

WIDTH LIMIT

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

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

7.5. Enforcement

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

(i) Portable or permanent weight bridges or weight-in-motion (WIM) appliances or computerised traffic management systems, presently available indigenously.

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

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

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

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

restrictions to speed limit

REGULATORY SIGN

RAILING POST ON ENTRY AND EXIT

BRIDGE V
RATED
TO CL.
30 R
DATE OF
RATING
..................

- BLACK WRITINGS ON YELLOW BACKGROUND

RATING SIGN

REGULATORY SIGN (WRITINGS IN BLACK)

Fig. 9. Bridge posting signs (Specifications to IRe: 67-1977 & S.P: 31)

40

41

restrictions to vehicle dimensions (frame barrier) frequent inspections

lane limits

repair

strengthening

In addition fo the posting sign at the distressed bridge site, the following methods may be considered by the enforcing authority for notifying public of the bridge posting to be suitably located at a number of road junctions leading to the posted bridge:

news release

special notice to trucking association legal notice

notice pasted at weigh stations weight limit maps or lists

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

1. Evaluation of Load Canying Capacity of Bridges, OECD, Paris (December 1979).

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Conserving and Strengthening Prestressed Concrete Structures, Dieter Jungwirth, IABSE Proceedings P-1l2/87.

8. IRC: 6-1966 (Sec 11): Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges - Loads and Stresses.

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

10. IRC Special Publication .35: Guidelines for Inspection and Maintenance of

Bridges.(1990). .

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

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

13. Transpo~tion Research Record 950, Second Bridge Engineering Conference, Vol-I, National Research Council, Washington DC (1984).

14. Gui~elines for Eva~uatio~ and Repair of Prestressed.Concrete Bridge Members, National Cooperative Highway Research Programme Report 280, Washington'

DC (1985). . -

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

8.REPAIR, STRENGTHENING AND REHABILITATION OF BRIDGES

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

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

The above subjects are covered in detail in a separate report entitled "Guidelines for Methods and Techniques of Major Repairs, Strengthening and Rehabilitation on Bridges" under preparation by the

IRe. .

42

43

PERMISSIBLE STRESSES IN DIFFERENT MATERIALS

APPENDIX·]

APPENDIX-2

ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF SECTIONS AND SERVICEABILITY CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

44

1. Ultimate Strength of Sections and Serviceability Conditions

1.1. For reinforced concrete sections, ultimate strength of sections in flexure, combined bending and axial load and in shear shall be computed according to the provisions of Cia use 8-3.2 to B-3.7 of IS: 456-1964.

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

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

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

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

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

f(WI) = Fu - I.lf(Wd) 1.8

or, f(Wl) =Fu + f(W d) 1.8

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

Where f (W_ 1) is the ~articular generalised effect or effects due to WI being considered for strength evaluation, e.g. bending moment, shear axial load, etc.

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

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

2. Serviceability Conditions

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

2.2. Limiting Crack Widths in Concrete.

2.2.1. No check shall be necessary for solid slabs,

45

2.2.2. For reinforced concrete beams with plain bars, no check shall be necessary if the maximum diameter of bar does not exceed the following values:

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

Percentage of Longitudinal (tensile) reinforcement to, the cross section of concrete

Maximum dia of plain bar in mm

2.3. Limiting Strains

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

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

2.4. Limiting DeOections

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

p < 1.0 p = 1.5 P < 2.0

20 32 40

2.2.3. In other cases, the maximum cracks width as computed by the following expression shall not exceed 0.3 mm for normalcases and 0.2 mm for structures exposed to very severe and adverse conditions.

= 3acr Em

I' + 2 (acr"Cmin) (h - x)

Where, W max Cmin acr

Slabs or beams in cantilever Slabs

Rectangular on T-beams

Span/depth s 10 LJdepth ~ 25 LJdepth s 12

is the maximum design surface crack width: is the minimum cove!--to the tension steel:

is the perpendicular distance from the point considered to the surface of the nearest longitudinal bar,

is the average strain at the level where cracking is being considered calculated allowing for the stiffening effect of the concrete in the tension zone: this may be obtained from the equation:

E I - [1.2. bth(d-x)] 10-3 As (h - x) fy

Where Lo = distance between points of zero moment .

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

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

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

Em

em

where.

h EI

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

is the distance from the compression face to the point at which the crack width is being calculated;

is the overall depth of the member,

is the average strain at the level where cracking is being considered calculated ignoring the stiffening effect of the concrete in the tension zone;

is the depth of the neutral axis found from the analysis to determineEj

is the area of tension reinforcement;

Characteristic strength of tension steeli.e, minimum value of 0.2 per cent proof stress or yield stress.

x

46

47

APPENDIX-3

miniature test pieces, if found necessary, may be allowed provided the elongation is measured on the appropriate gauge length.

4.6. In the case of abnormally low test values, it shall be permissible to repeat the test on two additional specimens cut from the same component as close as possible to the location from where test pieces were taken. The lowest value of the additional tests will be considered in place of original test results.

4.7. The permissible working stress in tension in kg/sq. mrn shall be determined from the expression

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE RATING THE EXISTING STEEL BRIDGES

I. Classification of Steel Bridges

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

Ult Stress

(10 - % elongation)

f

3

1.9

2. Permissile Stresses in Steel of Early Manufacture

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

Subject to maximum value of

Ultimate Stress 3

4.8. The above formula shall be applied to each of the individual tests and the per- . missible stress shall be the average of the worst 50 per cent of the tests carried out

4.9. When f determined from tests above lies between 9.4 kg/mm2 and 14.1 kg/mm2, the permissible stress shall be increased by the amount arrived at by multiplying the difference between the safe permissible values for wrought iron and mild steel by the factor:

3. Consideration for Rating 3.1. Camber

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

3.2. Deteriorations

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

4. Testing of Steel of Doubtful Quality

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

f -9.4 14.1 - 9.4

However, in no case the stresses in wrought iron shall exceed those given in para 2 above.

4.10. When f as determined from the tests above is less than 9.4 kg/mm2, the permissible stress shall be obtained by multiplying the respective permissible values in para 2 above by a factor f/9.4

4.2. For open web spans 20 pieces of metal shall be cut from at least4different sections of one or more spans.

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

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

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

48

49

APPENDIX-4

FACTORS FOR RATING MASONRY ARCH BRIDGES

A. PROFILE FACTORS

The profile factor of an arch, Fp shall be arrived at from the expression.

Fp = F Sr X Fs

Where F Sr - the span/rise factor and F s - the shape factor, shall be as givenin Table 3 and Figs. 10 & II.

TABLE 3

Serial No.

Span/ruse Ratio Span/ruse Factor (FSr)

Remarks

1.

For UR upto 4

1.0

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

although an arch with a very large

rise may fail due to the crown

acting as a smaller flatter arch.

For UR over 4 obtain factor from Fig. 10

1.0 to 0.6

B. MATERIAL FACTORS

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

Fm = (Frd + FrIl) (d + h)

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

TABLE 4

Arch rung

en
~
Ring Factor Qi:!
0
(Pr) r--
~
1.50
~
1.20 c..
1.00 ~
en
0.70 Granite and built-i~-course masonry with large shaped voussoirs Concrete blocks

Lime-stone. good random masonry and bricks in good condition Masonry (of any kind) or brick work, in poor condition (many voussoirs flaking or badly spalling, shearing. dilapidation is only moderate)

50

0.9.

0.8

0.7

0.6

4

5 6

SPAN/RISE RATIO UR

. Fij. 10. Span rise factors for masonry arch bridges

8

7

1.0









1'1
"
0 WHERE

Rq. RISE AT QUARTER POINT

R RISE AT CENTRE

0.5

0.95 1.00

0~5 0.80 0.85 0.90 Rq/R

Flg, 11. Shape factors for masonry arch bridges

51

TABLE-S

Filling

Fill Factor (Ff)

Concrete slab

Lime concrete or similar grouted' material Well compacted material

Weak materials evidenced by tracking of the .

camageway surface

1.00 0.90 0.70 0.50

C. JOINT FACTORS The joint factor .of an arch F· shall be a . d f

• _) mve at rom the expression.

Fj = FwFd Fmo .

~ere, F w- the width factor. F - the d h f .

be as given in Tables 6, 7 and 8. d . ept actor and Fmo- the mortar factor shall

TABLE 6

Width of Joint

Width Factor (Fw)

Joints with widths upto 6 mm

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

I.Q 0.9 0.8

TABLE·'

Depth of Joint

Depth Factor (Fd)

1.0

Pointed joints in good condition

unpo:~ted joints. pointing in poor condition and joints with

upto mm from the the edge insufficiently filled

J?int~ witffih ~dths from 12 mm to one tenth of the thickness of the nng msu iciently filled,

Jo~nts insufficiently filled for more than one-tenth the thickness of the ring .

0.9

0.8

At the discretion of the Engineer.

Interpolation between these values is itted, d .

position of the joint deficiency. permi epending upon the extent and

52

TABLE 8

l..:

Condition of Joint

Mortar Factor (Fmo)

Mortar in good condition Loose or friable mortar

1.0 0.9

RATING OF BRIDGES

D. SUPPORT FACTOR

Serial Condition of Supports Factor
No.
1. Both abutments satisfactory 1.00
2: One abutment unsatisfactory 0.95
3. Both abutments unsatisfactory 0.')0 4.

5.

Remarks

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

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

0.90 (b) the bridge is on an embanked curve;

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

Arch carried on one abutment and one pier

Arch carried on two piers

E. CRACKS FACTOR

Serial No.

Condition of Supports Factor

Remarks

1.

Longitudinal cracks within 0.6 m of the edge of the arch; if wider than 6 mm and longer than 1/10 of the span then in bridges

(a) wider than 6 rri between parapets 1.0

(b) narrower than 6 m between

parapets 0_8

Longitudinal cracks in middle third

of the bridge width:

(a) One small crack under 3 mm 1.0

wide and shorter than 1/10

of the span

2.

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

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

53

(b) three or more small cracks 0.5
as above
(c) one large crack wider than 0.5
6 mm and longer than 1/10
of the span
3. Lateral and diagonal cracks less than 1.0 Lateral cracks. usually found
3 rnrn wide and shorter than 1/10 of near the quarter points. are due
the arch width 'to permanent deformation of
4. Lateral and diagonal cracks wider the arch which may be caused
than6 mm and longer than 1/10 of the by partial collapse of the arch
arch width or abutment movements
Restrict the load class to 12 T or the Diagonal cracks. usually start-
calculated class using all other ing near the sides of the arch at
applicable factors. whichever is less. the springing and spreading
towards the centre of the arch
at the crown are probably due
to subsidence at the sides of the
abutment. They indicate that
the bridge is in a dangerous
state.
5. Cracks between the arch ring and Due to (a) spreading of the fill'
spandrel or parapet walls greater 'pushing the wall outwards,
than IIJOth of the span due to spread 0.9 Fig. 13 or (b) movement of a
of the fill. flexible ring away from a stiff
6. Cracks between the arch ring and fill, so that the two act indepen-
spandrel or parapet wall due to a dently, This type of failure
dropped ring. often produces cracks in the
Reclassify from the nomogram taking spandrel wall near the quarter
the crown thickness as that of the ring points. Fig. 14.
alone. Fig. 12. Longitudinal cracks in an arch ring'

F. DEFORMATION FACTOR

Deformation of the Arch

Allowance to be made

Remarks

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

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

Arch ring deformation may be due to (a) Partial failure of the ring. observable in the ring itself and often accompanied by . a sag in the parapet over approximately the same length. Fig. 15 or (b) movement at the abutment.

Fig. 14. Movement of the arch ring away from a·stlft' fill

54

RING

LATERAL MOVEMENT

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

Fig. IS. Deformation of the arch ring

55

G. ABUTMENT FAULT FACTORS

Remarks

Serial No.

Condition of Supports

Factor

I.

Inward movement of the abutment:

2.

(a) old movement with well con- 0.75

solidated fill and slight hogging

of the arch ring.

(b) recent movement or poor fill. 0.50 Outward spread of the abutments. If 1.00

movement has been small and to

appears to have ceased. apply factor 0.5

based on type and condition of'fill,

Vertical settlement of one abutment 0.9

Apply factor varying from 0.9 for to

slight movement to 0.5 where the 0.5

materials under each abutment are dissimilar

3.

Shown by hogging of the arch ring and parapet at the crown and possibly open cracks in the intrados between the Quarter points and the springing.

Usually causes change in the profile

The nature of the back fill and foundations can be discovered only by probing. but this should be necessary only on important routes when the strength of the bridge is in doubt.

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

56