FDOT Modifications to LRFR Jan 2007

6 LOAD RATING ANALYSIS (REVISED

TITLE)
Was previously titled Section 6 - Load and Resistance
Factor Rating
6.0 (NEW) OVERVIEW OF LOAD RATING C6.0
METHODS AND PROCEDURES Add the following:
The load rating of existing structures shall be in In 1993 an agreement was reached between the
accordance with Table 2-1. The order of preference FHWA and the FDOT concerning the use of allowable
in rating methodologies is: (1) load and resistance stress method for load rating bridges. In summary, the
factor rating (LRFR), (2) load factor rating (LFR) and agreement states allowable stress rating is not
(3) allowable stress rating. permitted for bridges on the National Highway
System if the bridge is either structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete.

Table 2-1 Acceptable Load Rating Methodologies

LOAD-RATING METHODOLOGY
DESIGN Load & Resistance
METHODOLOGY Allowable Stress Rating Load Factor Rating
Factor Rating - LRFR
- ASR (Appendix D.6) LFR (Appendix D.6)
(Section 6)
Allowable Stress
(1)
Design (ASD)
Load Factor Design

(LFD)
Load & Resistance
(2)
Factor Design (LRFD)
1.) Allowable stress rating is not permitted for bridges on the National Highway System if the bridge is
either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
2.) Bridges designed using the LRFD methodology before January 7, 2005 may be load rated using either the
LFR or LRFR methodologies. For new designs (January 7, 2005 and after), the Department will not allow
the use of an alternative load rating methodology (Appendix D.6) or posting avoidance techniques, with the
exception of curved steel bridges (see 6.6.1).
The analysis shall include reference to the dated Structures Manual.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.1.6 Evaluation Methods (01/07) C6.16
Add the following: Add the following:
The FDOT preferred load rating program is At present, Virtis is not capable of performing
VIRTIS. VIRTIS should be used if the program is a LRFR load rating.
capable of performing the load rating analysis of the
bridge. For LRFR load ratings Conspan and Smart
Bridge is recommended.

6.1.7 Load Rating (revised title) C6.1.7

Delete the last two sentences and add the Add the following:
following: The rating process of AASHTO LRFR suggests
The routine FDOT rating process is shown in that each permit vehicle be evaluated individually.
FDOT Figure 6-1. Rate bridges designed January Such is not the case with FDOT or with most other
2005 and after using LRFR. For bridges other than States. Traditionally, annual blanket permits were
prestressed concrete segmental box girders, designed issued based upon a comparison of force effects of the
before January 2005, use Appendix D.6 for rating. permit vehicle in question to that of the HS20
For bridges designed using the LFD methodology operating rating. To continue the practice of having
before January 2005, LRFR may be used as an information available to easily judge permit
alternative. applications, FDOTs rating process includes an FL120
Replace Figure 6-1, Flow Chart for Load Rating, permit-load rating as part of the routine rating of
with FDOT Figure 6-1. bridges. Single-trip permit vehicles will be evaluated
outside of the routine FDOT rating process.
Since Appendix D.6 does not specifically address
prestressed concrete segmental box girders, perform
all rating analysis for this bridge type, using LRFR
procedures. For this bridge type, a minimum
acceptable rating factor of 1.0 is required for all legal
loads and the FL120 Permit load.
6.1.7.1 Design Load Rating
Replace the 3rd sentence of the 1st paragraph
with the following:
Under this check, bridges are screened for both
the strength and service limit states.
Delete the 4th and 5th sentences of the 1st
paragraph.
Replace the 2nd sentence of the second
paragraph with the following:
Bridges that have a design load rating factor
equal to or greater than 1.0 at the operating level will
have satisfactory load rating for all three Florida legal
loads.

FDOT Figure 6-1, Flowchart for Load Rating

6.1.7.2 Legal Load Rating

Replace the 3rd sentence of the 1st paragraph with the following:
Using this check, bridges are screened for both the strength and service limit states as noted in Table 6-1.
Delete the 4th and 5th sentences of the 1st paragraph.
6.1.8 Component-Specific Evaluation
Add the following:
Bridges may contain local details that must be appropriately designed to carry local loads or distribute forces to the main bridge c
critical loads or ratings and then only if there is evidence of distress (e.g. cracks).
6.1.8.3 (new) Diaphragms
The main purpose of transverse diaphragms is to provide lateral stability to girders during construction and wind loading.
Transverse diaphragms themselves need not be analyzed as part of a routine load rating. Only if there is evidence of distress (e.g.
The stiffness of any transverse diaphragms should be included, if significant and appropriate, in any finite element analysis progr
6.1.8.4 (new) Support for Expansion Joint Devices
Expansion joint devices are usually contained in a recess formed in the top of the end of the top slab and transverse diaphragm. O
evidence of distress (e.g. cracks, efflorescence or rust stains), or at the discretion of the engineer, should it be necessary to more close
6.1.8.5 (new) Anchorages for Post-Tensioning Tendons
Anchorages are normally contained in a widened portion of the web at the ends of a beam. It is not necessary to analyze anchorag
 Changes in the gross section properties at anchor block zones should be properly accounted for in any finite element analysis pro
6.1.8.6 (new) Post Tensioned Concrete Beam Splices within a Span
Beam splices within a span are frequently used to connect portions of continuous girders. Such splices usually require reinforcing
Beam splices are typically near inflection points; consequently, live load effects may induce longitudinal tensile stress in the top
6.1.8.7 (new) Post Tensioned Concrete Beam Dapped Hinges within a Span
Dapped hinges are rarely used in beam bridges in Florida. Forces acting through dapped hinges within a span should be calculate
develop the hinge forces into the main beam components using suitable strut-and-tie techniques. An alternate approach would be to d
6.2 LOADS FOR EVALUATION
6.2.3 Transient Loads
6.2.3.1 Vehicular Live Loads (Gravity Loads): LL
Replace the vehicles given after Legal Loads: with the following:
Florida Legal Loads (SU4, C5, and ST5, see 6.4.4.2.1 for vehicle configurations).
Replace the vehicle given after Permit Loads: with the following:
Florida Permit Load (FL120, see 6.4.5.4.2.1 for vehicle configurations). For new bridges the minimum rating factor for the FL12
6.3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Add the following:
Transverse and longitudinal ratings shall be reported for post-tensioned concrete segmental bridges. All bridge decks designed w
6.3.2 Approximate Methods of Structural Analysis
Add the following:
Approximate methods include one-dimensional line-girder analysis using LRFD distribution factors.
For bridges constructed with composite prestressed deck panels, the live load distribution factors will be increased by a factor of
6.3.3 Refined Methods of Analysis
Add the following:
Refined methods of analysis include two or three dimensional models using grid or finite-element analysis.
All analyses will be performed assuming no benefit from the stiffening effects of any traffic railing barrier or other appurtenance
6.4 LOAD RATING PROCEDURES
6.4.2 General Load Rating Equation (01/07)
Add the following:
When calculating the Service Limit State capacity for prestressed concrete flat slabs and girders with bonded tendons/strands, use
6.4.2.2 Limit States
Replace Table 6-1 with FDOT Table 6-1
6.4.2.3 Condition Factor
Delete the first sentence.
Add the following after Table 6-2:
The Florida DOT prefers load ratings be performed taking account of field measured deterioration. However, in the absence of m
6.4.2.4 System Factor
Delete the third paragraph.
Replace Table 6-3 with FDOT Tables 6-3A, B, C and D.
Replace the second paragraph with the following:
The system factors of FDOT Tables 6-3A, 6-3B, 6-3C, and 6-3D shall apply for flexural and axial effects at the Strength limit sta
6.4.4 Legal Load Ratings
6.4.4.1 Purpose
Replace the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph with the following:
Bridges that do not have sufficient capacity under the design-load rating operating level (i.e. RF 1.0 or less) shall be load rated fo
6.4.4.2.1 Live Loads
Replace this article with the following:
Use the SU4, C5, and ST5 Florida legal loads defined in Figure 6-3 for legal load rating. Assume the SU4, C5, and ST5 trucks ar
For negative moment loading and loading of spans greater than 200 feet use Appendix B.6.2 b) and B.6.2 c).
6.4.4.2.3 Generalized Live Load Factors
 Revise Table 6-5 as follows:
For all Traffic Volumes, revise all Load Factors to 1.35.

Figure 6-3

FDOT Table 6-1

Bridge Directi Limit Load Factors
Type on State
Permanent Transient Load Design Load Le Per
Load gal mit
Lo Loa
ad d
 TU Inven Opera
(2) tory ting
D D E F CR TG
C W L R SH (2) LL LL LL LL
Strength 1. 1. n/ n/ 1.3
n/a n/a 1.75 1.35 n/a
I 25 50 a a 5
Strength 1. 1. n/ n/
Longitu n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.35
Steel II 25 50 a a
dinal
Servic
1. 1. n/ n/ 1.3
e n/a n/a 1.30 1.00 0.90
00 00 a a 0
II (3)
Reinfor Strength 1. 1. n/ n/ 1.3
n/a n/a 1.75 1.35 n/a
ced Longitu I 25 5 a a 5
Concret dinal Strength 1. 1. n/ n/
e n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.35
II 25 5 a a
Prestres Strength 1. 1. n/ n/ 1.3
n/a n/a 1.75 1.35 n/a
sed I 25 5 a a 5
Concret Strength 1. 1. n/ n/
e (Flat Longitu n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.35
II 25 5 a a
Slab dinal
and Servic
1. 1. n/ n/ 0.8
Deck/Gi e III n/a n/a 0.80 0.80 0.70
00 00 a a 0
rder) (1)
Strength 1. 1. n/ n/ 1.3
n/a n/a 1.75 1.35 n/a
Longitu I 25 5 a a 5
Wood
dinal Streng 1. 1. n/ n/
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.35
th II 25 5 a a
Streng 1. 1. 1. 1. 0.5 1.3
n/a 1.75 1.35 n/a
th I 25 5 00 00 0 5
Strength 1. 1. 1. 1. 0.5
n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.35
II 25 5 00 00 0
Longitu
dinal 0.8 0.70
Post- Servic 0.80 0.80 0 or
1. 1. 1. 1. 1.0 0.5
tensione e III or SL or SL or 0.90
00 00 00 00 0 0
d (1) (4) (4) SL SL
Concret (4) (4)
e Streng 1. 1. 1. n/ 1.3
n/a n/a 1.75 1.35 n/a
th I 25 50 00 a 5
Transve Strength 1. 1. 1. n/
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.35
rse II 25 50 00 a
Servic 1. 1. 1. n/ 1.0
n/a n/a 1.00 1.00 1.00
eI 00 00 00 a 0
(1) Service III Design Inventory tensile stress limit = 3fc or 6f'c; Service III Design Operating, Legal, and
Permit tensile stress limit = 7.5f'c.
(2) TU and TG is considered for Service I and Service III Design Inventory only.
(3) The Service II limit state need only be checked for compact steel girders. For all other steel girders, the
Strength limit states will govern.
(4) For I-girders use a fractional load factor; for segmental box girders use striped lanes (SL).
FDOT Table 6-3A General System Factors (s)
System Factors
Superstructure Type
(s)
Welded Members in Two Truss/Arch Bridges 0.85
Riveted Members in Two Truss/Arch Bridges 0.90
Multiple Eye bar Members in Truss Bridges 0.90
Floor beams with Spacing > 12 feet and Non-continuous Stringers and Deck 0.85
Floor beams with Spacing > 12 feet and Non-continuous Stringers but with continuous 0.90
deck
Redundant Stringer subsystems between Floor beams 1.00
All beams in non-spliced concrete girder bridges 1.00
Steel Straddle Bents 0.85

FDOT Table 6-3B System Factors (s) for Post-Tensioned Concrete Beams
Number of System Factors (s)
Number of
Hinges
Girders in Number of Tendons per Web
Span Type Required
Cross
for 1 2 3 4
Section
Mechanism
Interior 3 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
2 End 2 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.95
Simple 1 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.90
Interior 3 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15
3 or 4 End 2 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10
Simple 1 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05
Interior 3 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20
5 or more End 2 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15
Simple 1 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10
" The tabularized values above may be increased by 0.05 for spans containing more than three intermediate,
evenly spaced, diaphragms in addition to the diaphragms at the end of each span.

FDOT Table 6-3C System Factors (s) for Steel Girder Bridges
Number of Girders in # of Hinges required
Span Type System Factors (s)
Cross Section for Mechanism
Interior 3 0.85
2 End 2 0.85
Simple 1 0.85
Interior 3 1.00
3 or 4 End 2 0.95
Simple 1 0.90
5 or more Interior 3 1.05
Simple 2 1.00
 End 1 0.95
" The tabularized values above may be increased by 0.10 for spans containing more than three evenly spaced
intermediate diaphragms in addition to the diaphragms at the end of each span.
" The above tabularized values may be increased by 0.05 for riveted members

FDOT Table 6-3D System Factors (s) for Concrete Box Girder Bridges
# of System Factors (s)
Hinges
Bridge Type Span Type No. of Tendons per Web
to
Failure 1/web 2/web 3/web 4/web
Interior Span 3 0.90 1.05 1.15 1.20
Precast Balanced Cantilever
End or Hinge Span 2 0.85 1.00 1.10 1.15
Type A Joints
Statically Determinate 1 n/a 0.90 1.00 1.10
Interior Span 3 n/a 1.00 1.10 1.20
Precast Span-by-Span Type A
End or Hinge Span 2 n/a 0.95 1.05 1.15
Joints
Statically Determinate 1 n/a n/a 1.00 1.10
Interior Span 3 n/a 1.00 1.10 1.20
Precast Span-by-Span Type B
End or Hinge Span 2 n/a 0.95 1.05 1.15
Joints
Statically Determinate 1 n/a n/a 1.00 1.10
Interior Span 3 0.90 1.05 1.15 1.20
Cast-in-Place Balanced
End or Hinge Span 2 0.85 1.00 1.10 1.15
Cantilever
Statically Determinate 1 n/a 0.90 1.00 1.10
For box girders with 3 or more webs, table values may be increased by 0.10.

6.4.5 Permit Load Ratings

6.4.5.1 Background C6.4.5.1
Add the following: Add the following:
Calculate the capacity for permit trucks using one Florida has chosen to apply a service limit state
lane distribution factor for single trip permits and two rating for permitting overload vehicles using load
or more lanes distribution factor for routine or annual factors that include a reduced reliability factor. The
permits as shown in Table 6-6. The two or more lanes live load factor is applied to a capacity calculated with
distribution factor assumes the permit vehicle is the rating vehicle placed in all lanes. The load factor
present in all loaded lanes and LRFD live load was developed to simulate a rating vehicle in the
distribution equations are used. Do not use LRFD rating lane with adjoining lanes filled with legal
formula 4.6.2.2.4-1 since mixed traffic calculations vehicles (tractor trailers). The combined effect of
are not performed. these loads is multiplied by the multiple presence
factor of 0.9 (Ontario Bridge Code).
6.4.5.2 Purpose
Add the following:
Bridges designed after January 1, 2005 are required to
have rating factors for the FL120 permit truck. Rate
the FL120 for both Strength and Service Limit State.
6.4.5.4.2 Load Factors C6.4.5.4.2
Add the following:
Since routine permits are evaluated using the
FL120 permit truck and values of ADTT are not well
known, a single load factor is specified for routine
permit load rating. Similarly, a single load factor is
specified for single-trip permits.
6.4.5.4.2.1 Routine (Annual) Permits C6.4.5.4.2.1
Revise Table 6-6 as follows: Add the following:
For all Permit Types, revise all the Load Factors The FL120 permit truck is conceived to be a
by Permit Type to 1.35 except the escorted single trip benchmark to past load factor design (LFD) practice
load factor will remain 1.15. in which the HS-20 truck was rated at the operating
Add the following: level with a load factor of 1.3. A LRFR Permit Load
The FL120 permit truck shall be considered as routine rating for the FL120 permit truck equal to 1.0 is
annual permit vehicle to be used to verify overload equivalent to an LFD operating rating for the HS-20
capacity of Florida bridges. The FL120 shall be truck equal to 1.67. The axle spacing of the FL120 is
checked at Strength Limit State and Service Limit not changed to emulate a truck crane.
State as noted in FDOT Table 6-1 and the minimum It is reasonable to use the multiple-lane
rating factor for new bridges is 1.0. distribution factor for the permit load rating since the
For spans over 200 feet assume the FL120 permit force effects of the permit trucks are similar to the
truck with coincident 0.20 kips per foot lane load. HL-93 notional load have been shown to be very
Assume the permit trucks are in each lane; do not mix similar. Thus, this application is close to the intent of
trucks. the AASHTO LRFR methodology where the HL-93 is
The FL120 permit truck configuration is shown placed in remote lanes. The FL120 is intended to
in the figure below: replicate the traditional HS20 operating rating where
all lanes were occupied by the same truck. Thus, the
use of multiple-lane distribution factors is equally
appropriate for the FL120 permit load rating.

6.4.5.5 Dynamic Load Allowance

End the first sentence after legal loads.
Add the following:
For exclusive-use vehicles with escort and speeds
less than or equal to 5 mph, IM may be decreased to
0%.
6.4.5.8 Adjoining Lane Loading
When performing refined analysis for permit
vehicles, combine the permit vehicle with the same
permit vehicle in the adjoining lanes. For spans over
200 feet, add a 0.20 kip per foot lane load to all
vehicle loadings.
6.4.5.9 Multiple Presence Factors
For Permit load ratings, the LRFD multiple
presence factors shall be equal to or less than 1.0.
6.5 CONCRETE STRUCTURES
6.5.2 Material
Add the following:
For concrete made with Florida aggregate calculate
the modulus of elasticity by applying a 0.9 factor
times the value found in the specifications.
6.5.4 Limit States
6.5.4.1 Design-Load Rating (01/07) C6.5.4.1
Add the following: Delete the first sentence of the commentary.
For prestressed concrete bridges, perform Permit-
Load ratings for:
1. Service I transverse compressive and tensile
stress checks in the deck of transversely prestressed
bridges.
2. Service III tensile stress checks in the
longitudinal direction of all prestressed concrete
bridges.

The stress limits given in FDOT Table 6-9B shall

be satisfied by all prestressed concrete bridges.

Prestressed deck/girder bridges with a continuous

deck but without continuous girders shall be load
rated as simple spans.
6.5.4.2 Legal Load Rating and Permit Load Rating
6.5.4.2.2.1 Legal load Rating C6.5.4.2.2.1
Delete both sentences and replace with the Delete the entire commentary.
following:
Legal load rating of prestressed concrete bridges is
based on satisfying strength and service limit states
(see FDOT Table 6-1)

FDOT Table 6-9B Stress Limits for All Prestressed Concrete Bridges
Design,
Design Operating
Condition Inventory Legal, and
Permit
Compressive Stress (Longitudinal or Transverse)
Compressive stress under effective prestress, permanent loads, and
transient loads (Allowable compressive stress shall be reduced according 0.60f'c 0.60f'c
to LRFD 5.9.4.2.1 when slenderness of flange or web is greater than 15)
Longitudinal Tensile Stress in Precompressed Tensile Zone
For components with bonded prestressing tendons or reinforcement that
are subject to not worse than:
(a) an aggressive corrosion environment 3f'c psi 7.5f'c psi
(b) moderately aggressive corrosion environment 6f'c psi 7.5f'c psi
For components with unbonded prestressing tendons No Tension No Tension
For components with Type B joints (dry joints, no epoxy) 100 psi comp No Tension
Tensile Stress in Other Areas
Areas without bonded reinforcement No tension No tension
Areas with bonded reinforcement sufficient to carry the tensile force in
6f'c psi
the concrete calculated on the assumption of an uncracked section is 6f'c psi tension
tension
provided at a stress of 0.5fy (<30 ksi)
Transverse Tension, Bonded PT:
Tension in the transverse direction in the precompressed tensile zone
calculated on the basis of an uncracked section (i.e. top prestressed slab)
for:
(a) an aggressive corrosion environment 3f'c psi 6f'c psi
(b) moderately aggressive corrosion environment 6f'c psi 6f'c psi
Principal Tensile Stress at Neutral Axis in Webs
All types of segmental construction with internal and/or external 3f'c psi
4f'c psi tension
tendons. tension

6.5.4.2.2.2 Permit load Rating C6.5.4.2.2.2

Delete the first sentence and replace with the Delete the first and second paragraphs.
following: Florida has elected to use a service limit state for
Permit load rating of prestressed concrete bridges permit analysis and has removed the check for stress
is based on satisfying Strength and Service limit in the reinforcing at the strength limit state.
states (see FDOT Table 6-1).
Delete the second paragraph.
6.5.7 Minimum Reinforcement
Delete equation 6-4 and use LRFD Equation
5.7.3.3.2-1.
6.5.9 Evaluation for Shear (01/07)
Delete the second sentence and replace with the
following:
Design and legal loads shall be checked for shear.
Add the following:
For shear load rating using the Strength Load
Combinations I & II, utilize the area of stirrup
reinforcement intersecting the plane created by the
theta () angle. The plane will be generated at the
design section under review and will project back
toward the support. This plane will not project past
the intersection of center-line of the bearing and the
centroid of the prestressing steel on the tension side of
the member. This concept is shown in LRFD [Figure
C5.8.3.2-2] and [Figure C5.8.3.2-4].
6.5.12 Temperature, Creep and Shrinkage Effects
Delete the sentence and replace with the
following:
At the service limit state, all prestressed concrete
bridges shall include the effect of uniform
temperature (TU), when appropriate), creep (CR), and
shrinkage (SH). In addition, temperature gradient
(TG) shall be included for post-tensioned beam and
box girder structures. See FDOT Table 6-1 for
clarification.
6.6 STEEL STRUCTURES
6.6.1 Limit States
Add the following:
Curved steel bridges shall be load rated using
Appendix D.6 and the 2003 AASHTO Guide
Specification for Horizontally Curved Highway
Bridges.
6.6.4 Limit States
6.6.4.1 Design-Load Rating C6.6.4.1
Delete both paragraphs and replace with the Add the Following:
following: The estimate of the remaining fatigue life of
Bridges shall not be rated for fatigue. If the Section 7 of the Guide Manual requires a historical
fatigue crack growth is anticipated, Section 7 of the record of past truck traffic in terms of average daily
Guide Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load and truck traffic (ADTT) and projected future traffic.
Resistance Factor Rating of Highway Bridges can be Many times, conservative recreation and projection
used to estimate the remaining fatigue life. of traffic volumes produces a worst case scenario
which results in low remaining fatigue lives or totally
exhausted fatigue lives. As fatigue life estimates are
based upon statistical evaluation of laboratory tests,
different levels of confidence are presented in Section
7. The minimum expected fatigue life, the evaluation
fatigue life and the mean fatigue life are based upon
approximately 98%, 85% and 50% probabilities of
cracking, respectively. Judgment must be used in
evaluating the results of the fatigue-life estimates.
6.6.13 Fracture-Critical Members (FCMs) (new) C6.6.13 (new)
As with all other steel members, the appropriate Only FCMs which are fabricated from material
system factors of FDOT Tables 6-3A or 6-3C shall be meeting the FCM fracture-toughness requirements are
applied in the ratings of FCMs. candidates for declassification. Newer bridges
Steel members which are traditionally classified designed, fabricated and constructed since the concept
as FCMs may be declassified through analysis if the of FCMs was introduced should meet this material
material satisfies the FCM fracture-toughness of requirement. The demonstration of non-fracture
LRFD Table 6.6.2-2. After the approval of an criticality must include an analysis of the damaged
exception based upon an approved refined analysis bridge with the member in question fractured and a
demonstrating that the bridge with the fractured corresponding dynamic load representing the energy
member can continue to carry a significant portion of release of the fracture. Acceptable remaining load
the design load, the member may be declassified and carrying capacity may be considered equal to the full
treated as a redundant member. See LRFD Article factored load of the strength I load combination
C6.6.2. After declassification, the member may be associated with the number of striped lanes.
rated using a system factor of 1.0.
6.6.14 Double-Leaf Bascule with Span Locks (New)
Evaluate all appropriate load combinations at
Strength Limit State II. Apply the full load to the
cantilever leaf of the bascule bridge assuming the
span locks are not engaged to transmit live load to the
opposite leaf.
6.8 POSTING OF BRIDGES
Add the following:
Posting avoidance is the application of
engineering judgment to a load rating by modifying
the specification defined procedures through use of
variances and exceptions.
6.8.3 Posting Analysis (01/07)
Add the following before the existing text:
Before weight limit posting is recommended,
posting avoidance strategies should be discussed and
approved by the FDOT and may require additional
analysis.
A.6.1 LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR
RATING FLOW CHART
Replace the flowchart with FDOT Figure 6-1.
A.6.2 LIMIT STATES AND LOAD FACTORS
FOR LOAD RATING
Delete all three tables and use FDOT Table 6-1.
B.6.2 AASHTO LEGAL LOADS
Delete section a) and use the Florida legal trucks
defined in article 6.4.4.2.1.
D.6 - ALTERNATE LOAD RATING
D.6.1 GENERAL
Add the following paragraph:
Use the 17th Edition of the AASHTO Standard
Specification with the allowable stresses shown in
FDOT Table 6-9B.
D.6.1.4Application of Standard Design
Specifications (01/07)
Add the following before the existing text:
When using the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges, follow explicitly
the guidance in the Specifications. All deviations from
the Specifications require approval by the FDOT.
D.6.6 NOMINAL CAPACITY
D.6.6.3 Load Factor Method
D.6.6.3.3 Prestressed Concrete
After the 5th RF equation, add the following
heading:
Operating Rating
D.6.7 LOADINGS
D.6.7.2 Evaluation for Shear
Delete the last sentence.
E.6 RATING OF SEGMENTAL CONCRETE
BRIDGES
E.6.2 GENERAL RATING REQUIREMENTS
Add the following:
Six features of concrete segmental bridges are to
be load rated at the Design Load (Inventory and
Operating) Levels. Three of these criteria are at the
Service Limit State and three at the Strength Limit
State, as follows:
At the Service Limit State:
" Longitudinal Box Girder Flexure
" Transverse Top Slab Flexure
" Principle Web Tension
At the Strength Limit State:
 " Longitudinal Box Girder Flexure
" Transverse Top Slab Flexure
" Web Shear

In accordance with AASHTO LRFR Equation 6-

1, the general Load Rating Factor, RF, shall be
determined according to the formula:

Where:
For Strength Limit States:
C = Capacity = (c x s x ) Rn.
c = Condition Factor per Article 6.4.2.3.
s = System Factor per Article E.6.4.2.4.
= Strength Reduction Factor per LRFD.
Rn = Nominal member resistance as inspected,
measured and calculated according to formulae in
LRFD with the exception of shear, for which, capacity
is calculated according to the AASHTO Guide
Specification for Segmental Bridges.
For Service Limit States:
C = fR = Allowable stress at the Service Limit
State (FDOT Table 6-9B).
E.6.8 APPENDIX E6 STEP-BY-STEP
SUPPLEMENT (NEW)
See Section E.6.8.
F.6 POSTING AVOIDANCE (NEW)
See Section F.6.
G.6 LOAD RATING SUMMARY and DETAIL
SHEETS (01/07)
See Section G.6 for the Load Rating Summary
detail sheets.