CHAPTER VI

Bridge
 changes. The study does not continuously supported
Introduction address functional bridges.
obsolescence, since factors
that affect functional An increase in vehicle loads
The Department, in its report obsolescence are largely stretches bridge girders or
to Congress on the 1997 independent of truck size and beams. However, the
Status of the Nation’s weight limits. maximum stress generally can
Surface Transportation be reduced by spreading axles
System, found that 11.7 and axle groups farther apart
percent of the bridges on the Basic Principles or, to a much lesser extent, by
Nation’s arterial (including spreading the load across
Interstate) and collector more axles (see Figure VI-3).
highway systems are Truck-Bridge Interaction
structurally deficient and 15.2
The relationship between axle
percent are functionally The impact of trucks on loads, axle spacing, and
obsolete (see Figure VI-1). bridges varies primarily by bridge stress described above
The estimated annual cost to the weight on each group of holds true for all simply
maintain current bridge axles on a truck and the supported span bridges and
structural and functional distances between axle many continuously supported
conditions is $5.6 billion groups. The number of axles spans. However, depending
(1995 dollars). This leads to in each group is less on the length of continuous
the question: How much important than the distance spans, longer axle spacings
would various changes in between adjacent groups. can increase stresses at the
truck size and weight Generally, except for some bridge inside piers.
(TS&W) limits affect current continuous bridges with long Continuous span bridges are
and future bridge investment spans, the longer the spacing designed to take advantage of
requirements? between two axle groups, the the interactions that occur
less the impact. Figure VI-2 when axle groups are on the
This study estimates changes illustrates the two principal opposite side of the fixed
in costs to correct structural types of bridges, simply
bridge deficiencies that could supported bridges and
result from TS&W policy

Figure VI-1. Structurally Deficient versus Functionally Obsolete Bridges

There are two types of deficient bridges, structurally deficient (SD) and functionally obsolete
(FO). An SD bridge, as defined by the Federal Highway Administration, is one that (1) has
been restricted to light vehicles only, (2) is closed, or (3) requires immediate rehabilitation to
remain open. An FO bridge is one in which the deck geometry, load carrying capacity
(comparison of the original design load to the State legal load), clearance, or approach
roadway alignment no longer meets the usual criteria for the highway of which it is an integral
part.

VI-1
 The bridge impact analysis
Figure VI-2. Simple and Continuous Span Bridges
for this study considers both
simple and continuous span
bridges. The Federal Bridge
Formula (FBF), which is
designed to limit loads and
groups of axles at different
spacings to protect bridges
Simple from overloads, was based
One-Span Bridge
only on consideration of
stresses on simple span
bridges. Consequently, the
FBF allows trucks to operate
that could overstress certain
continuous spans. Likewise,
an alternative bridge formula
developed by the Texas
Continuous
Transportation Institute (TTI)
Two-Span Bridge also considered only stresses
on simple span bridges.
Note: The small triangle in the Simple-Span Bridge illustration represents a pin connection which allows the beam or

For short bridge spans, axle

beam connection on the loads are far enough apart weights (live loads) and the
central pier. This allows the and the two spans long weight of the span
use of smaller beams or enough, the beneficial effects components (dead loads) are
girders to reduce bridge costs. will be negated. important. For longer spans,
However, if the two-axle

Figure VI-3. Moments

One way to think of a moment is as two forces that tend to rotate a body, such as a bridge
beam. This tendency is one source of stress in a bridge beam (the major one in a long bridge
span) as the material properties and beam connection resist the rotational tendency. Further,
this rotational tendency becomes stronger the farther the two forces are spread.

One of these forces results from an axle load and the other from the support at one end of the
beam. One force acts in the opposite direction of the other giving rise to the rotational
tendency of the two acting together. As these two forces are moved closer together, their
rotational tendency is reduced. Consequently, when axle or axle groups are spread farther
apart, for any given position of the truck on the bridge, the axle loads are closer to the
supports which reduces the maximum moment induced by the vehicle load and the stresses in
the beam.

VI-2
 years bridge engineers have
Figure VI-4. Interaction of Bridge Span Length and developed new bridge rating
Spacing of Truck Axle Groups techniques based on “load
factor design” and “load and
resistance factor design”
principles. The rating
technique used by a State in
reporting its bridge ratings is
not directly relevant to this
analyses conducted for this
study since analyses are based
on comparison of moments
produced by scenario
vehicles to those produced by
the rating vehicle, regardless
of how the latter were
determined.

This study, with some

modifications, uses the
“overstress criteria”
underlying Bridge Formula B
-- 30 percent overstress for
H-15 bridge designs and 5
percent overstress for HS-20
axle spacing becomes bridges were structurally bridge designs. The
important in addition to the adequate to handle heavier overstress terms are defined
axle loads (see Figure VI-4). truck loads expected under in Figure VI-6. Also, see
For spans longer than the alternative truck size and Figure VI-5, “H-15 and HS-
overall length of the truck, the weight scenarios (see Figure 20 Bridge Loading. The
gross weight of the truck and VI-6). Two ratings study used the FBF overstress
its length are important along traditionally have been used criteria because they reflect
with the dead load of the by bridge engineers to rate current truck weight
span. For very long spans, the the structural capacity of regulation policy.
weight of the traffic is much bridges, the “operating If a truck (given its weight,
less significant than the rating” which is set at 75 number of axles, and the
weight of the bridge span percent of the yield stress, spacing of these axles) con-
itself (that is, the dead load). and the “inventory rating”, forms to the FBF, it is not
which is set at 55 percent of considered overweight under
Bridge Impact Criteria the yield stress. There are current weight regulations,
several methods to rate nor does it result in an
Previous TS&W studies have bridges. In the past the expedited program to replace
used bridge ratings as the Working Stress Design or H-15 bridges.
basis for estimating whether Allowable stress rating
methods were used. In recent

VI-3
Developing an alternative drawings. The program uses may also cause changes in
bridge formula was beyond only data available in the NBI levels of fatigue damage to the
the scope of this study. As and a table of live load/dead bridge superstructure and
noted above, TTI, in research load ratios for different types damage to bridge decks.
supported by the Federal of bridges. It determines Once a critical stress range is
Highway Administration, which bridges are exceeded, the added fatigue
developed an alternative overstressed by comparing damage due to the scenario
bridge formula in the late the computed moment of the vehicles relative to the current
1980s that was based only on scenario vehicles to the truck fleet is not significant,
the gross weight and length of computed moment of the because fatigue damage is a
the vehicle. The American rating vehicle. If any function of both repetitions
Association of State Highway scenario vehicle produces a and axle loads, not gross
and Transportation Officials moment greater than the rating weights. Most scenario
considered this new bridge vehicle times the overstress vehicles do not have greater
formula, but did not accept it criterion, the bridge is axle loads than vehicles of the
over the current FBF. The assumed to require current fleet. Also, although
TRB recommended a replacement. Once it fatigue damage can be
variation of the TTI bridge determines the bridges that significant, most damage to
formula in its Special Report require replacement, BASIC bridge components is
225. estimates the replacement inexpensively corrected. A
cost based on reported unit further consideration is the
bridge costs for each Sate. It impact of truck size and
Analytical Approach also applies a queuing theory- weight scenarios on bridge
based construction zone deck costs. If total truck VMT
model to estimate delay and decreases and axle loads do
The Bridge Analysis and related dollar costs incurred not increase as the result of
Structural Improvement Cost by users while bridges are TS&W limit changes, bridge
(BASIC) model was used to being replaced. deck deterioration may be
estimate bridge impacts. This Bridge structural impact is a reduced somewhat. No direct
model was specifically function of a particular bridge relationships currently exist
designed to evaluate loading condition and not an between truck traffic, axle
alternative national TS&W accumulation of loads as is loads, and bridge deck
policy options. Accordingly, the case for pavements. deterioration, but research
it was designed to analyze Bridge deck deterioration currently is underway to
quickly tens of thousands of may be related to axle load develop such relationships.
bridges using readily repetitions similar to
available data from the pavements, but there was
National Bridge Inventory insufficient data to analyze
(NBI). BASIC is not a potential nationwide impacts
bridge rating program that of the illustrative truck size
requires detailed section and weight scenarios on
properties and other data bridge deck costs.
normally only available from
the “as built” construction Changes to the vehicle fleet

VI-4
 Figure VI-5. H-15 and HS-20 Bridge Loadings

Most bridges in the United States were designed to accommodate either an H-15 or HS-20
loading. An H-15 loading is represented by a two-axle single unit truck weighing 30,000
pounds (15 tons) with 6,000 pounds on its steering axle and 24,000 pounds on its drive axle.
An HS-20 loading is represented by a three-axle semitrailer combination weighing 72,000
pounds with 8,000 pounds on its steering axle and 32,000 pounds on its drive axle and
32,000 pounds on the semitrailer axle. The “20” in HS-20 stands for 20 tons (4 tons on the
steering axle and 16 tons on the drive axle). The “S” stands for semitrailer combination
which adds in the additional 16 tons for the third axle to give a total of 36 tons or 72,000
pounds.

analyzed for each scenario. vehicles overstressing the

Overview bridge. There was no basis
Based on the allowable for estimating on a nationwide
The bridge analysis for this overstress levels, bridges basis how many bridges might
study examines impacts of requiring replacement are be strengthened rather than
TS&W scenarios on all identified. If the criterion for being replaced or what the
bridges in a sample of States the bridge design type is cost to strengthen various
from different regions of the exceeded, the bridge is types of bridges might be, so
country. For each bridge, assumed to require it was assumed that all
BASIC requires data on the replacement. The cost of bridges would have to be
bridge type, bridge length, replacing each bridge is replaced. However, because
length of the main span, and estimated and summed to in practice States might be
the inventory rating. The estimate total bridge able to strengthen some
inventory rating provides the replacement costs. The user bridges rather than replacing
safe-load carrying capacity of costs associated with them, cost estimates in this
the bridge (see Figure VI-6). replacing the deficient analysis may overestimate
For each bridge, BASIC bridges are also calculated. actual bridge costs associated
computes the bending moment with each illustrative
for the rating vehicle, the base Like previous TRB studies, scenario.
case vehicles, and the this study assumes that all
scenario vehicles. The deficient bridges would be
bending moment calculations replaced rather than being
are based on both the live and posted to limit maximum
dead loads for the bridge. loads (thereby excluding
“Dead load” refers to the some of the scenario
weight of the bridge span vehicles) or strengthened. In
components; the “live load” practice it may be possible to
refers to the weight of the strengthen some bridges,
traffic on the span. Seven or especially ones not expected
eight truck configurations are to carry large volumes of the

VI-5
 Figure VI-6. Relationship of Overstress Criteria to Design Stress and Bridge Ratings

The terms “overstress criteria,” “design stress,” “ inventory rating,” and “operating rating” are often
used when discussing or evaluating impacts of TS&W options on bridges. These terms relate to the
point at which a structural member (a load-carrying component) of a bridge undergoes permanent
deformation, that is, the bridge member does not return to its original size or shape after the load is
removed. The level of stress at which this permanent deformation occurs is called the “yield stress.”
Each of the related terms can be expressed as a percentage of this stress level. It is useful to do this to
observe how each of the terms relate to each other as well as to the yield stress. Also, it is important
to observe that, depending on the type of steel, a bridge member ruptures after considerable
deformation relative to that which occurs at its initial point of yielding.

Design Safety Factor

30 Percent Overstress

5 Percent
Overstress

Bridge Bridge
Inventory Operating
Rating Rating

Design
Stress
Level Yield
Occurs

55 57.75 71.50 75
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Yield Stress

VI-6
 Relationship of Overstress Criteria to Design Stress and Bridge Ratings (Cont.)

It can be noted in the sketch that the standard stress level for the design of bridge members is 55
percent of the stress at which yield occurs. This safety factor provides a contingency for weaknesses
in materials, poor quality of construction, noncompliance with vehicle weight laws, and future
increases in bridge loads.

Bridges are rated by the States at either of two yield stress levels: the inventory rating, which is 55
percent of the yield stress (the same as the design stress) or the operating rating, which is 75 percent of
the yield stress. These ratings are used to post bridges and for inventory purposes.

Past truck size and weight (TS&W) studies have used either of these two ratings to determine when a
bridge should be replaced, given alternative TS&W policy options. A 1991 study of TS&W policy
impacts on bridges used a 65-percent criterion to identify bridges needing replacement. It can be seen
that bridge replacement needs would vary considerably depending on which rating was used.

The Federal Bridge Formula (FBF) is based on stress levels (overstress criteria) related to the design
stress. When the FBF was formulated, a decision was made to allow loads to stress bridges designed
for an H-15 loading at levels up to 30 percent over the “design stress.” This type of design was used
for bridges prior to the Interstate Highway Program, and these bridges are primarily located on lower
functional class highways. Their early replacement was anticipated such that some shortening of
bridge life could be tolerated. Bridges expected to have heavy truck traffic were designed with an
HS-20 loading. The decision to allow loads no more than 5 percent over the design stress was
intended to ensure that these bridges would function satisfactorily for their expected service life, 50 or
more years, without the need for replacement.

This study used the FBF overstress criteria, rather than either the inventory or operating rating used in
past studies, to indicate the need for bridge replacement, but with two exceptions. First, the criteria
were applied to the rating stress level, and second the loads were permitted to exceed the inventory
stress levels on H-17.5 (or higher H rating) bridges by only 15 percent versus the FBF’s 30 percent.
In terms of the yield stress, the 30 percent “overstress” is 71.5 percent, the 15 percent overstress is
63.5 percent, and the 5 percent overstress is 57.75 percent of the yield stress (see sketch). These
criteria fall between the two bridge rating stress levels, and further they replicate the FBF criteria,
which today allow a truck to exceed a bridge’s inventory rating and not be considered overweight, that
is, be found illegal or required to obtain an overweight permit. Whereas most bridges were designed
using the HS-20, H-15 and H-20 design vehicles, recently several States have chosen to use the HS-25
design vehicle. Nonetheless, the bridge ratings in the NBI, as reported by the States, should generally
not be the same as the original design ratings. The rating process should account for deterioration,
strengthening, and the like. Also, a bridge may have been designed using an older Working Stress or
Allowable Stress Design method, but now is rated by the Load Resistance Design rating method.
Whereas bridge design and bridge rating is very dependent on which design method is used, it is not
relevant to the concept of overstress as used in this study.

VI-7
 estimated from a table lookup
Figure VI-7. National Bridge Inventory feature in the model. While
dead loads for specific
The National Bridge Inventory contains records of 581,862 bridges may vary from those
bridges. The database is updated continuously and includes estimated in this analysis, the
detailed information about all highway bridges in the methods used for the study’s
country, on all functional systems. This information is used nationwide analysis are
in the monitoring and managing of the Highway Bridge believed to be satisfactory.
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, as well as to
provide the condition information presented in the biennial This is the first nationwide
Status of the Nation’s Surface Transportation Report to TS&W study to consider both
Congress. live and dead bridge loads.
Previous studies have
considered only live loads.
remaining States. However, with bridges of
Bridge Replacement longer span length, the dead
Questions were raised load becomes increasingly
Model Inputs concerning whether bridges important, and in fact, the
in States chosen to reflect significance of the live load is
To assess which bridges each region of the country reduced. In other words, the
would be structurally were truly representative of portion of total stress in a
inadequate to carry vehicle all bridges in those regions. beam that results from the
weights and dimensions No statistical analysis was traffic load is less important
assumed in each scenario, an conducted to verify that than the portion of the stress
11-State sample of bridges bridges were indeed resulting from the weight of
was drawn from the National representative, but because of the bridge span components.
Bridge Inventory (NBI) (see the large overall sample size
Figure VI-7). The States, and the fact that no results are Overstress Criteria
which were selected from reported below the national
various regions of the country, level, the estimates of As noted above, this study
were Alabama, California, nationwide bridge costs in assumed that bridges
Colorado, Connecticut, this analysis are not believed subjected to stresses that are
Missouri, North Dakota, to be significantly affected by not allowed under the FBF
South Carolina, Texas, the choice of States in the would have to be replaced.
Virginia, Washington, and sample. Thus bridges rated up to
Wisconsin. Analytical results H-17.5 subjected to stresses
for the sample bridges, which Dead loads for the bridges that exceed 71.5 percent of the
include almost 30 percent of were estimated based on yield stress (1.3 times the
all bridges in the NBI, were detailed design information design stress level of 55
expanded to reflect bridges in for 960 bridges of different percent of yield) are assumed
all States based on the deck types and span lengths. to be structurally deficient to
area of the bridges in the Given the type and span accommodate scenario
sample States and the deck length of a bridge of interest, vehicles. Bridges with a
area of the bridges in the the dead load may be rating greater than H-17.5 are

VI-8
assumed to be deficient when weights, dimensions, and Double, the scenario weights
stressed over 63 percent of highway networks available are considerably above the no
yield. Bridges with an HS-20 to the truck configurations impact weight.
rating that are subjected to tested and the TS&W policy
stresses by scenario vehicles scenarios in which they are User Costs
that exceed 57.5 percent of included. The GVWs are the
their yield stress (1.05 times weights for which the impacts In addition to the capital cost
the rating stress level of 55 were estimated. The to replace bridges, the
percent of yield) are assumed maximum weight for no analytical approach estimates
to be structurally deficient to impact is given to show the delay and excess vehicle
accommodate scenario difference in weight between operating costs accruing to
vehicles. the configurations as tested users from traffic congestion
and the weight at which there during bridge replacement.
Analytical Parameters would be no bridge impacts The assumptions for
for each configuration. accommodating traffic through
Available Routes the workzone are: (1) for
Three-axle single unit trucks twin bridges typically found
For the Longer Combination evaluated in the Uniformity on freeways, one
Vehicles (LCVs) Nationwide Scenario could operate at the bridge is taken out of service
Scenario, Rocky Mountain scenario weight without and all traffic uses the other;
Doubles (RMDs) and additional bridge impacts. (2) for multilane bridges, one
Turnpike Doubles (TPDs) Four-axle single unit trucks or two lanes are closed while
were assumed to be restricted could operate at near the traffic uses the remaining
to a 42,500-mile system; only lower of the two North lanes with perhaps one being
bridges on that system were American Trade Scenario reversible to accommodate
tested to determine whether weights without additional the predominant direction of
they are structurally adequate, bridge impacts, but the higher the travel for the time of day;
based on the criteria weight is considerably and (3) for a bridge with one
described above, to carry greater than the no impact lane in each direction, the
those configurations. Other weight. Five-axle procedure assumes either the
truck configurations in the semitrailers and STAA new bridge is constructed
scenario combinations were doubles could operate at the before the old one is closed, a
evaluated on all bridges in the Uniformity Scenario weights temporary bridge is provided
sample States as they have the with no bridge impacts. The while the bridge being
potential to use all the non- six-axle semitrailer could replaced is built, or that there
posted bridges in the NBI for operate at the lower of the are adequate bypass
access to terminals, places for two North American Trade
loading and unloading, and Scenario weights without
places for food, fuel, rest, and causing bridge impacts, but
repairs. not at the higher weight. All
of the LCVs would require
bridge improvements, and
Specifications with the exception of the
seven-axle Rocky Mountain
Table VI-1 presents the

VI-9
 Table VI-1. Truck Configuration Parameters for Analysis of Bridge Impacts
Gross Outside Maximum
Trailer Highways
Vehicle Axle Weight for
Configuration Scenarios Lengths Assumed
Weight Spread ANo Impact@
(feet) Available
(pounds) (feet) (pounds)

Three-Axle Uniformity 54,000 C 24.0 All 54,000

Truck

Four-Axle North 64,000 C 24.5 All 63,500

Truck American
Trade 71,000 C All 63,500

Five-Axle Uniformity 80,000 40 54.3 All 80,000

Semitrailer

Six-Axle North 90,000 40 54.8 All 90,300

Semitrailer American
Trade 97,000 40 54.8 All 90,300

Five-Axle Uniformity 80,000 28, 28 64.3 All 92,000

STAA double

Seven-Axle LCVs 120,000 53, 28 94.3 42,500- 115,300

Rocky Mt. Nationwide mile
Double System

Eight-Axle North 124,000 33, 33 79.3 All 111,600

B-Train American
Double Trade and
LCVs 131,000 33, 33 79.3 All 111,600
Nationwide

Nine-Axle LCVs 148,000 40, 40 119.3 42,500- 122,200

Turnpike Nationwide mile
Double System

Seven-Axle LCVs 132,000 28, 28, 97.2 65,000- 116,100

C-Train Triple Nationwide 28 mile
and Triples System

VI-10
opportunities and limits. One option would be billion). Savings result from
consequently no significant to replace the bridge the rollback of State weight
change in user costs. immediately if it was limits that apply to the NO,
anticipated to carry which includes Interstate
substantial volumes of more highways, that are higher than
Assessment of Scenario damaging vehicles. A second the Federal limits.
Impacts option would be to postpone
replacement if anticipated The bridge impacts of the
overstress was determined to North American Trade
The estimated costs, in 1994 be acceptable for a limited Scenarios are dominated by
dollars, for replacing bridges time. A third option would the weight (44,000 pounds
that would be stressed at be to strengthen deficient and 51,000 pounds) allowed
levels above one of the three bridges that would be on the tridem-axle for the
overstress thresholds expected to carry loads that noted configurations. The
discussed earlier and the user could not safely be bridge impacts are $51 billion
costs during bridge accommodated without and $65 billion for capital
reconstruction are given in improvements but which did costs and $203 billion and
Table VI-2. Also shown are not need immediate $264 billion for user delay
estimated costs to bring replacement. A fourth option costs for the scenarios with
existing bridges up to would be to post bridges that the 44,000-pound and 51,000-
standard to accommodate were not economically pound tridem limit,
Base Case vehicles. important or were not respectively.
required to carry large
It is important to note that volumes of larger vehicles. The bridge impact for the
bridge costs are one time Costs estimated in this Longer Combination Vehicles
costs, not annual or recurring analysis thus may be Nationwide Scenario is $53
costs. For all scenarios, the somewhat overstated and billion in capital costs and
user costs are at least as high certainly not all costs would $266 billion in user delay
as the capital costs, and for have to be incurred before costs. It is dominated by the
the scenarios with significant heavier loads could be nine-axle TPD at 148,000
increases in GVWs, the delay allowed to operate. Even if pounds distributed across a
costs are much higher. some bridges can be length of 119.3 feet, and the
strengthened in the short run, eight-axle B-train double-
many might have to be trailer combination at 131,000
The scenario analysis
replaced sooner than pounds distributed over 69.3
assumes that no bridges are
otherwise would have been feet.
posted or otherwise
the case had there been no
unavailable for the scenario
change in truck size and
vehicles. In practice State Theoretically, the H.R. 551
weight limits.
officials would have several Scenario might increase
options for bridges that might bridge impacts as the lengths
be structurally inadequate to The Uniformity Scenario (see of some semitrailer
accommodate vehicles that Table VI-2) would reduce combinations would be
might be allowed under current bridge investment reduced as semitrailers longer
revised truck size and weight requirements (by $20 than 53 feet would be phased

VI-11
out of service. Decreasing the billion in capital and $101
length of a truck at a given billion in user costs) result
weight increases the stress on from the use of the seven-axle
bridges. This effect is very triple-trailer combination at a
small for two reasons. First, GVW of 132,000 pounds
the number of trucks affected distributed over a length of
is very small and second, the 97.2 feet.
commodities carried in extra-
long semitrailers are
generally very light such that
they have no impact on
bridges. Therefore, this
scenario has virtually no
impact on bridges.

For the Triples Nationwide

Scenario bridge costs ($16

Table VI-2. Scenario Bridge Impacts

Costs Change from Base Case

($Billion) ($Billion)

Analytical Case
Capital User Total Capital User Total

1994 Base Case 154 175 329 0 0 0

2000 Base Case 154 175 329 0 0 0

SCENARIO

Uniformity 134 133 267 -20 -42 -62

44,000-pound
205 378 583 51 203 254
tridem axle
North American Trade
51,000-pound
219 439 658 65 264 329
tridem axle

LCVs Nationwide 207 441 648 53 266 319

H.R. 551 154 175 329 0 0 0

Triples Nationwide 170 276 446 16 101 117

VI-12