Effects of State Legal Loads on Bridge Rating Results

Using the LRFR Procedure

Rebecca Hayworth1; X. Sharon Huo, M.ASCE2; and Lei Zheng3

Abstract: The main objective of this research was to study the effects of different specified trucks on bridge rating with the load and
resistance and factor rating LRFR procedure. Twelve specified trucks were selected for this study, which include one AASHTO design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

truck, three AASHTO legal trucks, and eight state legal trucks. These rating trucks were applied on 16 selected Tennessee Dept. of
Transportation bridges to obtain the LRFR ratings. The selected bridges covered four commonly used bridge types, including prestressed
I-beam bridges; prestressed box beam bridges; cast-in-place T-beam bridges; and steel I-beam bridges. The research results revealed that
1 LRFR AASHTO legal load ratings factors were enveloped by the LRFR HL-93 truck ratings factors, thereby confirming the validity
of the LRFR tiered approach with regard to AASHTO legal loads; 2 the lighter state legal trucks were enveloped by the HL-93 loads,
whereas the heavier state trucks with closer axle spacing typically resulted in load ratings that governed over the HL-93 loads; and 3 the
bridges with both high average daily truck traffic and short spans were more likely to be governed by state legal load ratings instead of
HL-93 load ratings.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE1084-0702200813:6565
CE Database subject headings: Bridges; Bridge loads; Load factors; Ratings; Trucks; Load and resistance factor design.

Introduction
Load rating calculations generally are used to determine the struc-
tural capacity of existing highway bridges as well as to verify the
safety of public traffic. With the ongoing implementation of load
and resistance factor design specifications LRFD across the
United States, there is an escalating need for a load rating meth-
odology that is consistent with the load and resistance factor phi-
losophy AASHTO 2004; Densmore 2000. The AASHTO Guide
Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load and Resistance Fac-
tor Rating of Highway Bridges LRFR reflects the most current
technologies and builds on the structural reliability approach in-
herent in the LRFD AASHTO 2003. This new guide manual
presents an innovative load rating philosophy that ensures a more
uniform level of safety.
The key elements to the uniform reliability in LRFR are the
HL-93 design truck model and the load factors that have been
calibrated from structural reliability analysis Moses 2001; Min-
ervino et al. 2004; Mertz 2004. The HS20 truck model of the
earlier Load Factor rating method did not provide a uniform level
of safety, and uniform reliability could only be obtained through
the analysis of the three AASHTO legal loads: Type 3, Type 3-3,
1
Bridge Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Tennessee Divi-
sion Office, Nashville, TN 37215 corresponding author.
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tennessee
Technological Univ., P.O. Box 5015, Cookeville, TN 38505.
3
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Tennessee Technological Univ., P.O. Box 5015, Cookeville,
TN 38505.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2009. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on August 13, 2007; ap-
proved on February 21, 2008. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 6, November 1, 2008. ASCE, ISSN 1084-
0702/2008/6-565572/$25.00.
and Type 3-S2 Moses 2001. Therefore, in order to obtain a truly
consistent level of safety, a bridge owner would need to perform
load rating calculations on three different legal load models in
addition to the required calculations of the HS20 design truck
model. In the LRFR, the load factors are calibrated so that the
HL-93 design load envelopes or governs for all cases the
AASHTO legal loads: Type 3, Type 3-3, and Type 3-S2. Besides
the design trucks and AASHTO legal loads, many states have
various state legal truck models. These models can represent ac-
tual trucks that are used in the state or can be fabricated loading
models similar to the design truck models. The current LRFR
manual specifies that state legal loads should be load rated in the
same manner as the AASHTO legal load Jaramilla and Huo
2005.
For nonpermit load rating, the LRFR procedure is a tiered
approach. Fig. 1 shows the flowchart in the LRFR load rating
procedure. If a check of the HL-93 design load yields a satisfac-
tory inventory load rating for a bridge, then it can be assumed that
the bridge will yield satisfactory load ratings for all legal loads.
Therefore, no further legal load analysis or state legal load rating
is required. However, it is unclear that what consequence of
load ratings the state legal loads will result in using the LRFR
procedures.
It is the intention of this study to 1 verify that the AASHTO
legal loadsType 3, Type 3-3, and Type 3-S2are enveloped by
the LRFR HL-93 truck and 2 determine whether the various
state legal loads are enveloped by the LRFR HL-93 truck.
Selected Bridges and Load Rating Trucks
Bridges
Sixteen actual Tennessee bridges with a variety of superstructure
types were selected and studied. The types of superstructures in-
clude prestressed concrete box beams, reinforced concrete tee

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008 / 565

J. Bridge Eng. 2008.13:565-572.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Load and resistance factor rating flowchart Mertz 2004, with
permission from Transportation Research Board
beams, prestressed concrete I-beams, built-up steel I-girders, and
rolled steel I-beams. The bridges selected varied not only in su-
perstructure type but also in many other structure parameters such
as number of spans, span length, beam spacing, beam depth, skew
angle, slab thickness, and simple span/continuous span. Table 1
shows the details of 16 selected bridges.
Rating Trucks
The rating trucks considered in the study included the AASHTO
specified rating loads and selected state legal trucks. The three
standard AASHTO legal loads, Type 3, Type 3-3, and Type 3S2
trucks, together with HL-93 design loads gave a total of four
specified rating loads. Descriptions and schematics of the four
specified rating loads are listed in Fig. 2.
Seventy-two unique state legal load models from 18 different
states were obtained. After close examination it was found that
many of the trucks were very similar and the majority of models
could be represented with eight selected trucks. The eight trucks
were from the following states: Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Mis-
sissippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.
None of the selected trucks complied with the federal bridge
weight formula. The selected trucks were chosen to yield a vari-
ety of configurations. Similar trucks with heavier axle loads were
generally chosen over those with lighter loads. Also, trucks with
566 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008
J. Bridge Eng. 2008.13:565-572.
closer axle spacing were chosen over those with longer axle spac-
ing. Descriptions and schematics of the eight selected state legal
loads are listed in Fig. 3.
Altogether, there were 12 load rating models eight state legal
loads, three AASHTO legal loads, and the LRFR HL-93 design
load which were applied to the selected 16 bridges using the
LRFR procedure.
Load Rating Using the LRFR
Required Analyses in the LRFR
The basic rating equation in the AASHTO LRFR Manual is
C DCDC DWDW P P
RF = 1
LLL1 + IM
C = csRn, cs 0.85 2
where RF= rating factor; C = structural capacity; Rn = nominal
member resistance as inspected; DC= dead-load effect of struc-
tural components and attachments; DW= dead-load effect of
wearing surfaces and utilities; P = permanent loading other than
dead loads; LL= live-load effect; IM= dynamic load allowance;
DC = LRFD load factor for structural components and attach-
ments; DW = LRFD load factor for wearing surfaces and utilities;
P = LRFD load factor for permanent loads other than dead loads;
L = evaluation live-load factor; c = condition factor; s = system
factor, and = LRFD resistance factor.
As in LRFD, the LRFR uses limit states for strength, service,
and fatigue to ensure safety and serviceability in the load rating.
The strength limit state accounts for the strength capacity of the
structure under permanent and live loading. The service limit state
accounts for stress, deformation, and crack width. The fatigue
limit state accounts for cyclical stress ranges to avoid fatigue
cracking. Strength is the principal limit state and, therefore, is the
main determinant for bridge posting, closing, and repair. Both
service and fatigue limit states can be applied selectively to
bridges AASHTO 2003.
There are two levels of bridge load rating: inventory and op-
erating. The inventory rating level corresponds to the loads of
design level of reliability for new bridges while reflecting the
existing condition of the structure. The operating rating level cor-
responds to the maximum permissible live load the structure can
withstand safely. Bridge owners can calculate load ratings on both
operating and inventory levels using the LRFR method.
As shown in Table 2, the applicable limit states in LRFR/
LRFD are dependent on the structure type. For example, when
load rating a steel girder bridge with a design load, strength mo-
ment and shear and service ratings are applicable at both operat-
ing and inventory levels and fatigue is applicable at inventory
level; whereas for prestressed concrete bridges, strength rating is
applicable at both operating and inventory levels, service rating is
applicable only at inventory level, and fatigue is not applicable
for any level of rating. The loading ratings in this research are
performed in accordance with the limit states in the LRFR, in-
cluding strength inventory and operating as well as service inven-
tory and operating. Because fatigue is not appropriate for legal
load rating, it was not considered.
 Table 1. Information of Selected Bridges
Total bridge Maximum Number Beam Slab Skew
Bridge Number length span length of beam spacing thickness angle
number Bridge type of spans ft ft lines ft in. degrees
1 Precast concrete I-beam 1 85 85 4 6.42 8.25 50
2 Precast concrete I-beam 1 60 60 9 8.00 8.25 15
3 Precast concrete I-beam 3 145 48.67 10 7.88 8.25 15
4 Precast concrete I-beam 3 156 56 5 8.83 8.25 9.56
5 Precast concrete I-beam 2 86 43 4 8.00 8.00 30
6 Precast concrete bulb-tee beam 1 117 113.2 5 9.5 8.25 15
7 Precast concrete bulb-tee beam 1 108 105 4 7.75 8.25 0
8 Precast concrete box-beam 1 67 65 5 9 8.25 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 Precast concrete box-beam 1 84 82 3 9.5 8.25 10

10 Precast concrete box-beam 3 197 58.8 4 8.67 8.25 10
11 Precast concrete box-beam 2 140 68.5 4 10.5 8.25 50
12 Cast-in-place concrete T-beam 1 40 40 4 8.17 9.375 0
13 Cast-in-place concrete T-beam 3 156 64 3 12.92 7.75 0
14 Steel I-girder 1 229.9 227.4 10 10.25 9.0 28.7
15 Steel I-beam 1 81 78.6 3 8.5 8.0 10
16 Steel I-girder 3 298 121 4 11.67 8.25 60

Live-Load Factors for State Legal Loads
LRFR live-load factors for legal loads, including both AASHTO
legal loads and state legal loads, are based on average daily truck
traffic ADTT as shown in Table 3. For the bridges with avail-
able ADTT information, the strength live-load factors for the
state legal trucks were determined by interpolating the values in
Table 3. For some of the bridges studied, truck traffic information
was not available. According to the LRFR manual, when ADTT is
unknown, the maximum legal live-load factor of 1.8 should be
used. However, using a 1.8 live-load factor was seen as an un-
warranted penalty especially where, although specific truck traffic
information was not available, it was well known that the truck
traffic on a bridge was well below 5,000 trucks per day. There-
fore, for these bridges, ADTT was estimated from average daily
traffic. One exception was made for a cast-in-place T-beam
bridge model which was a standard design and was used in sev-
eral locations. Because ADTT was truly unknown and could not
be estimated based on available data, the cast-in-place T-beam
STD G-5-10 was assigned a strength live-load factor of 1.8 for
state legal loads.

Total vehicle
Truck Details of Truck (Not to Scale)
Weight
Name Truck Axle Loads (Kips)
(kips)

Truck 1 8 32 40
14

Truck 2 18.4 25.3 25.3 69

10 4

Truck 3 20 14 20 20
74
10-6 4-3 4-5

Truck 4 8.5 16 16 18
58.5
10 4 14

8 20 20 16 16
Truck 5 80
12 4 10 4

12 14 20 20 14
Truck 6 80
8 4 8 4

Truck 7 8.24 8.24 8.24 8.24 8.24 20.6 20.6

82.4
14 4 4 4 4 4

Truck 8 4.1 10.5 10.5 8.45 8.45 19 19

80
9 4 9 4 4 4

Fig. 2. Specified AASHTO load rating trucks Fig. 3. Selected state legal load rating trucks

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008 / 567

J. Bridge Eng. 2008.13:565-572.

 Table 2. Limit States and Load Factors for Load Rating LRFR Table 6-1
Design load 6.4.3.2.1
Legal load Permit load
Dead-load Dead-load Inventory Operating 6.4.4.2.1 6.4.5.4.1
Bridge type Limit statea DC DW LL LL LL LL
Steel Strength I 1.25 1.50 1.75 1.35 Table 6-5
Strength II 1.25 1.50 Table 6-6
Service II 1.00 1.00 1.30 1.00 1.30 1.00
Fatigue 0.00 0.00 0.75
Reinforced concrete Strength I 1.25 1.50 1.75 1.35 Table 6-5
Strength II 1.25 1.50 Table 6-6
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Prestressed concrete Strength I 1.25 1.50 1.75 1.35 Table 6-5

Strength II 1.25 1.50 Table 6-6
Service III 1.00 1.00 0.8 1.00
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00
Wood Strength I 1.25 1.50 1.75 1.35 Table 6-5
Strength II 1.25 1.50 Table 6-6
a
Defined in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications AASHTO 2004.

Method to Perform LRFR Results and Discussions

The AASHTO Opis/Virtis design and rating software package
was used as an analysis tool for this study. All bridges were ini-
tially modeled from the acquired Tennessce Dept. of Transporta-
tion TDOT bridge plans using the Virtis rating program. Once
the bridge model was completed in Virtis, the model was opened
in Opis using the shared database. At the time the research was
performed, Opis was capable of doing LRFD design, but Virtis
was not fully capable of conducting LRFR rating.
The LRFD and LRFR are very similar overall in that both
have the same primary elements that are needed for analysis: 1
dead-load effect; 2 live-load effect; and 3 resistance. Although
some of the load factors in LRFD and LRFR differ, the same
analytical procedures are applied for both LRFD and LRFR in
determination of the three primary elements listed earlier. Utiliz-
ing this commonality between LRFD and LRFR, it was deter-
mined that Opis could be used as a primary tool in performing
LRFR calculations in the following manner. First, an Opis LRFD
design check was performed. From the LRFD design check, num-
bers for unfactored dead-load effect, unfactored live-load effect,
and resistance were obtained from the BRASS output files and the
Opis generated program reports. Then by entering these values
into the LRFR load rating equation, a LRFR rating factor could
be determined. Although the method was not fully automated,
using Opis in this way was determined to be the best approach
with the current available resources.
Table 3. Generalized Live-Load Factors for Legal Loads: L LRFR
Table 6-5
Traffic volume
one direction Load factor
Unknown 1.80
ADTT 5,000 1.80
ADTT= 1,000 1.65
ADTT 100 1.40
LRFR AASHTO Legal Load Ratings
A total of three limit states and two loading conditions are con-
sidered in the comparison. They are the moment, shear, and ser-
viceability limit states under inventory and operating loading
conditions, respectively. Fig. 4 shows the load rating factors for
the interior beams with the AASHTO legal load trucks versus the
load rating factors with the HL-93 live load for all bridges. The
line on the graph represents the unity points at which the rating
factors for the HL-93 live load and AASHTO legal load truck
would be equal. For all the data points above this line, the HL-93
rating factor is less than the AASHTO legal load rating factor and,
therefore, the HL-93 rating factor governs. For any data points
below the line, the AASHTO legal load rating factor is less than
the HL-93 rating factor and, therefore, the state legal load gov-
erns. The exterior beams load rating results for AASHTO legal
load trucks were studied and found to be similar to the interior
beam results.
Regardless of the traffic conditions, the AASHTO legal live-
load factors for all 16 bridges were set at the maximum value of
1.8, see Table 3. Using the maximum live-load factor will result
in the lowest possible AASHTO legal load rating factor, and
therefore is the most conservative case for comparison. Even with
this added level of conservancy, AASHTO legal load rating fac-
tors were enveloped by the HL-93 design load rating for all cases
studied. These results verify that for the bridges studied, the
LRFR tiered approach shown in Fig. 1 is valid with regard to the
AASHTO legal loads.
LRFR State Legal Load Ratings
The comparison results of LRFR state legal load ratings and
LRFR HL-93 design load ratings for interior beams are shown in
Fig. 5. The graphs are presented in the same manner as the ones
in the previous section. The exterior beams load rating results for
state legal load trucks were studied and found to be similar to the
interior beam results.

568 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008

J. Bridge Eng. 2008.13:565-572.

 AASHTO Legal Rating Factors
AASHTO Legal Rating Factors
6 6
5 5
4 AASHTO 4 AASHTO
Type 3 Type 3
3 AASHTO 3 AASHTO
Type 3-3 Type 3-3
2 2
AASHTO AASHTO
1 Type 3S2 1 Type 3S2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
HL-93 Rating Factors HL-93 Rating Factors
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a) Moment Inventory b) Moment Operating

6 6

AASHTO Legal Rating Factors

AASHTO Legal Rating Factors

5 5
AASHTO
4 4 AASHTO
Type 3
Type 3
3 AASHTO
3 AASHTO
Type 3-3
Type 3-3
2 AASHTO 2 AASHTO
Type 3S2
Type 3S2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
HL-93 Rating Factors HL-93 Rating Factors

c) Shear Inventory d) Shear Operating

AASHTO Legal Rating Factors
AASHTO Legal Rating Factors

6 6

5 5
AASHTO
4 Type 3 4 AASHTO
Type 3
3 AASHTO
Type 3-3
3 AASHTO
Type 3-3
2 AASHTO 2
Type 3S2 AASHTO
1 1 Type 3S2

0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
HL-93 Rating Factors HL-93 Rating Factors

e) Serviceability Inventory f) Serviceability Operating

Fig. 4. AASHTO Type 3 Trucks versus HL-93 design loadinterior beams

As shown in Fig. 5, several state legal loads produced load
ratings that governed over the HL-93 ratings. This is not consis-
tent with the AASHTO Guide Manual for Condition Evaluation
and Load and Resistance Factor Rating of Highway Bridges. The
results were further studied in an effort to determine how the
different factors affected the LRFR state legal load ratings. In the
following discussion, three factorstruck type, material type, and
bridge typeare examined for their effects on LRFR state legal
load ratings.
Truck Type
Of the eight state legal load trucks, Truck 1 and Truck 4 are
the lightest in weight of all the trucks analyzed. Truck 1 is a
two-axle load, similar to the two-axle HL-93 tandem load, but
with lighter overall weight and wider axle spacing. It should be
noted that the HL-93 tandem load is combined with the HL-93
uniform load to form a HL-93 design load model case. As a
result, Truck 1 load generated higher rating factors than the
HL-93 design for all cases studied. Truck 4 is a four-axle load
with a 29.25 t load spread across 28 ft. With the light weight and
large axle spacing, Truck 4 also generated higher rating factors
than the HL-93 design load for all cases studied. Therefore, as
shown in Fig. 5, the legal load ratings of these two trucks are
enveloped by the HL-93 design load ratings for all bridges and
limit states considered.
In the strength moment calculations, several load models pro-
duced load ratings that governed the HL-93 load ratings. Truck 6
and Truck 8 showed the greatest impact on strength rating factors
for the bridges studied. The Truck 8 moment ratings ruled over
the HL-93 truck operating moment ratings in 13 of the 32
40.6% operating level bridge cases and 2 of the 32 inventory
level bridge cases 6.3%. Truck 6 moment ratings governed in 11
of the 32 34.4% operating level bridge cases studied and 2 of
the 32 6.3% inventory level bridge cases. Although Truck 5 and
Truck 7 have the same or larger truck weights, they had less

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008 / 569

J. Bridge Eng. 2008.13:565-572.

 7 7

State Truck Rating Factors

State Truck Rating Factors

6 Truck 1 6 Truck 1
Truck 2 Truck 2
5 Truck 3 5
Truck 3
4 Truck 4 4 Truck 4
3 Truck 5 Truck 5
3
Truck 6 Truck 6
2 Truck 7 2 Truck 7
1 Truck 8 Truck 8
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HL-93 Rating Factors HL-93 Rating Factors
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a) Moment Inventory b) Moment Operating

7 7

State Truck Rating Factors

State Truck Rating Factors

6 Truck 1 6 Truck 1
5 Truck 2 5 Truck 2
Truck 3 Truck 3
4 Truck 4 4 Truck 4
3 Truck 5 3 Truck 5
Truck 6 Truck 6
2 2
Truck 7 Truck 7
1 Truck 8 1 Truck 8
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HL-93 Rating Factors HL-93 Rating Factors

c) Shear Inventory d) Shear Operating

7 7
State Truck Rating Factors
State Truck Rating Factors

6 Truck 1 6 Truck 1
Truck 2 Truck 2
5 5
Truck 3 Truck 3
4 Truck 4 4
Truck 4
3 Truck 5 3 Truck 5
Truck 6 Truck 6
2 2
Truck 7 Truck 7
1 Truck 8 1 Truck 8
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HL-93 Rating Factors HL-93 Rating Factors

e) Serviceability Inventory f) Serviceability Operating

Fig. 5. State legal trucks versus HL-93 design loadinterior beams

impact on the bridges studied. This is likely due to Truck 5 and
Truck 7 having larger axle spacing between their heaviest axle
loads.
In serviceability ratings, several trucks again produced load
ratings that were lower than the HL-93 load ratings. Truck 8
showed the greatest impact on service rating factors for the
bridges studied. The Truck 8 serviceability ratings governed over
the HL-93 truck operating serviceability ratings in 22 of the 28
78.6% operating level bridge cases studied and 2 of the 6
33.3% inventory level bridge cases studied. In general for all
bridges, the percentage of cases governed by state legal loads was
significantly higher for the serviceability limit state than those
percentages for moment and shear ratings. The applied live-load
factor plays an important role in these results. In prestressed con-
crete bridges, the serviceability live-load factor for design loads is
0.8, whereas for the state legal load it is 1.0. Because the live-load
factor is in the denominator of the LRFR load rating equation, a
larger factor will produce a smaller rating factor.
In general, it was found that strength moment ratings were
sensitive not only to overall weight but also to the truck configu-
ration. For strength shear ratings, the truck configuration did not
seem to strongly affect the rating results. For serviceability rat-
ings, the overall truck length and weight were found to affect the
rating results.
Material Type
Efforts have been made to distinguish the possible impacts on
LRFR rating due to different bridges or material types, such as
steel bridges and concrete bridges. For all of the three steel
bridges studied, all 100% the strength moment and shear ratings
were governed by the HL-93 truck load ratings. For the two steel
I-girder bridges, all 100% the serviceability ratings were gov-

570 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008

J. Bridge Eng. 2008.13:565-572.

 erned by the HL-93 truck load ratings. For the rolled beam bridge,
the state legal load governed over the HL-93 truck load on 12 of
the 16 75% rating cases, including 4 25% ratings at inventory
level. It should also be noted that this group of steel bridges is
very small. Further research is needed to determine if the obser-
vations represent trends for all steel rolled shape and I-girder
bridges.
The results for the 13 concrete bridges were more sporadic.
For some bridges, the rating factors were fully controlled by HL-
93; whereas for other bridges, there were cases where the state
legal load ratings were lower than the HL-93 design load ratings.
After careful examination, no clear-cut trends could be found for
the concrete bridge strength rating results. Also, no specific trends
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
were found in relation to bridge concrete construction type such
as prestressed I-beam bridges versus cast-in-place concrete
T-beam bridges.
Other Bridge Characteristics
To further examine the potential factors that could influence the
comparison results of state legal load ratings and HL-93 design
load ratings, two bridge characteristics were studied for bridge
strength load ratings: ADTT and span length.
Bridge ADTT data were used to calculate the strength live-
load factors for the state legal load ratings. In LRFR, the live-load
factor for HL-93 design load is always 1.75 whereas the legal
live-load factor can range from 1.4 to 1.8 as shown in Table 3.
LRFR requires that the maximum 1.8 legal live-load factor be
used for the bridges with very high or unknown ADTT values. A
larger live-load factor results in a lower rating factor. When the
maximum legal live-load factor of 1.8 was used, it increased the
chances of the state legal load rating governing over the HL-93
design loads.
Span length was also found to influence the results of the
study. Bridges with longer span lengths tended to be governed by
the HL-93 strength ratings. The reason for this trend is likely due
to the composition of the HL-93 truck model. The HL-93 truck
model consists of two parts. The first part is a three-axle, 36 t
truck or a 25 t tandem truck load. This portion of the HL-93 truck
model is very comparable to the state legal load truck models.
The second part of the HL-93 truck model is a 0.64 kip per linear
foot uniform load, which is added to the truck load. None of the
state legal models has a uniform load associated with their truck
load. For longer span bridges, the HL-93 uniform load yields a
larger component of live load than what would be under the same
loading case for shorter span bridges. As the live load increases,
the rating factor decreases. So, the strength rating factors for
longer span bridges are more likely to be governed by the HL-93
design load rating factors instead of state legal loads.
Furthermore, the results demonstrated that for bridges with a
combination of a high ADTT or unknown ADTT and shorter
spans, strength load ratings are more likely to be governed by
state legal load ratings. For longer span bridges with low ADTT,
strength load ratings are more likely to be governed by the HL-93
load ratings.
Conclusions
Based on this study, the following conclusions can be made:
1. Even with the live-load factors conservatively set at the
maximum of 1.8 for all bridges, the LRFR AASHTO legal
load ratings factors were enveloped by the LRFR HL-93
truck ratings factors. The results verified that, for the bridge
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008 / 571
J. Bridge Eng. 2008.13:565-572.
types examined in this project, the LRFR tiered approach is
valid with regard to AASHTO legal loads.
2. The results of the study showed that heavier legal load
trucks with closer axle spacing were more likely to produce
load ratings that govern over the HL-93 loads. In some
cases, the state legal load ratings were lower than the HL-93
design ratings at both the operating level and inventory level.
Conversely, the results of the study showed that the load
ratings produced by lighter legal load trucks with long axle
spacing are more likely to produce load ratings that do not
govern the rating factors generated by the HL-93 design
loads.
3. The LRFR moment ratings tend to be sensitive to weight and
axle configuration; the LRFR shear ratings seem to be less
affected by truck configuration; and the LRFR serviceability
ratings tend to be sensitive to weight and overall truck
length.
4. When performing a state legal load rating on a bridge with an
unknown ADTT, LRFR indicates that the maximum value of
1.8 should be taken for the legal live-load factor. In general,
it was found that using a live-load factor of 1.8 would result
in low state legal load ratings. This seems to be an unwar-
ranted penalty, especially in cases where it is known that the
bridge truck traffic is moderate or light. In these situations,
posting and closing decisions based on state legal loads may
produce unreasonable results.
5. Bridges with low ADTT values and/or longer span length
were more likely governed by the HL-93 design load ratings.
On the other hand, bridges with the combination of high
ADTT or unknown ADTT and shorter bridge spans tended
more likely to be governed by state legal load ratings and,
thereby, are more likely not to comply with the LRFR tier
approach shown in Fig. 1.
6. It is clear that the state legal loads studied in this research are
not fully enveloped by the LRFR design load. Therefore, it is
recommended that the LRFR manual include a statement to
clarify that a bridge with passing rating under LRFR inven-
tory design load may not necessarily have a passing rating
under state legal loads.
Acknowledgments
The writers wish to gratefully acknowledge the financial support
of the Tennessee Dept. of Transportation on this research. Particu-
larly, the writers would like to thank Edward Wasserman and
Terry Leatherwood at the TDOT for their assistance. The writers
would also like to acknowledge the support of the Center for
Energy System Research at Tennessee Technological University.
Appendix. English to SI Unit Conversion
English SI unit
Feet ft 0.3048 meters
Inches in. 0.0254 meters
Kips 0.4536 metric tons
Tons t 0.9072 metric tons
 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AASHTO. 2003 Guide manual for condition evaluation and load
and resistance factor rating (LRFR) of highway bridges, Washington,
D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AASHTO. 2004. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 3rd
Ed., Washington, D.C.
Densmore, D. 2000. Load and resistance factor design. Federal
Highway Administration Policy Memorandums, Washington, D.C.,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/062800.htm.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
572 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008
J. Bridge Eng. 2008.13:565-572.
Jaramilla, B., and Huo, S. 2005. Looking to load and resistance factor
rating. Public Roads, 691, 5865.
Mertz, D. R. 2004. Load rating by load and resistance factor evaluation
method. NCHRP Project No. 20-07/Task 122 Rep., AASHTO, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Minervino, C., Sivakumar, B., Moses, F., Mertz, D.,and Edberg, W.
2004. New AASHTO guide manual for load and resistance factor
rating of highway bridges. J. Bridge Eng., 91, 4354.
Moses, F. 2001. Calibration of load factors for LRFR bridge evalua-
tion. NCHRP Rep. No. 454, Transportation Research Board, Wash-
ington, D.C.