SECTION 8: NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8. I-INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1.1-General. ...................................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.2-Classification of Load Tests ....................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2-FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE THE LOAD-CARRYING CAPACITY OF BRIDGES .............................. 8-2

8.2.1-General ....................................................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.2-Unintended Composite Action ................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.3-Unintended Continuity/Fixity .................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.4--Participation of Secondary Members ......................................................................................................... 8-3
8.2.5-Participation of Non structural Members .................................................................................................... 8-3
8.2.6-Portion of Load Carried by Deck ............................................................................................................... 8-3

8.3-BENEFITS OF NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTS ....................................................................................... 8-3

8.3. I-Unknown or Low-Rated Components ....................................................................................................... 8-3
8.3.2-Load Distribution ....................................................................................................................................... 8-4
8.3.3-Deteriorated or Damaged Members ........................................................................................................... 8-4
8.3.4-Fatigue Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 8-4
8.3.5-Dynamic Load Allowance ......................................................................................................................... 8-4

8.4-TYPES OF NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTS ................................................................................................ 8-5

8.4. I-Static Tests ................................................................................................................................................. 8-5
8.4. 1. I-Diagnostic Tests .............................................................................................................................. 8-5
8.4.I.2-ProofTests ....................................................................................................................................... 8-5
8.4.2-Dynamic Tests ........................................................................................................................................... 8-6
8.4.2.I-Weigh-In-Motion Testing ................................................................................................................ 8-6
8.4.2.2-Dynamic Response Tests ................................................................................................................. 8-6
8.4.2.3-Vibration Tests ................................................................................................................................ 8-7

8.5-LOAD TEST MEASUREMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 8-7

8.6-WHEN NOT TO LOAD TEST ........................................................................................................................... 8-8

8.7-BRIDGE SAFETY DURING LOAD TESTS ..................................................................................................... 8-8

8.8-LOAD RATING THROUGH LOAD TESTING ................................................................................................ 8-8

8.8.I-Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 8-8
8.8.2-Diagnostic Load Tests ............................................................................................................................... 8-9
8.8.2. I-Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8-9
8.8.2.2-Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 8-9
8.8.2.3-Application of Diagnostic Test Results ........................................................................................... 8-9
8.8.2.3.I-Deterrnining K ..................................................................................................................... 8-10
8.8.3-Proof Load Tests ...................................................................................................................................... 8-11
8.8.3. I-Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 8-11
8.8.3.2-Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 8-12
8.8.3.3-Target Proof Loads ........................................................................................................................ 8-12
8.8.3.3. I-Selection of Target Live-Load Factor .................................................................................. 8-12

8-i
8-ii THE MANUAL FOR BRIDGE EVALUATION

8.8.3.3.2-Application of Target Live-Load Factor, XpA ....................................................................... 8-14

8.8.3.3.3-Load Capacity and Rating .................................................................................................... 8-15

8.9-USE OF LOAD TEST RESULTS IN PERMIT DECISIONS ........................................................................... 8-15

8.10-SERVICEABILITY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................... 8-16

8.11-REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 8-16

APPENDIX A8-GENERAL LOAD-TESTING PROCEDURES ............................................................................ 8-17

A8.1-GENERAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 8-17

A8.2-STEP 1: INSPECTION AND THEORETICAL LOAD RATING ................................................................. 8-17

A8.3-STEP 2: DEVELOPMENT OF LOAD TEST PROGRAM ............................................................................ 8-17

A8.4-STEP 3: PLANNING AND PREPARATION FOR LOAD TEST ................................................................. 8-17

A8.5-STEP 4: EXECUTION OF LOAD TEST ....................................................................................................... 8-17

A8.6-STEP 5: EVALUATION OF LOAD TEST RESULTS .................................................................................. 8-18

A8.7-STEP 6: DETERMINATION OF FINAL LOAD RATING ........................................................................... 8-18

A8.8-STEP 7: REPORTING .................................................................................................................................... 8-18

 SECTION 8:

NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTING

8. I-INTRODUCTION

8.1.I-General C8.1.1

Load testing is the observation and measurement of The procedures outlined in this Section for the
the response of a bridge subjected to controlled and nondestructive load testing of bridges were developed in
predetermined loadings without causing changes in the NCHRP Project 12-28(13)A and reported in NCHRP
elastic response of the structure. Load tests can be used Research Results Digest, November 1998-Number 234,
to verify both component and system performance under "Manual for Bridge Rating Through Load Testing," and
a known live load and provide an alternative evaluation include certain modifications necessary to ensure
methodology to analytically computing the load rating of consistency with the load and resistance factor load-
a bridge. rating procedures presented in this Manual.
Literally thousands of bridges have been load tested
over the last 50 years in various countries. In some
countries, load tests are used to verify the performance of
new bridges compared to design predictions. The aim of
this Section is to emphasize the use of load testing as part
of bridge load-rating procedures.

8.1.2-Classification of Load Tests

Basically, two types of load tests are available for

bridge evaluation: diagnostic tests and proof tests.
Diagnostic tests are performed to determine certain
response characteristics of the bridge, its response to
loads, the distribution of loads; or to validate analytical
procedures or mathematical models. Proof tests are used
to establish the maximum safe load capacity of a bridge,
where the bridge behavior is within the linear-elastic
range.
Load testing may be further classified as static load
tests and dynamic load tests. A static load test is
conducted using stationary loads to avoid bridge
vibrations. The intensity and position of the load may be
changed during the test. A dynamic load test is
conducted with time-varying loads or moving loads that
excite vibrations in the bridge. Dynamic tests may be
performed to measure modes of vibration, frequencies,
dynamic load allowance, and to obtain load history and
stress ranges for fatigue evaluation. Diagnostic load tests
may be either static or dynamic tests. Proof load tests are
mostly performed as static tests.

8-1
8-2 THE MANUAL FOR BRIDGE EVALUATION

S.2-FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE THE LOAD-

CARRYING CAPACITY OF BRIDGES

S.2.I-General

The actual performance of most bridges is more

favorable than conventional theory dictates. When a
structure's computed theoretical safe load capacity or
remaining fatigue life is less than desirable, it may be
beneficial to the Bridge Owner to take advantage of
some of the bridge's inherent extra capacity that may
have been ignored in conventional calculations.
Several factors not considered in routine design and
evaluation could affect the actual behavior of bridges.
Load testing is an effective methodology to identify and
benefit from the presence of certain load capacity
enhancing factors as outlined below.

S.2.2-Unintended Composite Action

Field tests have shown that a noncomposite deck can

participate in composite action with the girders in
carrying live load, provided the horizontal shear force
does not exceed the limiting bond strength between the
concrete deck slab and steel girder flanges. However, as
test loads are increased and approach the maximum
capacity of the bridge, slippage can take place and
composite action can be lost, resulting in a sudden
increase in main member stresses. Thus, it is important
that for noncomposite steel bridges, load test behavior
and stress values taken at working loads or lower not be
arbitrarily extrapolated to higher load levels. The
unintended composite action contributes to both the
strength of a girder bridge and its ability to distribute
loads transversely. Advantage can be taken of unintended
composite action in fatigue evaluation computations
provided there is no observed slippage between the deck
and stringer flange under normal traffic.

S.2.3-Unintended ContinuitylFixity

Simply supported bridges are assumed to be

supported on idealized rollers that do not carry any
moment. However, tests have shown that there can be
significant end moments attributable to the continuity
provided by the deck slab at stringer-to-floorbeam
connections and to frozen bearings. Frozen bearings
could also result in unintended arching action in the
girders to reduce the applied moments at midspan by a
significant margin. For load-rating purposes, it may not
be justified to extrapolate the results of a load test done
at moderate-load levels when such restraints are detected
during the test. It is quite possible that the enhanced
behavior attributable to unintended continuity and frozen
bearings would not be present at extreme load levels.
SECTION 8: NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTING 8-3

8.2.4--Participation of Secondary Members

Secondary bridge members are those members

which are not directly in the load path of a structure, such
as: diaphragms, cross-frames, lateral bracing members,
and wind bracing. In some bridge types, secondary
members enhance the load-carrying capacity by
increasing the stiffness of the bridge. Advantage can be
taken of the effects of secondary members provided that
it can be shown that they are effective at the designated
service load level.

8.25-Participation of Non structural Members

Load distribution, stresses, and deflections may be

affected by the stiffness contribution from nonstructural
members such as railings, parapets, and barriers, and to a
lesser extent by the curbs and utilities on the bridge.
Since the stiffness contribution from such members
cannot be relied upon at the ultimate load condition, it is
important that their contributions be considered in
comparing the bridge-test-Ioad response with the
calculated response.

8.2.6-Portion of Load Carried by Deck

Depending on the bridge span and the thickness of

the deck, there may be a portion of the load carried
directly by the deck slab spanning between end supports
of the bridge. The deck may, however, not be able to
carry significant amounts of load at higher load levels so
that any portion carried during the diagnostic test should
be determined and transferred back, if necessary, into the
main load-carrying members.

8.3-BENEFITS OF NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD

TESTS

8.3.1-Unknown or Low-Rated Components

Load tests may provide sufficient data to establish

safe live-load levels for older bridges. In some instances,
the make-up of the bridge members, the members'
response to loading, or both cannot be determined
because of lack of existing as-built information. In other
cases, theoretical rating calculations may result in a low
live load requiring posting of the rated bridge, and
nondestructive load tests may provide a more realistic
safe service live-load capacity. In some instances, the test
results may indicate that the actual safe service live-load
capacity is less than computed, thus alerting the Bridge
Owners to speedy action to reinforce or close the bridge.
Existing bridges that have been strengthened over
the years may not be accurately load rated due to the
unknown interaction of the various elements of the
repaired structure in supporting live loads.
Nondestructive load tests can help evaluate the
performance of such a bridge, and generally improve its
load rating.
8-4 THE MANUAL FOR BRIDGE EVALUATION

8.3.2-Load Distribution

An important part of the rating equation concerns

the distribution of the live loads to the main load-
carrying members of the bridge and to the individual
components of a multicomponent member. Typically,
in design and rating, the load distribution to main
supporting members is based on design distribution
factors. These factors are known to generally result in
conservative approximations of the actual distribution.
A major aim of diagnostic testing is to confirm the
precise nature of the load distribution. In a
multi component member, such as truss chords, test
results could reveal if the components share the load
equally as is assumed in the analysis.

8.3.3-Deteriorated or Damaged Members

It is often difficult to analyze the effects of observed

deterioration or damage on the load-carrying capacity of
the bridge and on load distribution, especially in the case
of heavily deteriorated bridges. In such cases, field load
testing serves as a powerful tool to identify existing
behavior.

8.3.4-Fatigue Evaluation

In assessing the remaining fatigue life of steel

bridges, both the range of stress and the number of stress
cycles acting on a member need to be evaluated. Field
load testing can provide data for both of these
parameters. The range of live-load stress is influenced by
the enhanced section modulus evidenced by most beam
and slab sections. Measured stresses can be used in place
of computed stresses in making remaining life
assessments. In addition, stress spectra may be obtained
for distortion-induced stresses, which have been found to
be a major cause of distress in steel bridges and can lead
to cracking of components and eventual failure.

8.3.5-Dynamic Load Allowance

Design dynamic load allowance is generally

conservative for most spans. Dynamic load allowance is
influenced primarily by the surface roughness of the
deck and approaches. The use of full-scale dynamic
testing under controlled or normal traffic conditions
remains the most reliable and cost-effective way of
obtaining the dynamic load allowance for a specific
bridge. Measured dynamic load allowance may be used
in place of code-specified value in load-rating
calculations.
SECTION 8: NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTING 8-5

8.4-TYPES OF NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTS

8.4.1-Static Tests

8.4. 1. I-Diagnostic Tests

Diagnostic load tests are employed to improve the

Engineer's understanding of the behavior of a bridge and
to reduce uncertainties related to material properties,
boundary conditions, cross-section contributions,
effectiveness of repair, influence of damage and
deterioration, and other similar variables. Diagnostic load
tests include the measurement of load effects in one or
more critical bridge members and comparison of the
measured load effects with that computed using an
analytical model (theory). Diagnostic tests serve to verify
and adjust the predictions of an analytical model. The
calibrated analytical models are then used to calculate the
load-rating factors. During a diagnostic load test, the
applied load should be sufficiently high to properly
model the physical behavior of the bridge at the rating
load level.
Bridges for which analytical methods of strength
evaluation may significantly underestimate the actual
strength (e.g., redundant spans, spans with boundary
conditions different from assumed idealized behavior,
etc.) are candidates for diagnostic load testing. Thus,
candidate bridges are limited to those bridges for which
an analytical load-rating model can be developed.

8.4.1.2-Proof Tests

In this form of field load testing, a bridge is

subjected to specific loads, and observations are made to
determine if the bridge carries these loads without
damage. Loads should be applied in increments and the
bridge monitored to provide early warning of possible
distress or nonlinear behavior. The proof test is
terminated when:

1. A predetermined maximum load has been reached,

or
2. The bridge exhibits the onset of nonlinear behavior
or other visible signs of distress.
Although simple in concept, proof testing will in fact
require careful preparation and experienced personnel for
implementation. Caution is required to avoid causing
damage to the structure or injury to personnel or the
public.
Bridges that are candidates for proof load testing
may be separated into two groups. The first group
consists of those bridges whose make-up is known and
which can be load rated analytically. Proof load testing
of "known" bridges is called for when the calculated load
ratings are low and the field testing may provide realistic
results and higher ratings. Bridges with large dead loads
compared with the live loads are also suitable candidates
for proof load testing.
8-6 THE MANUAL FOR BRIDGE EvALUA nON

The second group consists of "hidden" bridges,

those bridges which cannot be load rated by
computations because of insufficient information on their
internal details and configuration. Many older reinforced
concrete and prestressed concrete beam and slab bridges
whose construction plans, design plans, or both are not
available need proof testing to determine a realistic live-
load capacity. Bridges that are difficult to model
analytically because of uncertainties associated with their
construction and the effectiveness of repairs are also
potential candidates and beneficiaries of proof load
testing.

8.4.2-Dynamic Tests

8.4.2.1-Weigh-In-Motion Testing

The actual site survey of truck weight spectra and

volume can be determined by weigh-in-motion systems
(WIM). WIM systems utilize axle sensors and other
measurement systems which make use of the bridge as
the scale. Such WIM techniques could provide data on
vehicle arrivals; and determine axle and gross loads,
axle configurations, and speeds of passing vehicles. The
WIM data can be utilized to provide a precise site-
specific load model and can also be utilized in fatigue
evaluation.

8.4.2.2-Dynamic Response Tests C8.4.2.2

Dynamic response tests, under normal traffic or Dynamic tests preferably should use heavy test
controlled conditions using test vehicles, can be vehicles since load rating is governed by heavy vehicles
performed to obtain realistic estimates of the dynamic with much lower dynamic impact effects.
load allowance and live-load stress ranges that can be
used in load rating and fatigue evaluation calculations.
Dynamic load allowance is influenced primarily by the
surface roughness of the deck and the bridge approach,
and to a lesser extent by the bridge frequency and the
weight and dynamic characteristics of the vehicle. Many
of these parameters are difficult to quantify without the
use of full-scale dynamic testing.
The dynamic load allowance may be estimated
from the peak dynamic strain and the corresponding
peak static strain for vehicles on the same path or
transverse position on the bridge. A variety of vehicle
types, speeds, weights, and positions should be
considered in estimating the appropriate dynamic load
allowance. A representative estimate of the dynamic
load allowance can be obtained from statistical analyses
of measured values.
SECTION 8: NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTING 8-7

8.4.2.3-Vibration Tests

Vibration tests are used to determine bridge dynamic

characteristics such as frequencies of vibration, mode
shapes, and damping. Earthquake response is strongly
influenced by bridge frequency and damping. Vibration
testing can sometimes be used to evaluate defects and
deterioration as they affect the vibration characteristics.
The principal results of a dynamic response test may be
the bridge natural frequencies and corresponding mode
shapes as well as damping values. Vibration tests may be
conducted by means of portable sinusoidal shakers,
sudden release of applied deflections, sudden stopping of
vehicles by braking, and impulse devices such as
hammers.

8.S-LOAD TEST MEASUREMENTS e8.S

Load test instrumentation is used to measure the Strain Measurements

following: 1) strain (stresses) in bridge components,
2) relative or absolute displacement of bridge Strain sensors are usually attached on critical
components, 3) relative or absolute rotation of bridge members to monitor response. Different types of gages
components, and 4) dynamic characteristics of the are available for steel and concrete structures. The
bridge. locations should be selected so that the analytical model
Prior to conducting a field test, the Engineer must can be validated. The most common sensors for field
determine the goals of the test and the types and measurement of strains are electrical resistance gages
magnitude of the measurements to be made. Preliminary (bonded or welded), strain transducers (clamped or
calculations may be needed to estimate the range of the anchored), and acoustic strain gages. Careful selection of
measurements as well as the best locations for the gage characteristics is required to optimize gage
instrumentation. performance for specified environmental and operating
conditions.

Displacement Measurements

Three methods of monitoring displacements are

mechanical, optical, and electrical. Dial gages are
mechanical devices that are easy to set up and monitor,
and their accuracy is usually sufficient for load tests.
Optical methods include laser methods and other
surveying tools that can be used when higher accuracy is
required.
Electrical methods include displacement transducers
such as Linear Variable Differential Transformers
(LVDT) that transform displacement to a proportional
change of electrical voltage. They can be used to monitor
both static and dynamic displacements.

Rotation Measurements

Mechanical tiltmeters can be installed on beam webs

to monitor beam rotations. The measurement of end
rotations can establish the extent of end restraint at
bearings. The elastic curve for a bending member can be
developed by measuring rotations along the length of the
member.
8-8 THE MANUAL FOR BRIDGE EVALUATION

Measurement of Dynamic Characteristics

Accelerometers are used if the modal frequencies,

mode shapes, and damping ratios are to be obtained.
Accelerometers are usually placed at midspan and
quarter-span points to determine first and second
longitudinal mode shapes, and on either side of the
bridge to determine torsional mode shapes.

8.6-WHEN NOT TO LOAD TEST

The following conditions could render a bridge an

unsuitable candidate for load testing:

• The cost of testing reaches or exceeds the

cost of bridge strengthening.
• Pretest evaluation shows that the load test is
unlikely to show the prospect of
improvement in load-carrying capacity.
• According to calculations, the bridge cannot
sustain even the lowest level of load.
• There is a possibility of sudden failure (shear
or fracture).
• Load tests may be impractical because of
access difficulties or site traffic conditions.

8.7-BRIDGE SAFETY DURING LOAD TESTS

An element of risk is inherent in all load testing. The

Bridge Owner and evaluators must be aware of the risks
and their consequences. In assessing the risks,
consideration should be given to safety of the public,
safety of personnel, possible structural damage, traffic
disruption, and possible load posting. Bridge load testing
should not be attempted by inexperienced personnel.
Common sense, good engineering judgment, and sound
analytical principles are not to be ignored.

8.8-LOAD RATING THROUGH LOAD TESTING

8.8.I-Introduction C8.8.1

Diagnostic and proof load tests can be employed to General load testing procedures are contained in
improve the evaluator's understanding of the behavior of Appendix A8 following this Section. For additional
the bridges being tested and to identify and quantify in a guidance, evaluators should consult NCHRP Research
scientific manner their true inherent reserve capacity. A Results Digest No. 234.
major part of the evaluator's responsibility is in
determining how much of any potentially enhanced load-
carrying capacity observed during the load test, as
compared to the values predicted analytically, could be
reliably utilized in establishing the bridge load rating.
Article 8.8 outlines methods and procedures for the
application of nondestructive load tests in the load rating
process and translating the results of the bridge load tests
into bridge load ratings.
SECTION 8: NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTING 8-9

8.8.2-Diagnostic Load Tests

8.8.2.1-Introduction

Prior to initiating a diagnostic load test, the bridge

should be rated analytically using procedures contained
in this Manual. The procedures outlined in Article 8.8.2
will enable the Engineer to re-examine the theoretical
values and adjust these ratings to reflect the actual
performance of the bridge obtained from the diagnostic
test results.

8.8.2.2-Approach

As long as a bridge exhibits linear behavior, a

diagnostic load test can be used to validate an updated
analytical model. It is thus important that the test load be
placed at various positions on the bridge to determine the
response in all critical bridge members. Further, the
magnitude of the test load must be sufficiently high so
that there is little likelihood of nonlinear behavior at the
anticipated service-load levels. If the Engineer is
satisfied that the model is valid, then an extrapolation to
load levels higher than those placed on the bridge during
the test may be feasible. The following Articles present a
method for extrapolating the results of a diagnostic load
test.

8.8.2.3-Application of Diagnostic Test Results C8.8.2.3

A major part of diagnostic testing is the assessment The appropriate section factor (area, section
of the differences between predicted and measured modulus) to be used in calculating RFc should be
responses for subsequent use in determining the load determined after evaluation of the load test results,
rating of the bridge. Article 8.8.2.3 provides guidelines including observations made during the placement of the
for modi tying the calculated load rating for a bridge test vehicle on the bridge. Observed enhancement to the
based on the results of a diagnostic load test. section factor resulting from unintended composite
The following equation should be used to modity the action needs to be critically evaluated. Analytical
calculated load rating following a diagnostic load test: evaluation of composite action in slab-and-girder bridges
without mechanical shear connection and the reliability
(8.8.2.3-1 ) of composite action found by a diagnostic test is
discussed in NCHRP Research Results Digest No. 234.
RFT = load-rating factor for the live-load capacity For composite structures with shear connectors, the
based on the load test result full composite section as defined by the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications should be used unless
RFc = rating factor based on calculations prior to observations during the test indicate slippage at the deck-
incorporating test results (Eq. A6.4.2.l-1 should girder interface. Noncomposite structures which show no
be used). evidence of composite action under the test load should
K adjustment factor resulting from the comparison be evaluated based on noncomposite section factors.
of measured test behavior with the analytical
model (represents the benefits of the field load
test, if any)
8-10 THE MANUAL FOR BRIDGE EvALUATION

8.8.2.3. I-Determining K C8.8.2.3.I

The Adjustment Factor K is given by: The intent of "Can member behavior be extrapolated
to l.33W?" in Table 8.8.2.3.1-1 is to provide some
(8.8.2.3.1-1) assurance that the structure has adequate reserve capacity
beyond its rating load level W. Normally this would be
where: established by calculation, but proof testing would also
be acceptable.
Ka = accounts for both the benefit derived from the Examples of typical calculations which could be
load test, if any, and consideration of the section performed to check this criterion include:
factor (area, section modulus, etc.) resisting the
applied test load 1. Load the analytical model with 1.33 Wand determine
whether there is linear behavior of the components
Kb accounts for the understanding of the load test of the structure. The model could be based on the
results when compared with those predicted by LRFD specifications or a three-dimensional
theory computer model.
Without a load test, K = 1. If the load test results 2. Using the procedures given in NCHRP Research
agree exactly with theory, then K = 1 also. Generally, Results Digest No. 234, determine whether there is
after a load test K is not equal to one. If K> 1, then composite action at 1.33 W where none was intended.
response of the bridge is more favorable than predicted
Diagnostic load test does not specifically address the
by theory and the bridge load capacity may be
fatigue limit state. However, at the time of the test it may
enhanced. On the other hand, if K < 1, then actual
be necessary to measure stresses at fatigue sensitive
response of the bridge is more severe than that
details to determine if fatigue cracking is possible.
predicted and the theoretical bridge load capacity may
have to be reduced.
The following general expression should be used in
determining Ka:

K a =~-1 (8.8.2.3.1-2)
cT

where:

CT = maximum member strain measured during load

test
ce corresponding calculated strain due to the test
vehicle, at its position on the bridge which
produced CT

Ka may be positive or negative depending on the results

of the load test.

In general:

C LT_
= __ (8.8.2.3.1-3)
C (SF)E

where:

LT calculated theoretical load effect in member

corresponding to the measured strain CT
SF member appropriate section factor (area, section
modulus, etc.); see C8.8.2.3
E member modulus of elasticity
SECTION 8: NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTING 8-11

The theoretical strain cc resulting from the test load

should be calculated using a section factor which most
closely approximates the member's actual resistance
during the test. (See example in NCHRP Research
Results Digest No. 234, pages 46-47.) For noncomposite
sections, the factor Ka represents the test benefit without
the effect of unintended composite action.
Kb takes into account the analysis performed by the
load test team and their understanding and explanations
of the possible enhancements to the load capacity
observed during the test. In particular, the load test team
should consider the items below and reduce Kb to
account for those contributions that cannot be depended
on at the rating load level. Table 8.8.2.3.1-1 provides
guidance based on the anticipated behavior of the bridge
members at the rating load level, and the relationship
between the unfactored test vehicle effect T and the
unfactored gross rating load effect W.

Table 8.8.2.3.1-I-Values for Kb

Can member behavior be

extrapolated to 1.33 W? Magnitude of Test Load
T T . T
-<0.4 0.4<-:::;0.7 ->0.7
Yes No W W W Kb

"" " "

0
0.8

" " " 1.0

""
0

" " "

0
0.5

The factor Kb should be assigned a value between

o and 1.0 to indicate the level of test benefit that is
expected at the rating load level. Kb = 0 reflects the
inability of the test team to explain the test behavior or
validate the test results, whereas Kb = 1 means that the
test measurements can be directly extrapolated to
performance at higher loads corresponding to the rating
levels.

8.8.3-Proof Load Tests

8.8.3. I-Introduction

Proof load testing provides an alternative to

analytically computing the load rating of a bridge. A
proof test "proves" the ability of the bridge to carry its
full dead load plus some "magnified" live load. A larger
load than the live load the bridge is expected to carry is
placed on the bridge. This is done to provide a margin of
safety in the event of an occasional overload during the
normal operation of the bridge.
The proof loads provide a lower bound on the true
strength capacity of the components and hence leads to a
lower bound on the load-rating capacity. A satisfactory
proof load test usually provides higher confidence in the
load capacity than a calculated capacity.
8-12 THE MANUAL FOR BRIDGE EVALUATION

8.8.3.2-Approach

During a proof load test, the loads must be

incremented and the response measured until the desired
load is reached or until the test is stopped for reasons
cited below. Loads must also be moved to different
positions to properly check all load path components.
Upon load removal, the structure should again be
inspected to see that no damage has occurred and that
there are no residual movements or distress.
Usually, the loads are applied in steps so that the
response of the bridge under each load increment can be
monitored for linear-elastic behavior and to limit distress
due to cracking or other physical damage. The proof load
test is usually terminated when either of the following
occurs:

1. The desired live load plus the appropriate margin of

safety is reached.
2. The bridge response exhibits the start of nonlinear
behavior or other visible signs of distress, such as
buckle patterns appearing in compressive zones in
steel or cracking in concrete.

The test loads must provide for both the rating

vehicles, including the dynamic load allowance, and a
load factor for the required margins of safety. The load
factor may be as described in Article 8.8.3.3 or as
specified by the Bridge Agency.

8.8.3.3-Target Proof Loads

B.B.3.3.1-Selection o/Target Live-Load Factor CB.B.3.3.1

x;, represents the target live-load factor (applied to A proof test provides information about the bridge
the test load) needed to bring the bridge to a rating factor capacity including dead-load effect, live-load
of 1.0. If the test safely reaches this level ofload, namely distributions, and component strengths. However, other
the legal rating plus impact allowance magnified by the uncertainties, in particular the possibility of bridge
factor Xp , then the rating factor is 1.0. The proof test load overloads during normal operations as well as the impact
factors are calibrated to provide the same safety targets allowance, are not measured during the test. These
implicit in the calculated ratings using load and remaining uncertainties should be considered in
resistance factor rating procedures. Only the live load is establishing a target proofload.
factored during the proof test. The dead load is assumed
to be the mean value.
Higher proof loads may also be warranted to
incorporate ratings for permit vehicles, and in this
instance the permit load vehicle plus dynamic load
allowance should be magnified by Xp.
Several site conditions may have an influence on the
load rating. These factors are included herein by making
adjustments to x;, to account for such conditions. Each of
these adjustment quantities is presented below. After X pA
(the adjusted Xp) is obtained, this value is multiplied by
the rating load plus dynamic load allowance to get the
proof-load magnitude that is needed to reach a rating
factor of 1.0.
SECTION 8: NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTING 8-13

The recommended base value for Xp before any

adjustments are applied is 1040. This value was calibrated
to give the same overall reliability as the level inherent in
the calculated load capacity. The 1040 factor on live
loads may be reduced if the purpose of the test is solely
to verify a rating for a permit load. In this case the
corresponding permit load factors given in
Table 6AA.5A.2a-l should be used.

For strength based on test:

Rn = 1.40(L+I)+D (8.8.3.3.1-1)

For strength based on calculation:

(8.8.3.3.1-2)

The reliability levels associated with Eqs. 8.8.2.3.1-1

and 8.8.2.3.1-2 are equivalent because the strength value
obtained from a proof test is more reliable than that
obtained solely by analytical methods.
The following are some of the adjustments to Xp that
should be considered in selecting a live-load test
magnitude to achieve a rating factor of 1.0, as given in
Table 8.8.2.3.1-1. Any of these adjustments may be
neglected, however, if the posting and permit policies of
the agency already include allowances for these factors.

1. For most situations, the live-load factor applies to a

test with loads in two lanes. If one-lane load controls
response, then increase ~ by 15 percent. This
increase is consistent with overload statistics
generated for the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications.
2. For spans with fracture-critical details, the live load
factor Xp shall be increased by ten percent in order to
raise the reliability level to a safer level. A similar
increase in test load shall be considered for any
structure without redundant load paths.
3. Increase ~ by ten percent for structures in poor
condition (NBI Code 4 or less) to account for
increased uncertainties in resistance and future
deterioration. A five-percent reduction in test load
may be taken if an in-depth inspection is performed.
4. If the structure is rateable, that is, there are no
hidden details, and if the calculated rating factor
exceeds 1.0, Xp can be reduced by five percent. The
test in this instance is performed to confirm
calculations.
5. Reduction in test load is warranted for bridges with
reduced traffic intensity.
8-14 THE MANUAL FOR BRIDGE EvALUATlON

Table 8.8.3.3.1-1-Adjustments toXp

Consideration
One-Lane Load Controls
Nonredundant Structure
Fracture-Critical Details Present +10%
+10%
-5%
Rateable, Existing RF? 1.0 -5%
ADTT-:;.lOOO -10%
ADTT-:;. 100 -15%

The adjustments described above should be

considered as minimum values; larger values may be
selected by the Engineer as deemed appropriate.

8.8.3.3.2-Application of Target Live-Load Factor,

X pA

Applying the adjustments recommended above leads

to the target live-load factor X pA . The net percent increase
in Xp (L percent) is found by summing the appropriate
adjustments given above. Then:

X pA =Xp 1+--( L%)

100
(8.8.3.3.2-1 )

The target proof load Lr is then:

(8.8.3.3.2-2)

where:

LR comparable unfactored live load due to the

rating vehicle for the lanes loaded

IM dynamic load allowance

x;,A target adjusted live-load factor

In no case should a proof test load be applied that

does not envelop the rating vehicle plus dynamic load
allowance. For multiple-lane bridges, a minimum of two
lanes should be loaded concurrently.
X pA should not be less than 1.3 or more than 2.2.
The target proof load Lr should be placed on the
bridge in stages, with the response of the bridge to the
applied loads carefully monitored. The first-stage loading
should not exceed 0.25L r and the second stage loading
should not exceed 0.5L r. Smaller increments of loading
between load stages may be warranted, particularly when
the applied proof load approaches the target load.
SECTION 8: NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTING 8-15

8.8.3.3.3-Load Capacity and Rating C8.8.3.3.3

At the conclusion of the proof load test, the actual If there are observed signs of distress prior to
maximum proof live load Lp applied to the bridge is reaching the target proof load and the test must be
known. The Operating level capacity OP is found as stopped, then the actual maximum proof live load must
follows: be reduced by 12 percent by means of the factor k o. This
reduction is consistent with observations that show that
nominal material properties used in calculations are
(8.8.3.3.3-1)
typically 12 percent below observed material properties
from tests.
where:

XpA = target live load factor resulting from the

adjustments described in Article 8.8.3.3.2
ko = factor which takes into consideration how the
proof load test was terminated and is found
from Table 8.8.3.3.3-1

Table 8.8.3.3.3-1-Values for ko

k
1.00
0.88

If the test is terminated prior to reaching the target

load, the load Lp to be used in Eq. 8.8.3.3.3-1 should be
the load just prior to reaching the load causing the
distress which resulted in the termination of the test.
The rating factor at the operating level RFo is:

(8.8.3.3.3-2)

The Operating capacity, in tons, is the rating factor

times the rating vehicle weight in tons.

S.9-USE OF LOAD TEST RESULTS IN PERMIT

DECISIONS

Load tests may be used to predict load capacity for

purposes of reviewing special permit loads which exceed
the normal legal levels. These tests should be carried out
using a load pattern similar to the effects of the permit
vehicle. Special consideration should be given in the
interpretation of the tests and the review of the permit
load calculations to the following:

1. Will other traffic be permitted on the bridge when

the permit load crosses the structure?
2. Will the load path of the vehicle crossing the bridge
be known in advance, and can it be assured?
3. Will the speed of the vehicle be controlled to limit
dynamic impact?
4. Will the bridge be inspected after the movement to
ensure that the bridge is structurally sound?
8-16 THE MANUAL FOR BRIDGE Ev ALUATION

Based on these considerations, the results of the

bridge load test, whether diagnostic or proof, can be
extrapolated to provide a basis for the review of requests
for permit vehicles. If a diagnostic test has been
performed, then test results should be used to predict the
response of the bridge to the permit vehicle. The same
modifications and reduced use of any enhancements in
capacity observed during the test shall apply to the
permit evaluation in the same way as discussed with the
rating computation. Similarly, if the test is a proof load,
it is necessary that the load effects of the test vehicles
exceed the permit effects. A safety margin will also be
needed to account for variations in weight of the permit
trucks, the position of the loading, possible dynamic
effects, and the possible presence of random traffic on
the bridge when the permit vehicle crosses the bridge.

S.IO-SERVICEABILITY CONSIDERATIONS

Load testing is primarily geared to evaluating the

strength and safety of existing bridges. Load testing
could also provide live-load stresses, stress ranges, and
live-load deflections that could assist in the evaluation of
fatigue and service limit states when these limit states
may have been deemed to be of consequence by the
evaluator. Careful pretest planning should be used to
establish the needed response measurements for the
purpose of evaluating the serviceability of an existing
bridge.

S.Il-REFERENCES

AASHTO. 2007. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fourth Edition, LRFDUS-4-M or LRFDSI-4.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

NCHRP. 1998. "Manual for Bridge Rating through Load Testing," NCHRP Research Results Digest, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, No. 234.
 ApPENDIX AS-GENERAL LOAD-TESTING PROCEDURES
AS. I-GENERAL

The steps required for load rating of bridges through load testing include the following:

Step 1. Inspection and theoretical load rating

Step 2. Development of load test program
Step 3. Planning and preparation for load test
Step 4. Execution ofload test
Step 5. Evaluation ofload test results
Step 6. Determination of final load rating
Step 7. Reporting

AS.2-STEP I: INSPECTION AND THEORETICAL LOAD RATING

Prior to load testing, a thorough evaluation of the physical condition of the bridge by a field inspection should be
carried out, followed by a theoretical load rating (where feasible) in accordance with the procedures described in
Section 6. These are necessary for use as the base condition for planning and conducting the load test and to ensure
the safety of the bridge under the test load. At this stage, a determination should be made as to whether load testing is
a feasible alternative to establishing the load rating of the bridge.
The analytical model developed for the theoretical rating will also be used in establishing the target test loading
required, predicting the response of the bridge to the test loading, evaluating the results of the load test, and
establishing the final load rating for the bridge. The procedure to interpret the test results should be determined
before the tests are commenced so that the instrumentation can be arranged to provide the relevant data.

AS.3-STEP 2: DEVELOPMENT OF LOAD TEST PROGRAM

A test program should be prepared prior to commencing with a load test and should include the test objectives,
the type of teste s) to be performed, and related criteria. The choice of either the diagnostic or proof load test method
depends on several factors including type of bridge, availability of design and as-built details, bridge condition,
results of preliminary inspection and rating, availability of equipment and funds, level of risk involved, and test
objectives.

AS.4-STEP 3: PLANNING AND PREPARATION FOR LOAD TEST

Careful planning and preparation of test activities are required to ensure that the test objectives are realized. At
this stage, the load effects to be measured are identified, instrumentation is selected, personnel requirements are
established, and test loadings are defined, all with due regard to safety considerations. The magnitude, configuration,
and position of the test loading are selected based on the type of bridge and the type oftest to be conducted.

AS.5-STEP 4: EXECUTION OF LOAD TEST

The first step in the execution of a load test is to install and check the instrumentation, which could usually be
done without closing the bridge to traffic. The actual load test may then be conducted, preferably with the bridge
closed to all vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The loads should be applied in several increments while observing
structural behavior. Measurements of strains, displacements, and rotations should be taken at the start of the bridge
load test and at the end of each increment. To ensure that accurate and reliable data is obtained during the test, it is
important to assess the response of the bridge to repeated load positions and to account for temperature variations
during the load test. Load-deformation response and deflection recovery at critical locations should be monitored to
determine the onset of nonlinear behavior. Once any nonlinearity is observed, the bridge should be unloaded
immediately and the deflection recovery recorded.
8-18 THE MANUAL FOR BRIDGE EvALUA TION

A8.6--STEP 5: EVALUATION OF LOAD TEST RESULTS

At the completion of the field load test and prior to using the load test results in establishing a load rating for the
bridge, the reliability of the load test results should be considered in evaluating the overall acceptability of the test
results. It is important to understand any differences between measured load effects and those predicted by theory.
This evaluation is generally performed in the office after the completion of the load test.

A8.7-STEP 6: DETERMINATION OF FINAL LOAD RATING

The determination of a revised load rating based on field testing should be done in accordance with Article 8.8.2
for Diagnostic Tests and Article 8.8.3 for Proof Tests. The rating established should be consistent with the structural
behavior observed during the load test and good engineering judgment, and should also consider factors which
cannot be determined by load testing, but are known to influence bridge safety.

A8.8-STEP 7: REPORTING

A comprehensive report should be prepared describing the results of field investigations and testing, description
of test loads and testing procedures, types and location of instrumentation, theoretical rating, and final load rating
calculations. The report should include the final assessment of the bridge according to the results of the load test and
rating calculations, and may also contain recommendations for remedial actions.