Load Rating of Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges: Comparative Analysis of Load Factor Rating and Load and Resistance Factor Rating

Abstract

In light of the adoption of the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) philosophy by the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, research efforts are under way to facilitate the transition from load factor rating (LFR) to load and resistance factor rating (LRFR) in New Mexico. Five prestressed concrete girder bridges, courtesy of the New Mexico bridge inventory, were rated with the BRASS-GIRDER and BRASS-GIRDER (LRFD) structural software. The objectives for this study were to evaluate and verify the BRASS (bridge rating and analysis of structural systems) software, to identify the source of dissension between LFR and LRFR rating factors, and to examine any trends in the rating factors as affected by bridge geometry. The comparison of LFR and LRFR focused on both flexure and shear for the strength limit state. The LRFR method generally yielded lower rating factors for flexure, with the longer-span bridges demonstrating a larger deviation between LFR and LRFR. The live load effects were identified as the major factor contributing to the difference in flexure ratings; the dead load effects and flexural resistance had little effect. The LRFR rating factors for shear also were generally lower than those produced by LFR. The discrepancy in the shear ratings was caused by both the live load effects and shear resistance. The dead load effects contributed little to the variation in LFR and LRFR rating factors for shear. Overall, the shear ratings controlled over those based on flexure.