LR-HUA-20-13599 FINAL 4-15-2021_Approved.pdf

LR-HUA-20-13599

Load Rating Analysis Report Facility Number: 13599 NBI Structure No.: DAPTRAHUA013599 Ft. Huachuca, AZ Chaoran Xu, EIT Checked by: Jason T. Wolfe, PE Report Date: 12 June 2020

Requests for this document shall be referred to the Commander USAG Fort Huachuca, ATTN: DPW, Bldg.

22422, 3040 Butler Road, Fort Huachuca, AZ, 85613 or to the HQ IMCOM, G4 Public Works Division, Facilities Management Branch, 2405 Gun Shed Rd, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234 1223.

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.

Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.

All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

PREFACE

This report presents the load rating analysis for facility number 13599 at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona and satisfies requirements for bridge analysis and posting as specified in Army Regulation (AR) 420-1 “Army Facility Management”, Chapter 7 “Transportation Infrastructure and Dams.”

The Army Bridge Inspection Program is sponsored by the Army Dams and Transportation Infrastructure Program (ADTIP) of the Headquarters Installation Management Command (IMCOM), San Antonio, TX. The IMCOM provided funding for this investigation. Questions shall be directed to Michael R. Andres, IMCOM ADTIP Program Manager, michael.r.andres.civ@mail.mil.

Personnel of the PRIME AE Group, Inc. prepared this publication. The analysis was performed by Chaoran Xu, EIT, and reviewed by Jason T. Wolfe, PE, under the supervision of Monica McCluskey, PE.

The Installation POC is Jose A. Jimenez, (520) 533-1865, jose.a.jimenez182.civ@mail.mil

Chaoran Xu, (410) 654-3790, cxu@primeeng.com

Jason T. Wolfe, PE, (410) 654-3790, jwolfe@primeeng.com

James C. Ray, PE, (601) 634-3839, James.C.Ray@usace.army.mil

Prepared by:

Report Reviewer:

Report Approver:

4-15-2021

RHM on behalf of JTW mailto:James.C.Ray@usace.army.mil

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ............................................................................. 13599-1

INTRODUCTION: ........................................................................................ 13599-5

ENGINEERING JUDGMENT RATING METHODOLOGY: ............................ 13599-5

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: ....................................................................... 13599-6 BRIDGE DESCRIPTION & MATERIALS: ..................................................... 13599-7

RECOMMENDED NBI DATA UPDATES: ..................................................... 13599-9

LOAD RATING CALCULATIONS: ...............................................................13599-10

APPENDIX A: AASHTO DESIGN VEHICLES, AASHTO LEGAL LOADS,

EMERGENCY VEHICLES, MLC VEHICLES & HETS ................................... 13599-19

APPENDIX B: LARS MOMENTS AND SHEARS REPORT .......................... 13599-26

LR-HUA-20-13599-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A load rating calculation was performed for structure number 13599 on 12 June 2020 in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 650, Subpart C - National

Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), the requirements for military vehicular loadings as specified in Unified Facility Criteria (UFC) 3-310-08, and Army Regulation (AR) 420-1

“Army Facility Management”, Chapter 7 “Transportation Infrastructure and Dams,” and the procedures established by the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) manuals: AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications and The Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE).

The bridge was evaluated by Engineering Judgment. This methodology was utilized due to insufficient information available to perform a full analytical load rating. Specifically, no bridge drawings showing the reinforcing were provided.

Based on the 2019 Inspection Report, the bridge has been carrying its current level of traffic with no signs of distress. Per the MBE 3rd Ed., Errata Section 6B.7.1 stated below, no civilian posting restriction is therefore necessary.

“A concrete bridge with unknown reinforcement need not be posted for restricted loading when it has been carrying normal traffic for an appreciable length of time and shows no distress.”

An equivalent Military Load Classification (MLC) suitable for the structure, however, was calculated using the Correlation-Curve Classification method in accordance with the

Correlation Classification for Military Vehicles procedure, 2020. Based on the age of the bridge, the HS-20 and Alternate Military Loading (AML) were assumed to be the design vehicles. The maximum design live load moment and shear acting on the beam superstructure at the operating level was the basis of the MLC classification. Since the bridge has a very low ADT and its normal traffic may not be the state's legal vehicles (same as the AASHTO legal vehicles), the maximum moments and shears at the operating level were also calculated for the Emergency vehicles and correlated to the HS-20 values to

LR-HUA-20-13599-2

determine if the bridge needed to be posted for these vehicles.

Analysis Assumptions:

• For the Correlation Classification for Military Vehicles procedure an LRFR approach is used. The ratio of civilian over military Live Load Safety Factors is applied to the civilian moment and shear to compute the equivalent military moment and shear.

• Since the MBE does not provide guidance for reporting of Items 64 and 66 when using Engineering Judgment, the HS20 vehicle was chosen for the reporting.

Assuming this design vehicle, an Inventory Rating of 1.0 and an Operating Rating of 1.3 (1.75/1.35) were used based on the ratio of the civilian operating Live Load

Safety Factor over the inventory Live Load Safety Factor.

• The bridge was rated as poor condition (NBI=4) due to the condition of the deck in the 2019 routine bridge inspection report. The superstructure was rated as fair condition (NBI Rating = 5). None or the noted deficiency suggested a reduction in concrete or reinforcement steel areas that would have the potential for the loss of critical strength.

Updated NBI items are found in Table 1. Load Rating computations for civilian vehicles and MLC are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, and the HETS passability is shown in Table

4 respectively. Required posting signs, if needed, are displayed below.

Table 1. Bridge Management Information

Load Rating And Posting Structure Type and Material

(31) Design Load 0 (43) Structure Type, Main 104

(41) Structure Open/Posted/Closed to Traffic B (44) Structure Type, Approach Spans 000

(63) Operating Rating Method 0 (45) Number of Spans in Main Unit 001

(64) Operating Rating 424 (46) Number of Approach Spans 0000

(65) Inventory Rating Method 0 Geometric Data

(66) Inventory Rating 326 (48) Length of Maximum Span 00085

(70) Bridge Posting 4 (49) Structure Length 000085

Notes: 1. Metric Units are used for reporting tonnage and length.

2. Items 64 and 66 are reported in terms of MS18.

LR-HUA-20-13599-3

Recommended Civilian Posting Signs:

See Load Rating Calculations section, page 10. While an Emergency Vehicle posting is recommended below, bridges more than 1 mile from interstate access are not required to be posted for Emergency Vehicles and the recommended sign below may be used at the discretion of the Base Administrator, based upon the bridges proximity to the interstate.

However, if not used, justification should be kept in the bridge folder.

Recommended MLC Posting Signs:

See Load Rating Calculations section, page 10.

30 30

30 50

EMERGENCY

VEHICLE

WEIGHT LIMITS

SINGLE AXLE 17T

TANDEM 30T

GROSS 41T

LR-HUA-20-13599-4

Table 2. Civilian Capacity

1. Enter ASR for Allowable Stress Rating, LFR for Load Factor Rating, LRFR for Load and Resistance Factor Rating or EJ for Engineering Judgment.

2. EV Posting: Single AXLE = RF(EV2)*33.5/2 = 24.29 tons, cap at 17 tons; Tandem = RF(EV3)*31 = 30.69 tons, GVW = min[(RF(EV3)*43,RF(EV2)*28.75] = 41.60 tons

3. AZDOT State Legal Loads is the same as AASHTO Legal Loads. No additional Vehicles are required.

Table 3. Military Load Classification

Calculated

MLC

1-way Wheel

Calculated

MLC

2-way Wheel

Calculated

MLC

1-way Track

Calculated

MLC

2-way Track

50 30 30 30

Table 4. HETS Loading

Load Type Weight (Tons) Rating Factor

Special Permit HETS 137.8 PASS

Design Load : Unknown Load Capacity Remains (Y/N) : Y Date of Previous Load Rating : N/A Load Capacity Reduced (Y/N) : Y

Date of Current Load Rating : 06/12/2020 Revised or New Load Posting (Y/N) : Y

Specify Load Rating Methodology 1 : EJ

AASHTO LOADINGS

Load Rating Type

Load Type

Weight (tons)

RF

RT

(tons)

Safe Posting

Load Limit (tons)

D es ig n

Lo ad

Ra tin g

HS-20

Inventory 36.00 1.00 36.00

Operating 36.00 1.30 46.80

AA

SH

TO

L eg al

L oa d Ra tin g Routine

Commercial Vehicles

Type 3 25.00 1.58 39.50 Not Required Type 3-S2 36.00 1.73 62.28

Type 3-3 40.00 1.90 76.00

Specialized Hauling Vehicles

NRL 40.00 - -

SU4 27.00 - -

Not Required

SU5 31.00 - -

SU6 34.75 - -

SU7 38.75 - -

Fa st

Ac t g

Emergency Vehicles

EV2 28.75 1.45 41.60

EV3 43.00 0.99 42.55

STATE LOADINGS

St at e Le ga l g3

Routine Commercial

Not Required - - - -

Pe rm it Routine Permit

LR-HUA-20-13599-5

INTRODUCTION:

This document describes a load rating and Military Load Classification (MLC) performed on a reinforced concrete T-beam bridge at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Bridge 13599 is a single-span reinforced concrete T-beam bridge that carries Canelo Road over Slaughterhouse Wash. The calculations summarized in this report provide a bridge load rating based on engineering judgment.

A load rating analysis was performed following two standards, the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 8h Edition and the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation 3rd

Edition. The bridge was evaluated using engineering judgment as no bridge drawings with reinforcing details were provided. The correlation loading analysis was carried out using Microsoft Excel.

The live load effects considered in the analysis were based on the AASHTO HS-20 design vehicle and the Alternate Military Vehicle. The vehicle that produced the largest live load moment and shear was used for MLC Classification. The HETS is also included as part of the evaluation.

ENGINEERING JUDGMENT RATING METHODOLOGY:

The process for determining a load rating by engineering judgment for Army-owned bridges is outlined in the “Guidelines for Application and Documentation of “Engineering Judgment” for Bridge Load rating. See the application as follows:

Step 1: Is the vehicular bridge length greater than or equal to 20ft?

Yes, the bridge length is 27.8 ft. Proceed to step 2.

Step 2: Does the bridge have a current and available-for-review load rating in accordance with the MBE?

No load rating is documented in the bridge file. Proceed to step 3.

Step 3: Does the bridge meet the requirements for an “Assigned Load Rating” as detailed in FHWA Memorandum dated 29 Sept 2011?

No

Step 4: Is sufficient information available to calculate a load rating for this bridge; i.e.

as-built drawings, design drawings, or is the superstructure made of steel or timber where measurements can be made to facilitate the load rating?

Bridge 13599 is a single-span reinforced concrete T-beam bridge in which, the measurements of the structural elements do not provide the necessary information to perform a load rating as would be the case of steel or wood bridges.

LR-HUA-20-13599-6

Step 5: Make a final request to bridge owner for a concerted drawing search, noting that without drawings the bridge will be rated via the conservative estimate method described herein and that it may unduly limit the allowable loadings on the bridge.

A final attempt to gather additional data on the bridge material properties was conducted during March 2020. No additional data could be obtained.

Step 6: Referring to a current detailed inspection report: Is there evidence of increasing and/or active distress in the critical load-bearing components?

According to the routine bridge inspection report, Bridge 13599 does not exhibit signs of active or increasing distress.

Step 7: If all above criteria have been satisfied and a load rating still has not been obtained, then rate the bridge using “Engineering Judgment”.

Item 7b: Bridge is carrying all current levels of traffic with no signs of distress (7b).

Step 8: Document Load Rating in a standalone report.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:

“The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 3rd Edition”, AASHTO, 2018, including the October 2018 Errata and the 2019 interim revisions, herein referred to as “MBE”.

“Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition”, AASHTO, 2002.

“AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition”, AASHTO, 2017, including the May 2018 Errata, herein referred to as “AASHTO LRFD”.

Ruiz, Edgardo, and Diaz-Alvarez, Henry, “Routine Bridge Inspection Report on Facility Number 13599 – Ft. Huachuca, AZ”, RBI-HUA-19-13599, June 2019.

Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-310-08, “Non-Expeditionary Bridge Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair”, 17 July 2018.

Tech Manual TM 3-34.22 (FM3-34.343)/MCRP 3-17.1B, “Military Nonstandard Fixed Bridging”, October 2013.

Ray, James C., PE, “Correlation Classification for Military Vehicles”, 2020.

LR-HUA-20-13599-7

BRIDGE DESCRIPTION & MATERIALS:

Bridge 13599 is a single-span reinforced concrete T-beam bridge with a total length of approximately 27’-10”. Typical span length is taken as 27’-10”, face to face of abutment.

The beam is considered simply supported for live load. The elevation view sketch is shown in Figure 1. The section view sketch is shown in Figure 2.

Date of construction: 1960

Design Load: Unknown

Max. Span = 27’ -10”

No. of Beams: 4

Skew = 0◦

Deck Width (out-t0-out) = 24’-6 ½”

Roadway Width (curb-to-curb) = 23’ -10”

Figure 1. Bridge Elevation View Sketch

LR-HUA-20-13599-8

Figure 2. Bridge Section View Sketch

Structural Condition:

The 2019 routine bridge inspection report, RBI-HUA-19-13599, was reviewed to verify the structure’s current condition. Bridge 13599 was reported to be in poor condition overall

(NBI Rating=4) due to the condition of the deck. The superstructure was rated as fair condition (NBI Rating = 5). Below is a summary of the condition ratings for the most relevant NBI Items. Among the reported deficiencies are shear and flexure cracking on T-beams, exposed rebar on T-beams, spalling and honeycombing with exposed rebar in the deck underside, scour around abutments, large scour hole with undermining in channel upstream from the structure, and erosion and undercutting of the downstream channel banks. The deficiencies may suggest an overload may have occurred; however, none or the noted deficiency suggested a reduction in concrete or reinforcement steel areas that would have the potential for the loss of critical strength.

Deck general condition: Item 58 – 4

Superstructure general condition: Item 59 – 5

Substructure general condition: Item 60 – 5

LR-HUA-20-13599-9

RECOMMENDED NBI DATA UPDATES:

Table 5. NBI Data Updates

Description & NBI Item Number 2019 NBI Data

Recommended Edits/updates to the 2019 NBI Data

Comments

State Structure No. (8) DAPTRAHUA013599 DAPTRAHUA013599 No Change Army Facility No. (202) DAPTRAHUA013599 DAPTRAHUA013599 No Change Year Built (27) 1960 1960 No Change Lanes On/Under Structure (28) 0200 0200 No Change Average Daily Traffic (29) 001000 001000 No Change Year of Average Daily Traffic (30) 2015 2015 No Change Design Load (31) 0 0 No Change Structure Open/Posted/Closed (41) A B Update per 2020 Load Rating Type of Service (42) 15 15 No Change Structure Type, Main (43) 104 104 No Change Structure Type, Approach Spans

(44) 000 000 No Change

No. Spans Main Unit (45) 001 001 No Change No. Approach Spans Main Unit

(46) 0000 000 No Change

Length of Max Span (48) 00085 00085 No Change Structure Length (49) 000085 000085 No Change Method Used to Determine Operating Load Rating (63) 5 0 Engineering judgment used for

2020 Load Rating Operating Rating (64) - 424 Value from 2020 Load Rating Method Used to Determine Inventory Load Rating (65) 5 0 Engineering judgment used for

2020 Load Rating Inventory Rating (66) - 326 Value from 2020 Load Rating Bridge Posting (70) 5 4 Update per 2020 Load Rating Average Daily Truck Traffic (109) 10 10 No Change

Calculation For:

Bridge 13599

Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge

MLC Correlation-Curve

Design By: CX Date:6/12/2020

Chk By: JTW Date:6/22/2020

Bk chk By: JTW Date:7/1/2020

LOAD RATING CALCULATIONS:

Correlation-Curve Classification

Scope

References

Assumptions

2. Other assumptions are noted within.

The purpose of this calculation is to determine the Military Load Classification (MLC) for Br. 13599, a single span reinforced concrete T-beam bridge, using the correlation procedure from TM 3-34.22 and the Correlation Classification for Military Vehicles. The HETS will be analyzed as well.

8. Correlation Classification for Military Vehicles, 2020 by James Ray, USACE

9. Arizona DOT Bridge Load Rating Guidelines.

1. An LRFR approach is used for the correlation procedure.

1. United Facilities Criteria, UFC 3-310-08, 2018 (UFC)

2. Military Nonstandard Fixed Bridging, TM 3-34.22, October 2013 (TM)

3. Technical Commentary on FM3-34.343, Military Nonstandard Fixed Bridging, 2002

4. AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition (2002)

5. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 3rd Edition , AASHTO, 2018, (MBE)

6. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition (2017)

7. 2019 Routine Bridge Inspection Report on Facility Number 13599 - Fort Huachuca, AZ Routine

LR-HUA-20-13599-10

Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge

MLC Correlation-Curve

Design By: CX Date:6/12/2020

Chk By: JTW Date:6/22/2020

Bk chk By: JTW Date:7/1/2020

Correlation Approach

Superstructure

Span Length:

Span length

Interior span length Equivalent interior span length (0.7*Lint.span) (TM Para. 3-42) Exterior span length Equivalent exterior span length (0.8*Lext.span) (TM Para. 3-42)

Considered span length: 27.83 ft

Roadway clear width: 23.8 ft

ADTT:

100.00 (choose <100, =1000, >5000)

(AASHTO LRFD Table C3.6.1.4.2-1)

Original Design Load

Year of Construction: 1930

Procedure:

Closest One Way ADTT =

N/A

N/A

The midspan moment and end shear for State Legal Loads, HS-20, EV2 and EV3 were computed using LARS Bridge CONNECT, version 10.09.00.03. These moments and shears were compared to the operating level moment and shear for the HS-20 and the AML. Rating factors were calculated for each vehicle using the following formula:

RF=max H-20,AML moment or shear/(Legal load, HS-20, EV moment or shear). If any vehicles have a RF of less than 1.0, the bridge needs to be posted for those loads.

The actual original design load is unknown; Since the year of construction is 1930, the HS-20 truck abd the AML will be used.

Since the AASHTO live load moment and shear tables are for a simply supported beam, an equivalent simple span length needs to be computed per TM Para. 3-42 when the beam is continuous.

Structure type: Simply supported

27.83 ft

Continuous beam:

Simply supported beam:

(Single Span RC T-beam Bridge)

To calculate the equivalent MLC using the correlation-curve classification procedure, the original design load and the span lengths must be known. This method equates the maximum midspan longitudinal bending moment for the civilian design vehicle to the military vehicle(s) that produce the same amount of longitudinal bending moment (FM Commentary Paragraphs 3-15 thru 3-18). A similar procedure is used for end shear. The civilian live load moments and shears were taken from precalculated tables in the 15th edition of AASHTO Standards Spec, which are the same as the tables in the 17th edition. For this structure, moments and shears are computed for HS-20 and the Alternate Military Load (AML). The maximum values between the HS-20 and the AML are used for the correlation.

LR-HUA-20-13599-11

Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge

MLC Correlation-Curve

Design By: CX Date:6/12/2020

Chk By: JTW Date:6/22/2020

Bk chk By: JTW Date:7/1/2020

MLC LRFR Correlation Equation γLLCiv = 1.35 (choose Inv or Oper design level) γLLMil = 1.3

ICiv = 1.33 (1+IM) per AASHTO 3.6.2.1-1 IMil = 1.15

RFCiv = 1.00 (generally set to 1.0)

Note: Assume DFCiv = DFMil for simplicity.

(1.35*1.33*1) (1.3*1.15)

Design Live Load Moments and Shears:

Original Design Load (Assumed) Equivalent Span Length

HS-20 Moment and Shear without Impact from 2002 AASHTO Standard Specifications

27.0 237 47.4

27.8 249.5 47.9

28.0 252 48.0

AML Moment and Shear Calculations per AISC Table 3-23 Case 44

PAML = 24.00 kip - AML Axle Load a = 4.00 ft - AML Axle Spacing

Note: If a < 0.586*Span, then MAML = PAML/(2*Lspan)*(Lspan-a/2)2, else MAML = PAML*LSPAN/4

16.31)

MAML = 287.7 k-ft - AML Live Load Moment w/o Impact VAML = 44.6 k - AML live load shear w/o Impact

Controlling Moment and Shear Civilian Live Loads

Mciv = 287.7 k-ft Vciv= 24.0 tons

Two-Way Military Load Classification (MLC) Moment and Shear Use the basic LRFR correlation equation:

Military Live Load Moment = 1.2*Mciv = 345.3 kip-ft Military Live Load Shear = 1.2*Mciv = 28.74 ton

Upper Boundary

Linear Interpolation

PAML*(2-a/LSPAN) =

Lower Boundary

1.20Therefore: LLMil =

27.8 ft HS-20 and AML

Shear (k)

P/(2*L)*(L-a/2)^2=

Span Length

(ft) Moment (k-ft)

Equivalent Span

Note: The moment and shear equations use the same factors.

per MBE for permit vehicles per 3-34.22 Ch. 3 Sec. IV

(0.586*Span =

𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑖𝑣∗ 𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑖𝑣 =

LR-HUA-20-13599-12

Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge

MLC Correlation-Curve

Design By: CX Date:6/12/2020

Chk By: JTW Date:6/22/2020

Bk chk By: JTW Date:7/1/2020

Determine the MLC for Moment and Shear

The MLC's from Table B-2 for moment (in kip-feet) is as follows:

25 27.83 30

50 320.00 373.83 415.00

40 277.00 323.47 359.00

40 380.00 436.67 480.00

30 293.00 334.93 367.00

MLC

The MLC's from Table B-3 for shear (in tons) is as follows:

25 27.83 30

50 31.60 33.34 34.67

40 26.72 27.97 28.93

40 30.40 31.31 32.00

30 23.40 24.02 24.50

MLC

Based on the MLC moment and Shear calculated above, along with the span length, the Wheeled and Tracked MLC are determined from Table B-2, Pages B-6 through B-9 (for moment) and Table B-3, Pages B-10 through B-13 (for shear) from the TM Manual.

Wheeled /

Tracked Class

28.74

T

Span length (feet)

For Span Length 27.83 feet

WHEELED/TRACKED Shear from Table (tons) Design Shear (tons)

TRACKED 30 24.02

Design Moment (k-ft)

323.47

Wheeled /

Tracked Class

W

T

Span length (feet)

For Span Length 27.83 feet

345.27

345.27334.93

WHEELED/TRACKED

WHEELED

TRACKED

Moment from Table (k-ft)

40WHEELED 27.97 28.74

W

LR-HUA-20-13599-13

Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge

MLC Correlation-Curve

Design By: CX Date:6/12/2020

Chk By: JTW Date:6/22/2020

Bk chk By: JTW Date:7/1/2020

MLC (Continued) - One-Way Military Load Classification per Ref. 8

1.20 Military Live Load Moment (One lane): 414.3 kip-ft

Military Live Load Shear (One lane): 34.49 ton

The MLC's from Table B-2 for moment (in kip-feet) is as follows:

25 27.83 30 60 365.00 426.77 474.00 50 320.00 373.83 415.00 40 380.00 436.67 480.00 30 293.00 334.93 367.00

MLC

The MLC's from Table B-3 for shear (in tons) is as follows:

25 27.83 30 60 35.52 38.02 39.93 50 31.60 33.34 34.67 50 37.00 38.23 39.17 40 30.40 31.31 32.00

MLC

One Way Conversion:

Adjustment factor:

W

T

For Span Length 27.83 feet

Class

TRACKED 30 334.93

W

WHEELED/TRACKED Shear from Table (tons) Design Shear (tons)

WHEELED 50 33.34 34.49

TRACKED 40 31.31 34.49

414.32

T

Span length (feet)

WHEELED 50 373.83 414.32

Design Moment (k-ft)

Wheeled /

Tracked Class

For Span Length 27.83 feet WHEELED/TRACKED Moment from Table (k-ft)

Span length (feet)

Wheeled /

Tracked

LR-HUA-20-13599-14

Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge

MLC Correlation-Curve

Design By: CX Date:6/12/2020

Chk By: JTW Date:6/22/2020

Bk chk By: JTW Date:7/1/2020

MLC (Controlling Moment & Shear)

One-Way Two-way One-way Two-way

50 40 30 30

50 40 40 30

MLC (Width)

One Lane Two Lanes

4 to 12 9.0 ft 18.0 ft

13 to 30 11.0 ft 18.0 ft

31 to 60 13.17 ft 24.0 ft

61 to 100 14.75 ft 27.0 ft

101 to 150 16.42 ft 32.0 ft

One-Way Two-way One-way Two-way

150 30 150 30

Shear

Wheeled Tracked

TM Table 3-4 Minimum Roadway Widths Information

Roadway width to be used is a curb to curb distance of 23.83 feet.

Classification

Width

Minimum Curb-to-Curb Width

The MLC may be limited by the roadway width. TM Table 3-4 provides the limits for one way and two way military traffic.

Bridge Classification

Wheeled Tracked

Moment

Classification

LR-HUA-20-13599-15

Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge

MLC Correlation-Curve

Design By: CX Date:6/12/2020

Chk By: JTW Date:6/22/2020

Bk chk By: JTW Date:7/1/2020

HETS

Required MLC for HETS: 50

PASS

1.000

Prestress Beam R/C or T-beam Steel

4 40 60 60 50

6 40 60 60 50

8 40 60 60 50

10 40 60 60 50

12 40 60 60 50

14 30 55 55 45

16 30 50 50 42

18 30 50 50 40

20 24 45 45 40

25 24 45 45 40

30 24 50 50 40 35 40 50 50 45 40 45 50 50 45

50 55 45 45 40

55 60 40 40 40

60 65 40 40 40

70 75 40 40 40

80 80 40 40 40

90 85 40 40 40

100 85 40 40 40

110 NA 40 40 40

120 NA 40 40 45

130 NA 40 40 45

140 NA 40 40 45

150 NA 40 40 45

HETS Rating Factor = 50/50 =

Required Bridge MLC to Support HETS Convoys

HETS Passability:

R/C or T-beamSelect Bridge Type:

Span

Span Length for Table:

1-Way TrafficConc. Slab (R/C or Prestressed)

The HETS Passability shall be based on the bridge type, span, and one-way MLC using the HET MLC Comparison table from Appendix A of the LRFR Correlation Classification Method document shown below. (Ref. 8) If the MLC required is less than or equal to the controlling one-way MLC computed through the correlation procedure, then the HETS is allowed on the structure. Otherwise, HETS is not permitted on the structure.

Controlling 1-Way Wheeled MLC:

LR-HUA-20-13599-16

Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge

MLC Correlation-Curve

Design By: CX Date:6/12/2020

Chk By: JTW Date:6/22/2020

Bk chk By: JTW Date:7/1/2020

Arizona Legal Loads & Emergency Vehicles Evaluation:

Weight

(Tons)

+M (kip-ft)

Response

(Calculated)

V Shear

(kips)

Response

(Calculated) jc

(Condition

Factor) gLL IM RFMoment RFShear

RT

(Tons)

Controlling

Case Note

Inventory 287.72 47.90 1.00 1.75 0.33 1.00 1.00 36.00 N/A Assigned

Operating 287.72 47.90 1.00 1.35 0.33 1.30 1.30 46.80 N/A Correlated

Type 3 25.00 202.56 36.63 1.00 1.45 0.33 1.71 1.58 39.50 SHEAR Correlated

Type 3-S2 36.00 199.26 33.38 1.00 1.45 0.33 1.74 1.73 62.28 SHEAR Correlated

Type 3-3 40.00 166.81 30.49 1.00 1.45 0.33 2.08 1.90 76.00 SHEAR Correlated

EV2 28.75 240.05 44.56 1.00 1.30 0.33 1.61 1.45 41.69 SHEAR Correlated

EV3 43.00 369.37 65.16 1.00 1.30 0.33 1.05 0.99 42.57 SHEAR Correlated

Single Axle Weight limit from EV2, W2 = 24.24 tons 1.29*33.5/2 Cap at W2 = 17.00 tons ROUNDUP(33.5/2,0)

Tandem Axle Weight limit from EV3, W3 = 30.00 tons ROUNDDOWN[(0.99*31),0]

The gross vehicle weight limit is, GVM = 41.00 tons ROUNDDOWN[MIN(0.99*43,1.45*28.75),0]

Fast Act

AASHTO

Legal

Load

Emergency Vehicles, EV3 Posting Calculation (Ref. FHWA Load Rating Procedure for the Fast Act's Emergency Vehicles):

Since the bridge has a very low ADT and its normal traffic may not be the state's legal vehicles, the maximum moments and shears at the operating level were also calculated for the state legal loads and the Emergency vehicles. The values are then correlated to the corresponding values of the HS‐20 truck to determine the operating rating factors and the tonnage. If the rating factors are less than 1.0, posting is recommended. The HS‐20 live load moments and shears are taken from precalculated tables in the 15th edition of AASHTO Standards Spec, which are the same as the tables in the 17th edition.

The maximum live load moments and shears under state legal loads and emergency vehicles were acquired from LARS as shown in the following table:

LRFR CORRELATION

Vehicles

HS-20/

AML

36.00

Note: Since the MBE does not provide guidance for reporting of Items 64 and 66 when using Engineering Judgment, the HS20 vehicle was chosen for the reporting. Assuming this design vehicle, an Inventory Rating of 1.0 and an Operating Rating of 1.3 (1.75/1.35) were used based on the ratio of the civilian Inventory Live Load Factor (1.75) over the Operating Live Load Factor (1.35).

LR-HUA-20-13599-17

Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge

MLC Correlation-Curve

Design By: CX Date:6/12/2020

Chk By: JTW Date:6/22/2020

Bk chk By: JTW Date:7/1/2020

Rating Summary

Maximum MLC

One-Way Two-way One-way Two-way

50 40 30 30

50 40 40 30 150 30 150 30

50 30 30 30

HETS LOADING

Weight (Tons) Rating Factor

HETS 137.8 1.000

Load Type

Special permit

Final

Wheeled Tracked

Classification

Moment

Shear

Width

11630 3030 50

LR-HUA-20-13599-18

LR-HUA-20-13599-19

APPENDIX A: AASHTO DESIGN VEHICLES, AASHTO LEGAL LOADS,

EMERGENCY VEHICLES, MLC VEHICLES & HETS

Figure A-1. AASHTO Design Vehicles

LR-HUA-20-13599-20

Figure A-2. AASHTO Legal Loads – Trucks

Figure A-3. Fast Act Emergency Vehicles

LR-HUA-20-13599-21

Figure A-4. Hypothetical MLC Vehicles

LR-HUA-20-13599-22

Figure A-4. Hypothetical MLC Vehicles (cont.)

LR-HUA-20-13599-23

LR-HUA-20-13599-24

LR-HUA-20-13599-25

Figure A-5. HETS Axle Loading Configuration

LR-HUA-20-13599-26

APPENDIX B: LARS MOMENTS AND SHEARS REPORT

LOAD ANALYSIS AND RATING SYSTEM -- ASD/LFD/LRFD v10.07.00.09 PAGE 1

BRIDGE / MEMBER DATA

Bridge ID 13599_Civil

Material of Construction RC Year of Construction Roadway Width 0.000 Number of Spans 1

Live Load Distribution Factor 2.

Comments:

Member ID G1

Symmetry:

Span Length: Span 1 Span 2 Span 3 Span 4 Span 5

27.830 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Range Length -- Non-Composite:

Span Range Range Section Section Section Hinge Location No. No. Length Left Right Variation No. 1 No. 2

1 1 27.830 1 0 0.0 0.0

Range Length -- Composite:

Span Range Range Composite No. No. Length Code

Superimposed Dead Load: LEGEND:

W - UNIFORM COMPOSITE

Z - UNIFORM STAGE I

P - CONCENTRATED COMPOSITE

Y - CONCENTRATED STAGE I

Span Load Dist. from Distributed Load (lbs/ft) Concentrated No. Type Left Supp. Left Right Length Load (kips)

NOTE: All distances are shown in decimal feet, moments are shown in foot-kips, and shears are shown in kips. Section and section properties are shown as: in., in.**2, in.**3, and in.**4.

LR-HUA-20-13599-27

LLDF for Wheel Line

LOAD ANALYSIS AND RATING SYSTEM -- ASD/LFD/LRFD v10.07.00.09 PAGE 4

MOMENT REPORT

Structure I. D. 13599_Civil

Member I. D. G1

Rating Type: POST.

Rating Live Load: 3

Span Dead Load Superimposed Live Load w/impact Live Load w/o impact Dead Load Truck Lane Truck Lane

1.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 R 0.00

1.100 20.9 0.0 114.45 R 88.04

1.200 37.2 0.0 192.71 R 148.24

1.300 48.8 0.0 234.80 R 180.62

1.400 55.8 0.0 259.86 R 199.89

1.500 58.1 0.0 263.32 R 202.56

1.600 55.8 0.0 259.86 R 199.89

1.700 48.8 0.0 234.80 R 180.62

1.800 37.2 0.0 192.71 R 148.24

1.900 20.9 0.0 114.45 R 88.03

2.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 R 0.00

LR-HUA-20-13599-28

Type 3

LOAD ANALYSIS AND RATING SYSTEM -- ASD/LFD/LRFD v10.07.00.09 PAGE 7

SHEAR REPORT

Rating Live Load: 3

1.000 8.3 0.0 47.62 36.63

1.100 6.7 0.0 41.12 31.63

1.200 5.0 0.0 34.62 26.63

1.300 3.3 0.0 28.12 21.63

1.400 1.7 0.0 23.34 17.96

1.500 0.0 0.0 18.92 14.56

1.600 -1.7 0.0 -23.34 -17.96

1.700 -3.3 0.0 -28.12 -21.63

1.800 -5.0 0.0 -34.62 -26.63

1.900 -6.7 0.0 -41.12 -31.63

2.000 -8.3 0.0 -47.62 -36.63

LR-HUA-20-13599-29

LOAD ANALYSIS AND RATING SYSTEM -- ASD/LFD/LRFD v10.07.00.09 PAGE 10

Rating Live Load: 3S2

1.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 R 0.00

1.100 20.9 0.0 105.94 R 81.49

1.200 37.2 0.0 182.21 R 140.16

1.300 48.8 0.0 228.82 R 176.02

1.400 55.8 0.0 250.44 R 192.65

1.500 58.1 0.0 259.03 R 199.26

1.600 55.8 0.0 250.44 R 192.65

1.700 48.8 0.0 228.82 R 176.02

1.800 37.2 0.0 182.21 R 140.16

1.900 20.9 0.0 105.94 R 81.49

2.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 R 0.00

LR-HUA-20-13599-30

Type 3S2

LOAD ANALYSIS AND RATING SYSTEM -- ASD/LFD/LRFD v10.07.00.09 PAGE 13

Rating Live Load: 3S2

1.000 8.3 0.0 43.40 33.38

1.100 6.7 0.0 38.07 29.28

1.200 5.0 0.0 32.74 25.18

1.300 3.3 0.0 27.41 21.08

1.400 1.7 0.0 22.08 16.98

1.500 0.0 0.0 17.25 13.27

1.600 -1.7 0.0 -22.08 -16.98

1.700 -3.3 0.0 -27.41 -21.08

1.800 -5.0 0.0 -32.74 -25.18

1.900 -6.7 0.0 -38.07 -29.28

2.000 -8.3 0.0 -43.40 -33.38

LR-HUA-20-13599-31

LOAD ANALYSIS AND RATING SYSTEM -- ASD/LFD/LRFD v10.07.00.09 PAGE 16

Structure I. D. 13599_Civil

Member I. D. G1

Rating Type: POST.

Rating Live Load: 3-3

Span Dead Load Superimposed Live Load w/impact Live Load w/o impact Dead Load Truck Lane Truck Lane

1.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 R 0.00

1.100 20.9 0.0 94.39 R 72.61

1.200 37.2 0.0 156.94 R 120.72

1.300 48.8 0.0 190.89 R 146.84

1.400 55.8 0.0 214.00 R 164.62

1.500 58.1 0.0 216.85 R 166.81

1.600 55.8 0.0 214.00 R 164.62

1.700 48.8 0.0 190.89 R 146.84

1.800 37.2 0.0 156.94 R 120.72

1.900 20.9 0.0 94.39 R 72.61

2.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 R 0.00

LR-HUA-20-13599-32

Type 3-3

LOAD ANALYSIS AND RATING SYSTEM -- ASD/LFD/LRFD v10.07.00.09 PAGE 19

Rating Live Load: 3-3

1.000 8.3 0.0 39.64 30.49

1.100 6.7 0.0 33.92 26.09

1.200 5.0 0.0 28.20 21.69

1.300 3.3 0.0 22.86 17.59

1.400 1.7 0.0 19.22 14.79

1.500 0.0 0.0 15.58 11.99

1.600 -1.7 0.0 -19.22 -14.79

1.700 -3.3 0.0 -22.86 -17.59

1.800 -5.0 0.0 -28.20 -21.69

1.900 -6.7 0.0 -33.92 -26.09

2.000 -8.3 0.0 -39.64 -30.49

LR-HUA-20-13599-33

LOAD ANALYSIS AND RATING SYSTEM -- ASD/LFD/LRFD v10.07.00.09 PAGE 22

Structure I. D. 13599_Civil

Member I. D. G1

Rating Type: POST.

Rating Live Load: EV2

Span Dead Load Superimposed Live Load w/impact Live Load w/o impact Dead Load Truck Lane Truck Lane

1.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 R 0.00

1.100 20.9 0.0 140.43 R 108.02

1.200 37.2 0.0 239.25 R 184.04

1.300 48.8 0.0 296.46 R 228.05

1.400 55.8 0.0 312.07 R 240.05

1.500 58.1 0.0 303.00 R 233.08

1.600 55.8 0.0 312.07 R 240.05

1.700 48.8 0.0 296.46 R 228.05

1.800 37.2 0.0 239.25 R 184.04

1.900 20.9 0.0 140.43 R 108.02

2.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 R 0.00

LR-HUA-20-13599-34

EV2

LOAD ANALYSIS AND RATING SYSTEM -- ASD/LFD/LRFD v10.07.00.09 PAGE 25

Rating Live Load: EV2

1.000 8.3 0.0 57.93 44.56

1.100 6.7 0.0 50.46 38.81

1.200 5.0 0.0 42.98 33.06

1.300 3.3 0.0 35.51 27.31

1.400 1.7 0.0 28.03 21.56

1.500 0.0 0.0 21.77 16.75

1.600 -1.7 0.0 -28.03 -21.56

1.700 -3.3 0.0 -35.51 -27.31

1.800 -5.0 0.0 -42.98 -33.06

1.900 -6.7 0.0 -50.46 -38.81

2.000 -8.3 0.0 -57.93 -44.56

LR-HUA-20-13599-35

EV3

LOAD ANALYSIS AND RATING SYSTEM -- ASD/LFD/LRFD v10.07.00.09 PAGE 28

Rating Live Load: EV3

1.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 R 0.00

1.100 20.9 0.0 204.63 R 157.40

1.200 37.2 0.0 347.02 R 266.94

1.300 48.8 0.0 427.19 R 328.61

1.400 55.8 0.0 473.86 R 364.51

1.500 58.1 0.0 480.17 R 369.37

1.600 55.8 0.0 473.86 R 364.51

1.700 48.8 0.0 427.19 R 328.61

1.800 37.2 0.0 347.02 R 266.94

1.900 20.9 0.0 204.63 R 157.40

2.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 R 0.00

LR-HUA-20-13599-36

LOAD ANALYSIS AND RATING SYSTEM -- ASD/LFD/LRFD v10.07.00.09 PAGE 31

Rating Live Load: EV3

1.000 8.3 0.0 84.71 65.16

1.100 6.7 0.0 73.53 56.56

1.200 5.0 0.0 62.35 47.96

1.300 3.3 0.0 51.17 39.36

1.400 1.7 0.0 42.57 32.74

1.500 0.0 0.0 34.51 26.54

1.600 -1.7 0.0 -42.57 -32.74

1.700 -3.3 0.0 -51.17 -39.36

1.800 -5.0 0.0 -62.35 -47.96

1.900 -6.7 0.0 -73.53 -56.56

2.000 -8.3 0.0 -84.71 -65.16

LR-HUA-20-13599-37

FLXTAB.pdf