LA Design and Rating Vehicle based on WIM (Weigh-in-Motion) Study

Similar documents
Probability based Load Rating

Load Rating for SHVs and EVs

Impact of Heavy Loads on State and Parish Bridges. Aziz Saber, Ph.D., P.E. Program Chair Civil Engineering Louisiana Tech University

2018 LOUISIANA TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCE. Mohsen Shahawy, PHD, PE

CHARACTERIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF TRUCK LOAD SPECTRA FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE PAVEMENT DESIGN PRACTICES IN LOUISIANA

HS20-44 vs HL-93 (Standard Specifications vs LRFD Code)

Comparison of Live Load Effects for the Design of Bridges

Workshop Agenda. I. Introductions II. III. IV. Load Rating Basics General Equations Load Rating Procedure V. Incorporating Member Distress VI.

COUNTY DIVISIBLE LOAD PERMITS ISSUED IN 2013 PERMIT FEES PERMITS?

WIM #31 US 2, MP 8.0 EAST GRAND FORKS, MN JANUARY 2015 MONTHLY REPORT

AASHTOWare Bridge Rating Vehicle Library Setup

US 191 Load Rating Past and Present. By Ron Pierce, P.E.,S.E., CBI David Evans & Associates Bridge Operations Services Practice Leader

CHAPTER 7 VEHICLES... 2

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LIVE LOADS FOR THE DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES IN PAKISTAN

Protocols for Collecting and Using Traffic Data in Bridge Design

RELIABILITY-BASED EVALUATION OF BRIDGE LIVE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY IN THE UNITED STATES. Lubin Gao 1

WIM #41 CSAH 14, MP 14.9 CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA APRIL 2014 MONTHLY REPORT

Load Rating in Michigan

WIM #29 was operational for the entire month of October Volume was computed using all monthly data.

Live Load Distribution in Multi-Cell Box-Girder Bridges and its Comparison with Current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

Case Study of Bridge Load Rating in KY using BrR. C.Y. Yong, P.E., S.E., ENV-SP

WIM #48 is located on CSAH 5 near Storden in Cottonwood county.

WIM #40 is located on US 52 near South St. Paul in Dakota county.

WIM #37 was operational for the entire month of September Volume was computed using all monthly data.

WIM #41 CSAH 14, MP 14.9 CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA MAY 2013 MONTHLY REPORT

WIM #39 MN 43, MP 45.2 WINONA, MN APRIL 2010 MONTHLY REPORT

NEW Load Restrictions and Overweight/Oversize Permit Requirements

WIM #40 US 52, MP S. ST. PAUL, MN APRIL 2010 MONTHLY REPORT

APPENDIX B. Main Features of Selected Studies for Collecting and Using Traffic Data in Bridge Design

MASH 2016 Implementation: What, When and Why

Reliability-Based Bridge Load Posting

A, B, C Permit Truck Classification Calculator

A Proposed Modification of the Bridge Gross Weight Formula

Impact of Overweight Traffic on Pavement Life Using WIM Data and Mechanistic- Empirical Pavement Analysis

Ohio Transportation Engineering Conference 2012

1962: HRCS Circular 482 one-page document, specified vehicle mass, impact speed, and approach angle for crash tests.

CFIRE December 2009

Commercial Vehicle Pre-Clearance and Compliance Best Practices. RANDY HANSON International Road Dynamics

FHWA/IN/JTRP-2000/23. Final Report. Sedat Gulen John Nagle John Weaver Victor Gallivan

STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE DIVISION

SPECIAL HAULING PERMITS

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE

Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act

A METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN PERMIT VEHICLES

CALIBRATION OF ALBERTA FATIGUE TRUCK

Post-Tensioned Concrete U-Girder Design. Midas Elite Speaker Series. Doug Midkiff, PE AECOM

PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE TOTAL LOAD EXPERIENCE OF A HIGHWAY AS CONTRIBUTED BY CARGO VEHICLES

Journey into quality for traffic monitoring equipment. Short session monitoring operations

Vertical Loads from North American Rolling Stock for Bridge Design and Rating

Oregon DOT Slow-Speed Weigh-in-Motion (SWIM) Project: Analysis of Initial Weight Data

Structural Considerations in Moving Mega Loads on Idaho Highways

Cleaning Weigh-in-Motion Data: Techniques and Recommendations

Project Title: Using Truck GPS Data for Freight Performance Analysis in the Twin Cities Metro Area Prepared by: Chen-Fu Liao (PI) Task Due: 9/30/2013

Development of Weight-in-Motion Data Analysis Software

AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Plan Standing Committee on Highways September 24, 2015

Maine and Vermont Interstate Highway Heavy Truck Pilot Program. 6 Month Report

Technical Report Documentation Page

Traffic Data For Mechanistic Pavement Design

Understanding Freight Vehicle Pavement Impacts: How do Passenger Vehicles and Trucks Compare?

LaDOTD s s New Traffic Control Details

Truck Enforcement and Screening Station (TESS) Status Briefing

Impact of doubling heavy vehicles on bridges

Truck Axle Weight Distributions

Quantifying Annual Bridge Cost by Overweight Trucks in South Carolina

Section 04: Weight Limitations. Minnesota Trucking Regulations

Lou, Nassif, Su and Truban 1. Effect of Overweight Trucks on Bridge Deck Deterioration Based on Weigh-In-Motion Data

THE DAMAGING EFFECT OF SUPER SINGLES ON PAVEMENTS

Establishment of Statewide Axle Load Spectra Data using Cluster Analysis

Section 5. Traffic Monitoring Guide May 1, Truck Weight Monitoring

Section 2B.59 Weight Limit Signs - Interim Revisions

Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations ROAD LOAD RATING PROJECT Project Update July 10, 2012 Gary McClelland P.Eng.

Item #2 - Load Rating/Posting Policy Sean Hankins is currently working on Load Rating Policy with Jeremy.

Freight Performance Measures Using Truck GPS Data and the Application of National Performance Measure Research Data Set (NPMRDS)

Simplifed site-specific traffic load models for bridge assessment. Author(s) Getachew, Abraham; O'Brien, Eugene J.

Innovative Overload Permitting in Manitoba Allowing a Kg (GVM) Superload

Nowak, A.S., Kim, S. "Weigh-in-Motion Measurement of Trucks on Bridges." Bridge Engineering Handbook. Ed. Wai-Fah Chen and Lian Duan Boca Raton: CRC

Louisiana s s Work Zone Task Force Work Zone Improvements

Performance Based Design for Bridge Piers Impacted by Heavy Trucks

Appendix SAN San Diego, California 2003 Annual Report on Freeway Mobility and Reliability

FIELD TESTING AND LOAD RATING REPORT: RIDOT#896 NORTH KINGSTOWN, RI

Implications of Future Heavier Trucks for Europe s Bridges

Social and Behavioral Sciences Symposium, 4 th International Science, Social Science, Engineering and Energy Conference 2012 (I-SEEC 2012)

New Weight Limits on Roads

Re-submission Date: November 15 th, 2012 (Word Count: Abstract: 238, Text: 3,760, Figures: 2,500, Tables: 1,000, Total: 7,498)

UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AXLE VERSUS LENGTH CLASSIFICATION ON AXLE FACTORS AND THE EFFECT ON AADT TO ENSURE RELIABLE TRAFFIC DATA

FHWA Bridge Program Initiatives - Bridge Design and Analysis

RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN FUTURE DESIGN VEHICLES FOR PURPOSES OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF U.S. HIGHWAYS AND STREETS

Evaluation Considerations and Geometric Nuances of Reduced Conflict U-Turn Intersections (RCUTs)

AASHTOWare Bridge Design and Rating Training. Capacity Override at Points of Interest (BrDR 6.5) Capacity Override LRFR

US-European Workshop on Bridges, Rome, Italy, July 17-19, Truck Loads and Highway Bridge Safety: New Developments

Project Title: Using Truck GPS Data for Freight Performance Analysis in the Twin Cities Metro Area Prepared by: Chen-Fu Liao (PI) Task Due: 7/31/2013

Project Manager: Neil Beckett. Prepared by: Bernadette Bañez. Reviewed by: Neil Beckett. Approved for issue by: David Darwin

summary report (DRAFT)

IMPACTS OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON TEXAS ROADS

Field Verification of Smoothness Requirements for Weigh-In-Motion Approaches

FHWA Update AASHTO SCOBS Annual Meeting

Cargo Vehicle Weight Measurement Accuracy And Correction Plan By Weigh-In-Motion Sensor Type

ABSTRACT. Examining the Impact to Highways and Structures by Vehicles Equipped With Lift Axles

DEVELOPING AN ASSESSMENT CRITERION FOR MEDIUM-TERM AXLE LOAD BRIDGE CAPACITY IN MALAYSIA. S.K. Ng Evenfit Consult Sdn Bhd MALAYSIA

Port of South Louisiana. Benefit Cost Analysis. Globalplex Intermodal Efficiency Improvements Project

Transcription:

2016 Louisiana Transportation Conference LA Design and Rating Vehicle based on WIM (Weigh-in-Motion) Study Bala Sivakumar, P. E. James Gregg, P.E. Ekin Senturk, Ph. D. Michel Ghosn Ph.D. City College, NY

Outline LA WIM sites and data collection WIM data analysis for Strength I and Strength II Updating design load using WIM load effects Optimizing design load using reliability analysis DOTD load rating / posting / permit practices Updating legal & permit trucks using WIM data Posting recommendations for routine permits

Review of LA Design Loads using WIM WIM Study was performed to determine state specific design loads for Louisiana. Traffic data collected from Permanent (Interstate) & Temporary (State Routes) WIM sites Design Loads were investigated for both STRENGTH I and STRENGTH II limit states. Design load adjustments were made using WIM load effects and then verified using reliability analysis

Calibrating Bridge Design Loads using WIM Apply NCHRP 12-76 Protocols for calibration Two calibration procedures are available: Simplified: Compare the 75-year max load effects used in LRFD calibration to that computed by statistically projecting WIM data Refined: Reliability analysis using WIM data to meet target b=3.5

LA Vehicle Regulations Legal limit of a tridem axle is 83,400 pounds for interstate and 88,000 pounds for non-interstate highways. DOTD does not enforce the FHWA Bridge Formula on non-interstate highways. DOTD issues permits for overweight trucks up to 254,000 pounds without bridge analysis. These overload trucks are greater than AASHTO HL-93 and have more load effect on bridges.

STRENGTH I Design Load Current Practice: LADV-11 MF x HL-93 DESIGN LOAD LOAD EFFECT M+, V M- RANGE OF APPLICABILITY MAGNIFICATION FACTOR (MF) S 240 1.30 240 < S < 600 1.30 0.00083(S - 240) S 600 1.00 S 100 1.30 100 < S < 240 1.30 0.00214(S - 100) S 240 1.00

Louisiana WIM Sites GREENWOOD LA-84 DELTA WIM SITE I-10 BREAUX EB BREAUX WB LAPLACE EB LAPLACE WB TOOMEY EB I-12 BAPTIST EB I-20 BREAUX BRIDGE LA-1 BAPTIST DELTA EB TOOMEY DELTA WB LAPLACE GREENWOOD EB US-61 GREENWOOD WB LA-1 US-61 LA-84

Truck Distributions For Each Site PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS SITE 3-AXLE 4-AXLE 5-AXLE 6-AXLE 7-AXLE 8-AXLE 9+ AXLES I-12 BAPTIST 0.62% 1.59% 95.67% 2.01% 0.07% 0.03% <0.04% I-10 BREAUX 0.54% 1.98% 93.68% 3.56% 0.13% 0.06% <0.04% I-10 LAPLACE 1.03% 4.45% 90.32% 4.04% 0.09% 0.04% <0.04% I-10 TOOMEY 0.27% 1.45% 95.62% 2.44% 0.15% 0.05% <0.04% I-20 DELTA 2.13% 1.71% 92.89% 3.13% 0.09% 0.03% <0.04% I-20 GREENWOOD 0.63% 2.50% 93.37% 3.29% 0.14% 0.04% <0.04% LA-1 22.81% 5.27% 60.03% 11.51% 0.27% 0.09% <0.04% US-84 EB 14.03% 3.26% 69.03% 12.95% 0.43% 0.25% <0.04% US-84 WB 14.18% 2.49% 74.07% 8.46% 0.47% 0.28% <0.04%

GVW Statistics 5-AXLE TRUCKS GVW [kips] WIM SITE # Trucks ALL TOP 20% TOP 10% TOP 5% I-12 BAPTIST EB 2949459 56.5 77.4 78.9 79.9 I-10 BREAUX EB 1548921 54.6 76.2 78.7 79.7 I-10 BREAUX WB 365636 62.1 79.9 81.8 82.8 I-10 LAPLACE EB 281843 57.7 76.9 79.2 80.4 I-10 LAPLACE WB 434862 47.4 75.1 78.1 80.2 I-10 TOOMEY EB 333950 59.9 77.6 79.8 81.6 I-20 DELTA EB 1077628 60.8 78.0 80.0 82.0 I-20 DELTA WB 496269 64.3 80.4 82.9 84.6 I-20 GREENWOOD EB 897182 57.1 80.7 86.2 92.2 I-20 GREENWOOD WB 1282895 60.0 87.4 94.3 101.3 LA-1 75620 52.7 90.0 98.3 105.4 US-84 EB 32945 63.8 100.8 108.8 116.2 US-84 WB 40323 52.5 88.6 95.4 101.7

WIM Data Sorting Filters Strength II sorting criteria selected based on Louisiana Special Design Vehicles LASDV 1 thru LASDV 8. All other trucks in Strength I bin. STRENGTH II: All trucks with 7 axles or more All trucks with GVW > 100 kips and the first axle weight > 20 kips STRENGTH I All other trucks will be included in STRENGTH I

STRENGTH I & STRENGTH II TRUCKS WIM SITE INTERSTATES STRENGTH I TRUCKS STRENGTH II TRUCKS GREENWOOD WB 1,370,961 3,077 STATE ROUTES LA 1 125,369 597 US 84 101,156 1,009

WIM Trucks ---- Moment & Shear Load Effects Moment and Shear Load Effects were calculated for: STRENGTH I and STRENGTH II trucks One Lane and Two Lane 20 to 200 spans.

Measured WIM Data for STRENGTH I Maximum load effects from WIM Data and compare with LADV-11 NORMALIZE BY HL-93 LOAD EFFECTS: M MAX,WIM /M HL93 Span Length [ft] 20 40 60 80 100 120 160 200 GREENWOOD I-20 1.59 1.57 1.33 1.23 1.19 1.17 1.15 1.09 US-84 EB 1.69 1.65 1.41 1.41 1.39 1.35 1.27 1.19 US-84 WB 1.29 1.25 1.15 1.15 1.17 1.15 1.17 1.07 LA-1 SB 1.69 1.71 1.47 1.41 1.41 1.39 1.31 1.21 MAX WIM 1.69 1.71 1.47 1.41 1.41 1.39 1.31 1.21 LADV-11 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30

Measured WIM Data for STRENGTH I WIM Data exhibits higher load effects compared to LADV-11: Needs modified load model to give higher load effects in spans < 120 ft 3.00 STRENGTH I MOMENTS NORMALIZED BY HL93 2.50 2.00 M / M HL93 1.50 1.00 LADV11 WIM MAX 0.50 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 Span Length [ft]

Frequency Statistical Projection for Life time Maximum Load Effects: Normal Probability Fit of Upper Tail 0.07 0.06 Moment Histogram for Individual Trucks in Drive Lane from field data from Normal pdf 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Moment/HL-93

Projected 75-Year Loads for STRENGTH I STRENGTH I MOMENT (One Lane) M 75-YEAR,WIM /M HL93 Span Length [ft] 20 40 60 80 100 120 160 200 GREENWOOD I-20 1.75 1.77 1.51 1.40 1.36 1.34 1.30 1.23 US-84 EB 2.09 2.04 1.76 1.68 1.63 1.59 1.50 1.42 US-84 WB 1.59 1.54 1.40 1.37 1.37 1.34 1.37 1.26 LA-1 SB 2.00 2.06 1.78 1.69 1.65 1.61 1.52 1.40 MAX FOR STATE ROUTES 2.09 2.06 1.78 1.69 1.65 1.61 1.52 1.42

STRENGTH I (Two Lane) 3.00 STRENGTH I M 75-YEAR,WIM / M HL93 PROJECTED 75-YEAR, TWO LANES GREENWOOD I -20 STATE ROUTES LA-1 & US-84 LRFD 75 YEAR CALIBRATION 2.50 M 75-YEAR,WIM / M HL93 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Span Length [ft]

STRENGTH I (One Lane) 3.00 STRENGTH I M 75-YEAR,WIM / M HL93 PROJECTED 75-YEAR, ONE LANE GREENWOOD I -20 STATE ROUTES LA-1 & US-84 LRFD 75 YEAR CALIBRATION 2.50 M 75-YEAR,WIM / M HL93 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Span Length [ft]

Proposed Live Load Model for STRENGTH I HL-93 MOD MODIFIED HL-93 LIVE LOAD MODEL HS-20 TRUCK + 0.64 kips/ft LANE LOAD max or 2.0 x DESIGN TANDEM + 0.64 kips/ft LANE LOAD Modifying the tandem loading increases load effects in shorter spans < 120 FT

Proposed Live Load Model for STRENGTH I Modified HL-93 Loading envelopes Maximum WIM Load Effects 3.00 STRENGTH I MOMENTS NORMALIZED BY HL93 2.50 2.00 M / M HL93 1.50 1.00 LADV11 HL93MOD WIM MAX 0.50 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 Span Length [ft]

Proposed Live Load Model for STRENGTH I g LL x HL-93 MOD g LL = 1.75 Design Tandem Load Effects are multiplied with 2 in HL-93 MOD

Load Model for STRENGTH II Is calibration necessary for STRENGTH II? Current Practice: LADV-11

Calibration for STRENGTH II using WIM WIM Load Effects and LASDV 4 show a similar pattern M / M HL93 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 STRENGTH II MOMENTS NORMALIZED BY HL93 0 50 100 150 200 Span Length [ft] LASDV1 LASDV2 LASDV3 LASDV4 LASDV5 LASDV6 LASDV7 LASDV8 LADV11 WIM MAX

Live Load Model for STRENGTH II using WIM g LL x LADPV LADPV = 1.5 x g LL = 1.35 LADPV is LASDV4 multiplied with 1.5

Reliability Analysis of Design Loads Live load adjustments made based on WIM data & load effects need to be optimized using reliability analysis The objective was to review the reliability indices using current WIM data for different load models: AASHTO HL-93 LADV 11 (current LRFD design load) HL-93 MOD (proposed Strength I based on WIM) LADPV (proposed for STRENGTH II)

Reliability Indices AASHTO HL-93 --- Positive Flexure One Lane Two Lanes

Reliability Indices LADV-11 Positive Flexure One Lane Two Lanes

Reliability Indices HL-93 MOD -- Positive Flexure One Lane Two Lanes

Reliability Indices using LA WIM Data Reliability values for 1-lane bridges are significantly lower than those of 2-lane bridges. Multiple Presence factor MPF = 1.2 in the AASHTO LRFD is not sufficiently conservative for 1-Lane Two-lane loading has acceptable reliability indices AASHTO HL-93 one-lane reliability indices << 3.5 HL-93 MOD can be overly conservative for short spans

LADV11 Live Load Model Optimization LADV-11 has generally acceptable reliability indices except for certain span ranges. LADV-11 is inadequate for span lengths less than 60 ft and more than 160 ft for positive flexure -- Load effect imposed by LADV-11 is 10% less than the magnitude corresponding to b = 3.5. LADV-11 can be considered as sufficient for all span lengths for shear.

LADV11 Live Load Model Optimization Proposed Modification Factors for LADV-11 SPAN M+ [kips-ft] V [kips] 20 1.45 1.30 40 1.45 1.30 60 1.30 1.30 80 1.30 1.30 100 1.30 1.30 120 1.30 1.30 160 1.30 1.30 200 1.45 1.30

WIM Study Load Rating & Posting Development of state-specific legal and routine permit load models for Louisiana based on the WIM data findings. Do the legal and permit load models given in the LADOTD load rating manual adequately represent truck loads observed in the WIM data? LA State legal loads / SHVs: LA Type 3 LA Type 3-S2 AASHTO Type 3-3 LA Type 6 LA Type 8 SU4 SU5 SU6 SU7

Louisiana Routine Legal Loads 1 LOUISIANA LEGAL LOADS M LEGAL / M HL93 Type 3 Type 3S2 Type 3-3 Type 6 Type 8 0.75 M LEGAL / M HL93 0.5 0.25 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Span Length [ft]

Louisiana Specialized Hauling Vehicles

Truck Configurations from WIM Data The WIM data was parsed to extract representative truck configurations for US-84 and I-20 Greenwood sites. Truck, crane, and permit type loads were derived from the WIM data. The moment and shear envelopes were calculated for these vehicles and compared with: LA legal loads, SHVs, OFRD and OVLD vehicles,

Comparison of WIM Load Effects : Top 20% MOMENT Site Truck Span Length [ft] 20 40 60 80 100 120 160 200 I-20 4-AXLE 0.574 0.517 0.425 0.412 0.410 0.409 0.393 0.370 US-84 4-AXLE 1.200 1.156 1.024 0.940 0.874 0.819 0.729 0.659 I-20 5-AXLE 0.694 0.626 0.521 0.542 0.575 0.583 0.566 0.537 US-84 5-AXLE 0.485 0.463 0.408 0.444 0.456 0.454 0.432 0.406 I-20 6-AXLE 0.764 0.732 0.634 0.654 0.661 0.654 0.619 0.580 US-84 6-AXLE 0.656 0.626 0.556 0.599 0.616 0.614 0.586 0.551 I-20 7-AXLE 1.054 1.010 0.844 0.897 0.931 0.941 0.910 0.862 US-84 7-AXLE 1.051 1.119 0.961 0.938 0.961 0.979 0.957 0.910 Normalized using HL-93

Truck Configurations from WIM Data 4-AXLE TRUCK AVERAGE GVW [kips] AVERAGE TOP 20% GVW [kips] 37.5 59.3 AVERAGE GVW [kips] AVERAGE TOP 20% GVW [kips] 49.7 90.8 34,382 trucks, 2.5% of the truck population 2914 trucks, 2.85% of the truck population

I-20 Load Effects Normalized by HL-93 2.000 GREENWOOD I-20 TRUCK CONFIGURATIONS MOMENT LOAD EFFECTS (Based on Top 20% GVW) 1.800 1.600 1.400 M TRUCK / M HL-93 1.200 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 4-AXLE 5-AXLE 6-AXLE SHV ENV LEGAL ENV 0.200 0.000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Span Length [ft]

US-84 Load Effects Normalized by HL-93 2.000 US -84 TRUCK CONFIGURATIONS MOMENT LOAD EFFECTS (Based on Top 20% GVW) 1.800 1.600 1.400 M TRUCK / M HL-93 1.200 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 4-AXLE 5-AXLE 6-AXLE SHV ENV LEGAL ENV 0.200 0.000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Span Length [ft]

4-Axle Truck The load effects for the 4-axle trucks on US-84 are nearly twice that for the same trucks on I-20. Some of this difference may be due to the fact that the Federal Bridge Formula B is applied on I-20 but not on US-84. Another factor is the level of weight enforcement on the Interstates. The plots show that the 4 axle truck is adequately enveloped by current SHVs. So a new 4 axle truck would not be required for rating. US-84 sees a lot of illegally overloaded 4 axles.

Rating and Posting for Permits LADOTD LRFR load rating manual provides vehicle configurations and load factors for: Annual Permits OFRD Trip Permits OVLD NBIS regulations require the rating and posting of bridges when the maximum legal loads or state routine permit loads exceed the Operating rating. Currently LADOTD procedures do not address the posting of bridges for permits.

Permit Posting Practices New York R Posting for Permits Minnesota Single Tonnage

DOTD Annual Permits OFRD Provided in the Load Rating Manual

Annual Permits Derived using WIM Data

Recommended Annual Permits The 4 axle truck is adequately enveloped by current SHVs. For the other common permit vehicle types, T6, T7-b and T8 may be added as annual permit vehicles for rating. If a single rating vehicle is desired for 6, 7 and 8 axles, the T8 (GVW = 152 kip) truck could serve as an envelope vehicle for load rating and posting for annual permits. These would represent truck loads derived from recent WIM data and supplement the OFRD vehicles currently in the load rating manual.

Posting Recommendations for Permits Recommended Posting Truck if a single tonnage is used: Louisiana Envelope Permit Truck -- T8 GVW = 152 kips