resource roads group, fpinnovations the ‘road load rating ... · bridge capacity signage...

43
Allan Bradley, R.P.F., P.Eng. Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations New FSR bridge signage and the ‘Road Load Rating’ concept

Upload: others

Post on 15-Sep-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

Alla

n B

radle

y, R

.P.F

., P

.Eng.

Resourc

e R

oads G

roup, F

PIn

novations

Ne

w F

SR

bri

dg

e s

ign

ag

e a

nd

the

‘R

oad

Lo

ad

Rati

ng

’ co

ncep

t

Page 2: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Ou

tlin

e

1.

Sp

ea

ke

r/ m

od

era

tor

intr

odu

ction

s

2.

Bridge c

apacity load lim

its

3.

Ne

w b

ridg

e c

ap

acity s

ign

ag

e

4.

Th

e “

Ro

ad L

oa

d C

apa

city”

co

nce

pt

2

Page 3: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Bri

dg

e c

ap

ac

ity

lo

ad

lim

its

fo

r re

so

urc

e

road

bri

dg

es a

re n

ot

well u

nd

ers

too

d

B

rid

ge

ca

pa

city s

ign

ag

e h

isto

rica

lly a

nd

cu

rre

ntly in

ad

eq

ua

te

Im

plic

ations o

f concentr

ate

d loads (

i.e.,

short

loads a

nd

tra

cke

d v

ehic

les)

no

t w

ell

unders

tood

F

ocus is o

n G

VW

– n

ot unders

tandin

g t

hat th

is is b

ased o

n a

desig

n v

ehic

le c

onfig

ura

tio

n

R

eso

urc

e r

oads a

re incre

asin

gly

bein

g u

sed b

y m

inin

g,

oil

&

ga

s, a

nd c

lean e

nerg

y p

roje

cts

R

ea

l co

ncern

for

ove

rloadin

g o

f bridges

A

ne

w m

eth

odolo

gy f

or

posting o

f bridges is r

equired

3

Page 4: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Very

heavy lo

ad

s u

sed

by n

on

-fo

restr

y

users

of

FS

Rs

4

82 t

GC

W. Tandem

axle

jeep left

at

sid

e o

f hig

hw

ay

Page 5: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

5 C

on

cen

tra

ted

loa

din

g

Page 6: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Ne

w t

ruc

k c

on

fig

ura

tio

ns

6

Page 7: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

FS

R c

ap

ac

ity

sig

ns

7

Page 8: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

De

term

inin

g t

he

Sa

fe L

oa

d L

imit

A

naly

sis

ba

se

d o

n b

road

scale

scre

enin

g r

ath

er

tha

n d

esig

ns o

f in

div

idu

al b

rid

ge

s.

F

orc

e e

ffects

of

actu

al tr

ucks w

ere

co

mpa

red

ag

ain

st m

axim

um

de

sig

n v

eh

icle

fo

rce e

ffects

to

en

su

re th

at de

sig

ns w

ere

su

ffic

ient.

T

he liv

e loa

d f

acto

rs for

L-7

5, L

-10

0 a

nd

L-1

50

bri

dge

co

mpo

ne

nts

were

fou

nd

to

va

ry a

nd s

om

e

were

in

ad

eq

ua

te.

8

Page 9: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

To h

ave

a s

ingle

liv

e loa

d f

acto

r fo

r th

e L

-se

rie

s

de

sig

n v

eh

icle

s, B

&T

re

co

mm

en

de

d c

han

ge

s t

o

GV

W a

nd

weig

ht

dis

trib

ution

s.

B

&T

re

co

mm

en

de

d t

ha

t sin

gle

, ta

nd

em

, tr

ide

m

axle

gro

up loa

ds fo

r th

e L

-se

rie

s v

ehic

les b

e

ch

an

ge

d t

o 2

0%

, 3

9%

, a

nd

43

% o

f G

VW

in

ste

ad

of as p

ort

rayed

in

th

e c

urr

ent

L-s

erie

s d

esig

n

ve

hic

les.

T

he

ne

w d

esig

n v

eh

icle

we

igh

ts w

ere

use

d t

o

de

term

ine

sa

fe loa

d lim

its fo

r G

VW

and

axle

load

s,

an

d c

on

ce

ntr

ate

d loa

ds.

De

term

inin

g t

he

Sa

fe L

oa

d L

imit

9

Page 10: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Lo

ad

Fa

cto

rs

A

naly

ses c

ond

ucte

d w

ith

co

mpa

rison

s o

f fo

rce

effects

(she

ar

an

d b

en

din

g m

om

ent)

.

L

oa

d f

acto

rs (

LL,

DLA

, D

F)

were

the

sam

e fo

r m

ost

de

sig

n v

ehic

les.

S

6-0

0 s

pecifie

s L

L =

1.7

0 fo

r β

= 3

.75

ho

wever

log

tru

ck tra

ffic

we

igh

ts a

re b

ett

er

co

ntr

olle

d t

ha

n

no

rma

l (P

A)

traffic

.

A

naly

sis

assu

med

NP

tra

ffic

an

d lo

wer

LL v

alu

es.

D

ea

d lo

ad

wa

s ig

no

red

in

co

mp

ari

so

ns o

f ve

hic

le

forc

e e

ffects

.

10

Page 11: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Su

mm

ary

of

loa

d f

ac

tors

11

•A

ssum

es a

nnual perm

it (

PA

) tr

affic

inste

ad o

f norm

al (N

P)

tra

ffic

•Lack o

f L

L,

DLA

or

DF

data

for

tracked v

ehic

les

•T

racked v

ehic

les a

ssum

ed t

o h

ave little w

eig

ht

variation s

o L

L =

1.3

0;

20%

low

er

DLA

used to r

eflect

slo

w t

ravel, s

hort

spans, no a

xle

gro

ups

Desig

n V

eh

icle

D

esig

n L

ive L

oad

Facto

r

Dyn

am

ic L

oad

Allo

wan

ce

Dis

trib

uti

on

Facto

r

MO

F L-

Seri

es

1.6

0

30

%

0.6

9

BC

L-6

25

, LO

H, H

OH

1

.50

3

0%

0

.69

A

xle

gro

up

s (t

rid

em,

tan

dem

, sin

gle)

1

.50

to

1.6

0

30

%

0.6

9

Sho

rt t

ruck

1

.60

3

0%

0

.69

Tr

acke

d e

qu

ipm

ent

on

2

gird

er f

ore

stry

bri

dge

1

.30

3

0%

0

.69

Trac

ked

eq

uip

men

t o

n

slab

or

log

stri

nge

rs

1.3

0

24

%

0.6

9

Page 12: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Lo

ad

lim

its

fo

r B

.C.

fore

str

y b

rid

ges

12

Note

s:

a.

GV

W loa

d lim

its a

re lim

ite

d t

o h

isto

ric leve

ls a

nd

rou

nd

ed to

th

e n

ea

rest

ton

ne

.

b.

Axle

gro

up

loa

d lim

its a

re incre

ase

d fro

m h

isto

ric leve

ls a

nd

rou

nd

ed to

th

e n

ea

rest ½

to

nn

e.

c.

Tra

cke

d v

eh

icle

GV

W loa

d lim

its a

pp

ly to

co

ncre

te s

lab

or

gra

ve

l-lo

g-s

trin

ge

r b

rid

ge

s. D

esig

n loa

d lim

its f

or

tracke

d v

eh

icle

s o

n typ

ical 2

-gird

er

fore

str

y b

rid

ge

s c

an

be

incre

ase

d f

rom

th

e lim

its s

ho

wn b

y 1

9%

.

Desig

n

Veh

icle

GV

W

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Sin

gle

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tan

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tri

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Sh

ort

Tru

ck

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Tra

ck

ed

Eq

uip

men

t

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

)a c

L-4

5

41

8

.5

16

.0

17

.5

26

32

L-6

0

55

11

.5

21

.5

23

.5

28

35

B

CL

-62

5

64

9

.0

17

.0

24

.0

33

42

L-7

5

68

1

4.5

2

7.0

2

9.5

3

6

45

LO

H

82

1

9.5

3

7.0

4

0.5

4

6

57

L-1

00

9

1

19

.0

36

.0

39

.5

47

57

HO

H

12

9

31

.0

58

.0

n.a

. 7

1

86

L-1

50

1

36

2

8.5

5

3.5

n

.a.

70

85

L-1

65

1

50

3

1.5

5

9.0

n

.a.

90

10

9

Page 13: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

MO

F L

-Se

ries:

GV

W a

nd

axle

gro

up

load

lim

its f

or

L-1

00

A

ssu

med

tha

t G

VW

L

L =

1.6

0 o

rig

inally

.

K

ep

t G

VW

lo

ad

lim

its a

t h

isto

ric 9

1 t

le

ve

l d

esp

ite

B&

T r

eco

mm

en

din

g 6

.7%

hig

her

va

lues (

i.e.,

1.6

/1.5

).

B

&T

fo

un

d t

ha

t sin

gle

, ta

nd

em

, tr

ide

m a

xle

gro

up

load

s f

or

5 a

xle

tru

cks w

ere

20

%, 3

7%

, an

d 4

0%

of

GV

W inste

ad o

f as p

ort

raye

d in

cu

rren

t L

-se

rie

s

de

sig

n v

eh

icle

s.

6

.7%

hig

he

r a

xle

gro

up

lo

ad

lim

its w

ere

sp

ecifie

d

(e.g

., tan

de

m lo

ad

= 3

6.0

t =

37

% x

91

t x

1.0

67

).

1

3

Page 14: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

L-1

00

de

sig

n v

eh

icle

14

Page 15: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Lo

ad

lim

its

fo

r B

.C.

fore

str

y b

rid

ges

15

Desig

n

Veh

icle

GV

W

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Sin

gle

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tan

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tri

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Sh

ort

Tru

ck

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Tra

ck

ed

Eq

uip

men

t

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

)a c

L-4

5

41

8

.5

16

.0

17

.5

26

32

L-6

0

55

11

.5

21

.5

23

.5

28

35

BC

L-6

25

6

4

9.0

1

7.0

2

4.0

3

3

42

L-7

5

68

1

4.5

2

7.0

2

9.5

3

6

45

LO

H

82

1

9.5

3

7.0

4

0.5

4

6

57

L-1

00

9

1

19

.0

36

.0

39

.5

47

57

HO

H

12

9

31.0

58.0

n.a

. 7

1

86

L-1

50

1

36

2

8.5

5

3.5

n

.a.

70

85

L-1

65

1

50

3

1.5

5

9.0

n

.a.

90

10

9

Page 16: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

LO

H a

nd

HO

H d

es

ign

ve

hic

les

L

OH

and

HO

H w

ere

derive

d fro

m lo

g t

ruck

data

analy

sis

(2000-0

3);

FLN

RO

is r

evie

win

g

them

with

mo

re r

ece

nt w

eig

h s

ca

le d

ata

.

In

tent

is to

have

lig

ht

off-h

igh

wa

y v

eh

icle

and

heavy o

ff-h

ighw

ay v

ehic

le w

ell

matc

hed to

actu

al tr

affic

.

G

oin

g fo

rward

wo

uld

ph

ase

out L-1

65

, L-1

50

,

L-1

00

, L-7

5 a

nd

on

ly u

se

BC

L-6

25

, H

OH

,

LO

H.

16

Page 17: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Lo

ad

lim

its

fo

r B

.C.

fore

str

y b

rid

ges

17

Note

: H

OH

GV

W is 5

% a

nd 1

4%

lig

hte

r th

an L

-150 a

nd L

-165

Desig

n

Veh

icle

GV

W

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Sin

gle

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tan

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tri

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Sh

ort

Tru

ck

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Tra

ck

ed

Eq

uip

men

t

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

)a c

L-4

5

41

8

.5

16

.0

17

.5

26

32

L-6

0

55

11

.5

21

.5

23

.5

28

35

B

CL

-62

5

64

9

.0

17

.0

24

.0

33

42

L-7

5

68

1

4.5

2

7.0

2

9.5

3

6

45

LO

H

82

1

9.5

3

7.0

4

0.5

4

6

57

L-1

00

9

1

19

.0

36

.0

39

.5

47

57

HO

H

12

9

31

.0

58

.0

n.a

. 7

1

86

L-1

50

1

36

2

8.5

5

3.5

n

.a.

70

85

L-1

65

1

50

3

1.5

5

9.0

n

.a.

90

10

9

Page 18: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

BC

L-6

25

GV

W a

nd

axle

gro

up

lo

ad

lim

its

A

s s

pe

cifie

d in

th

e C

om

me

rcia

l T

ransp

ort

Act

and c

onsis

tent w

ith M

OT

I specific

ations.

U

se

d o

n r

oute

s c

on

ne

cte

d to

hig

hw

ays.

A

ltho

ug

h c

ap

acity m

ay b

e u

nde

rsta

ted

fo

r lo

g

hau

ling v

eh

icle

s, it is w

ell

su

ite

d to

hig

hw

ay

tra

ffic

with

more

va

ria

ble

lo

ad

ing

(N

P typ

e).

18

Page 19: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Lo

ad

lim

its

fo

r B

.C.

fore

str

y b

rid

ges

19

Desig

n

Veh

icle

GV

W

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Sin

gle

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tan

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tri

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Sh

ort

Tru

ck

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Tra

ck

ed

Eq

uip

men

t

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

)a c

L-4

5

41

8

.5

16

.0

17

.5

26

32

L-6

0

55

11

.5

21

.5

23

.5

28

35

B

CL

-62

5

64

9

.0

17

.0

24

.0

33

42

L-7

5

68

1

4.5

2

7.0

2

9.5

3

6

45

LO

H

82

1

9.5

3

7.0

4

0.5

4

6

57

L-1

00

9

1

19

.0

36

.0

39

.5

47

57

HO

H

12

9

31

.0

58

.0

n.a

. 7

1

86

L-1

50

1

36

2

8.5

5

3.5

n

.a.

70

85

L-1

65

1

50

3

1.5

5

9.0

n

.a.

90

10

9

Page 20: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Sh

ort

tru

ck

lo

ad

lim

it

In

lie

u o

f stu

die

s, L

L,

DL

A a

nd

DF

sa

me a

s

log tru

cks.

G

VW

lo

ad

lim

it f

ou

nd

with

rela

tive

co

mpa

riso

ns o

f sh

ear

and

fle

xu

re to

desig

n

bridge c

apacity.

20

Page 21: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Lo

ad

lim

its

fo

r B

.C.

fore

str

y b

rid

ges

21

Desig

n

Veh

icle

GV

W

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Sin

gle

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tan

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tri

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Sh

ort

Tru

ck

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Tra

ck

ed

Eq

uip

men

t

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

)a c

L-4

5

41

8

.5

16

.0

17

.5

26

32

L-6

0

55

11

.5

21

.5

23

.5

28

35

B

CL

-62

5

64

9

.0

17

.0

24

.0

33

42

L-7

5

68

1

4.5

2

7.0

2

9.5

3

6

45

LO

H

82

1

9.5

3

7.0

4

0.5

4

6

57

L-1

00

9

1

19

.0

36

.0

39

.5

47

57

HO

H

12

9

31

.0

58

.0

n.a

. 7

1

86

L-1

50

1

36

2

8.5

5

3.5

n

.a.

70

85

L-1

65

1

50

3

1.5

5

9.0

n

.a.

90

10

9

Page 22: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Sh

ort

tru

ck lo

ad

lim

it.

Re

lati

ve c

om

pa

riso

n o

f u

nfa

cto

red

sh

ea

r.

22

Page 23: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Sh

ort

tru

ck lo

ad

lim

it.

Re

lati

ve c

om

pa

riso

n o

f u

nfa

cto

red

fle

xu

re.

23

Page 24: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Tra

ck

ed

ve

hic

le lo

ad

lim

it

A

ssu

mp

tio

n: 4

m-lo

ng

tra

ck c

on

tact le

ng

th

and u

niform

loadin

g o

ver

this

length

.

L

L =

1.3

0 (

no p

aylo

ad, p

red

icta

ble

GV

W)

D

LA

= 0

.30 (

2 g

irde

r), 0

.23

(sla

b, g

rave

l-o

ve

r)

D

F =

0.5

5 (

tra

ck d

ow

n c

en

tre, n

o tu

rnin

g)

G

VW

lo

ad

lim

it f

ou

nd

with

rela

tive

com

parisons o

f shear

and fle

xure

to d

esig

n

bridg

e c

ap

acity.

24

Page 25: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Lo

ad

lim

its

fo

r B

.C.

fore

str

y b

rid

ges

25

Note

: T

rac

ke

d v

eh

icle

GV

W l

oa

d lim

its a

pp

ly t

o c

on

cre

te s

lab

or

gra

ve

l-lo

g-s

trin

ger

bri

dg

es

. D

es

ign

lo

ad

lim

its f

or

tra

ck

ed

ve

hic

les

on

typ

ica

l 2

-gir

de

r fo

res

try b

rid

ge

s c

an

be in

cre

as

ed

fro

m t

he l

imit

s s

ho

wn

by

19

%.

Desig

n

Veh

icle

GV

W

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Sin

gle

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tan

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tri

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Sh

ort

Tru

ck

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Tra

ck

ed

Eq

uip

men

t

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

)a c

L-4

5

41

8

.5

16

.0

17

.5

26

32

L-6

0

55

11

.5

21

.5

23

.5

28

35

B

CL

-62

5

64

9

.0

17

.0

24

.0

33

42

L-7

5

68

1

4.5

2

7.0

2

9.5

3

6

45

LO

H

82

1

9.5

3

7.0

4

0.5

4

6

57

L-1

00

9

1

19

.0

36

.0

39

.5

47

57

HO

H

12

9

31

.0

58

.0

n.a

. 7

1

86

L-1

50

1

36

2

8.5

5

3.5

n

.a.

70

85

L-1

65

1

50

3

1.5

5

9.0

n

.a.

90

10

9

Page 26: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Tra

cke

d v

eh

icle

lo

ad

lim

it.

Re

lati

ve c

om

pa

riso

n o

f u

nfa

cto

red

sh

ea

r.

26

Page 27: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Tra

cke

d v

eh

icle

lo

ad

lim

it.

Re

lati

ve c

om

pa

riso

n o

f u

nfa

cto

red

fle

xu

re.

27

Page 28: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Tra

ck

ed

Ve

hic

les

C

on

ce

rn: L-1

65

not

sh

ow

n to

be c

ap

ab

le o

f

support

ing c

oncentr

ate

d load o

f heavie

st

ya

rde

rs (

90 -

11

5 t

).

O

ption

to

desig

n h

igh

er

ca

pacity n

ew

sp

ans

and u

p-r

ate

exis

ting s

pans b

y fie

ld r

ating p

er

CH

BD

C S

ection

14.

28

Page 29: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Recap

: L

oad

lim

its f

or

B.C

. fo

restr

y b

rid

ges

29

•M

OF

L-S

erie

s G

VW

rem

ain

at h

isto

ric leve

ls.

•In

trod

ucin

g n

ew

LO

H a

nd

HO

H b

rid

ge

de

sig

ns (

loa

d lim

its t

o b

e v

erified

fo

r cu

rre

nt lo

ad

ings).

•S

um

of

axle

loa

ds m

ay e

xce

ed

allo

wa

ble

GV

W.

•S

ho

rt tru

ck a

nd

tra

cke

d e

qu

ipm

ent co

nce

ntr

ate

loa

din

g a

nd

ne

ed

sp

ecia

l tr

ea

tme

nt.

•In

cre

ase

loa

d lim

its f

or

tracke

d e

qu

ipm

ent b

y 1

9%

if

for

sla

b o

r gra

ve

l-o

ve

r-lo

g-s

trin

ge

r fo

restr

y b

rid

ge

s.

Desig

n

Veh

icle

GV

W

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Sin

gle

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tan

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Tri

dem

Axle

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) b

Sh

ort

Tru

ck

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

) a

Tra

ck

ed

Eq

uip

men

t

Lo

ad

Lim

it

(to

nn

es

)a c

L-4

5

41

8

.5

16

.0

17

.5

26

32

L-6

0

55

11

.5

21

.5

23

.5

28

35

B

CL

-62

5

64

9

.0

17

.0

24

.0

33

42

L-7

5

68

1

4.5

2

7.0

2

9.5

3

6

45

LO

H

82

1

9.5

3

7.0

4

0.5

4

6

57

L-1

00

9

1

19

.0

36

.0

39

.5

47

57

HO

H

12

9

31

.0

58

.0

n.a

. 7

1

86

L-1

50

1

36

2

8.5

5

3.5

n

.a.

70

85

L-1

65

1

50

3

1.5

5

9.0

n

.a.

90

10

9

Page 30: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Bri

dg

e c

ap

ac

ity

sig

n f

orm

at

30

Page 31: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Bri

dg

e c

ap

ac

ity

sig

n f

orm

at

O

rig

ina

l (e

xis

tin

g)

load

lim

it s

igns a

re

inadequate

.

L-s

erie

s b

ridg

e d

esig

n v

eh

icle

s n

o lon

ge

r lo

ok

like

mo

st lo

g t

rucks a

nd

oth

er

ve

hic

les o

n

FS

Rs.

N

ee

d to

allo

w r

oa

d u

se

rs to

re

late

bridg

e

ratin

gs to

th

eir o

wn

ve

hic

les.

N

eed a

way to a

ddre

ss v

ariable

vehic

le

co

nfig

ura

tio

ns.

31

Page 32: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Bri

dg

e c

ap

ac

ity

sig

n f

orm

at

32

So

me

co

mm

on

fo

rma

ts

Page 33: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Fu

ll s

ign

fo

rma

t

33

Page 34: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Sig

n f

orm

at

for

L-4

5 b

rid

ge

s

L-4

5 n

ot

su

ffic

ient fo

r

most tr

uck G

VW

L-4

5 s

uffic

ient fo

r so

me

sh

ort

tru

cks a

nd

tra

cke

d

vehic

les

L

oa

d lim

it =

min

imum

of

sh

ort

tru

ck a

nd

tra

cke

d

vehic

le load lim

its (

26 t).

U

p-r

ate

with

fie

ld r

atin

g?

34

26

Page 35: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Sig

n f

orm

at

for

do

wn

-ra

ted

bri

dg

es

E

xis

tin

g s

ign

fo

rma

ts fo

r d

ow

n-r

ate

d b

ridg

es

35

21

Page 36: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Ro

ad

Lo

ad

Ra

tin

g c

on

ce

pt

36

Page 37: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Ro

ad

Lo

ad

Ra

tin

g c

on

ce

pt

N

ot p

racticab

le o

r usefu

l to

post eve

ry b

rid

ge

on

a

route

with

lim

its

R

oa

d s

yste

ms t

yp

ica

lly d

esig

ne

d t

o s

pe

cifie

d d

esig

n

ve

hic

le loa

din

g (

e.g

., L

-10

0)

O

ne b

rid

ge

ra

tin

g p

er

ne

twork

. P

oste

d b

rid

ge

ca

pa

city s

ign

s a

re t

ha

t o

f lo

we

st

ca

pa

city b

rid

ge

s o

n

the

ne

twork

.

C

oncep

t is

sa

me a

s u

sed

fo

r P

rovin

cia

l h

ighw

ays

wh

ere

lo

ad

lim

its a

re d

escri

be

d in

re

gu

latio

ns o

nly

an

d b

rid

ge

s a

re g

oo

d f

or

all

tru

cks. O

nly

do

wn

-ra

ted

str

uctu

res a

nd h

ea

vy h

aul ro

ute

s.

37

Page 38: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Ro

ad

Lo

ad

Ra

tin

g c

on

ce

pt

- d

isc

us

sio

n

P

ost e

xce

ptio

ns b

esid

e n

etw

ork

ra

tin

g s

ign

▫L

ow

ca

pa

city b

rid

ge

s a

nd

do

wn

-ra

ted

bri

dg

es.

▫M

ay b

e c

on

fusin

g if m

any e

xce

ption

s.

▫A

lso

po

st exce

ption

s a

t th

e b

rid

ge

.

S

plit

ne

two

rk a

nd

po

st ra

tin

g s

ign

s fo

r e

ach

▫P

ostin

g a

pp

lies f

rom

KM

x to K

M y

of

FS

R

38

Page 39: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Ro

ad

Lo

ad

Ra

tin

g C

on

cep

t –

so

me o

f

su

rvey

feed

back

C

on

ce

pt

makes s

ense a

nd is tim

ely

response t

o r

apid

ind

ustr

ial g

row

th in n

ort

h.

N

ot

su

re that new

sig

ns w

ill a

llevia

te o

verloadin

g p

roble

m –

ma

y o

nly

cost extr

a $

.

C

ap

acity s

igns m

ay c

hange b

y s

eason –

con

fusin

g! M

ay b

e

bett

er

to m

ake

all

bridg

es m

ee

t m

inim

um

ca

pa

city.

Lo

cate

new

sig

n s

om

ew

here

safe

to s

top, ne

ar

PoC

, and

whe

re t

rucks c

an tu

rn a

round.

S

om

e n

etw

ork

s a

re inte

r-connecte

d a

nd w

ill r

equire s

igns a

t

all

entr

ance

s.

S

ign

s m

ust

cle

arly d

elin

eate

applic

able

port

ion o

f netw

ork

.

39

Page 40: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Ro

ad

Us

e P

erm

its

C

on

sis

tency w

ith inclu

sio

n in r

oad u

se p

erm

it d

ocum

enta

tion

(Se

ctio

n 2

Conditio

ns o

f U

se).

B

ett

er

art

icu

late

s loa

din

g lim

ita

tio

ns f

or

veh

icle

typ

es.

In

cre

ases d

issem

ination o

f safe

vehic

le w

eig

hts

inclu

din

g

sh

ort

tru

ck a

nd t

racked e

quip

ment

whic

h a

ren’t c

urr

ently

be

ing

captu

red o

r used.

C

ou

ld b

e u

sed t

o d

eta

il w

hat

part

of ro

ads t

hat ro

ad load

ratin

g a

pplie

s t

o (

if m

ix o

f F

SR

& R

UP

).

In

form

oth

er

road u

sers

thru

cuttin

g p

erm

its,

constr

uction

co

ntr

acts

, B

CT

S b

idd

ing info

rma

tion

, ro

ad

sig

nag

e,

and

loca

l

roa

d s

afe

ty c

om

mitte

es.

40

Page 41: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Re

ca

p:

Ro

ad

Lo

ad

Ra

tin

g c

on

ce

pt

O

pp

ort

unity to

in

clu

de in

form

ro

ad

use

rs

about safe

tru

ck w

eig

hts

and w

hat part

s o

f

road

netw

ork

th

at ro

ad

lo

ad

ra

ting

app

lies t

o.

In

form

oth

er

road

use

rs th

ru c

utt

ing

perm

its,

constr

uction c

ontr

acts

, B

CT

S b

iddin

g

info

rmation

, ro

ad

sig

nag

e, a

nd

lo

ca

l ro

ad

sa

fety

co

mm

itte

es.

41

Page 42: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Qu

es

tio

ns

an

d D

isc

us

sio

n

42

Page 43: Resource Roads Group, FPInnovations the ‘Road Load Rating ... · Bridge capacity signage historically and currently inadequate not understanding that this is based on a Implications

ww

w.fpin

novations.c

a

Fo

llow

us o

n

© 2

01

5 F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns. A

ll r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d. C

op

yin

g a

nd

re

dis

trib

utio

n p

roh

ibite

d. ®

FP

Inn

ova

tio

ns, its m

ark

s a

nd

lo

go

s a

re tra

de

ma

rks o

f F

PIn

no

va

tio

ns.

Th

an

k y

ou

For

more

info

rmation p

lease

conta

ct:

Alla

n B

rad

ley a

t (6

04

) 2

22

-5667 A

llan

.Bra

dle

y@

fpin

no

va

tio

ns.c

a

Bri

an C

how

at

(250)

953

-4370

B

rian.C

how

@gov.

bc.c

a

Als

o s

ee

the r

oad load

rating p

roje

ct

on the F

LN

RO

Engin

eering

Bra

nch w

ebsite

htt

ps:/

/ww

w.f

or.

go

v.b

c.c

a/h

th/e

ng

ineeri

ng

/Bri

dg

es_

An

d_M

ajo

r_C

ulv

ert

s.h

tm