Publication 238 Part IP, Chapter 10 – Hauling Permits and APRAS April 2011
10.1 GENERAL
The efficient movement of goods and services within and through the Commonwealth necessitates that
some vehicles may exceed the Size, Weight and Load provisions for vehicles specified in Chapter 49 of the Vehicle
Code. In order to provide for some assurance of the safe movement of these large vehicles and to prevent damage to
our highway and bridge infrastructure, it is the bridge owner’s responsibility to review the vehicles and their
possible effect upon the bridges on or over the intended route before approving its movement.
The regulations and procedures for issuing hauling permits for these oversize and overweight vehicles are
promulgated in Chapter 179 Oversize and Overweight Loads and Vehicles of Title 67 TRANSPORTATION of the
Pennsylvania Code. This section of Pub 238 is not intended to be an in-depth review of those rather extensive and
changing regulations and procedures, but more of a guide for the District bridge personnel and other bridge owners
as they review the bridges on the proposed routes on these permit applications.
The Department’s basic philosophy in regards to oversize/overweight permit vehicles is to review every
bridge on every route for every permit application. That means that the clearance of every bridge on the intended
routes for permit vehicles will be checked to ensure that the vehicle will pass beneath the overhead bridge
restriction. In addition, each bridge on the intended route will be structurally evaluated to ensure it can safely carry
the load imposed by an overweight permit vehicle. If any bridge cannot safely accommodate the height or weight of
a permit vehicle, that route is to be rejected.
The Department’s state-of-the-art Automated Permit Routing Analysis System (APRAS) allows for the
vast majority of these bridge checks to be made automatically using the bridge clearance envelope data and the
bridge analysis program datasets stored in BMS2. The accuracy and safety of results of these reviews is heavily
dependent upon the quality of bridge inspections and ratings.
In this Chapter of Pub 238, two generic terms will be used for brevity and are not intended to imply the
more legalistic definitions used in the permit regulations.
“Permit” will be used here to refer to the variety of hauling permits for oversize and overweight
vehicles and not to utility occupancy related issues.
“Vehicle” will be used here to represent both single-unit vehicles and combination (tractor-trailer)
vehicles.
10.2 PERMIT CATEGORIES
The terminology in M 6B.10 is not consistent with the PA permit regulations and Department procedures.
Department terminology will be used in this Publication. For bridge review purposes, there are three basic
categories of hauling permits: Single Trip Permits, Annual Permits, and Blanket Permits.
10.2.1 Single Trip Permits
Single Trip Permits are permits for the one-time movement of a nondivisible oversize and/or overweight
vehicle on an applicant-specified route. Axle weights and spacings must be provided in addition to the physical
dimensions of the vehicle.
Permit conditions may be imposed upon the permittee by the Department to reduce the load effect on the
bridge and ensure the safety of the movement. The permit conditions are listed on the copy of the permit that must
be carried in the vehicle. Permit conditions may include, but are not limited to:
The permit vehicle being the only vehicle on the bridge
Limiting travel to specific lanes
Limiting vehicle to crawl speed across bridge(s)
Temporary shoring of bridges
These permit conditions must be evaluated carefully to ensure they will achieve desired reductions on load
effect to the bridge. In addition, the imposition of some of the conditions may have a negative impact on the overall
traffic conditions that might preclude their use at particular sites. The Bridge Engineer should consult with the
Page IP 10 - 1
April 2011 Publication 238 Part IP, Chapter 10 – Hauling Permits and APRAS
Traffic Engineer for those cases. If a permit condition needed to ensure the structural safety of a bridge on the route
cannot be effectively or safely put in place, the application for that route must be denied.
There are other specialized permits that are reviewed and processed for bridge structural safety issue
reviews in a similar manner to single trip permits:
Super Load – A vehicle having a GVW greater than 201,000 pounds, or a total length exceeding 160
feet, or a width greater than 16 feet. (Buildings being moved, drag lines, and other quarry equipment
excluded).
Permit to cross bridge with vehicle weighing more than the posted bridge restriction.
10.2.2 Annual and Seasonal Permits
Annual Permits are permits for individual overweight vehicles carrying specific types of cargos in specified
vehicle configurations (including axle weights and spacings) on the applicant-specified routes and are granted for a
period of up to 12 months. The applicant vehicle is checked for conformance to the specified configuration. The
bridges on the permit route are checked through APRAS for a set of axle weights and spacings specified for that
type of annual permit before the permit is issued. BQAD determines the standard set of axle weights and spacings
to be used for the structural check of the bridges. Once the annual permit is granted, the permittee may travel the
approved route as many times as desired.
Since 1998, twenty-three overweight Annual Permits vehicles have been introduced to PA highways and
bridges as a result of legislation. See Appendix IP 10-A for a list of Overweight Annual Permit Vehicles.
For the purposes of this manual, Seasonal Permits will be considered and treated as Annual Permits.
APRAS re-analyzes the bridges on the annual permit route on a regular basis to check for changed bridge
conditions. The annual permit is revoked or re-routed by the Department if any bridge on the approved route fails
one of these subsequent reviews.
Because the Department has less control over the number and movement of Annual Permit vehicles after
the permit is issued than for single trip permits, the permit conditions (discussed in IP 10.2.1) used to reduce the load
effect of overweight vehicles on bridges are not allowed to be used for Annual Permits. In addition, vehicles with
an Annual Permit alone are not allowed to cross bridges posted at weight limits less than the vehicle GVW.
10.2.3 Blanket Permits
Blanket Permits are permits for individual overweight vehicles carrying specific types of cargo and with
specified vehicle configurations (including axle weights and spacings) on a Department-designated network of
routes, granted for a period of up to 12 months. BQAD determines the standard set of axle weights and spacings to
be used for each of the Blanket Permit vehicles. The bridges on the designated Blanket Permit network are
structurally reviewed on a regular basis through APRAS for a set of axle weights and spacings standard for that type
of Blanket Permit vehicle. A list of bridges the Blanket Permit vehicles are not allowed to cross is issued with the
permit. The applicant vehicle is checked for conformance to the specified configuration before the permit is issued.
Once the Blanket Permit is granted, the permittee may travel the approved network as many times as desired. If
needed to service specific customers, the applicant may request that additional routes be added to his individual
Blanket Permit and these are reviewed in a similar manner as the Annual Permits.
APRAS re-analyzes the bridges on the designated Blanket Permit network (plus any specific route
extension granted) on a periodic basis to check for changed bridge conditions. The annual permit is revoked or re-
routed by the Department if any bridge on the approved route fails subsequent reviews.
Because the Department has less control over the number and movement of Blanket Permit vehicles after
the permit is issued than for single trip permits, the permit conditions (discussed in IP 10.2.1) used to reduce the load
effect of overweight vehicles on bridges are not allowed to be used for Blanket Permits. In addition, Blanket Permit
vehicles are not allowed to cross bridges posted at weight limits less than the vehicle GVW.
Page IP 10 - 2
Publication 238 Part IP, Chapter 10 – Hauling Permits and APRAS April 2011
10.3 LOAD CAPACITY EVALUATION
The load capacity evaluation of bridges to carry commercial traffic is a critical safety issue and an
important issue to industry. Two types of common commercial loads fall outside the envelope of the Bridge Posting
Vehicle ratings performed for bridge safety inspection and are a special concern:
Overweight vehicles – vehicles that exceed the applicable maximum gross weights specified in
Chapter 49 Subsection C of the Vehicle Code.
Vehicles with a GVW that exceed the bridge’s posted weight restriction established under § 4902(a) of
the PA Vehicle Code.
This section will discuss how the bridge analyses and the approval for the hauling permit process for these bridge
overloads are accomplished.
10.3.1 Authorization for Overloads on Bridges
The District Bridge Engineer is authorized and responsible for the approval of overloads on the
Department’s bridges in the District.
For bridges on State Routes under the jurisdiction of the PUC, the responsibility and authorization for
issuance of permits should be outlined in the PUC Order. Typically, it could be assumed that the responsibility for
inspection and maintenance of the bridge superstructure includes the permitting authority. In the absence of such
formal authorization, the Department should assume this authority under its obligation for the safety of the State
highway users.
For other non-Department bridges, the bridge owner is responsible for the approval of overloads on its
bridges.
For LOBSTORS (Locally-owned bridges on State Routes) or other non-Department bridges carrying State
Routes, the owner may authorize the Department to review and issue heavy hauling permits for permit vehicles
using the State Route to cross the bridge. This authorization should be in the form of a letter from the owner to the
Department and is to be maintained in the District Bridge Unit files.
10.3.2 Maximum Permissible Load Effect on Bridges
The maximum permissible load effect of a permit vehicle on bridges after consideration of all permit
conditions and pertinent analysis factors (e.g., LL distribution, impact, uplift, temporary shoring) is 100% of the OR
level. All permit applications exceeding the OR must be denied.
For bridges of special concern, the SLC may be used as the upper bound of the load effect on a bridge.
10.3.3 Live Load Distribution for Permit Vehicles
The distribution of permit live load on the bridge is to be in conformance with provisions of this manual.
All exceptions must be approved by the Chief Bridge Engineer.
SINGLE LANE DISTRIBUTION: The application of the single lane load case for simplified girder
distribution factors on a multi-lane bridge is allowed when:
The permit vehicle has no more than two wheel lines and its gage distance is not less than the
AASHTO specifications
It can be assured by conditions in the permit that no other vehicle will be on the bridge at the same
time as the permit vehicle.
DISTRIBUTION BASED UPON LATERAL POSITION OF VEHICLE: The distribution of live load for
2 girder bridges or trusses may be based upon a specific lateral position of the permit vehicle relative to the normal
traffic lanes to reduce the live load effect if it can be assured by permit conditions that the vehicles will be in that
position on the deck. Examples of special vehicle positions include, but are not limited to:
Page IP 10 - 3
April 2011 Publication 238 Part IP, Chapter 10 – Hauling Permits and APRAS
Permit Vehicle to Straddle Centerline – used to minimize live loading to longitudinal truss or main
girder of 2 girder system
Permit Vehicle to Stay in Rightmost Lane – may be used to limit live load effect on transverse floor
beam or tie-girder.
Note: Requiring the permit vehicle to travel adjacent to curb may not be feasible if the approach pavement does not
extend to the curb line. Overweight permit vehicles are not permitted to travel on approach shoulders.
CRABBING: Some motor carriers have proposed the use of “crabbing” the permit vehicle to attempt to
reduce the live load effect on a bridge. Crabbing involves steering the rear end of the trailer so that the front and
rear ends of the trailer are in different lanes. Crabbing seldom achieves the desired result because the separation of
the inside wheel lines (of the front and back halves of the permit) vehicle is limited by the width of the approach
pavement and/or the dimensions of vehicle. All crabbing schemes proposed in a permit application must be
approved by the Chief Bridge Engineer.
NON-STANDARD GAGE: When the gage distance between wheel lines of the permit vehicle are not in
accord with AASTHO standards, the distribution of live loads must be carefully considered. For gage distances less
than the standard of 6’-0”, the AASHTO simplified line girder distribution factors (See IP 3.3.2) are not applicable.
Other examples of vehicle configurations where the simplified line girder distribution factors may not work include:
When small trunnion axles are used in place of dual wheels or when there are more than 2 wheel lines. For these
and other non-standard vehicles, the Districts should request guidance from the Chief Bridge Engineer.
10.3.4 Impact Load and Crawl Speed
In accordance with IP 3.2.3, impact loading must be included in the bridge evaluation of all permit
vehicles.
A reduction in the impact factor to a minimum of 10% of the live load effect is allowed when permit
conditions can assure that the vehicle crosses the bridge at crawl speed. For this purpose, crawl speed is defined as
no more than 10 miles per hour with no acceleration or deceleration on the bridge. This last requirement normally
necessitates stopping the vehicle well before the bridge and proceeding across the bridge at a steady rate.
10.3.5 Uplift Under Permit Loads
Uplift at the end spans of continuous bridges is to be avoided because of the potential for damage to
bearings not designed for uplift. The potential for uplift is much greater under the typically heavy axles of the
permit vehicle.
Uplift is considered to occur if the total (live load + dead load) reaction is less than 10% of the dead load
reaction alone. If the uplift cannot be mitigated by hold-downs or added dead load, the permit should be rejected.
10.3.6 Temporary Shoring for Permit Loads
A permit applicant may propose to provide temporary shoring and/or repairs at his cost to a Department
bridge to provide the additional strength to allow his vehicle to cross the bridge safely that would otherwise been
rejected. The permit applicant may even propose a temporary bridge to bypass or to span over the Department
bridge.
Any such proposal for temporary shoring, bridge, etc., must be submitted to the District Bridge Engineer
for approval as a condition to the permit. The proposal must:
Be prepared and signed by a professional engineer licensed in PA
Have adequate sketches or plans and be supported by engineering computations
Have acceptable details
Contain all necessary permits for work in the waterway, etc.
Agree to remove any temporary supports or material as required by the Department
Provide materials acceptable to the Department
Be acceptable to the District Bridge Engineer
Page IP 10 - 4
Publication 238 Part IP, Chapter 10 – Hauling Permits and APRAS April 2011
The Department retains the right to deny a permit application proposing temporary shoring, bridges, etc.,
and to revoke any permit issued if the materials and or workmanship of the required temporary shoring, etc., is not
satisfactory to the District Bridge Engineer.
10.3.7 Load Evaluations by Permit Applicant
The Department will allow a permit applicant to perform a load rating evaluation of a permit vehicle on a
Department bridge by a more refined analysis method. The load rating analysis must be performed by an engineer
licensed in PA and familiar with bridge analyses. The Department retains the right to deny the permit application if
the evaluation is not acceptable to the District Bridge Engineer.
10.4 POSTED BRIDGES AND PERMITS
As per IP 4.4, careful consideration of permit applications for overweight vehicles to use bridges restricted
due to their condition (under §4902(a) of the Vehicle Code) must be made because of the potential for bridge failure.
Permit applications to cross bridges posted for reasons other than the condition of the bridge under V.C
§4902(b) should be reviewed in a similar fashion as unposted bridges and a special permit as per IP 10.4.2 is not
required.
10.4.1 Bridges Limited to One Truck
When a bridge has a restriction of traffic limited to one truck at a time only without an accompanying
weight restriction, an applicant can request a regular single trip permit for an overweight permit vehicle.
10.4.2 Bridges with a Posted Weight Restriction
When a bridge has a weight restriction posted due to its condition, a special permit is required for a vehicle
to exceed the posted weight limit. Paraphrasing from § 191 of TITLE 67 TRANSPORTATION of the PA Code:
The posting authority may permit an over-posted-weight or over-posted-size vehicle or combination to
use a bridge posted under 75 PA Consolidated Statutes § 4902(a) if it determines that:
1. For all practical purposes, the vehicle or combination can reach its destination only via
the posted bridge; and
2. Analysis of the number of axles, axle weights, distance between axles, height, width and
other data indicates that the vehicle or combination will not have a detrimental effect on
the bridge.
The permit may authorize a single trip, a limited number of trips during a 12-month period, or an
unlimited number of trips during a period not to exceed three months.
Accordingly, the review and approval of such permits by the District Bridge Engineer for Department
bridges is handled in much the same way as single trip permits, although a special application is required.
10.5 AUTOMATED PERMIT ROUTING/ANALYSIS SYSTEM (APRAS)
The APRAS system is designed for the electronic application and processing of special hauling permits by
PennDOT users and its customers. APRAS utilizes client/server based and Internet technologies to provide for easy
access to permitting information to Industry and the Department.
There are two ways to access the APRAS system, via the Department Network or via the Internet.
Customers can apply for permits, search for and check the status of permit applications, and access additional
support functions via the Internet or submit hardcopy applications to Department permitting staff who, in turn,
access APRAS through their local PC Workstation on the LAN. PennDOT staff has the ability to enter permit
applications, process applications, approve and deny applications, and manage the system.
Page IP 10 - 5
April 2011 Publication 238 Part IP, Chapter 10 – Hauling Permits and APRAS
Major components of APRAS of interest to the review of bridges include:
APRAS Database contains all information required for permitting including permit applications,
permits, routing data, permitting codes and restrictions, and other system management information.
APRAS contains a representation of the RMS roadway network used for entering route information
and for route analysis and generation. Selected bridge data from the BMS2 system for all structures
carrying or over State Routes is in the APRAS database. It also contains the program logic
representing the business rules to validate and process permits. The central database design ensures
consistent, manageable application of APRAS business rules.
Route Prompting is the mechanism by which permit route information is entered into APRAS. Route
Prompting ensures that all routes on the application are based upon RMS roadway data and ensures
their connectivity. It also provides the basic data structures which are used in the Route Analysis,
tying them to RMS roadway data, and BMS2 bridge data (vertical and horizontal clearance envelope
and live load capacity).
Route Analysis ensures that a permit vehicle can travel safely over the route specified by comparing
the vehicle dimensions and load data against the roadway and bridge information from RMS and
BMS2. Route Analysis checks for roadway clearances and special restrictions on roadways (e.g.,
Posted and Bonded roads). It also identifies the bridges along the specified route and performs
oversize and overweight checks for the bridge structures. The structural check of bridges is performed
by the ABAS subsystem.
Route Analysis is an important step in the approval process for a permit application. Once a permit
has passed all administrative validation rules, it must then pass Route Analysis before it can be
approved. If the vehicle load can safely pass Route Analysis, a permit can automatically be issued by
APRAS. If problems in the route are encountered or if certain conditions require further review, the
application is posted for manual review by Department permitting and bridge staff.
Route Generation: Route Generation’s function is to find the optimal route for an oversize and/or
overweight vehicle from a source point to a destination point, without traveling over any roads or
bridges that cannot handle the load. This allows permit staff to choose an approved, system- generated
alternative route for the permit vehicle.
External Systems - RMS, BMS2, FMIS, COIN, CARATS: APRAS depends on data from several
Department systems for its validation of permit applications.
RMS is the source for all roadway information, except some information regarding canned routes,
turn restrictions, etc.
BMS2 is the source for all bridge related clearance and capacity information.
CARATS is the source for vehicle registrations.
Information from these systems is refreshed within APRAS every night. Since APRAS is very
dependent on RMS and BMS2 data, the relationship between permitting and maintenance of RMS and
BMS2 is critical. APRAS relies upon the data in these systems being consistent and accurate. Any
inconsistencies in RMS or BMS2 data detected through APRAS must be modified within RMS or
BMS2. APRAS also interfaces with the FMIS and COIN systems for its financial transactions.
10.5.1 APRAS Related Data in BMS2
CODING INSTRUCTIONS: Data from the BMS2 that is needed for APRAS is contained on BMS2
Screens SP, SL, SS and SC. For coding instructions, see applicable sections of Pub. 100A.
STRUCTURES REQUIRING APRAS DATA:
Bridge Capacity Data: All bridges or structures greater than 20 feet in length that carry vehicular
traffic on State Routes, regardless of structure ownership, are to have sufficient load capacity data to
allow APRAS to perform structure reviews. This information may include capacity rating factors and
engineering datasets for analysis/rating software.
Page IP 10 - 6
Publication 238 Part IP, Chapter 10 – Hauling Permits and APRAS April 2011
Restricted Vertical Clearance: All bridges or structures over State Routes with a vertical clearance
less than 16’-0”, regardless of structure ownership, are to have vertical clearance data for the State
Route in APRAS. This includes truss bridges with overhead members, sign structures over pavement
or shoulder area of roadway, overhead utility bridges, etc.
Reduced Horizontal Clearance: All bridges or structures over 8 feet in length that carry State Routes,
regardless of ownership. Structures adjacent to State Routes and encroach upon the horizontal
clearance from edge of pavement (e.g., retaining walls), regardless of structure ownership.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR APRAS DATA: The District Bridge Unit is responsible to maintain sufficient
clearance information and/or live load capacity information for the structures requiring APRAS data as
outlined above to enable APRAS to perform the Route Analysis for a permit load on State Routes,
regardless of structure ownership. This may require the monitoring of the clearance envelope by District
staff for non-Department structures over State Routes. For LOBSTORS or other non-Department bridges
carrying State Routes, the Districts are to provide information not available from the bridge owner, if the
District is authorized to grant permits. Also see IP 10.3.1.
10.5.2 Automated Bridge Analysis System - ABAS
The APRAS subsystem that performs the load evaluation of bridges under permit vehicles is called ABAS
– Automated Bridge Analysis System. ABAS was designed to replicate the manual bridge review process used by
the District Bridge Units before APRAS was available.
Basically, that manual permit review process for bridges had two components:
Checking the bridge’s load capacity rating factor for HS vehicle against the maximum load effect of
the permit vehicle as a ratio of the HS vehicle.
Using a bridge analysis program to check the actual permit vehicle
Generally, the capacity comparison method was used for bridges for which an analysis was not readily
available (e.g., complex bridges, bridges rated by engineering judgment) or as a threshold value to minimize
computational efforts.
The BMS2 APRAS data allows the District to use either the capacity comparison method and/or the direct
analysis method. For the direct analysis method, engineering datasets for the input data to the analysis and rating
software must be established in bridge rating library on the Department’s Dataset Manager. If the bridge fails
during the capacity comparison method, APRAS automatically runs the analysis programs using the input dataset
and the axle weight/spacing data from the permit application. If the bridge fails the analysis program, the
application is denied or sent to the Bridge Unit for a manual review. The District Bridge Engineer may determine
that a manual review is to be required for all permits on a bridge and an indicator is placed on the SC screen that
instructs APRAS to analyze the bridge, but not approve it. For manual reviews, the bridge reviewer must approve
each permit individually. All permit applications that pass all analyses and have the Bridge Unit’s approval on
manual reviews are approved for the load capacity evaluation. Appendix IP 10-B contains an abbreviated flowchart
of the ABAS load evaluation for simple spans to demonstrate the basic concepts used.
Page IP 10 - 7
April 2011 Publication 238 Part IP, Chapter 10 – Hauling Permits and APRAS
[This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank]
Page IP 10 - 8