Trucks were used later in various positions and strains were measured due to these truck loads. Stresses were calculated from measured strains and compared with analytical stresses calculated based on the design assumptions which are according to AASHTO Standard Specifications. Reasonable agreement between the analytical and experimental results was obtained for dead loads where the steel girders were acting alone without the concrete composite action. Furthermore the diaphragms connecting girder 5 (the instrumented girder) to girder 4 were only loosely connected under the dead loading. Differences in magnitude and distribution pattern, however, were observed for the live loading. These differences are basically due to the conservatism in AASHTO load distribution method as well as the inability of the two dimensional composite beam approach in depicting the actual three dimensional behavior of the bridge system The testing of the bridge was sponsored by Maine Department Of Transportantion, James Chandler is the Bridge Design Engineer. The analytical results presented in this paper were calculated by Steve Abbott of MODT. The interest and support of Jim and Steve as well as Karel Jacobs, also of MDOT, Is greatly appreciated. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Standard Specification for Highway Bridges 2. Newmark, N., "Design of I-Beam Bridges", Transactions ASCE, Vol. 74, No. 3, Part I, March, 1948. 3. Heins, C.P. and Kuo, J.T.C., "Live Load Distribution on Simple Span Steel I-Beam Composite Highway Bridges At Ultimate Load", CE Report No. 53, University of Maryland, College Park, MD., April, 1973. 4. Heins, C.P. and Kuo, J.T.C., "Ultimate Live Load Distribution Factor For Bridges", Journal Of The Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. ST7, Proc. Paper 11443, July 1975.