Historical Development of AASHTO Code

 The first US standard for bridges in was published in 1931 (AASHO)

 Working stress design (WSD), based on allowable stresses
 Now call “Standard Specifications”

AASHTO LRFD Designs

D i 

Work on the new code bagan in 1988-93
1988 93
1st edition of AASHTO LRFD Specifications was published in 1994, the
2nd in 1998,, 3rd in 2004 – as an alternative document to the Standard
Specification
Introduction  By 2007, only AASHTO LRFD method is allowed for the design of bridges
Design Criteria in the USA
 Now in 4th Edition
Load Multiplier  Thailand’s
’ Department off Highway (DOH)
( O ) still refers
f to Standard
S
Load Factor and Load Combinations Specification but will eventually switch to LRFD Specifications
R i
Resistance FFactors

Changes of LRFD from Standard Specifications Design Criteria

 Introduction of a new philosophy of safety  General design criteria in AASHTO LRFD Code:
 Id tifi ti off ffour lilimit
Identification it states
t t (strength,
(t th service,
i fatigue,
f ti extreme
t event)
t)
 Development of new load models (including new live load)
Factored Load ≤ Factored Resistance
 Development of new load and resistance factors
 Revised techniques for the analysis and load distribution ∑ ηγiQi ≤ ΦRn
 New shear designg method for plain,p reinforced and pprestressed concrete
 Introduction of limit state-based provisions for foundation design Load Multiplier
 Revised load provisions = IDR

 Hydraulics and scour Nominal Resistance
 Earthquake Load Factor
 Ship collision R
Resistance FFactor
 Introduction of isotropic deck design process Nominal Load Effect
 Commentary are now side side-by-side
by side with the standard

 Load and resistance factors serve as partial safety factors

 They are determined using the code calibration procedure
 Design Criteria Probabilistic
obab st c Design
es g Philosophy
osop y
 Probability distribution of load and resistance
 The way to control the probability of failure to be within a reasonable limit
is through the “Reliability Index (β)”
 This is better than the Factor of Safety

LOAD Mean Mean Mean

RESISTANCE
Load Resistance
Nominal
N i l
Nominal R  Q

Load
Resistance

 R2  Q2 Variances

 Modern codes have reliability index of about 3-3.5 for ultimate limit states for
members.
b R
Reliability
li bilit iindices
di may bbe hi
higher
h ffor connections.
ti

Factored FAILURE Factored

Load Resistance
100

Probabilistic
obab st c Design
es g Philosophy
osop y
 Probabilityy of Failure (pf) &
Reliability Index (β)

p f  ( ) L dM
Load Multiplier
l i li
Cumulative Distribution
Function of Normal
Distribution Function = I D R

β pf

3 0 00135
0.00135
1 x
 ( x)   e  z / 2 dz
2
3.5 0.00023
2 
101
Load Multiplier Load Multiplier
 I = Importance factor  D = Ductility factor (Brittle v.s. Ductile failure)
 The owner may declare a bridge or any structural component and  The structural system shall be proportioned and detailed to ensure the
connection to be of operational importance. development of significant and visible inelastic deformations at the
 For strength and extreme event limit states strength and extreme event limit states before failure.
failure
 1.05 for bridge considered of operational importance e.g. the only bridge  For strength limit states
crossing the river  1.05 for nonductile components
p & connection which mayy fail in a brittle
 1.00 for typical bridges manner
 0.95 for bridge considered nonimportant  1.00 for conventional designs
 For all other limit states  0 95 for
0.95 f components with i h enhanced
h d ductility
d ili e.g. has
h additional
ddi i l stirrups
i for
f
shear reinforcements
 1.00 for all bridges
 For all other limit states
 1.00

Load Multiplier
 R = Redundant factor
 Multiple load path and continuous structures should be used. Main
elements whose failure is expected to cause the collapse of the bridge LLoad
d Factor
F &
L dC
Load Combinations
bi i
shall be designated as failure
failure-critical
critical (nonredundant)
 For strength limit states
 1.05 for nonredundant members e.g. g a simple
p span
p bridges g
 1.00 for conventional level of redundancy

γi
 0.95 for exceptional level of redundancy e.g. multi-girder continuous beam
b id
bridge
 For all other limit states
 1 00
1.00
Loads & Probabilities Load
oa & Probabilities
obab t es
(Ellingwood et al. 1980)

 How do we apply all the loads for the structural analysis?  Probabilityy that the
 Add all the mean (average) value of loads together? maximum occurrence of
 No, because we must consider the chance that the load may be larger or one load rarely occurs at
smaller than calculated.
calculated the
h same timei as the
h
 Add all the extreme value of loads together? maximum occurrence of
 No, because then the bridge must have to resist an enormous load and another load
that would make it really expensive!
 The chance that the maximum value of one load occurring at the same
time
i as the
h maximum
i value
l off another
h load
l d is
i very small.
ll
 We need to consider several cases where each case we have one load
at its maximum value expected while other loads are around their
mean values

108

Loads & Probabilities Limit States & Load Combinations

 Load factors are There are 4 types of “limit states”
d t
determined
i d so that,
th t for
f  Ultimate
Ulti t lilimit
it states
t t – involvingi l i th
the strength
t th and
d stability
t bilit off th
the structure,
t t
each factored load, the both local and global
pprobabilityy of beingg  Strength
g I,, II,, III,, IV
exceeded is about the  Extreme Event limit states - relates to the structural survival of a bridge
same for all load during a major earthquake, flood, or collision
components. t  Extreme
E Event
E I,I II
 Serviceability limit states – involving the usability of the structure including
stress, deformation, and crack widths
 Service I, II, III
 Fatigue limit state - relates to restrictions on stress range to prevent crack
growth as a result of repetitive loads during the design life of the bridge
 Fatigue
 All limit states are equally important (AASHTO LRFD 1.3.2.1) 1 3 2 1)
Permanent Loads Transient Loads
 DC = dead load of structural components and nonstructural attachments  LL = vehicular live load  CR = creep
 DW = dead
d d load
l d off wearing
i surface
f and
d utilities
tiliti  IM = vehicular dynamic load  SH = shrinkage
 EL = accumulated locked-in force effects resulting from the allowance  FR = friction
construction process
p PL = pedestrian live load
  TG = temperature gradient
di
 DD = downdrag
 LS = live load surcharge  TU = uniform temperature
 EH = horizontal earth pressure load
 BR = vehicular braking force  WA = water
t load
l d andd stream
t
 ES = earth surcharge load
 EV = vertical pressure from dead load of earth fill  CE = vehicular centrifugal force pressure
 CT = vehicular collision force  IC = ice load
 CV = vessel collision force  WL = wind on live load
 EQ = earthquake  WS = wind load on structure
 SE = settlement

Load Combinations Load Factors for DC, DW Consider Maximum

case for Gravity load
designs
Load Combinations Load Combinations
 Why do we need to have minimum and maximum load factors for  STRENGTH I: Basic load combination relating to the normal use of bridge.
permanentt loads?
l d ? Isn’t
I ’t it safer
f tot consider
id the
th maximum???
i ??? M i
Maximum combination
bi ti iis used d when
h LL produces
d th
the same effect
ff t as DC
DC.
 Because in some cases, large permanent load can help reduce the Minimum combination is used when LL produces opposite effect to DC.
force in the structure.
structure  STRENGTH II: load combination for special vehicles specified by owner
 STRENGTH III: load combination where the bridge is subjected to high
wind ((> 90 km/h)) and traffic is pprevented
Gravity Load  STRENGTH IV: load combination for long span bridges (>67 m span)
If the gravity load
which has large ratio of DC to LL
of the If the ggravityy load
superstructure is is small, this may  STRENGTH V: load combination where bridge and traffic on the bridge is
large, it offsets the be in tension. If subjected to wind velocity of 90 km/h
wind load and we the pier is
will get small concrete, it will
compression here crack!!!

May be in Tension or Light

Under
U d High
Hi h C
Compression
i
Compression

Load Combinations Load Combinations

 EXTREME EVENT I: load combination for structural survival under major  Example of combinations:
earthquake
 1.25DC + 1.50DW + 1.75(LL+IM) (Strength I)
 EXTREME EVENT II: load combination for structural survival under
combination of events such as flood and vessel collision  1.25DC + 1.50DW + 1.4WS (Strength III)
 0.90DC + 0.65DW + 1.4WS (Strength III)
 SERVICE I: load combination for normal operation of the bridge and for  1.50DC + 1.50DW (Strength IV)
checking compression in prestressed concrete  1.25DC + 1.50DW + 1.35(LL+IM) + 0.4(WS+WL) (Strength V)
 SERVICE II: load combination for steel bridges to control yielding  1.25DC + 1.50DW + 0.5(LL+IM) + 1.0EQ (Extreme I)
 SERVICE III: load combination relating to tension in prestressed concrete
during service  0 90DC + 0.65DW
0.90DC 0 65DW + 0.5(LL+IM)
0 5(LL IM) + 1.0EQ
1 0EQ (Extreme
(E I)
 1.25DC + 1.50DW + 0.5(LL+IM) + 1.0 (CT or CV) (Extreme I)
 FATIGUE: load combination for fatigue and fracture due to repetitive LL  0 90DC + 0.65DW
0.90DC 0 65DW + 0.5(LL+IM)
0 5(LL+IM) + 1.0
1 0 (CT or CV) (Extreme
(E t I)
and IM
Load Combinations Notes on Load Combinations
 For slabs and girders designs, we normally have only DC, DW,  Note that the sections for maximum moment of dead load
and (LL+IM) and live load are not the same!!!
 1.25DC + 1.50DW + 1.75(LL+IM) (Strength I)  Dead Load: midspan
 1.50DC + 1.50DW (Strength IV)  Live Load: some small distance away from midspan
 If we add them together, we are conservative!
 1.00DC + 1.00DW + 1.00(LL+IM) (Service I)
 1.00DC + 1.00DW + 1.30(LL+IM) (Service II, Steel)
 C t ca moment
Critical o e t for
o shear
s ea iss d away from
o the
t e support.
suppo t. Wee
 1 00DC + 1.00DW
1.00DC 1 00DW + 0.80(LL+IM)
0 80(LL IM) (S
(Service
i III
III, P
Prestressed)
d)
can calculate shear at this location for both dead load and live
g of the section
load IF we know the height
 We estimate the height from past experiences of similar projects
 If we don’t know, we calculate the shear at the support.
pp This is
conservative but may not be economical.

Resistance Factor
 Takes care of uncertainties in the
resistance
it
 3 Main sources of uncertainties

R i
Resistance FFactors  Material Property – uncertainty
in the strength, chemical
composition, defects
 Fabrication – uncertainty in the
dimensions and construction

Φ 
q
qualities
Analysis – many methods are
approximate so there are a lot of
uncertainties in predicting the
resistance

122
Resistance and Probabilities Resistance Factors
 Resistance factor is  Resistance factors are different for different types of action (moment or
d t
determined
i d so that
th t the
th shear,
h ffor example)
l ) and
d ffor different
diff t ttypes off materials
t i l (steel
( t l or
reliability index, β, is concrete). They are specified under each section of materials.
close to the target
g
value, βT (about 3.5)

Concrete Structures

Types Φ
Flexure and Tension
in Reinforced Concrete 0.90
0 90
in Prestressed Concrete 1.00
g Concrete
Shear in Normal Weight 0.90
Axial Compression 0.75
Bearing on Concrete 0.70

Resistance Factors LRFD Design

g Procedure

S
Steel
lSStructures
∑ γiQi ≤ ΦRn
Types Φ
Flexure 1.00 Load Factor Nominal Resistance
Shear 1.00 Nominal Load Effect Resistance Factor
Axial Compression (steel or composite) 0.90
Block shear 0.80
Estimate Loads on Combine Load Reduce Resistance Estimate Resistance
Tension structure using Load using Resistance based on the shape
Yielding limit state 0.95 DL, LL, W, E Combinations Factor and size selected
Fracture limit state 0 80
0.80
Factored Load < Factored Resistance  OK 
Factored Load > Factored Resistance  Redesign

126