AASHTO-LRFD Bridge

Design

Riyadh Hindi, PhD, PEng

 Evolution of Design Methodologies

 Background of LRFD Specifications
 Calibration
 Major Changes

1
Evolution of Design Methodologies

1. Service Load Design (SLD)

(aka Allowable Stress Design, ASD;
or Working Stress Design, WSD)
» Dead, live, & other loads assumed of
equal importance (stresses summed up)
» Assumes linear elastic concrete stress-
strain
» fc  0.40 fc’
» fy  24 ksi (Grade 60)

Evolution of Design Methodologies

2. LFD Methodology
Strength Design Method
(Load Factor Design, LFD)
» Nonlinear concrete stress-strain
(equivalent rectangular stress block for
ease of use)
» Tension steel yields before concrete
crushes  ductile behavior
» Live load more variable than dead load
» Arbitrary load factors
 1.3[1.0D + (5/3)(L+I)]

2
 Evolution of Design Methodologies

3. LRFD Methodology
Load and Resistance Factor Design
» Recognizes variability of loads and
resistances
» Consistent Reliability Index, , at
Strength Limit State
» Calibrated load and resistance factors
 1.25D + 1.75(L+I)

AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications

 Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,
17th Edition, 2002
 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
- Investigation begun in 1986
- Development begun in 1988
- 1st Edition, 1994
- 2nd Edition, 1998
- 3rd Edition, 2004
- 4th Edition, 2007
- 5th Edition, 2010
- Originally US and SI units. Now US units only

3
 AASHTO Ballots on the LRFD
Specifications
May 1993
“To adopt the final draft of the NCHRP
12-33 document as the 1993 LRFD
Specifications for Highway Bridge Design
and in 1995 consider phasing out the current
Standard Specifications.”

May 1999
“After the 1999 meeting, discontinue
maintenance of the Standard Specifications
(except to correct errors), and maintain the
LRFD Specifications.”

AASHTO Recommendation –
LRFD Implementation Plan (2000)
 All new bridges on which States initiate
preliminary engineering after October 1,
2007, shall be designed by the LRFD
Specifications
 States unable to meet these dates will
provide justification and a schedule for
completing the transition to LRFD.
 For modifications to existing structures,
States would have the option of using
LRFD Specifications or the specifications
which were used for the original design.

4
 Objective of the LRFD
Develop a comprehensive and consistent
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
specification that is calibrated to obtain
uniform reliability (a measure of safety) at the
strength limit state for all materials.

The specification also addresses the

following limit states in the design process:
• Service Limit State
• Fatigue and Fracture Limit State
• Strength Limit State
• Extreme Event Limit State

Calibration

Selection of a set of ’s and ’s

to approximate a target level of
reliability in an LRFD-format
specification.

5
Calibration Consists of Up to Three
Steps:

 Reliability-based calibration
 Calibration or comparison to past
practice
 Liberal doses of engineering
judgment

LRFD Calibration

 Only the strength limit states of the LRFD

Specifications are calibrated based upon
the theory of structural reliability wherein
statistical load and resistance data are
required.

 The other limit states are based upon the

design criteria of the Standard
Specifications and/or related state-of-the-
art information.

6
 Calibration to Past Practice

 The strength limit states of the LRFD

Specifications are calibrated to yield
reliability comparable to past practice.

 The other limit states are calibrated to

yield member proportions comparable to
past practice.

Statistical Data

 Variability in Loads
» Traffic: Cars, Trucks (Different Number
of Axles), etc.
 Variability in Resistances
» Concrete Compressive Strength
» Reinforcing Steel Yield Strength
» Cross-Section Geometry
» Location of Reinforcement

7
 LRFD Calibration

Rmean

f(R,Q)
Qmean Rn
Qn

Qn Rn

R,Q

Reliability Index 

• The target Reliability Index  is a

unique quantity.
• Many different sets of ’s and ’s can
be selected to achieve the target
Reliability Index .

8
 LRFD Calibration

Rmean

f(R,Q)
Qmean
Qn Rn
Qn

Rn

R,Q

LRFD Calibration

Rmean

f(R,Q)
Qmean
Qn Rn
Qn

Rn

R,Q

9
 LRFD Calibration

(R-Q)mean

Graphical
definition

of
reliability
index 

R-Q

LRFD Calibration

Reliability Indices
5

2
LFD  Range LRFD  Range
1

0
30 60 90 120 200
Span Length , ft

10
 Major Changes

 Parallel Commentary
 Unified Concrete Provisions
 Shear Design
- Modified Compression Field Theory
- Strut-and-Tie Model
- Interface (Horizontal) Shear
 Partial Prestressing

Unified Design Provisions for Reinforced

and Prestressed Concrete

 Emphasize common features

 Eliminate duplication
 Unify design procedures
 Promote the notion of “structural
concrete”
 Introduce partially prestressed
concrete

11
 Other Major Changes

 Limit States
 Distribution Factors
 Load Factors and Combinations
 Vehicular Live Loads
 Dynamic Load Allowance (IM)
 Vessel Collision

LRFD Notation and Units

Std Specs LRFD Specs

fs f pu
*
fsu f ps
fse f pe
2 fc ( psi ) 0.0632 fc ( KSI )
3 fc ( psi ) 0.0948 fc ( KSI )
6 fc ( psi ) 0.190 fc ( KSI )
7.5 fc ( psi ) 0.24 fc ( KSI )

12
 Basis of LRFD Methodology

iiQi  Rn (1.3.2.1-1)

For loads where max. value of i is used:

i D R I  0.95
For loads where min. value of i is used:
i 1 D R I )  1.00

 i = load modifier

Load Modifier, i
LRFD 1.3.3-.5
D = ductility factor
= 1.05 for non-ductile components
= 0.95 for ductile components

R = redundancy factor
= 1.05 for nonredundant members
= 0.95 exceptional levels of redundancy

I = operational importance factor

= 1.05 for critical/essential bridges
= 0.95 for less important bridges

13
 Ductility Factor, D

LRFD C1.3.3
 This factor is related to structural behavior,
not material behavior.
» Inelastic behavior
» Warning of failure

 Therefore, properly designed reinforced

concrete components are considered ductile,
even though plain concrete is a brittle
material.

Ductility Factor, D

14
 Resistance Factors, 

LRFD 5.5.4.2

Tension-controlled sections – RC 0.90

Tension-controlled sections – P/S 1.00
Compression-controlled sections 0.75
Shear and torsion – normal weight conc. 0.90
Shear and torsion – lightweight conc. 0.70
Bearing 0.70

What LRFD is NOT?

 New limit states

 New, more complex live-load
distribution factors
 New unified-concrete shear design
using modified compression-field
theory
 Strut-and-tie model for concrete
 Many other state-of-the-art additions

15
 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications - Chapters

1. Introduction
2. General Design and Location Features
3. Loads and Load Factors
4. Structural Analysis and Evaluation
5. Concrete Structures
6. Steel Structures
7. Aluminum Structures

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications - Chapters
8. Wood Structures
9. Decks and Deck Systems
10. Foundations
11. Abutments, Piers, and Walls
12. Buried Structures and Tunnel Liners
13. Railings
14. Joints and Bearings

16
 Concluding Remarks

 Improvement over ASD and LFD

 Uniform reliability index for the
strength limit states
 Provides a framework for future
improvements
 Incorporates state-of-the-art design
procedures

Preliminary
Design

2010 Bridge
Professors’ Workshop

17
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
1. What is Preliminary Design?
2. Selection Criteria and AASHTO
Specifications
3. Types of Concrete Bridges
a) Standard Sections
b) Girder Selection Aids

Preliminary Design
 Definition

 Design Considerations
» Safety
» Economy
» Durability
» Aesthetics

18
All Existing U.S. Bridges 2003 NBI Data
60.0% 58.0%

50.0%

40.0%
31.2%
30.0%

20.0%

10.0% 8.4%

1.5% 0.5% 0.4%

0.0%
<50 50-99 100-149 150-199 200-249 >=250

Maximum Span (ft)

Total Built = 475,000 Bridges

Bridges Built, 2003 NBI Data

60%

50% P/S

40%
Percent Built

30%
Steel
20%
RC
10%

0%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year Built

19
 AASHTO Bridge Design
Specifications

 Standard Specifications No Longer Apply

 LRFD Specifications Govern Since October

2007

 State Practices

40
Concrete Bridge Types
 Slab Bridges
 I-Girder Bridges
 Box-Girder Bridges
 U-Beam Bridges
 Segmental Bridges
 Spliced-Girder Bridges
 Arch Bridges
 Cable-Stayed Bridges

20
 41
Preliminary Design

 CIP Reinforced Short Span Bridges

» Slab Bridges
» T-Beam Bridges
 Precast, Prestressed
» Standard AASHTO/PCI Girders
– I-Girders and Bulb-Tees
– Box Girders
» Standard Regional Girders

Bridge Selection Guide 42

WSDOT
Span Range (ft)
0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630

Pipe
Concrete Culvert
Plate Arch
RC Slab
RC Tee Beam
RC Box Girder
PT Conc Box Girder
Segmental PT Box Girder
PS Conc Slab
PS Conc Deck Bulb Tee
PS Conc Girder
Steel Rolled Girder
Steel Plate Girder
Steel Box Girder
Steel Truss
Timber
Glulam Timber
Cable Stay Bridge
Suspension Bridge
Floating Bridge
Arch Bridge
Moveable Span Bridge
Tunnel

21
 Slab Bridges 43

 Simple, easy to construct

 Well-suited for spans up to about 50 ft
 Cast-in-place or precast. Reinforced or prestressed
 Can be made continuous with abutments and piers to
mobilize the frame action

I-Girder Bridges 44

Walnut Lane Bridge, Philadelphia, PA

 Most popular bridge type

 For spans up to about 160 ft.
 Common sizes: AASHTO/PCI Type I-VI (28” to 72”)
and Bulb-Ts (54”, 63”, and 72”)

22
Properties, Dimensions and Maximum 45
Spans
for AASHTO-PCI I-Girders

Properties, Dimensions and Maximum 46

Spans
for AASHTO-PCI I-Girders

23
 47
Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans for
PCI Bulb Tee Girders

48
Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans for
PCI Bulb Tee Girders

24
Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans
49 for
New England Bulb Tee Girders

50
Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans for
New England Bulb Tee Girders

25
 2.51
Design Charts for I-Girders
Illinois DOT

Box Girder Bridges 52

FHWA Showcase Bridge, Cambridge, OH 115’-6” Span

 Second-most popular after the I-girder bridges

 Common sizes: AASHTO/PCI Type BI-BIV (27” to 42”)
 Span Range: 60 ft – 105 ft.
 Use of side-by-side boxes without a wearing course
offers speedy construction

26
 53 for
Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans
AASHTO-PCI Box Girders

Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans

54 for
AASHTO-PCI Box Girders

27
 55
U-Beam Bridges

56
U-Beams

28
 Segmental Bridges 57

Sagadahoc Bridge, Bath-Woolwich, ME, Span 420’

 Economical, durable, aesthetically pleasing

 Span-by-span or balanced cantilever construction
 Post-tensioned or/and Cable-stayed
 Typical segment type: Concrete box
 Cast-in-place or precast
 Perfectly suited for gradual and sharply curved alignments

58
Hanging Lake Viaduct

• I-70 in Glenwood, Colorado

• Segmental precast concrete bridge
• Balanced Cantilever construction

29
 Spliced Girder Bridges 59

Shelby Creek Bridge, KY, Span 250 ft.

 Innovative technique for very long spans

 Long-segment precast prestressed girders spliced
 Spans of more than 300 ft have been achieved

S 274th – Green River Bridge

60
Kent, Washington

30
 S 274th – Green River Bridge
61
Kent, Washington

62
Arch Bridges
 Most efficient shape
for supporting gravity
loading
 Cast-in-place or
precast
 The longest existing
concrete arch bridge:
Wanxian Bridge,
China. Span = 1378
 The first segmental precast ft.
concrete arch bridge in the
U.S.: The Natchez Trace
Parkway, Franklin, Tennessee.
Dual Spans of 582 ft. and 462 ft

31
 Cable-Stayed Bridges 63

 Structurally efficient use of materials.

 Concrete in compression and steel stays in tension.
 Economical and aesthetically pleasing.
 Most popular type for signature bridges.
 The longest concrete cable-stayed bridge in the U.S.:
Dames Point, Jacksonville, Fl. Main Span = 1300 ft

64
Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge

• Located in Boston, MA over Charles River

• Part of the Central Artery Project

32
 3.65

Loads and Load Distribution

3.66
Overview of Presentation

 Calibration (Load and Resistance

Factors)
 New Load Model
 Refined Load Distribution

33
 3.67
LRFD Limit States
 The LRFD Specifications require examination of
several load combinations corresponding to the
following limit states:
» STRENGTH LIMIT STATE
strength and stability
» SERVICE LIMIT STATE
stress, deformation, and cracking
» FATIGUE & FRACTURE LIMIT STATE
stress range
» EXTREME EVENT LIMIT STATE
earthquakes, ice load, and vehicle and vessel
collision

3.68
3.4.1 Load and Load Designation
STRENGTH I : normal vehicular use without wind

STRENGTH II : owner design / permit vehicles

without wind

STRENGTH III : bridge exposed to wind exceeding

55 mph

STRENGTH IV : very high dead-to-live load ratios

STRENGTH V : normal vehicular use with 55 mph

wind

34
 3.69
3.4.1 Load and Load Designation
SERVICE I : normal operational use of the bridge with
a 55 mph wind and nominal loads. Also
control cracking of reinforced concrete
structures.

SERVICE II : control yielding of steel structures and slip

of connections

SERVICE III : control cracking of prestressed concrete

superstructures

SERVICE IV : control cracking of prestressed concrete

substructures

FATIGUE : repetitive vehicular live load and dynamic

responses under a single truck

3.70
1.3.2 Limit States

ΣηiγiQi  Rn = Rr Eq. (1.3.2.1-1)

where:
ηi = Load Modifier
= ηD ηR ηI  0.95, where a max. value of γi is used
1
= < 1.00, where a min. value of γi is
DR I
used
Load modifier factors:
ηD = Ductility
γi = Load factor ηR = Redundancy
 = Resistance factor ηI = Operational importance
Qi = Nominal force effect
Rn = Nominal resistance
Rr = Factored resistance
= R

35
 3.71
3.3.2 Load and Load Designation
DD = downdrag CT = vehicular collision force
DC = dead load of structural CV = vessel collision force
components and EQ = earthquake
nonstructural FR = friction
attachments
IC = ice load
DW = dead load of wearing
surfaces and utilities IM = vehicular dynamic load
allowance
EH = horizontal earth pressure
LL = vehicular live load
EL = accumulated locked-in
force effects resulting LS = live load surcharge
from the construction PL = pedestrian live load
process, including the SE = settlement
secondary forces from SH = shrinkage
post-tensioning
TG = temperature gradient
ES = earth surcharge load
TU = uniform temperature
EV = earth fill vertical pressure
WA= water load and stream
BR = vehicular braking force pressure
CE = vehicular centrifugal force WL= wind on live load
CR = creep WS= wind load on structure

3.72
Table 3.4.1-1 Load Combinations and Load Factors

36
 3.73
Load Combination for Prestressed Concrete
Strength Limit State
• Increased vehicular live load
• Reduced load factors
• Result: Design effects are similar to Std Specs
Service Limit State
• Increased vehicular live load
• Same stress limits
• Result: Design effects are significantly more
restrictive than designs using Std Specs
• Service III added to address this difference by
reducing live load effects

3.74
Table 3.4.1-2 Load Factors for Permanent Loads, p

37
 3.75
3.6.1.2.1 Design Vehicular Live Loads

Total Vehicular LL
(HL-93)

Design Truck
OR
Design Tandem
Design
Design Truck Tandem
PLUS

Design Lane Load

Design Lane Load

3.76
3.6.2.1 Dynamic Load Allowance (Impact)
The dynamic load allowance in Table 1 is an
increment to be applied to the static wheel load to
account for wheel load impact from moving vehicles.

Sources of dynamic effects on bridges

• Hammering at surface discontinuities
• Dynamic response of bridge as a whole

38
 3.77
3.6.2.1 Dynamic Load Allowance (Impact)
For design of most bridge components for all limit
states except fatigue
• The LRFD Specifications simply require a
constant magnification (IM) of 33% to be applied
to the design truck or design tandem only
• The magnification (IM) is not applied to the
design lane load
• This simple approach is based on a study that
found the most influential factor affecting
dynamic impact is roadway surface roughness
• Commentary has more background

3.78
5.5.4.2 Resistance Factors

LRFD
Std Specs
5.5.4.2
Flex – RC 0.90 0.90
Flex – PS 1.00 1.00
Shear – RC 0.85 0.90
Shear – PS 0.90 0.90
Compression 0.70 / 0.75 0.75
Bearing 0.70 0.70

39
Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 Common Superstructures

4.6.2.2.1 Simplified Distribution Factors

To use the simplified distribution factors the
following conditions must be met
• Width of deck is constant
• Number of beams, Nb ≥ 4
• Beams are parallel and of the same stiffness
• The roadway part of the overhang, de ≤ 3.0 ft
• Curvature is less than 4°
• Section appears in Table 4.6.2.2.1-1

40
 3.81
Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1 Distribution of Live Loads Per Lane
for Moment in Interior Beams

Notes: 1) Units are in LANES and not WHEELS!

2) Limits of applicability are from parametric study
3) No multiple presence factor applied (tabulated equations)
4) May be different for positive and negative flexure locations
5) Use more conservative of 1 or 2 lanes loaded
6) Note that minimum no. of girders, Nb, is 3

3.82
Distribution Factors for I-Beams - Moment

The live load distribution factor for moment

for interior beams with 2 or more lanes loaded

Nb ≥ 4
10,000 ≤ Kg ≤ 7,000,000

41
 3.83
Longitudinal Stiffness Parameter
This term gives an indication of the
relative stiffness between the beam
(longitudinal) and deck (transverse)

For preliminary design, this term may be taken

as 1.10

> 1, the inverse of ratio (n) for section properties

since it is transforming beam to deck

3.84
Distribution Factors for I-Beams - Shear

The live load distribution factor for shear for

interior beams with 2 or more lanes loaded

42
 3.85
Distribution Factors for I-Beams – Moment with Skew

Bending moments in interior and exterior

beams on skewed supports may be reduced
using the following multiplier

3.86
Distribution Factors for I-Beams – Shear with Skew

Shear in exterior beams at the obtuse corner

of the bridge may be reduced using the
following multiplier

This formula is valid for θ < 60°

43
 3.87
4.6.2.2 Lever Rule

3.88
4.6.3 Refined Methods of Analysis

Nine methods are listed in Article 4.4 including

• Finite element method
• Finite difference method
• Grillage analogy method
• Yield line method

44
 89

Flexure & Shear Design

90
Learning Objectives

 Unified Design Provisions for Flexure

and Axial Load

 Modified Compression Field Theory

(MCFT) for Shear Design

45
 91
Flexural Design Provisions in AASHTO

 AASHTO Standard
» Section 8 – Reinforced Concrete
» Section 9 – Prestressed Concrete

 AASHTO LRFD
» Section 5 – Concrete Structures
– Reinforced concrete
– Prestressed concrete
– Partially prestressed concrete (New in
LRFD)

92
AASHTO Standard

 Maximum reinforcement
Reinforced Concrete
max = 0.75 bal (8.16.3.1)
Prestressed Concrete
(pf*su/fc’)  0.36 1 (9.18.1)

46
 93
Unified Design Provisions for Reinforced and
Prestressed Concrete Flexural and
Compression Members

LRFD 5.7

Beams  Ductile behavior

Columns  Non-ductile behavior

  Factors selected based on behavior

94
Unified Design Provisions –
Key Concept

Strength reduction factor, ,

depends on
maximum net tensile strain, t ,
at nominal resistance, Mn

47
 95
5.2 - Definitions

Net Tensile Strain - The tensile strain at

nominal resistance exclusive of strains
due to effective prestress, creep,
shrinkage, and temperature.

96
5.2 - Definitions

Extreme Tension Steel — The

reinforcement (prestressed or
nonprestressed) that is farthest from
the extreme compression fiber.

48
 97
5.2 - Definitions

0.003

dt

t
Beam Strain Column

t = Net tensile strain

dt = Depth to extreme tension steel

98
5.2 - Definitions

t = Extreme tension steel strain

at nominal resistance, due to applied loads

0.003

a =  1c C Mn
c
Pn

T
t

49
 99
5.2 - Definitions

Compression-Controlled Strain Limit —

The net tensile strain (t ) at balanced
strain conditions. See Article 5.7.2.1.

100
5.7.2.1 – Balanced Strain Condition

0.003

fy /Es (or 0.002)

50
 101
5.2 - Definitions

Compression-Controlled Section — A
cross section in which the net tensile
strain (t ) in the extreme tension steel
at nominal resistance is less than or
equal to the compression-controlled
strain limit.
[Usually 0.002]

102
5.2 - Definitions

Tension-Controlled Section — A cross

section in which the net tensile strain
(t ) in the extreme tension steel at
nominal resistance is greater than or
equal to 0.005.

51
 103
5.5.4.2 Resistance Factors 
dt
  0.583  0.25  
1
c  P/S
1.00
0.90
R.C.

dt
  0.65  0.15  
1
c 
0.75

Compression- Transition Tension -

Controlled Controlled
t = 0.002 t = 0.005
Net Tensile Strain

104
Effect of Variation in 

 Design flexural members as tension-controlled

sections. Adding reinforcement beyond this
limit reduces , because of reduced ductility,
resulting in no gain in design strength
 It is better to add sufficient compression
reinforcement to raise the neutral axis and
make the section tension-controlled

52
 Effect of Variation in  105

Mn
bd2

 = As/bd

106
10.3.3-4 – Strain Conditions

c = 0.003 0.003 0.003

t  0.002 0.002 < t < 0.005 t  0.005

Compression- Tension-
Controlled Transition Controlled
c  0.6 dt 0.375 dt < c < 0.6 dt c  0.375 dt

53
 Ductility Comparison 107
Standard vs. LRFD Specs.

Example – R.C. Beam 108

12” 0.003

c a =  1c C
16” dt = 13.5”
3#8 T
t
Given: f’c = 4 ksi; fy = 60 ksi
Assume steel yields
T = Asfy = 3(0.79)60 = 142.2 kips
a = T/(0.85 f’cb) = 3.49 in. c = a/1 = 4.1 in.
Mn = T [dt-(a/2)] = 1672 in.-k = 139.3 ft-k
c/dt = 4.1/13.5 = 0.304 < 0.375 or
t = 0.003 [(dt-c)/c] = 0.0069 in./in.  Tension-controlled
Mr = Mn = 0.90 (139.3) = 125.4 ft-k

54
 109
5.8 Shear and Torsion

5.8.1.1 – Flexural Regions – Sectional

Design Method  Modified
Compression Field Theory (MCFT)
5.8.1.2 – Regions Near Discontinuities
 Strut-and-Tie (5.6.3)

110
5.8.3.3 – Nominal Shear Resistance

Vn  Vc Vs Vp
Vn  0.25fcbv d v Vp
where:
Vc = concrete contribution
Vc = 0.0316 β fc bv d v ( fc in ksi)
'

=  fc' bv d v (fc' in psi)

Vs = stirrup contribution
Av fy
= d v cot θ
s

Vp = vertical component of the prestressing force

55
Modified Compression Field Theory111(1986)

Source: Collins – Mitchell, 1991

Reinforced Concrete = 112

Cracked Concrete + Reinforcement

Panel Loaded in shear

56
 113
Stresses between Cracks

Calculated average stress

114
Tension Stiffening

57
 Stress Transfer at a Crack 115

Local stresses at crack

Aggregate Interlock 116

Detail at crack

Vci limited by:

- Width of crack, w
- Size of aggregate, a

58
 Average Stress – Strain Relationships
117 for
Concrete in Tension

118
Diagonal Cracks  Diagonal Compression

59
Average Stress-Strain Relationship
119for
Concrete in Compression

ε2 ε
f2  f2 max [ 2 ( '
)  ( '2 )2 ]
where εc εc
f2 max 1
  1 .0
fc'
0.8  170 ε1

Modified Compression
Field Theory

Based on three principles:

Equilibrium
Compatibility
Stress-Strain Relationship

60
 1.121

STRUCTURAL CONCRETE

 Concrete
 Reinforcement
 Reinforced Concrete
 Prestressed Concrete

Characteristics of Concrete 1.122

Basic Concept
• Strong in Compression
• Weak in Tension

61
 1.123
Typical Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete

1.124
Behavior of Plain Concrete Members

62
 Typical Stress-Strain Curve for 1.125
Mild Reinforcing Steel

1.126
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Members

63
 Typical Load–Deflection Behavior 1.127
of
Unreinforced and Reinforced Concrete Beams

1.128
Prestressed Concrete: General Principles

64
 1.129
Methods of Prestressing Concrete Members
Pretensioning:

Post-tensioning

Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Members

1.130

65
 1.131
Typical Load – Deflection Behavior of Unreinforced,
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams

Stress-Strain Curves for 1.132

Prestressing Strand and Mild Reinforcement

66
 1.133
Concepts of Prestressing
 Maintain gross section properties for improved
stiffness

 “Transform” concrete from a material that cracks

into an elastic uncracked material

 Balance applied loads

 Combination of concrete with very high strength

reinforcement

 Provide active force to close cracks due to

overloads

Load Balancing 1.134

67
 1.135
Need for High Strength Steel to Achieve Prestress

1.136
Partial Prestressing
Partially prestressed members are allowed to crack
at service loads
• Reduces Required prestress force
• Reduces excess section strength
• Generally requires addition of mild
reinforcement
• Stiffness is reduced – deflections and fatigue
should be investigated
• Recognized in LRFD Specs
- No specific guidance for design
- Partial prestress ratio, PPR, defined in LRFD
5.5.4.2.1
Aps fpy
PPR 
Aps fpy  As fy

68
 1.137
Design of Reinforced Concrete Members

 Strength Limit State – Flexure

 Strength Limit State – Shear

 Fatigue Limit State – Flexure

 Service Limit State –

- Crack Control
- Deformations Optional

 Extreme Events

1.138
Design of Prestressed Concrete Members

 Service Limit State – Flexure

- determine magnitude and location of P/S force
- stress limits
- stages of construction
- almost always governs
 Strength Limit State – Flexure
 Strength Limit State – Shear
 Fatigue Limit State – Flexure
 Service Limit State – Deformations
- optional
 Extreme Events

69
 139
Deck Design

 Refined Methods (4.6.3.2)

 Approximate Methods
» Empirical Method (9.7.2)
» Strip Method (4.6.2.1.1., App. A4
+ Section 5)
 Overhang Design (9.7.1.5)

140
Deck Design

70
 141
Problem Definition
Live Load: HL-93

Deck Concrete
f’c = 4 ksi
wc = 150 pcf

Nonprestressed Reinforcement
fy = 60 ksi
Es = 29,000 ksi

Dimensions
Thickness = 8.0 in. (9.7.1.1 & 13.7.3.1.2)
Cover = 2.5 in. (Top) (5.12.3)
= 1.0 in. (Bottom) (5.12.3)

Future Wearing Surface Allowance: FWS = 30 psf

142
9.7.2 Empirical Method
 Based on extensive research

 Load resistance mechanism

 Internal arching action
 FEM verification

 Factor of safety  8.0

 No analysis required

 Isotropic reinforcement

 Not applicable to overhang design

71
 143
9.7.2.4 Empirical Method – Design Conditions

 Diaphragms at lines of support

 Concrete and/or steel girders
 Cast-in-place composite deck
 Uniform depth
 Effective length-to-depth ratio
 6 to 18
 Effective length
 13.5 ft., maximum

(9.7.2.3)

144
9.7.2.4 Empirical Method – Design Conditions

 Core depth – 4.0 in., minimum

 Slab thickness – 7.0 in., minimum

 Minimum overhang-to-depth ratio

» 5
» 3, if barrier is composite

 fc’ - 4 ksi, minimum

 Deck is composite

72
 145
9.7.2.5 Empirical Method – Reinforcement

 Bottom Layer, each way: 0.27 in.2 / ft.

(#5 bars @ 13.5 in. spacing – As,prov’d = 0.276 in.2 / ft.)
 Top Layer, each way: 0.18 in.2 / ft.
(#4 bars @ 13 in. spacing – As,prov’d = 0.185 in.2 / ft.)
 Grade 60 steel
 Outermost bars in direction of effective length
 Maximum spacing – 18 in. o.c.
 Reinforcement doubled in end zone if skew exceeds 25

146
9.7.2.5 Empirical Method – Final Design

73
 147
4.6.2.1.1 Strip Method
 Continuous beam loaded with truck axle loads
 Equivalent strip widths – interior, exterior, and
overhang (Table 4.6.2.1.3-1)
 DL moments on a per foot width basis
 LL moments:
» Moving load analysis
– Truck axles moved laterally
– Multiple presence factors
– Dynamic load allowance
– Total moment divided strip width
» LRFD Table A4.1-1 (used in this design example)

148
Strip Method

 Overhang design (9.7.1.5)

 Limit states
» Service: crack control
» Fatigue: need not be checked
» Strength: factored moments
» Extreme event: vehicular collision

74
 149
Strip Method – DL Moments
w2
M 
C
 C = 10 or 12
 Self weight = 8(150)/12
= 100 psf = 0.1 ksf

0.1 x 9 2
MDL   0.81 kip  ft . / ft .
10
 Future wearing surface = 30 psf = 0.3 ksf
0.03 x 9 2
MFWS   0.24 kip  ft . / ft .
10

150
Strip Method – LL Moments

 Table A4-1
 Span = 9 ft.
 Critical section for negative moment
(4.6.2.1.6)
» (1/3) bf = 14 in. (governs) ≤ 15 in.
» Use 12 in. (conservative)

pos
M LLI  6.29 kip - ft . / ft .

neg
M LLI  3.71kip - ft . / ft .

75
 151
Strip Method – Service LS Moments

 Service Limit State:

» Negative Interior Moment:

Mneg = -(0.81+0.24+3.71) = -4.76 kip-ft. / ft.

» Positive Moment:

Mpos = (0.81+0.24+6.29) = 7.34 kip-ft. / ft.

152
Strip Method – Strength LS Moments
 Strength Limit State

» Negative Interior Moment:

Mneg,str = -(1.25x0.81 + 1.5x0.24 + 1.75x3.71)

= -7.87 kip-ft. / ft.

» Positive Moment:

Mpos,str = 1.25x0.81 + 1.5x0.24 + 1.75x6.29

= 12.38 kip-ft. / ft.

76
 Strip Method – Flexure Design153
 Mneg,str = -7.87 kip-ft. / ft.
» Try No. 5 at 10 in. o.c.

» As = (12/10)(0.31 in.2/bar)
= 0.372 in.2 / ft.
As f y  a As f y
M n   d   a
b  2 0.85 fc' b

(0.372)(60) a 0.547
a  0.547 in. c   0.65 in.
(0.85)(4)(12) 0.85 0.85

Check Tension/Compression controlled section

d t  c  5.19  0.65 
t  * 0.003  * 0.003  0.021  0.005
c 0.65
Therefore , tension - controlled section
  0.9 for flexure

154
Strip Method – Flexure Design

As f y  a
M n   d  
b  2

( 0.90 )( 0.372 )( 60 )  0.547 

M n   ( 5.19  )   8.23 kip - ft./ft.
( 12 )  2 

 Mn = 8.23 kip-ft. / ft. > Mneg,str = 7.87 kip-ft. / ft. O.K.

77
 155
Strip Method – Crack Control

 Maximum spacing of tension reinforcement

» LRFD Article 5.7.3.4 applies if fMneg > 0.8fr

0.8 f r  0.8 * 0.24 fc'  0.8 * 0.24 4  0.38 ksi

4.76 * 12
f M neg   0.45 ksi  0.38 ksi
 12 * 8 2 
 
 6 

Therefore, Article 5.7.3.4 applies

156
Strip Method – Crack Control
 Maximum spacing of tension reinforcement

700γ e
s  2d c
βs fs
where ,
 e  0.75 for Class 2 exposure

dc = cover – extreme tension fiber to center of extreme reinf.

= 2.5” (clear cover) + 0.625 (diameter of No. 5 bar)/2

= 2.81 in.
dc 2.81
s  1  1  1.77
0 .7 ( h - d c ) 0.7 ( 8 - 2.81 )

fs = Stress in reinf. based on cracked section analysis

78
 157
Strip Method – Crack Control
 Calculate fs
1kd
b 3 s
c fc

kd s
Neutral
Axis

ds
jds = (1 - k)ds
M 3

T
s fs

Elevation Section Strain Stress Resultant

Forces
Figure 3: Reinforced concrete rectangular beam section at service load

158
Strip Method – Crack Control
M where:
fs =
As jd s M = -4.76 kip-ft./ft.
As = No. 5 at 10” o.c. = 0.31/10*12 = 0.372 in.2/ ft.
ds = 8 – 2.5 – 0.625/2 = 5.19 in.

n = modular ratio = Es / Ec = 29,000 / 3,830 = 7.57. Use 8 ≥ 6 OK

(LRFD 5.7.1) E  33 ,000 w 1.5 f '  ( 33 ,000 )( 0.150 )1.5 4.0  3 ,830 ksi
c c c

As
 k  2 n  n  - n
2
bd
0.372 k  ( 2 )( 0.00597 )( 8 )  ( 0.00597 )( 8 ) - ( 0.00597 )( 8 )  0.265
2
  0.00597
( 12 )( 5.19 )

k ( 4.76 * 12 )
j 1- j  1  0.265 / 3  0.912 f s   32.4 ksi
3 ( 0.372 )( 0.912 )( 5.19 )

79
 159
Strip Method – Crack Control
700γ e 700 * 0.75
s≤ 2d c = 2 * 2.81 = 3.53 in.
βs fs 1.77 * 32.4

 Provided No. 5 at 10 in. o.c. > 3.53 in. o.c. N.G.

 Reduce spacing to 7 in. o.c.

Revised maximum spacing = 7.2 in. O.K.

 Therefore, for negative interior moments:

Provide #5 @ 7 in. o.c. (As prov'd = 0.53 in.2 / ft.)
Mneg prov’d = 11.5 kip-ft./ft.

 Similar calculations for Mpositive suggest

No. 5 at 8 in. o.c. are adequate (As, prov’d = 0.465 in2/ft.)
Mpos prov’d = 13.3 kip-ft./ft.

160
Strip Method – Distribution Reinforcement
(LRFD 9.7.3.2)
 At bottom
 In secondary direction
 Percent of reinforcement for Mpositive
220
 67%, where S  108 - 6  102 in.  8.5 ft.
S
220
 75 %  67 % , 67% Governs
8 .5

As = 0.67(0.47 in.2 / ft.) = 0.31 in.2 / ft.

Provide #5 @ 12 in. o.c. (As prov'd = 0.310 in.2 / ft.)

80
Strip Method – Shrinkage & Temp. Reinf.
161
1.3 bh
As  Eq . 5.10.8  1
2 ( b  h )f y
0.11  As  0.60 Eq . 5.10.8  2

42’ – 6” = 510 in
Method 1 : Consider full width of deck : 8 in
1.3 * 510 * 8
As   0.085 , therefore As  0.11
2 * ( 510  8 ) * 60

Method 2 : Consider unit width of deck  12 in

Area  12 * 8  96in 2 12 in
Drying perimeter  2 * (12  0)  24 in 8 in
1.3 * 96
As   0.087, therefore As  0.11
24 * 60
Maximum spacing: 3*8=24 in or 18 in (governs)

Provide No. 4 @ 18 in. o.c. (As prov'd = 0.27 in2 / ft.)

Strip Method – Minimum 162

Reinforcement
 Mr  lesser of 1.2 Mcr or 1.33 Mu (LRFD 5.7.3.3.2)

M cr  f r Sc

f r  0.37 fc  0.37 4  0.74 ksi

12 * 8 2
M cr  0.74 * ( )  94.7 kip - in.  7.9 kip - ft./ft.
6
1.2 M cr  1.2 * 7.9  9.5 kip - ft/ft (governs)
1.33M neg,str  1.33 * 7.87  10.47 kip - ft/ft
1.33M pos,str  1.33 * 12.38  16.47 kip - ft/ft

 Mpos prov’d = 13.3 kip-ft/ft and Mneg prov’d = 11.5 kip-ft/ft

> 9.5 kip-ft/ft OK

81
 163
Empirical vs. Traditional

 Total reinforcement per square foot of deck:

Empirical method:
2[0.276 + 0.185] = 0.922 in.2 / ft. (- 41%)

Traditional method:
0.53 + 0.465 + 0.310 + 0.27 = 1.575 in.2 / ft. (+ 71%)

Overhang Design 164

 Design Case 1: DL and trans. & long. Vehicle impact forces

Load & Resistance Factors = 1.0. – extreme event limit state

 Design Case 2: DL & vert. vehicle impact forces

Load & Resistance Factors = 1.0. – extreme event limit state

Typically does not govern for concrete barriers

 Design Case 3: Strength I Limit State

1.25DC + 1.5 DW + 1.75 (LL+IM)

82
 165
Vehicle Impact Forces
 Extreme Event Test Vehicle – TL4
(LRFD 13.7.2)
Design Forces and Designations

Ft Transverse Force 54 KIP

FL Longitudinal Force 18 KIP
Fv Vertical Force Down 18 KIP
Lt and LL 3.5 FT
Lv 18 FT
He min (Height of impact above deck) 32 IN
H Minimum Height of Barrier 32 IN

Safety Barrier 166

Strength of Barrier: ILDOT F-Shape Concrete Barrier

83
Strength of Barrier – Yield Line Case
167 1

Strength of Barrier – Yield Line Case

168 2

84
 Distribution of Mc and T 169

» At the inside of barrier

– M over Lc

– T over Lc+2H (Case 1)

– T over Lc+ H (Case 2)

Strength of Barrier 170

Yield Line Case 1 :

 L  8H M b  Mw 
2
L 
Lc   t    t    13.7 ft
2 2 Mc
 2  ML 
2

Rw 1    8M b  8Mw  c c   134.4 kip

 H 
 c  Lt
2L 

Yield Line Case 2 :

2
L  L   M  Mw 
Lc   t    t   H  b   6.3 ft
2
  2
   Mc 
 2  ML 
2

Rw 2    M b  Mw  c c   61.6 kip, controls

 H 
 2Lc  Lt 

Rw for barrier = 61.6 kip

 61.6 kip > Ft = 54 kip OK

85
 Flexural Design of Deck 171
 At the inside face of the barrier:
MDC = (8/12)*(0.150)*(1.5)2 / 2 = 0.06 kip-ft. / ft.
Mbarrier = (0.450)*(1.5)2 / 2 = 0.34 kip-ft. / ft.
Mc = 13.9 kip-ft. / ft. (Flexural strength of barrier about hor. axis)

 Design forces for deck (at inside face of barrier):

M = MDC + Mbarrier + Mc
= 0.06 + 0.34 + 13.9
= 14.30 kip-ft. / ft.

P = T1 (yield line case 1) = 6.94 kip / ft., at centroid of deck

P
h d
M

Reinforcement at Top of Deck172

T+P
P
h d
a C
M
Strains Stresses Forces
 a  h  a h a
M n  C  d    P  d    T1  d    P   
 2  2  2 2 2
 As = 0.185 in.2 / ft. (Empirical design – No. 4 @ 13” o.c.)
 T1 = T + P
 T1 = T + P = 0.185x60 = 11.1 kip / ft.
 C = 11.1 - 6.94 = 4.16 kip / ft.
 a = 4.16/(0.85x12x4) = 0.10 in.
 c = a/0.85 = 0.10/0.85 = 0.12 in.
 de = 8 – 2.5 – 0.5/2 = 5.25 in.

86
 Reinforcement at Top of Deck173
T+P
P
h d
a C
M
Strains Stresses Forces
 0.10   8 0.10 
M n  11.1 5.25    6.94     30.3 kip  in. / ft .  2.53 kip  ft . / ft .
 2  2 2 
 Mn = 2.53 < M = 14.30 kip-ft. / ft. NG
 Provide additional No. 7 at 13 in. o.c.
alternating with No. 4 at 13 o.c.
» As = (0.20+0.60)/13*(12) = 0.74 in.2 / ft.
» T = 0.74x60 = 44.4 kip / ft.
 0.92   8 0.92 
M n  44.4  5.06    6.94     179.7 kip  in. / ft .  15.0 kip  ft . / ft .
 2  2 2 

 Mn = 15.0 > M = 14.30 kip-ft. / ft. OK

174

» Away from barrier:

– Dispersion at 30 to 45 deg

87
 175

Thank You
Questions?

88