Seismic Design of Bridges Example 7

Devellopmennt of Mu
ultimeddia Ressource aand

Short
S Courses
C s for LR
RFD Design
Final Report
R for:
Alaabama Departm
D ment off Transpportationn
Ressearch Project
P 930-703
Project Adv
visory Com
mmittee
Mr.
M Buddy Black, PA AC Chair
Ms. Maaxine Wheeeler
Mr. Raandall Mullins
Ms. J. Michelle
M Owwens
Mr. Robert
R Kinng
Marcch 1, 20111
Principaal Investigaator:
Housssam Toutaanji, Ph.D., PE, FASC
CE
Departtment of Civil aand Environmeental Engineering
UAHuntsville
Development of Multimedia Resource and Short Courses for LRFD Design
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 6
1.0 Introduction 7
2.0 Methodology 8
3.0 Website/CD-ROM Description 9
3.1 Home page 9
3.2 Introduction 10
3.3 Description of Chapters 11
3.3.1 LRFD Concrete Design: 11
3.3.1.1 Chapter 1: Introduction 11
3.3.1.2 Chapter 2: General Design and Location Features 13
3.3.1.3 Chapter 3: Load and Load Factors 14
3.3.1.4 Chapter 4: Structural Analysis and Evaluation 16
3.3.1.5 Chapter 5: Concrete Structures 17
3.3.1.6 Chapter 6: Deck and Deck Systems 18
3.3.1.7 Chapter 7: Foundations 19
3.3.1.8 Chapter 8: Abutments, Piers and Walls 20
3.3.1.9 Chapter 9: Buried Structures and Tunnel Lines 21
3.3.1.10 Chapter 10: Railings 22
3.3.1.11 Chapter 11: Joints and Bearings 23
3.3.1.12 Chapter 12: Detailing Practice 24
3.3.2 LRFD Steel Design: 25
3.3.2.1 Chapter 1: Introduction 25
3.3.2.2 Chapter 2: General Design and Location Features 25
3.3.2.3 Chapter 3: Load and Load Factors 25
3.3.2.4 Chapter 4: Structural Analysis and Evaluation 25
3.3.2.5 Chapter 5: Steel Structures 25
3.3.2.6 Chapter 6: Deck and Deck Systems 26
3.3.2.7 Chapter 7: Foundations 26
3.3.2.8 Chapter 8: Abutments, Piers and Walls 26
3.3.2.9 Chapter 9: Buried Structures and Tunnel Lines 27
3.3.2.10 Chapter 10: Railings 27
3.3.2.11 Chapter 11: Joints and Bearings 27
3.3.2.12 Chapter 12: Detailing Practice 27
3.4 Theory 28
3.5 Reliability 29
3.6 Design Examples 31
3.6.1 LRFD Concrete Design: 32
3.6.1.1 Design Example #1 – Concrete Deck Design 32
3.6.1.2 Design Example #2 – Solid Slab Bridge Design 33
3.6.1.3 Design Example #3 – T-Beam Bride Design 34
3.6.1.4 Design Example #4 – Prestressed Girder Bridge Design 35
Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
UAHuntsville 2
3.6.1.5 Design Example #5 – Concrete Box-Girder Design 36
3.6.1.6 Design Example #6 – stub Abutment Design 37
3.6.2 LRFD Steel Design: 38
3.6.2.1 Design Example #1 – Non-composite Steel Beam Bridge 38
3.6.2.2 Design Example #2 – Composite Steel Beam Bridge 39
3.6.2.3 Design Example #3 – Continuous Composite Girder Bridge 40
3.6.3 LRFD Vs ASD: Bridge Substructure Design Example 41
3.6.3.1 Table of Contents 41
3.6.3.2 List of Symbols 42
3.6.3.3 Statement of the Problem 43
3.6.3.4 Design Using LRFD 44
3.6.3.5 Design Using ASD 45
3.6.3.6 Comparison Between LRFD and ASD 46
3.6.3.7 Conclusion 47
3.6.3.8 Appendices 48
3.7 Search Options 49
3.7.1 Search In: Theory 50
3.7.2 Search In: Definitions 51
3.7.3 Search In: Design Examples 52
3.8 Definitions 53
3.9 General 54
3.10 Contact Us 55
4.0 Introduction to LRFR 56
5.0 Conclusion 60
6.0 References 61

UAHuntsville 3
Table of Figures
1 Home Page of the Multimedia Package for LRFD Concrete Bridge Design 9
2 Introduction Page Explain what are LRFD Specifications 10
3 Chapter 1: Introduction Page Explains the Limit State and the Load Modifier 12
4 Chapter 2: Table of Traditional Minimum Depths for Constant Depth 13
Superstructures
5 Chapter 3: Geometric Probability of a Pier Collision 15
6 Chapter 4: Tables on Minimum Analysis Requirements for Seismic Effects and 16
on Regular Bridge Requirements
7 Chapter 5: Concrete Structures Page 17
8 Chapter 6: Detailing Requirements for Orthotropic Decks 18
9 Chapter 7: Modified Bearing Capacity Factors for Footing in Cohesive Soils 19
10 Chapter 8: External Stability for a Wall with Horizontal Back-Slope and Traffic 20
Surcharge
11 Chapter 9: Minimum Soil Cover Table Depending on the Different Types of 21
Pipes or Pipe Structures
12 Chapter 10: Bicycle Railing Loads 22
13 Chapter 11: Common Bearing Types 23
14 Chapter 12: Partial Load Factors, Rsa, Rst and Rs 24
15 Chapter 5: Steel Structures Page 26
16 Theory Page Shows Basic Equations in LRFD 28
17 LRFD Implementation by States and Local Governments as of April 2004 29
18 LRFD Specifications Implementation by States and Local Governments as of 29
May 2006
19 Barriers to LRFD Implementation 30
20 Reliability Concepts Page Describes the Three Principal Design Philosophies 30
21 Design Examples Page Show Six Different Examples Step-by-Step 31
22 Beam for Concrete Design Example #1 32
23 Page for Concrete Design Example #1 32
24 Concrete Deck Preliminary Details for Example #2 33
26 T-Beam Bridge Section 34
28 Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge Section 35

UAHuntsville 4
31 Stub Abutment for Design Example #6 37
32 Page for Steel Design Example #1 38
35 Page showing Table of Contents for LRFD Vs ASD Substructure Design 41
Example
36 List of Symbols used in LRFD Vs ASD Substructure Design Example 42
37 Page showing statement of problem for LRFD Vs ASD Substructure Design 43
Example
38 Flowchart for LRFD Bridge Substructure Design 44
39 Flowchart for ASD Bridge Substructure Design 45
40 Summary of dead loads of substructure for LRFD and ASD 46
41 Page showing Conclusion for LRFD Vs ASD Substructure Design Example 47
42 Appendices page for LRFD Vs ASD Substructure Design Example 48
43 Page Showing Search Results for a keyword in Theory 50
44 Page Showing Search Results for a keyword in Definitions 51
45 Page Showing Search Results for a keyword in Design Examples 52
46 The Definition Page Defines Some of the Hardest Words Used in the Lecture 53
47 General Page Contains Basic Information about LRFD Specifications 54
48 Contact Page Containing Dr. Toutanji’s Information 55
49 Page Showing Introduction to LRFR 58
50 Page Showing Comparison between LFR and LRFR 59

UAHuntsville 5
Executive Summary
Multimedia technology is an essential instrument in the development of graduate engineers. This
multimedia package provides an exclusive background and an in-depth understanding of the new
technological advances in the design of concrete, steel and prestressed concrete bridges. It gives
guidelines and step-by-step instructions for the design of different types of bridges using the
LRFD specifications. It also includes an introduction of comparing three rating procedures
(ASR, LFR, and LRFR). One of the advantages of the package is that it can be conveniently
updated and modified to add future changes and procedures necessary for today’s structural
demand.
The LRFD specifications were created with a conservative point of view, applying almost
exclusively the limit states of strength. It is consistent with other major bridge codes adopted or
being adopted in many other countries such as Canada and the European countries. Because of
this many states throughout the United States have changed their specifications and are currently
implementing LRFD. It incorporates deep analysis and design methods with different kinds of
loads and resistance factors, which are based on the known variability of applied loads and the
material properties. This multimedia package includes the basis in which an engineer can design
a concrete bridge using LRFD specifications. It includes some PDF documents containing
explanatory examples and an overview of the strategic development of this structural code.
This project has a main focus to be a self-training tool for inexperienced engineers who are
interested in learning about the implementation of LRFD specifications in the design of concrete
bridges. It is a valuable tool because it contains procedures and specifications for each possible
situation together with detailed examples and illustrations. This package is a time saving, user-
friendly, reliable way of learning.
The CD multimedia package will be periodically updated by the principal investigator.

UAHuntsville 6
1.0 Introduction
The main goal of the LRFD multimedia package is to provide a practical introduction and an in-
depth understanding of the new technological advances in the designing of bridges. This
package can be used to train engineers, architects, designers, and personnel who are in charge of
the design, construction, maintenance, and reconstruction of bridges because it is a self-training,
time-saving tool. The complete package includes instructions of how to design concrete, steel
and prestressed concrete bridges with AASHTO load and resistance factor design
recommendations and specifications and six examples from which the user can have a generic
overview of the design process.
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) specifications is a method of proportioning

structures such that no applicable limit state is exceeded when the structure is subjected to all
appropriate design load combinations. The LRFD specifications, like all other structural
specifications, treat almost exclusively the limit states of strength because of the overriding
considerations of public safety for people and property. LRFD specifications are among the
many publications developed and maintained by the American Concrete Institute (ACI). Since
the first edition of LRFD was published in 1994, many states have been diligently developing
plans and taking steps to fully implement LRFD. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
has established a goal that the LRFD standards shall be used in all new bridge designs in the
United States after 2007.
For bridges and total replacement bridges designed by LRFD Specifications using HL-93, after
October 1, 2010 Method used to determine Operating Rating, Operating Rating, Method used to
determine Inventory Rating and Inventory Rating are to be computed and reported to the NBI as
a RF based on LRFR methods using HL-93 loading. An introduction comparing the three rating
procedures (ASR, LFR and LRFR) is included in the CD.
The CD package will offer a tutorial that employs a wide range of multimedia, including
hyperlinks and high-resolution graphics. To ensure the use of this multimedia package, it will be
machine adaptable and design to run on different operating systems. The advantage of this
package is that it can be accessible for updating and adding information whenever necessary. It is
a self-training and time-saving tool.

UAHuntsville 7
2.0 Methodology
An extensive review of the existing literature and information available on LRFD was done.
Since LRFD is an upcoming topic, step-by-step procedures were included in the package for
better understanding.
The package is divided into twelve chapters accompanied with six design examples and various
technical definitions. Each chapter contains specific equations, tables, and diagrams of
relevance. To utilize the benefits of a multimedia product to the fullest, hyperlinks were created
in all the chapters as well as the design examples to quickly access the required details. There is
also display boxes that provide the instantaneous definitions to technical terms, a feature
designed for a new engineer. This package was created with the Macromedia Dreamweaver MX
software for creating dynamic HTML pages.
For further updates of the multimedia package according to the LRFD specifications including
any recommendation by ALDOT (Alabama Department of Transportation), the contact
information of the principal investigator is included in the package.

UAHuntsville 8
3.0 Website/CD
W D-ROM Description
D n
This mulltimedia pack kage includees a homepag ge together w with twelve chapters andd some basicc
theory cooncepts. It also
a providess the user with five concrrete bridge ddesign exam mples and sevveral
or designing concrete briidges. It alsoo includes a link providiing some conncept
other helpful links fo
definition
ns. The folloowing is a description
d off these sectioons.
3.1 Home
H Pagee
The homme page is a welcoming
w page
p explainiing the goal and advantaage of the paackage. Thiss
page also
o provides an
n overview of
o its contentts. This mulltimedia pacckage is a sellf-training toool
providing
g informatio
on on LRFD specificationns (See Figuure 1).
Figure 1: Home Page of the Multimedia Package forr LRFD Concreete Bridge Design
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
a Environmeental Engineeriing
UA
AHuntsville 9
3.2 In
ntroductio
on
The introoduction pagge provides thhe user a briief descriptioon of LRFD specificatioons. This pagge
explains why these sp pecificationss are needed
d and are bettter for bridgge design. It introduces tthe
user to th
he benefits of LRFD. Th his page projjects the ideaa of LRFD bbeing implem mented for aall
bridge deesigns in the United Stattes (See Figu
ure 2).
Figure 2: Intrroduction Page Explain what aare LRFD Speciifications
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 100
3.3 Description of Chapters
3.3.1 LRFD Concrete Design:

The following twelve chapters and their descriptions are from the AASHTO LRFD Specification
Manual-Interim Revision 2005.
3.3.1.1 Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 introduces the concept of limit states and load modifiers that are required in the design
specifications of Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD).
According to LRFD design philosophy, bridges are designed for specific limit states that fulfill
the security, service, aesthetic, economy, and constructability objectives. The following limit
states are considered:
1. Service Limit State – It is taken as restrictions on stress, deformations and crack width
under the regular service conditions.
2. Fatigue and Fracture Limit State - It intended to limit the crack growth under repetitive
loads in order to prevent fracture under the design life of the bridge.
3. Strength Limit State – It is used to ensure that the bridge receives the statistically
significant load combinations without affecting its stability and strength in a local and
global form. Structural integrity is expected to be always maintained.
4. Extreme Event Limit State – It is used to ensure structural survival of the bridge under
extreme conditions like earthquakes, floods, vehicle collision, tidal waves, etc.
The following are the three load modifiers considered in LRFD specifications:
1. Ductility – At strength and extreme event limit states, the structure system of the bridge
will undergo significant and visible inelastic deformations before failure.
2. Redundancy – Main elements and components whose failure is expected to cause a

collapse of a bridge shall be designated as failure critical and the associated structural
system as non-redundant.
3. Operational Importance – The owner may declare a bridge or any structural component
and connection to be of operational importance.

UAHuntsville 11
Figure 3:: Chapter 1: Inttroduction Pagee Explains the L
Limit State and
d the Load Mod
difier
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 122
3.3.1.2 Chap
pter 2: Geeneral Design and L
Location Feeatures
This chappter provides minimum requirement
r ts for clearannces, environnmental prottection,
aesthetics, geological studies, ecoonomy, rideaability, duraability, consttructability, iinspectabilitty,
and mainntainability. Traffic safeety is also co
onsidered in tthis section.
Chapter 2 also involv ves the minimmum requireements for ddrainage faciilities and self-protectingg
measuress from ice, water,
w and waater-borne saalts. Scour, hydrology, aand hydrauliics that havee
caused brridge failuree are included.
The conffiguration an
nd overall dim
mensions off a bridge shoould be able to be determ
mined from tthis
chapter.
Figure 4: Cha
apter 2: Table of
o Traditional Minimum
M Depth
hs for Constantt Depth Supersttructures
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 133
3.3.1.3 Chapter 3: Load and Load Factors
Chapter 3 defines minimum requirements for loads and forces, the application’s limits, load
factors, and load combinations used for the design of new bridges. The load provisions can also
be used for the structural evaluation of existing bridges. This chapter also includes the force
effects due to collisions, earthquakes, and settlement and distortion of the structure.
Force effects that develop during construction have a specified minimum load factor.
Construction loads are not included in this section.
The following loads are discussed in the section:
Permanent Loads – The weight of all components of the structure, appurtenances and utilities
attached thereto, earth cover, wearing surface, future overlays, and planned widening.
Live Loads – Forces that are variable within the bridge’s normal operation cycle (Example: load
exerted by a vehicle).
Water Loads (WA) – Loads that include static pressure, buoyancy, stream pressure, and wave
load.
Wind Loads (WL and WS) – The loads in this section are horizontal wind pressure, vertical wind
pressure, and aeroelastic instability.
Earthquake Effects (EQ) – Loads that shall be taken to be horizontal force effects determined on
the basis of the elastic response coefficient and the equivalent weight of the superstructure, and
adjusted by the response modification factor.
Earth Pressure (EH, ES, LS, DD) – Loads that consider compaction, presence of water in the
earth, and the effect of earthquakes.
Force Effects due to Superimposed Deformations (TU, TG, SH, CR, SE) – Internal force effects
in a component due to creep and shrinkage and the effect of a temperature gradient are
considered. Force effects resulting from resisting component deformation, displacement of
points of load application, and support movements should also be included.
Friction Forces (FR) – Forces due to friction shall be established on the basis of extreme values
of the friction coefficient between the sliding surfaces.
Vessel Collision (CV) – A bridge constructed in a navigation channel is designed for a vessel
collision.

UAHuntsville 14
Figure 5: Chapter
C 3: Geom
metric Probabillity of a Pier Coollision
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 155
3.3.1.4 Chap
pter 4: Strructural Analysis
A an
nd Evaluaation
This chappter defines methods of analysis suittable for the design and evaluation oof bridges annd is
limited to
o the modeliing of structu
ures and the determinatioon of force eeffects.
Bridge sttructures are to be analyzzed elasticallly; howeverr, this sectionn permits thee inelastic
analysis or
o redistribu
ution of forcee effects in some
s continuuous beam suuperstructurres. It speciffies
inelastic analysis for compressivee members behaving
b ineelastically annd as an alterrnative for
extreme event
e limit states.
s
The load
ds, load facto
ors, and resisstance factors specified tthroughout thhe specificattions were
developeed using prob
babilistic priinciples com
mbined with aanalyses bassed on linearr material
models.
Figu
ure 6: Chapter 4:
4 Tables on Miinimum Analyssis Requirementts for Seismic E
Effects and on R
Regular Bridge
Reequirements
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 166
3.3.1.5 Chapteer 5: Conccrete Strucctures
This chappter discussees the design
n of bridge sttructures in concrete. Thhe provisionns in this secction
apply to the
t design of bridge and d retaining wall
w componeents of norm mal weight orr lightweightt
concrete and reinforcced with steeel bars, weld
ded wire reinnforcement, aand/or prestrressing strannds,
bars, or wires.
w
The provvisions combbine and uniffy the requirements for rreinforced, pprestressed, aand partiallyy
prestressed concrete, including seeismic desiggn, analysis bby the strut-aand-tie model, and desiggn of
segmentaally construccted concretee bridges and
d bridges froom precast cconcrete elemments.
Figu
ure 7: Chapter 5: Concrete Strructures Page
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 177
3.3.1.6 Chap
pter 6: Deck and Deeck System
ms
This secttion containss provisions for the analy ysis and desiign of bridgee decks and deck system ms of
concrete,, metal, or thheir combinaation subjectted to gravityy loads. Impplicit is a dessign philosopphy
that prefeers jointless,, continuous bridge deskks and desk ssystems to im mprove the w weather and
corrosionn-resisting efffects of the whole bridgge, reduce innspection effforts and maiintenance coosts,
and increease structural effectiven ness and reduundancy. Thhis chapter is divided intto five parts
covering the followin ng areas: thee general design requirem ments, the liimit states, thhe proper
structural analysis, an nd its application to conccrete deck sllabs and mettal slabs.
Figure 8: Cha
apter 6: Detailin
ng Requirementts for Orthotrop
pic Decks
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 188
3.3.1.7 Chap
pter 7: Fou
undationss
This chap pter provides the LRFD specification ns for the deesign of spreead footings,, driven piless,
and drilleed shaft foun
ndations. In case of spreaad footings tthe general cconsiderationns shall applly to
the desig
gn of isolatedd footings an
nd, in some cases,
c to com
mbined footings. Footinggs should be
designedd so that presssure under the
t footing iss as nearly uuniform as prractical.
In some cases,
c positiv ve anchoragge should be provided beetween the roock and footting such as tthat
providedd by rock ancchors, bolts, or dowels. InI case of innclined load,, failure by ssliding shall be
investigaated for footiing that supp
ports this con
ndition.
Figure 9:
9 Chapter 7: Modified
M Bearing Capacity Facctors for Footingg in Cohesive S
Soils
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 199
3.3.1.8 Chap
pter 8: Ab
butments, Piers
P and Walls
This chap
pter provides requiremen nts on the deesign of abuttments, pierss, and walls.. These shalll be
designed
d to resist waater pressure,, the self weight of the w
wall, any livee and dead looad along with
temperatu
ure and shrin nkage effectts.
In accorddance with LRFD

L concreete bridge deesign specifiications the ddesign shoulld be able to
resist any
y vertical and formation or displacemennt. In additioon this sectioon provides tthe
d lateral defo
general consideration
c ns for the abu
utments and d conventionnal retaining walls: loadinngs, wing w walls,
and reinfforcement.
Figure
F 10: Chap
pter 8: Externall Stability for a Wall with Horiizontal Back-Sllope and Trafficc Surcharge
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 200
3.3.1.9 Chap
pter 9: Bu
uried Strucctures and
d Tunnel L
Lines
This chappter gives th
he requirements for the selection of sstructural prooperties and dimensions of
buried strructures such
h as culvertss and steel pllates used too support tunnnel excavatiions in soil. It
discussess the terms and
a characterristics of burried structuree systems ussed in the deesigns such aas
metal pip
pes, structuree plate pipess, box and ellliptic structuures, long-sppan structuraal plate, strucctural
plate box
x, and thermo oplastics pippes.
Figuree 11: Chapter 9:

9 Minimum Soiil Cover Table Depending
D on tthe Different Tyypes of Pipes orr Pipe Structurees
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 211
3.3.1.10 Chap
pter 10: Railings
R
This secttion providess six bridge railing
r test levels and their associateed crash test requirementts.
This chap pter applies to railings foor new bridg ges and for reehabilitated bridges to thhe extent thaat
railing reeplacement is determined d to be approopriate. Thee process forr the design oof crash test
specimen ns to determiine their crassh worthinesss is describeed. There arre three typees of railingss
discussed d in this secttion: traffic railings,
r pedestrian railinngs, and bicyycle railings. Curbs and
sidewalk ks are also coonsidered in this section.
Fig
gure 12: Chapteer 10: Bicycle R
Railing Loads
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 222
3.3.1.11 Chap
pter 11: Jo
oints and Bearings
B
In this seection, requirrements for the
t design annd selection of structuraal bearings annd deck joinnts
are outlinned. The design specificcations for jo
oints and beaarings are staated separateely.
Selectionn and layout of joints and d bearings sh

hall allow foor deformatioons due to teemperature aand
other tim
me-dependentt causes and d shall be con
nsistent withh the proper ffunctioning of the bridgee.
Deck join nts and beariings shall bee designed to
o resist loadss and accom
mmodate movvements at thhe
service and strength limit
l states and
a to satisfyy the requireements of thee fatigue andd fracture lim
mit
state. Deesign loads for
f joints, beearings and structural
s meembers shall be based onn the stiffnesss of
the individual elemen nts and the to hieved duringg fabricationn and erectioon. At servicce
olerance ach
limit statte no damagee due to join nts or bearing
g movement shall be perrmitted. At sstrength limitt or
extreme event
e states no irreparabble damage shall
s occur.
Figu
ure 13: Chapterr 11: Common B
Bearing Types
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 233
3.3.1.12 Chap
pter 12: Detailing
D Practice
This chappter states th
he proceduree that should be done acccording to thhe standards of the Load and
Resistancce Rating (LLRFR) manu ual for any deesign of a brridge structur
ure. It goes sstep-by-step on
everythin
ng that shoulld be done. The areas co overed are:
1. Bridge Records
2. Bridge Maanagement Systems
S
3. Inspection
n
4. Material Testing
T
5. Load and Resistance
R Factor
F Ratinggs
6. Fatigue Ev
valuation of Steel Bridgees
7. Nondestruuctive Load Testing
T
8. Special To
opics
 Ev valuation of Unreinforceed Masonry A Arches
 Diirect Safety Assessment
A of Bridges
 Hiistoric Bridgges
Figure 14:: Chapter 12: Partial

P Load Facctors, Rsa, Rst and Rs
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 244
3.3.2 LRFD Steel Design:
The following twelve chapters and their descriptions are from the AASHTO LRFD Specification
Manual-Interim Revision 2005.
3.3.2.1 Chapter 1: Introduction

“Details are similar to the LRFD Concrete Design Section-Chapter 1.”
3.3.2.2 Chapter 2: General Design and Location Features

3.3.2.3 Chapter 3: Load and Load Factors

3.3.2.4 Chapter 4: Structural Analysis and Evaluation

3.3.2.5 Chapter 5: Steel Structures

This chapter discusses on design of steel bridges. Steel structures are a very important module in
the design of a bridge. This section covers the design of steel components, splices and
connections for beams and girder structures, frames, trusses and arches, cable-stayed and
suspension systems, as applicable.
Curved girder structures are not included. Division I-A of the AASHTO Standard Specifications
contains some limited information on seismic behavior of steel structures, which may be utilized
where applicable.

UAHuntsville 25
Fiigure 15: Chaptter 5: Steel Stru
uctures Page
3.3.2.6 Chap
pter 6: Deck and Deeck System
ms
“D
Details are similar
s to thee LRFD Con
ncrete Designn Section-Chhapter 6.”
3.3.2.7 Chap
pter 7: Fou
undationss
“D
Details are similar
s to thee LRFD Con
3.3.2.8 Chap
pter 8: Ab
butments, Piers
P and Walls
“D
Details are similar
s to thee LRFD Con
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 266
3.3.2.9 Chapter 9: Buried Structures and Tunnel Lines
3.3.2.10 Chapter 10: Railings

3.3.2.11 Chapter 11: Joints and Bearings

3.3.2.12 Chapter 12: Detailing Practice


UAHuntsville 27
3.4 Theory
T
This pagee introduces the user a basic
b theory of
o LRFD speecifications,, providing bbasic equatioons
of its metthodology an
nd definition
ns (See Figuure 16).
Figure 16: Theory Pagee Shows Basic E

Equations in LR
RFD
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 288
3.5 Reliability
R
The main n idea of thiss page is to give
g the userr a backgrouund of why A AASHTO addopted LRFD D
Specificaations in 199
94. There is a compariso on of the threee design phhilosophies: elastic desiggn /
working stress design n (allowablee stress desig
gn), plastic ddesign, and L
Load and Resistance Facctor
Design (LLRFD).
For a bettter understan

nding about the reliability of LRFD Specificatioon, the follow
wing graphs
show thee progress off implementiing LRFD.
Figure 17: LRFD Impllementation by States and Loccal Governmentts as of April 20004
Figure 18: LR
RFD Specificatio
ons Implementa May 2006
ation by States aand Local Goveernments as of M
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 299
Fig
gure 19: Barrierrs to LRFD Imp
plementation
Every yeear more of thhe new bridg g designed uusing LRFD. The barrierrs to LRFD
ges are being
implemen ntation are illustrated in Figure 19.
Figure 20
0: Reliability Concepts Page Describes
D the Th
hree Principal D
Design Philosop
phies
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 300
3.6 Design
D Exa
amples
This secttion containss six typical concrete beaam and girdeer superstruccture designss. The first
design exxample is a deck
d of a reinforced concrete T-beam m bridge. Thhe second exxample is a
simply suupported sollid slab bridgge. The thirdd example is a reinforcedd concrete T-beam bridgge.
The fourtth example isi a simply supported preetensioned pprestressed cconcrete girdder bridge. T The
fifth exam
mple is a conncrete box-g girder bridgee. And the sixxth examplee is a stub abbutment desiggn.
For the simplificationn of design procedure,
p a general outlline is also ppresented. Itt is intendedd to
be a geneeric overvieww of the desiign process. It should noot be regardeed as fully coomplete, norr
should it be used as a substitute for
f a working g knowledgee of the provvisions.
Figu
ure 21: Design Examples Pagee Show Six Diffeerent Exampless Step-by-Step
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 311
3.6.1 LRFD
L Con
ncrete Design:
3.6.1.1 Desig
gn Examp
ple #1 – Co
oncrete Deeck Design
n
Use the approximate
a method of analysis
a to design
d the deeck of the reiinforced conncrete T-beamm
bridge seection of Figure 22 below w for a HL-9 93 live load aand a PL-2 pperformancee level concrrete
barrier. The
T T-beamss supporting the deck aree 96 in. on ceenters and hhave a stem w width of 14 iin.
The deck k overhangs the exterior T-beams by y 39 in. The cconcrete dennsity is 0.1500 kcf. Alloww for
a wearing g future weaaring surfacee of 3 in. thicck bituminouus overlay. U Use f’c = 4.5 ksi and f’c = 60
ksi.
Figurre 22: Beam forr Concrete Desiign Example #11
Figu
ure 23: Page forr Concrete Desiggn Example #1
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 322
3.6.1.2 Desig
gn Examp
ple #2 – So
olid Slab B
Bridge Dessign
Design th he simply su
upported soliid slab bridg
ge of Figure 224 with a sppan length off 35 ft. centeer to
center off bearings forr a HL-93 livve load. Thee roadway wwidth is 528 iin. curb to cuurb. Allow fofor a
future-weearing surfacce of 3 in. th
hick bitumino ous overlay.. A 15-in.-wide barrier wweighing 0.332
t edge striip. Use f’c = 4.5 ksi and fy = 60 ksi. U
k/ft. is asssumed to bee carried by the Use exposurre
class 2 fo or crack conttrol.
Figure 24: Concrete Deck Preliminary D

Details for Exam
mple #2
Figu
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 333
3.6.1.3 Desig
gn Examp
ple #3 – T-Beam Briide Design
n
Design a reinforced concrete T-be
eam bridge for
f a 44-ft. w
wide roadwaay and three--spans of 35 ft.-
42 ft.-35fft. with skew
w of 30° as shown in Fig
gure 26 Use tthe concretee deck of Dessign Examplle #1
previouslly designed for an HL-93 live load, a bituminous overlay, annd an 8 ft. sppacing of girrders
in Designn Example #1.# Use f’c = 4.5 ksi and Fy = 60 ksi.
Figure 26: T-Beam

T Bridge Section
Figu
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 344
3.6.1.4 Desig
gn Examp
ple #4 – Prrestressed Girder Brridge Desiign
Design th he simply suupported prettensioned prrestressed cooncrete girdeer bridge of F Figure 28 wiith a
span leng gth of 100 ft. center to ceenter of bearrings for a H
HL–93 live looad. The roaadway width is
44 ft. currb to curb. Allow
A for a fu
uture wearin ng surface off 3-in. thick bbituminous ooverlay and use
the concrrete deck dessign of Desig gn Example #1 (f'c = 4.55 ksi). Follow w the beam aand girder brridge
outline of the AASHTO (2004) LRFD L Bridgge Specificattions. Use f’c = 8 ksi. Use f’ci = 6 ksii, fy =
60 ksi, annd 270 ksi, low-relaxatio on 0.5 in., seeven wire staands. The baarrier is 15 inn. wide and
weighs 0.32
0 kips/ft. TheT owner reequires this load to be asssigned to thhe exterior ggirder.
Figure 28:
2 Prestressed
d Concrete Gird
der Bridge Sectiion
Figu
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 355
3.6.1.5 Desig
gn Examp
ple #5 – Co
oncrete Boox-Girder Design
Design of
o the deck ofo the reinforrced concrette T-beam brridge with 998 ft. -118 ft. -98 ft. spanns for
a HL–93 live load. The
T roadway y width is 44 4 ft. curb to curb. Allow
w for a futuree wearing suurface
of 3-in. thick bituminous overlaay and. Usee empirical method for overslabs tto design thhe top
flange off the box girrder. Use f’c = 5 ksi, fy = 60 ksi, andd 270 ksi, loow-relaxatioon 0.6 in., 7-- wire
stands.
Figu
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 366
3.6.1.6 Desig
gn Examp
ple #6 – stu
ub Abutm
ment Design
n
Design a stub abutmeent to accom
mmodate the given reactiions from a ccomposite stteel
superstru
ucture.
1. A 3 span (29’’-63’-29’) esssential bridg ge crossing a highway

2. 1’-0” diameteer concrete piles
p – 40 ft long.
l Capaciity = 30 tonss
3. 18 pairs of piles at 6’-8” center-to-cen
c nter along leength of footter
4. Concrete
C strength fc’ = 3,000 psi
5. Grade
G reinforrcement fs = 24,000 psi
6. Total
T reactionn from all strringers R = 315
3 k
7. Deck
D Weight = 21.74 k/ft ft.
8. Geographic
G area
a has acceeleration coeefficient: A = 0.19
9. Soil tests indiicate stiff claay with angle of friction: = 30°
Figurre 31: Stub Abu

utment for Desiign Example #66
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 377
3.6.2 LRFD
L Steeel Design:
3.6.2.1 Desig
gn Examp
ple #1 – No
on-compossite Steel B
Beam Brid
dge
Design thhe simple-sp

pan non-commposite rolled d steel beam
m bridge of Figure 32 witth 35-ft. spann for
a HL–93 live load. Roadway
R wid
dth is 44 ft. curb
c to curb.. Allow for a future-weaaring surface of 3
in. thick bituminous overlay. Usee fc’= 4 ksi and
a M270 Grrade 50 steeel. The fatiguue detail at
midspan is category A.
A The barriier is 15 in. wide
w and weeighs 0.5 k/ftt.
Figure 32: Page for

f Steel Design
n Example #1
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 388
3.6.2.2 Design
D Exa
ample #2 – Composiite Steel B
Beam Brid
dge
Design thhe simple-sp

pan compositte rolled steeel beam briddge of Figuree 33 with 35 ft. span for a
HL–93 liive load. Roaadway width Allow for a ffuture wearinng surface of 3
h is 44 ft. currb to curb. A
in. thick bituminous overlay. Usee fc’= 4 ksi and
a M270 G Grade 50 steeel.
Figure 33: Page for

f Steel Design
n Example #2
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 399
3.6.2.3 Desig
gn Examp
ple #3 – Co
ontinuous Compositte Girder Bridge
Design th he continuou us steel platee girder bridg

ge of Figure 34 with 30 m, 36 m, annd 30 m (1000 ft.,
120 ft., and
a 100 ft.) spans
s for a HL–93
H live lo
oad. Roadwaay width is 113,420 mm ccurb to curb (44
ft.) and carries
c an interstate highw way. Allow for a future wearing surfface of 75 m mm (3 in.) thick
bitumino ous overlay. UseU fc’=30 MPa M (4 ksi) and M270 G Grade 345 stteel (50 ksi). Note that thhe
computerr program BT-Beam wass used to gen nerate the acctions. The ssample compputations aree
presented d to illustratee the hand annd computerr computatioons. The com mputer resultts are slightlyy
different due to a refifined live loaad positioninng as comparred to the haand-based criitical positioon
estimatess. The primaary unit systeems for this example
e is S
SI.
Figure 34: Page for

f Steel Design
n Example #3
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 400
3.6.3 LRFD
L Vs ASD:
A Brid
dge Substrructure Deesign Exam
mple
3.6.3.1 Tablle of Conteents

Page with
h table of co
ontents on LR
RFD Vs ASD
D Bridge suubstructure D
Design exam
mple is shownn
below:
Figure 35: Page

P showing Table
T of Conten
nts for LRFD Vss ASD Substruccture Design Exxample
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 411
3.6.3.2 List of
o Symbolls
Symbols used in desiign example of substructture are listeed and the paage with list of symbols and
their desccription is sh
hown below:
Figurre 36: List of Sy

ymbols used in LRFD
L Vs ASD Substructure D
Design Examplee
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 422
3.6.3.3 Stateement of th
he Problem
m
Using thee LRFD&AS SD methods, we will dessign a supersstructure witth a 44 ft wide (curb to ccurb)
concrete deck with ann overhang (two
( 12 ft laanes and 2 100 ft lanes). W
We will havee two 120ft sspan
lengths, and
a will use F-shape barrriers, grade 50 steel, andd composite for the deckk. The deck iis to
transmit the HL-93 liive load. Thee page showwing superstrructure crosss-section is sshown beloww:
Figure 37: Pa
age showing sta
atement of problem for LRFD V
Vs ASD Substrructure Design E
Example
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 433
3.6.3.4 Desig
gn Using LRFD
L
The desig gn example of the bridgee substructurre is presentted. The subsstructure is ssupporting thhe
reinforceed concrete deck
d bridge sitting
s on steeel beams. T
The design mmethodology for the desiggn is
the load and
a resistancce factor dessign (LRFD)) method is A AASHTO LR RFD Bridgee Design
Specificaations. For th
he purpose of
o this reportt, the examplle focuses onn only the suubstructure
design prrocedures. The
T material parameters and a the num mbers for the calculationss, such as thee
superstruucture dead load
l effects on
o the substrructure, comme from the ssuperstructurre design, wwhich
is not preesented here. This designn example iss based on thhe example, originally prrovided by thhe
Federal Highway
H Ad n (FHWA) [14], as the suppplemental m
dministration material for eengineers too
understan nd LRFD. This examplee follows the latest LRFD D Specificatiions for the mmost parts. A
As an
aid to seee the design procedure, a flowchart was
w develop ed for a substructure dessign, as show wn in
Figure 38 8.
Figure 38:: Flowchart for LRFD Bridge S

Substructure D
Design
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 444
3.6.3.5 Desig
gn Using ASD
A
The bridgge substructuure design example is prresented in ddetail. It is deesigned basiically accordding
to ASD methodology
m y, AASHTO Standard Sp pecificationss for Highwaay Bridges (11th Edition,
1973) and ACI 318-0 05 Building Code Requirements for Structural C Concrete andd Commentarry.
As the ex
xample by LRFD,
L the ex
xample by ASD
A also focuuses on the ssubstructure design
procedurres. The propperties of maaterial and th
he load effeccts are the saame values aas the LRFD
example uses and aree based on th he superstruccture design [14]. For the purpose of ccomparison with
LRFD, thhe same load d effects from
m the supersstructure are applied for the ASD subbstructure ass
well. As an aid to folllow the desiign procedurre, a flowchaart for a subsstructure dessign with AS SD
was deveeloped, as shhown in Figu ure 39.
Figure 39
9: Flowchart forr ASD Bridge S
Substructure Deesign
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 455
3.6.3.6 Com
mparison Between
B LR
RFD and A
ASD
Overall, LRFD show ws more reliaability of safeety and efficciency of dessign comparred with ASD D,
which is contributed by main equ uations and factors
f to evvaluate load eeffects on brridge
substructtures, although in the dessign examples, there cannnot be recoggnized the siignificant
differencce in the requ
uired amoun nt of reinforccing steel barrs and concrrete since thee design requuired
resistances for both methods
m turn
ns out to be closed
c valuees. However,, in terms off design
procedurres, the main n design flow
ws for LRFD D and ASD arre almost ideentical as the flowchartss for
both desiign methods represent.
In LRFD D, concrete density for no ormal weigh ht material taakes 145 pouund per cubicc foot (145 llb/ft3
= 0.145 kcf)
k while ASD A 1 pound peer cubic foott (150 lb/ft3 = 0.150 kcf)). This differrence
adopts 150
directly results
r in thee difference of
o structure self-weightss, nominal deead load effeects, which iis the
importannt factor not only
o for brid
dge substructtures but alsso other strucctures. In thee design
exampless, the differeences in dead d loads due tot substructuures can be sseen. Web paage showingg
summary y of dead loaads of substru uctures, inclluding abutm
ment back-w wall, stem, footing, and w wing-
wall, and
d pier cap, co olumn, and footing,
f are presented
p inn a table is inn the followiing Figure 40.
Figure
F 40: Sum
mmary of dead lo
oads of substru
ucture for LRFD
D and ASD
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 466
3.6.3.7 Concclusion
LRFD fo or bridge sub bstructures iss a relatively
y new metho d for the briidge industryy compared w with
the desig
gn method fo or bridge sup perstructures, and it is stiill in the chaanging and ddeveloping sttage.
There seeem to be som me obstacless to fully ado opting LRFD D, such as thee lack of fam
miliarity withh it
and the in
nitial introdu ucing costs of
o it. In otherr words, it hhas not been implemented successfullly
even thouugh the use of o LRFD forr state-aid brridges is reguulated. How wever, there aare several
benefits to
t using LRF FD over ASD D for substru ucture desiggns, one of w which is a moore reliable aand
uniform level
l of safeety against th
he risks of faailure, contribbuted by thee theory of pprobability annd a
variety of load factorrs. From the analysis and d comparisonn of the subsstructure dessign examplees of
both LRF FD and ASD D, there are some
s conclussions derive d:
 The
T LRFD prrocedures an nd design floow charts aree similar to th
those of ASD D even thouggh
th
here are morre detailed crriteria that must
m be satisffied in LRFD D.
 More
M load combinations, such as Streength Limit States and S Service Limitt States, withh
more
m variety of factors, whose
w valuess are usuallyy higher thann those of ASSD, applied tto
nominal loads, are evaluaated and anallyzed in LRF FD.
 More
M detailed
d geotechniccal data and analysis
a are required to ddetermine looad resistancce
caapacities in LRFD,
L and more
m researcch is neededd for the commplete packagge of LRFD for
suubstructures.
 LRFD
L potenttially providees an efficien
ncy and econnomy to struucture constrructions
coontributed by in-depth predictions
p of load effectts with a variiety of load factors derivved
frrom probabillity-based thheory and staatistical anallysis.
Figure 41:
4 Page showin
ng Conclusion for
f LRFD Vs AS
SD Substructurre Design Exam
mple
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 477
3.6.3.8 Appeendices
The appeendix section n lists out thee tables of AASHTO
A LRRFD Load coombinationss and factors,
load factoors for perm
manent loads,, AASHTO ASD A load grroup and facctors, steel reeinforcemennt
informatiion for reference. It also includes FH HWA compuuter program m (DRIVEN 1.0) output ffor
steel desiign example and referen nces used to design
d the suubstructure uusing LRFD D.
Figu
ure 42: Append
dices page for LRFD Vs ASD S
Substructure Deesign Example
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 488
3.7 Search Options
Search engine with three components is included in the CD. Figure 43, 44, 45 shows the results
generated when searched for a keyword in theory, in definitions and in design examples
respectively.

UAHuntsville 49
3.7.1 Search
S In: Theory
SEARC
CH IN
Figure 43: Pa
age Showing Seearch Results foor a keyword in
n Theory
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 500
3.7.2 Search
S In: Definition
ns
SEARCH IN
Figure 44: Pag

ge Showing Searrch Results for a keyword in D
Definitions
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 511
3.7.3 Search
S In: Design Ex
xamples
SEARCH IN
N
Fig
gure 45: Page Showing
S Search Results for a k
keyword in Desiign Examples
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 522
3.8 Definitions
D s
Alphabettized list of definitions
d iss provided in
n this page aand it is grouuped accordiing to chapteers.
Figure 46
6: The Definitio
on Page Definess Some of the H
Hardest Words U
Used in the Leccture
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 533
3.9 General
G
The geneeral page proovides inform
mation aboutt the origin aand the backkground of LLRFD
Specificaations. This section also
o shows the progress
p of sstates adoptinng and implementing the
specificaations throug
gh diagrams.
Figurre 47: General Page

P Contains Basic
B Informatiion about LRFD
D Specifications
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 544
3.10 Contact
C Uss
This pag
ge provides the contactt informatio
on of the prrincipal invvestigator off the multim
media
package.
Figure 48: Contact

C Page Co
ontaining Dr. T
Toutanji’s Inforrmation
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 555
4.0 Introduction to LRFR
For the past few years, various researches have compared the LRFR with LFR with regards to
implementation. Few of initial comparative studies emphasizing the implementation of LRFR are
explained briefly in the table below:
Researcher Brief Description
Lichtenstein In their National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project
Consulting C12-46 report, they compared 37 bridges (among which one bridge is from
Engineers (2001) State of Alabama) rated at both the Design and Legal ratings levels. Each
bridge was analyzed at the Design, Inventory and Operating levels of rating
under the HL-93 and HS-20 load models for the LRFR and LFR,
respectively. The LFR analysis was performed according to the AASHTO
Manual for Condition Evaluation (MCE)-1994.
(Mertz 2005) In his NCHRP project 20-07 Task 122, the PI compared 74 bridges (all of
the bridges in his study were provided by either NYSDOT or WYDOT).
The Comparative study is made using AASHTO Bridgeware’s Virtis
Version 5.1 software.
(Rogers and In this report, they had a comparative study on 5 simply supported
Jáuregui 2005) prestressed concrete I-girder bridges (all of the bridges in his study were
provided by NMDOT). They performed analysis only for interior girders of
the bridges.
Based on this research, the need to implement LRFR is stimulated. Thus, The American
Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) have set a transition date of October 1, 2007 after which all new bridges
shall be designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. FHWA
memorandum dated October 30, 2006 on subject - “Bridge Load Rating For The National Bridge
Inventory (NBI)”[19] emphasis on following policies:
1. For bridges and total replacement bridges designed by LRFD Specifications using HL-93
loading, prior to October 1, 2010, Items 63, 64, 65 and 66[20] are to be computed and
reported to the NBI as either a Rating Factor (RF) or in metric tons. Rating factors shall be
based on LRFR methods using HL-93 loading[19] or LFR methods using MS18 loading[19].
Metric ton rating values shall be reported in terms of MS18 (32.4 metric tons) loading
derived from a RF calculated using LRFR methods and HL-93 loading, or LFR methods
using MS18 loading[19].
2. For bridges and total replacement bridges designed by LRFD Specifications using HL-93,
after October 1, 2010 Items 63, 64, 65 and 66[2] are to be computed and reported to the NBI
as a RF based on LRFR methods using HL-93 loading[19].

UAHuntsville 56
The Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE-2008) discusses on three load rating procedures
Design Load Rating (First level Evaluation):

The Design loads used to design a bridge are used to evaluate the Rating Factor (RF).
The difference in load models, strength load factors for LFR and LRFR at Design Load Rating
Level are shown below:
Load Factor Rating Load Resistance and Factor Rating
Rating Factor: C A D C γ DC γ DW γ P
RF RF
A L 1 I γ LL IM
INVENTORY LEVEL:
Design Load: HS20 Truck/Tandem/Lane HL‐93 Design Load:
Load (0.64K/Ft. + Case 1: Check HS20‐44 Truck load
Concentrated Load) in all along with lane load in all lanes
lanes. Case 2: Check Tandem load along
with lane load in all lanes
Maximum of the above two cases is
considered.
Impact 30% maximum 33% on Truck or Tandem loads only
percentage:
Load Factors: 1.3DL +2.17LL 1.25DL1+1.5DL2+1.75LL
DESIGN LOAD
DL1: Dead load of Components and
attachments
DL2: Dead load of wearing surface

OPERATING LEVEL:
Design Load: HS20 Truck/Tandem/Lane HL‐93 Design Load:
Load (0.64K/Ft. + Case 1: Check HS20‐44 Truck load
Concentrated Load) in all along with lane load in all lanes
lanes. Case 2: Check Tandem load along
with lane load in all lanes
Maximum of the above two cases is
considered.
Impact 30% maximum 33% on Truck or Tandem loads only
percentage:
Load Factors: 1.3DL +1.3LL 1.25DL1+1.5DL2+1.35LL
DL1: Dead load of Components and
attachments
DL2: Dead load of wearing surface


UAHuntsville 57
Legal Lo
oad Rating (S
Second levell Evaluation)):
AASHTOO Legal Loaad models (T

Type 3 Unitt, Type 3S2 Unit, Typee 3-3 Unit, L Lane type m model,
NRL, SU
U4, SU5, SU
U6, SU7) and
d State Legall Load modeels are used tto evaluate thhe Rating Faactor.
Permit Load Rating (Third

( level Evaluation):
Permits are issued by b states on n a single trip, multiplee trip or annnual basis. Load factoor are
considereed based on Table 6A.4.5.4.2a-1 of MBE Manuual. Permit load rating iss used only if the
bridge raating factor is greater thaan 1.0 when evaluated
e foor AASHTO legal loads.
The follo
owing figures show the introductory web pages oon LRFR ratting:
Figu
ure 49: Page Sh
howing Introducction to LRFR
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 588
Figure 50: Page
P Showing Comparison
C bettween LFR and
d LRFR
Final
F Report: ALDOT
A Projecct 930-703
Departm
ment of Civil and
UA
AHuntsville 599
5.0 Conclusion
The purpose of this project was to create a user-friendly multimedia package that brings the user
full information about LRFD specifications. This tool can be used as a trainer for the study of
the LRFD specifications that today’s engineers and designers are using in the United States, and
it can be updated to maintain the quality of its service to the highest level.
The multimedia CD-ROM has many advantages, namely: step-by-step details with diagrams,
equations, examples, tables, definition, and theory. This multimedia package can be used like a
reference tool for people trying to learn the complicated language of LRFD specifications.
Another advantage is that the information can be modified whenever it is desired, able for
updating the new requisites, and for including more examples.
This complete package will be available in ALDOT, the Bureau of Research and Development
and the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville. Its main purpose is to facilitate the labor to many inexperienced designers and
engineers in the innovative field of LRFD specifications for bridge designs. The Principal
Investigator, Dr. Houssam Toutanji, is responsible for updating this multimedia package
periodically or when it is necessary.

UAHuntsville 60
6.0 References
List of references used for developing the CD are listed.
[1] http://www.tfhrc.gov/focus/july04/01.htm
[2] http://training.bossintl.com/html/highway-bridge-design.html
[3] http://www.lrfd.com/Implementation_Status.htm
[4] http://lrfd.aashtoware.org/?siteid=34
[5] http://www.normas.com/AISC/PAGES/325-01.html
[6] http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/0/6306c417bc81d2758525674800561ad4?
[7] http://www.nabro.unl.edu/events/fall1998/index.asp
[8] http://www.enm.bris.ac.uk/research/nonlinear/tacoma/tacoma.html
[9] http://lrfd.aashtoware.org/?siteid=34&pageid=229
[10] http://www.transportation.org/sites/bridges/docs/concrete%20examle%20us.pdf
[11] https://txspace.tamu.edu//bitstream/1969.1/3096/1/etd-tamu-2005C-CVEN-Adnan.pdf
[12] http://www.pupr.edu/pdf/civilpusp06.pdf
[13] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nowak/Papers/Mertz,%20abs1,%204-19-02.pdf
[14] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/lrfd/examples.htm
[15] https://txspace.tamu.edu/bitstream/1969.1/4841/1/etd-tamu-2005C-CVEN-Mohammed.pdf
[16] AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 3rd Ed. with
Interim Revisions 2005. ISBN: 1-56051-272-5.
[17] AASHTO, Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load and Resistance Factor Rating
(LRFR) of Highway Bridges. October 2003. ISBN: 1-56051-283-0.
[18] Design of Highway Bridges, an LRFD Approach. Second Edition. Richard Barker, Jay
Pucket.
[19] Federal Highway Administration Memorandum dated October 30, 2006.
Subject: “Bridge Load Ratings for the National Bridge Inventory”
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/BRIDGE/nbis/103006.cfm
[20]. Federal Highway Administration “Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory
and appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges”.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/mtguide.pdf
Item 63 – Method used to determine Operating Rating.
Item 64 – Operating Rating.

UAHuntsville 61
Item 65 – Method used to determine Inventory Rating
Item 66 – Inventory Rating

UAHuntsville 62

Seismic Design of Bridges Example 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Design of Bridges Example 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Devellopmennt of Mu

ultimeddia Ressource aand

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

The CD multimedia package will be periodically updated by the principal investigator.

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) specifications is a method of proportioning

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Figure 2: Intrroduction Page Explain what aare LRFD Speciifications

3.3.1 LRFD Concrete Design:

3.3.1.1 Chapter 1: Introduction

2. Redundancy – Main elements and components whose failure is expected to cause a

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

The following loads are discussed in the section:

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

In accorddance with LRFD

Figuree 11: Chapter 9:

Selectionn and layout of joints and d bearings sh

Figure 14:: Chapter 12: Partial

3.3.2.1 Chapter 1: Introduction

3.3.2.2 Chapter 2: General Design and Location Features

3.3.2.3 Chapter 3: Load and Load Factors

3.3.2.4 Chapter 4: Structural Analysis and Evaluation

3.3.2.5 Chapter 5: Steel Structures

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

3.3.2.10 Chapter 10: Railings

3.3.2.11 Chapter 11: Joints and Bearings

3.3.2.12 Chapter 12: Detailing Practice

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Figure 16: Theory Pagee Shows Basic E

For a bettter understan

Figurre 22: Beam forr Concrete Desiign Example #11

Figure 24: Concrete Deck Preliminary D

Figure 26: T-Beam

1. A 3 span (29’’-63’-29’) esssential bridg ge crossing a highway

Figurre 31: Stub Abu

Design thhe simple-sp

Figure 32: Page for

Design thhe simple-sp

Figure 33: Page for

Design th he continuou us steel platee girder bridg

Figure 34: Page for

3.6.3.1 Tablle of Conteents

Figure 35: Page

Figurre 36: List of Sy

Figure 38:: Flowchart for LRFD Bridge S

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Figure 44: Pag

Figurre 47: General Page

Figure 48: Contact

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Design Load Rating (First level Evaluation):

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

AASHTOO Legal Loaad models (T

Permit Load Rating (Third

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

Final Report: ALDOT Project 930-703

You might also like