2005 LRFD Questions

Q. I am working in a bridge building company in Mexico City and we just received the
assignment to review the design of a couple of segmental concrete bridges. Consulting
the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications(3rd Edition, 2004) we found
guidelines for girder depths (5.14.2.3.10d),but I suppose due to some linguistic problems
we are not sure of how to interpret the given guidelines. In the commentary three types of
construction are differentiated: constant depth girder, variable depth girder with straight
haunches at pier, and variable depth girder with parabolic haunches at pier. The values
given for the latter two types differ substantially. We are inconclusive on the reason for
that, but I suppose that it's because we haven't found a clear definition on what exactly a
"haunch" is.
A. General link to all post tensioning volumes
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Structures/posttensioning.htm

Q. I have a question related to the LRFD code that is not specific to a

particular project. The question is regarding the use of couplers in Post
tensioned Box Girder Bridges involving staged construction.

Couplers in Post-tensioning Tendons

According to article 5.10.3.5 of LRFD ' The contract documents

shall specify that not more than 50% of the longitudinal post-tensioning
tendons be coupled at one section and that the spacing between adjacent
coupler locations be not closer than the segment length or twice the segment
depth. The void areas along the couplers shall be deducted from the gross
section area and the moment of inertia when computing the stresses at the
time postensioning force is applied.'

Kindly clarify the above mentioned statement as this clause is not

specified in AASHTO LFD code 2002-17th Edition. Generally, for Long Bridges
it is a common practice to apply the post-tensioning in stages using coupler
arrangement and the same number of strands are coupled to the next stage.
However, based on the LRFD clause 5.10.3.5, it seems that couplers are no
longer allowed for stage construction. As per this clause , it is not
permissible to couple (continue) the full prestressing force beyond the
construction joint for the construction of the next stage.

Please clarify whether this clause is only applicable to segmental

construction or to all post-tensioned bridges ?

A. Yes it is true that the old spec allowed every tendon in a section to be coupled
stranded tendons. No state was generally constructing PT bridges with this less desirable
detail. It was generally found to create future concerns and with the latest focus on
redundancy and reliability this strand detail is out of vogue.
The T-10 tech comm has now plugged this gap in the specification to stop the use of this
detail for strand if it is being applied to PT Bars then ASBI should suggedt language to
clrify..

Q. The Structural Design of the Architectural Barrier Railing must be in

accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Third Edition,
Section 13 "Railings". The Architectural Barrier Railing must be
designed in accordance with test level "TL-4" per the AASHTO
Specifications per FDOT Structures Design Guidelines Section 6.7
"Traffic Railing". It should be noted that AASHTO Specifications
Article 13.7.3.1.2 requires that new barrier railing designs have a full
scale "crash test" in accordance with NCHRP Report 350. The proposed
Architectural Barrier Railing is basically the FDOT 32" Vertical Shape
Barrier Railing with pilaster post located at the expansion joints and
at the ends of the barrier railing. From a preliminary review of the
Architectural Barrier Railing, the barrier railing violates AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, Article 13.7.3 "Railing Design', since the
proposed railing does not have a continuous smooth face of rail along
the traffic side. The commentary in this section does state that
protrusions or depressions at rail openings may be acceptable, provide
they meet the crash test evaluation criteria in the NCHRP Report 350.

I have the following questions, for which we have not been able to find
resolution in the standards and for which you could probably help - we
hope:

1 - Is it necessary for the barrier rail to meet the standards as

referenced by the engineer above, provided that there is a 6" curb and a 6'-6"
sidewalk separating the barrier rail/wall and the traffic lane?
2 - Are there any allowances for ANY relief on the wall's surface (even
if it is 1/2") that may allow us to create a wave pattern on the wall as
shown in the attached graphic? We are hoping that the AASHTO standards
say that protrusions or depressions may be acceptable, provided they do
not exceed a certain distance - is there such a minimum distance where a crash test
evaluation per criteria in the NCHRP Report 350 is not required?

A. As a follow up to our phone conversations of yesterday, the following is

a list of websites where you can obtain the traffic railing related
documents and drawings we discussed.

1. FDOT Structures Design Guidelines (SDG), Section 6.7, Traffic

Railing:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/StructuresManual/CurrentRelease/FD
OTBridgeManual.htm
The SDG contains FDOT policy on traffic railings that references and
supplements the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

2. FDOT Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1, Section 2.12, Bridge

Railings and Separators:

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/PPM%20Manual/2005/Volume%201/zChap%2
002.pdf

Contains examples of FDOT standardized bridge traffic railings and their

use.

3. FDOT Green Book, Chapter 17 Bridges and Other Structures:

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/Florida%20Greenbook/2005/2005Florida
Greenbook.pdf

The FDOT Green Book, Chapter 17 contains policy for traffic railings for
off system bridges.

4. FDOT Structures Temporary Design Bulletin C05-14, Traffic Railing

Surface Texture Requirements:

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/Memos/TemporaryDesignBulletinC05-1
4.pdf

This bulletin supplements the SDG and contains policy on surface

treatments for traffic railings based on FHWA accepted guidelines that
were developed by CalTrans.

5. FDOT Structures Standard Drawings for 32" Vertical Shape Traffic

Railing:

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/CADD/standards/CurrentStandards/07
30%20.pdf

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/CADD/standards/CurrentStandards/08
20.pdf

FDOT Standard drawings for the 32" Vertical Shape Traffic Railing and
Aluminum Bullet Pedestrian Railing. The traffic face of this railing
could be modified in accordance with Temporary Design Bulletin C05-14 to
include an aesthetic surface treatment.

6. Texas DOT Bridge Railing Manual:

http://manuals.dot.state.tx.us/docs/colbridg/forms/rlg.pdf
Contains Texas DOT's policy on bridge traffic railings, examples and
photographs.

7. Thermafoam, Inc. website:

http://www.thermafoam.com/txclassic.html

Contains photos of and discussions about aesthetic bridge traffic

railings.

Q. I am an engineer of the Bureau of Design of the Department of Public Works

and Highways in the Philippines. We are adopting the AASHTO Specifications
in the design of our roads and bridges.

Recently, one of our consultants suggested to consider the adoption of the

CALTRANS Specifications in the design of non-regular bridges, particularly
the use of cracked section in the moment of inertia of a member. There is
no AASHTO provision on the use of cracked section.

I wish to solicit your opinion on the use of cracked section and its
effects on the other provision of AASHTO, specifically in seismic
analysis.. We have an on-going construction of a 9 spans concrete bridge
which is being proposed for redesign by the consultant using the principles
of cracked section which according to him would result in reduction of the
size of the round columns and cost savings of about 20 million pesos
($360,000).

A. California Department of Transportation uses PROJECT-SPECIFIC Design

Criteria for non-standard bridges. This project-specific Design Criteria
document adds requirements according to the structure-type,
foundation-type, and anticipated ground motion. Topics not addressed
therein, default to the California Department of Transportation Bridge
Design Specifications (BDS) and the California Department of Transportation
Seismic Design Criteria, v1.3 Feb. 2004. Caltrans BDS is based on the
AASHTO Standard Specifications, 16th Ed. The AASHTO Standard
Specifications, Div. IA, and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specificatios
use force-reduction methods for seismic analysis. The Caltrans Seismic
Design Critiera employs displacement ductility analysis.

Your potential cost savings, I presume, are from more slender columns being
justifiable due to stress relief after assuming cracked properties? Not
knowing your structure layout, load path, bent configurations, level of
seismicity, and method of seismic analysis, it is difficult to respond
regarding cracked section properties. Balance of column stiffness is
important. If you'd care to provide more information, we could take a
closer look

Q. 5.10.8.3 - I wonder if you could give me some idea of where this provision (Mass
Concrete) originates from, and/or on what research it is based.

I am uncomfortable with the sudden change in the amount of reinforcing

required under this section, for concrete over 48" thick, versus the section
immediately preceding (which applies to concrete less than 48" thick).

Also, is it deliberate that this provision is not duplicated in the section

on strut-and-tie design? Section 5.6.3.6 has pretty much the same effect as
5.10.8.2, but there is no mass concrete exception following 5.6.3.6.

A. It appears to me that 2005 AASHTO Bridge Committee Item #25 would

go a long way towards answering it. The Background of this change states
that it is based on ACI 318 and ACI 207.2R, and Article 5.10.8.3 is proposed
to be deleted. Perhaps you could send her a copy of the proposed change in
partial answer to her question.

As for the provisions for strut-and-tie models, the purpose of the crack
control reinforcement is different than the requirements for temperature and
shrinkage reinforcement. In my opinion, both provisions must be satisfied.
Since Item #25 would delete the separate shrinkage and temperature
requirements for mass concrete, question would become a moot point.

Q. I have a question regarding the interpretation of an Article in the 2004 AASHTO

LRFD Bridge Design Specification and was informed that you could help me get it
answered.

My question regards elastomeric bearings and, specifically, Article

14.7.5.1. It states:

"Steel-reinforced elastomeric bearings may be designed using either

of two methods commonly referred to as Method A and Method B. Where the
provisions of this article are used, the component shall be taken to meet
the requirements of Method B. Where the provisions of Article 14.7.6
are used, the component shall be taken to meet the requirements of Method A. Steel-
reinforced elastomeric bearings shall consist of alternate layers
of steel reinforcement and elastomer bonded together. In addition to
any internal reinforcement, bearings may have external steel load plates
bonded to either or both the upper or lower elastomer layers."
Question:
Is external reinforcement alone sufficient to use Method B?

A. Your question was: Is external reinforcement alone sufficient to use Method

B?

It may be possible to have an unreinforced layer of elastomer with

externally bonded plates but it seems unlikely. I don't know the axial
loads or the expansion demands on your bearing but if you want to have
an unreinforced externally plated Method B pad you will still need to
meet the design requirements of Section 14.7.5.3 (Compressive stress,
compressive deflection, shear deformation, Combined compression and
rotation, and stability). The Method B bearing pad will require a
higher shear modulus which is expensive and difficult to test for and
probably not necessary for a pad. Typically a Method A Design according
to Article 14.7.6 would be more appropriate for a pad. A pad usually has
a less demanding compressive load and expansion and would therefore be
less expensive to test and manufacture as well. Recent changes made in
M 251-04 do not reward the less demanding bearing with less demanding
tests however revisions are underway to possibly offer the less
demanding test of Level I from M 251-97 as an option to the less
demanding Method A pads and bearings.

Q. I am looking for guidance on the correct interpretation of the AASHTO

Standard Specifications for Highway bridges for the determination of the
effective flange width for exterior (or fascia) prestressed girders with
overhanging deck slabs. Specifically, I am looking for something in the
code that limits the portion of the overhanging slab (not the portion of
the
deck slab between the fascia girder and 1st interior girder) that may be
used in the effective flange width.

A. My interpretation on this matter.

AASHTO Article 9.8.1 refers to Article 8.10.1
Using AASHTO Article 8.10.1.1 the width of web should be the top flange
width for small top flanges; i.e, beam types II, III & IV.
For wide top flanges, Article 9.8.3 sholud apply. However, for cantilever
slabs the width should not exceed the cantilever dimension.
This is for slabs on beams, not segmental bridges, which are covered
elsewhere in the specs.

Q. I am given to understand that NCHRP Report 489 (Extreme Event VI -

AASHTO LRFD 3rd Ed, 2004, Table 3.4.1-1) recommends that the design use water
load (WA) on bridge foundations be based upon mean water level (MSL)
discharges, in lieu of high water level (HHWL) discharges, however, I do not know
whether the use of "MSL " has been adopted by AASHTO LRFD, to date.
Please advise. If it has not, what are the prospects of this being adopted
by AASHTO in the near future; are you aware of any sources where I could
go to locate articles that memorialize this issue? Thank you for your
consideration.

A. I can't find any record of me answering you on this and if I have not -
I apologize. I am the target for these load questions.

The NCHRP study referenced was not adopted by the Sub-committee to date
and is one of the items of work actually to be handled at the mid-year
T-5 Committee meeting if I can ever get it off the ground. For now, the
NCHRP Report is published and at the owners discretion, can be used.

Q. AASHTO LRFD Article 6.10.2.1

If the web plate satisfy LRFD Eq. 6.10.2.1.2-1. Should one
or could one use connection plate (of diaphragms) as a transverse
stiffeners?

A. Yes, connection plates can serve the dual role as transverse stiffeners. It should be
noted that unlike intermediate stiffeners, connection plates must be connected to the
tension flange.

Q. I request clarification of the subject item in the Bridge Design

Specifications where the passage in question reads:

Cross-ties having the same bar size as the hoop may be used.

Which is in reference to cross-ties in the plastic hinge zone of a tied

compression member. Should the cited passage be understood to mean that
where cross-ties are required, for example to meet 5.10.6.3 and eq.
5.10.11.4.1d-2 that the cross-ties must be the same bar size as the
hoop?

I have a situation where the axial bar arrangement necessitates

multiple interior cross-ties, but eq. 5.10.11.4.1d-2 cannot be met using
a #4 hoop with #4 cross-ties at the desired spacing, but can be met
using a #5 hoop with #4 cross-ties. Does the cited passage above
prohibit this latter combination? Using all #5 interior cross-ties
results in much extra reinforcement for all provisions of the code
except for the passage in question.

If the intent of the code is to disallow a #5 hoop with #4 cross-ties,

what is the structural performance basis for the prohibition?
A. I checked with CALTRANS and WSDOT to see if I could find the
background and related research for the
recommendation in AASHTO that ties be the same size as hoops or
spirals.
I did not get any definitive answer, and have not located the research
that supports it.

For your information, CALTRANS allows the smaller size tie, and they
cited two examples where they have recently design columns and walls
using one size smaller tie. WSDOT said they normally use the same size
tie as the hoops or spirals, although they did not cite a specific
requirement. The consensus is that the AASHTO recommendation is
optional, but could be interpreted to mean that it is good practice in
seismic zones 3 and 4 to use the same size tie, even though it is not
required by other provisions.

In Oregon, we do not believe the AASHTO recommendation should be

interpreted to be a requirement, and in fact believe it is a designers
prerogative to use one size smaller tie, if that meets all other AASHTO
provisions.

You didn't provide enough detail in your question to know what your
specific reinforcement pattern is, but if you have a rectangular or
square section, you probably realize our practice is to use spirals, or
interlocking spirals in seismic zones 3 and 4. If you are intending to
use hoops along with ties, we recommend you change the reinforcement
pattern to interlocking spirals, with ties, if needed.

Alt. A. I believe the 2nd-to-last question on the interpretation of

5.10.11.4.1d:
Cross-ties having the same bar size as the hoop may be used.
came from Oregon. I responded saying that I thought "may" meant just
that.
However, the deeper issue is should ties and cross-ties be used at all
in
Seismic Zones 3 & 4? CA began requiring circular cores in square
columns
and intersecting hoops or spirals in rectangular columns after the 1971
San
Fernando earthquake. WA also chimed in saying that they too use
only spirals.... This topic wasn't touched upon in the
T3 re-write.

The last question is on the Commentary to Article 3.10.9.3 regarding

seismic design forces for footings and piles. I think the response to
"Is
the intent of this article to have designers calculate the plastic
moment
capacity of the column and then increase the strength of the footing
and
piles by apply this plastic moment to the footing and piles?" should
be
"that's one method that is appropriate". The response to, "Is it true
that
this article is not instructing the designer to increase the strength
of
the column or column connection to the footing" should probably be "to
assure plastic hinging in the column rather than failure in the
footing,
the strength of the connection needs to be increased so that it exceeds
the
plastic moment strength of the column." The current text does seem to
intermix resistance and overstrength factors: "An estimate of this
effect
may be found by using a
resistance factor, phi, of 1.3 for reinforced concrete columns and 1.25
for
structural steel columns." Hopefully, this will be deleted when the T3
effort comes to fruition.

Questions Still Pending

Q. “However, if seismic forces do not govern the design of columns and piers there is a
possibility that during an earthquake the foundations will be subjected to forces larger
than the design forces. For example, this may occur due to unintended column over-
strengths which may exceed the capacity of the foundations. An estimate of this effect
may be found by using a resistance factor, phi, of 1.3 for reinforced concrete columns and
1.25 for structural steel columns.”

 Is the intent of this article to have designers calculate the plastic moment capacity
of the column and then increase the strength of the footing and piles by apply this plastic
moment to the footing and piles?

 Is it true that this article is not instructing the designer to increase the strength of
the column or column connection to the footing ?

________________________________________________________________________

Q. I am having difficulty meeting the Longitudinal Reinforcement requirement of

Section 5.8.3.5 in the 2004 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The bridge I
am designing is a two span, 18-inch prestressed concrete slab girder bridge made
continuous for live load. My analysis determines that I need a large amount of
longitudinal reinforcement at the critical section for shear near the pier (on the order of 9
square inches). Unfortunately the critical section is only 1.25-feet from the CL bearing.
Could you please clarify where along the girder the requirements of this article actually
apply? Many examples that I have looked at for guidance seem to do one of two things:
(1) ignore any longitudinal reinforcement requirement at the ends of the girder; they only
check for this well towards the center of the beam where the strands offer full resistance
or (2) determine the area of longitudinal reinforcement required without offering any
solution for actually supplying that reinforcement.
Q. I have a couple questions in Section 6 of the AASHTO LRFD:

- Diaphragms and Cross-Frames AASHTO LRFD Article C6.7.4.1 stated that

"diaphragms spaced at not more than 25.0 ft in the AASHTO Standard Spec. has
been replaced by a requirement for rational analysis" . Please be specific
and provide us details how to design diaphragms and cross-frames and
spacing.

- AASHTO LRFD Article 6.10.2.1

If the web plate satisfy LRFD Eq. 6.10.2.1.2-1. Should one
or could one use connection plate (of diaphragms) as a transverse
stiffeners?

Q. I have previously designed some long span culverts according to the AASHTO
Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd Edition. However, my company has upgraded to
using AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd Edition and I noticed a conflict
between the formulas in Section 12.8.4.2 of the LRFD and Section 12.7.3.2. I believe
the LRFD formula gives the load in lb-ft, instead of the correct units of lb/ft.

Another minor point that I would like to make, concerns the unit weight of soil, which is
given in units of k/ft^3.. I believe this should be lb/ft^3, because otherwise the dead load
reactions become negligible compared to the live load reactions. For example, I have
calculated a dead load reaction to be 14,000 lb/ft for one long span culvert, with the unit
weight of soil being 120 lb/ft^3. Changing the unit weight of soil to 0.120 k/ft^3 will
produce a dead load reaction of 14 lb/ft. This seems a little laughable, so I have always
maintained the first case in my calculations.

I would ask for your confirmation that the LRFD formula is in fact incorrect. Please
notify me if there is a web address which updates the code for any printing mistakes.

Q. "However, if seismic forces do not govern the design of columns and

piers
there is a possibility that during an earthquake the foundations will be
subjected to forces larger than the design forces. For example, this
may
occur due to unintended column over-strengths which may exceed the
capacity
of the foundations. An estimate of this effect may be found by using a
resistance factor, phi, of 1.3 for reinforced concrete columns and 1.25
for
structural steel columns."
* Is the intent of this article to have designers calculate the
plastic moment capacity of the column and then increase the strength of
the
footing and piles by apply this plastic moment to the footing and piles?

* Is it true that this article is not instructing the designer to

increase the strength of the column or column connection to the footing