Introduction to LRFD for Foundation and Substructure

Design– Module 1
132010B August 2021

1
Welcome and Introduction

Welcome to NHI Course Number 132010B, Introduction to LRFD for

Foundation and Substructure Design, Module 1: Development and
Implementation of LRFD.

This presentation is available as an attachment from the paperclip icon in

the bottom right-hand part of the screen.

2
Module and Lesson Learning Outcome:

Upon completion of this module, you will be able to summarize the history
of LRFD. This will be accomplished through the completion of the lessons,
where you will be able to:

• Summarize the history of LRFD;

• Identify the LRFD formula and describe uncertainty through minor

comparison to ASD and LFD; and

• Identify the relationship of LRFD and the American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials or AASHTO.

This module will take approximately 45 minutes to complete.

3
Lessons in this Module

This module contains the following lessons:

1. History of LRFD;

2. LRFD Method, Equation, and Uncertainty; and

3. LRFD and AASHTO.

During each lesson, knowledge checks are provided to test your

understanding of the material presented.

4
Lesson 1: History of LRFD

Let’s get started with the first lesson, which describes the history of LRFD,
how it evolved over time, and how it provides for greater public safety. By
the end of this lesson, you will be able to summarize the history and
development of LRFD and you will be introduced to the LRFD formula.

This lesson will take approximately 20 minutes to complete.

5
Timeline of LRFD

To begin, let’s look at the three foundation and substructure design

practices that form the history of LRFD. LRFD has evolved over several
years as the result of industry research and development. Before LRFD,
there was Allowable Stress Design, or ASD, and then Load Factor Design,
or LFD.

View the design methods along the timeline to learn more.

6
Timeline of LRFD – ASD

In the beginning, there was Allowable Stress Design, or ASD, that was
used as the primary method of substructure and foundation design prior to
the 1970s. The advantage of this method is its simplicity. However, there is
no consideration for variability in loads and resistances. A factor of safety
was applied to the design equation, but load factors and resistance factors
were not yet developed. ASD, also known as Working Stress Design, or
WSD, is still used today by some people in the building trades, but its use
is prohibited on federal aid projects.

7
Timeline of LRFD – LFD

Load Factor Design, or LFD, followed ASD. The ASD factor of safety was
replaced by load factors, load coefficients, and resistance reduction factors.
LFD was instituted by AASHTO in the early 1970s and became a primary
method of substructure and foundation design. This approach began to use
load factors and considered the levels of uncertainty for various load types,
but still included no risk assessment.

8
Timeline of LRFD – LRFD

And finally there is the Load and Resistance Factor Design, or LRFD.
LRFD was instituted by AASHTO in 1994, and FHWA mandated its use
after October 1st, 2007, for projects receiving federal aid. It is maintained
by AASHTO through its publication of the AASHTO LRFD bridge design
specifications. The LRFD method accounts for the uncertainty in both load
and resistance. and provides a risk assessment.

9
Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

Let’s look at each of these design methods in more detail, starting with
ASD, its relationship between loads and resistance and its history.

10
ASD History

When using ASD, the loads are summed together and compared to the
ultimate resistance (or strength) that has been reduced by a factor of
safety. Defining the acceptable factor of safety relied heavily on the
judgment of the engineer and is key to defining an adequate design by
ASD.

Prior to the 1970’s, ASD was the primary design method used for structure
design. In the early 1970s, design philosophy had evolved and load factors
were used to adjust ASD. Early load factors included the variability of
certain load types such as vehicular loads and wind forces, but treated all
load types equally.

Eventually, this design methodology evolved into LFD.

11
ASD Equation

∑DL + ∑LL ≤ Ru/FS

DL = Dead load

LL = Live load

Ru = Ultimate resistance or strength

FS = Factor of safety

Allowable Stress Design, also known as Working Stress Design, used this
equation. In this equation, the sum of the dead loads plus the sum of the
live loads must be less than or equal to the ultimate resistance divided by
the factor of safety.

With this equation, all uncertainty is accounted for with the factor of safety
on the resistance side. However, the factor of safety could also be applied
as a multiplier to the load side of the equation.

12
Load Factor Design (LFD)

Now you will learn more about the equation and the history behind LFD.

13
LFD History

Since a major concern with ASD was that the design did not provide a true
factor of safety, design philosophy evolved which resulted in the
development of load factors. During the 1970’s, development of the load
factors resulted in the Load Factor Design method. When using LFD, the
loads multiplied by the load coefficients are summed and a load factor is
applied to all loads. The ultimate resistance (or strength) is reduced by a
resistance (or reduction) factor. The load and resistance factors are chosen
based on the experience and judgment of the engineer. Quantitative
measure of risk cannot be determined for LFD. Use of LFD extended
through the 1980’s and into the 1990’s. Further advancement to the
understanding of how structural elements behave led to the development of
more meaningful load and resistance factors. A philosophical approach to
bridge design ensued, resulting with the design philosophy of LRFD, taking
into account calibrated load factors and resistance factors. In the 1990’s,
with these better defined load and resistance factors, LFD gave way to
Load and Resistance Factor Design, or LRFD.

14
LFD Equation

γ (∑βDLDL + ∑βLLLL) ≤ Φ Ru

γ = Load factor applied to all loads

βDL = Load combination coefficient for dead loads

βLL = Load combination coefficient for live loads

DL = Dead load

LL = Live load

Φ = Resistance (or reduction) factor

Ru = Ultimate resistance or strength of the element under consideration

Load Factor Design, also known as Strength Design, used this equation.
You can see this equation expands from the ASD equation. A load
combination coefficient is applied to each load, and all loads are multiplied
by a load factor. Essentially, with this equation, the sum of the combination
of dead loads multiplied by the dead load combination coefficients plus the
sum of the combination of live loads multiplied by the load combination

15
coefficients for live loads are multiplied by the load factor. This must be less
than or equal to the ultimate resistance multiplied by the resistance factor.

This design method addresses more uncertainty than the ASD method.
However, load coefficients were usually either one or zero and are not
comparable to load factors used by LRFD.

16
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

Now you will learn more about the equation and the history behind LRFD.

17
LRFD History

In the mid-1980s, the AASHTO Bridge subcommittee determined that the

standard bridge specification had inconsistencies and was not up to date
with emerging technologies. A new specification was warranted. The new
specification was developed and included LRFD. The first edition was
published by AASHTO in 1994.

Development of LRFD accounts for the variability in both the load and
resistance sides of the equation with load and resistance factors that are
based on reliability theories and statistics to achieve a successful design.

AASHTO recommended the use of LRFD to FHWA in 2000. In that same

year, FHWA mandated the use of LRFD for preliminary design by 2007.
Today, LRFD is maintained by AASHTO.

18
LRFD Equation

ɳ(∑γDLDL + ∑γLLLL) ≤ ΦRn

ɳ = Load modifier applied to all loads

γDL = Load factor applied to dead loads

γLL = Load factor applied to live loads

DL = Dead load

LL = Live load

Φ = Resistance factor

Rn = Nominal resistance of the element under consideration

LRFD, also known as Reliability Based Design, uses this equation. The
design process has evolved and now all loads are multiplied by a load
modifier and each load is multiplied by its load factor. The LRFD equation
states that the sum of the factored dead loads plus the sum of the factored
live loads is multiplied by a load modifier. This must be less than or equal to
the nominal resistance multiplied by a resistance factor.

19
With this equation, uncertainty is distributed evenly between the load and
resistance sides of the equation. The load factors were individually
calibrated for each load to account for the uncertainty of the load and to
avoid being at the failure limit.

20
This design method relied heavily on the judgment of the
engineer to select an acceptable factor of safety. Which
method is it?

This design method relied heavily on the judgment of the engineer to select
an acceptable factor of safety. Which method is it?

a) LRFD

b) ASD

c) LFD

The correct answer is b) ASD.

21
Comparison of the Three Design Methods

A comparison of the three design methods is provided to show the

advancement in the design methodologies.

Table description: The equation variable, Factor of safety, has allowable

design stress. The equation variables: Resistance reduction factor, Load
coefficients, and Load factors, all have load factor design. The equation
variables: Resistance factors, Load factors, and Load modifiers, all have
Load and Resistance Factor Design.

22
Lesson Review

Let's take a moment to review the concepts you learned during this lesson.

23
Was LRFD developed first, second, or third?

Was LRFD developed first, second, or third?

a) Developed First

b) Developed Second

c) Developed Third

The correct answer is C) Developed Third.

24
Was ASD developed first, second, or third?

Was ASD developed first, second, or third?

a) Developed First

b) Developed Second

c) Developed Third

The correct answer is a) Developed First.

25
Was LFD developed first, second, or third?

Was LFD developed first, second, or third?

a) Developed First

b) Developed Second

c) Developed Third

The correct answer is b) Developed Second.

26
With the LRFD method, load and resistance factors are based
on ______________ and _______________.

With the LRFD method, load and resistance factors are based on
______________ and _______________.

a) Uncertainty, load modifiers

b) Uncertainty, engineering judgment

c) Reliability theories, statistics

d) Engineering judgment, statistics

The correct answer is c) Reliability theories, statistics.

27
Lesson Summary

Now, let’s review the learning outcome for this lesson.

You learned about the history of the development of LRFD.

First there was ASD, which only provided a factor of safety for the
resistance side of the equation. Various types of loads have different levels
of uncertainty but are treated equally by ASD. There is no risk assessment
with ASD.

Next, LFD was developed. This method introduced a load factor that was
applied equally to all loads, as well as a load combination coefficient. As
with ASD, there is no risk assessment with LFD.

Eventually, as technology led to a better understanding of the variability of

structural elements and their loads, LRFD was born. LRFD accounts for the
variability in both the load and resistance side of the equation. The load
and resistance factors are based on reliability theories and statistics to
achieve a successful design.

This concludes Lesson 1: History of LRFD.

28
Lesson Conclusion

If you would like to further review the material covered in this lesson,
please return to the beginning of this lesson.

If you are confident that you understand the learning outcome, please
continue on to the next lesson.

29
Lesson 2: LRFD Method, Equation, and Uncertainty

Lesson 2 identifies the LRFD formula in more detail and describes

uncertainty in the LRFD equation through minor comparison to ASD and
LFD. By the end of this lesson, you will be able to identify the LRFD
formula and describe uncertainty through minor comparison to ASD and
LFD.

This lesson will take approximately 10 minutes to complete.

30
Definitions

Let’s start by reviewing some basic definitions. This includes the definition
for limit state and resistance.

31
Definitions – Limit State

The definition of a limit state is a condition beyond which the bridge or

component ceases to satisfy the provisions for which it was designed.
Basically limit state defines when a component fails to fulfill its desired
function.

32
Definitions – Resistance

Resistance is a quantifiable value that defines the point beyond which the
particular limit state under investigation for a particular component will be
exceeded.

33
Substructure and Foundation Design

For safe substructure and foundation design, the golden rule is that
demand must be less than the capacity. If the demand on the structure
exceeds the capacity, then performance problems are eminent and we’d
have a big problem!

For LRFD, the golden rule is that load must be less than the resistance.
Also, with LRFD, the factored loads must be less than or equal to the
factored resistance. This is expressed in the LRFD equation.

34
LRFD Golden Rule

In the LRFD golden rule, uncertainty must be adequately addressed for

loads to be less than resistance. What uncertainty is really trying to answer
is – how much less than capacity should the demand be?

Some examples where uncertainty exists include:

• Material weights, strength, dimensions, location, long-term

performance (including soil and rock properties);

• Failure mode and prediction method;

• Prediction of potential transient loads;

• Load analysis and distribution methods; and

• Structure function and construction quality.

35
LRFD Equation

ɳ(∑γDLDL + ∑γLLLL) ≤ ΦRn

Remember from Lesson 1, you learned that the equation for LRFD states
that a load modifier is applied to the sum of the factored dead loads and the
sum of the factored live loads, and must be less than or equal to the
nominal resistance or strength reduced by a resistance factor. With this
equation the following assumptions or observations are made.

• Uncertainty is distributed and dealt with evenly on both the load and
resistance sides of the equation;

• On the load side, load factors are assigned directly to the loads and a
load modifier is applied equally to all loads. Several “limit states” or
factored load combinations are examined;

• On the resistance side, LRFD utilizes nominal resistance and a

resistance factor that is multiplied to reduce the resistance;

36
• Safety is achieved by the factored and modified load combinations
not exceeding the resistance or strength determined by nominal
resistance reduced by a resistance factor; and

• The golden rule of LRFD, that load must be less than or equal to the
resistance, is satisfied.

37
What is the golden rule of engineering and the golden rule of
LRFD?

What is the golden rule of engineering and the golden rule of LRFD?

a) Demand is less than capacity and load is less than resistance

b) Demand is greater than capacity and load is less than resistance

c) Demand is less than load and capacity is greater than resistance

d) Demand is greater than resistance and load is greater than capacity

The correct answer is a) Demand is less than capacity and load is less than
resistance.

38
LRFD – Advantages and Limitations

Let’s take a look at the advantages and limitations of LRFD.

39
LRFD – Advantages

The advantages of LRFD include: accounts for the variability in both load
and resistance, achieves a relatively uniform level of safety for different
limit states and foundation types, and provides a more consistent level of
safety by the use of statistics, which yield probabilities of failure that in turn
are used to establish load and resistance factors.

40
LRFD – Limitations

The limitations of LRFD include: requires availability of data for statistical

analysis, and load and resistance factors vary, requiring more effort to
define when compared to ASD and LFD methods.

41
Lesson Review

Let's take a moment to review the concepts you learned during this lesson.

42
Uncertainty in LRFD is dealt with by applying which of the
following?

Uncertainty in LRFD is dealt with by applying which of the following?

a) Factor of safety

b) Load factors, load modifiers, and resistance factors

c) Treating all loads equally

d) Treating all resistance equally

The correct answer is b) Load factors, load modifiers, and resistance

factors.

43
What effect does the resistance factor have when applied to
the nominal resistance?

What effect does the resistance factor have when applied to the nominal
resistance?

a) The resistance factor has no effect on the resistance

b) The resistance factor typically reduces the resistance

c) The resistance factor increases the resistance

d) The resistance factor reduces the live load

The correct answer is b) The resistance factor typically reduces the

resistance.

44
Lesson Summary

Now, let’s review the learning outcome for this lesson.

You learned about the LRFD method, equation, and uncertainty associated
with the loads and resistance through minor comparison with ASD and
LFD.

LRFD distributes the uncertainty evenly on both the load and resistance
sides of the equation, which provides for a consistent level of safety. The
drawbacks with this method are that it requires the availability of statistical
data, and the resistance factors are not constant.

This concludes Lesson 2: LRFD Method, Equation, and Uncertainty.

45
Lesson Conclusion

If you would like to further review the material covered in this lesson,
please return to the beginning of this lesson.

If you are confident that you understand the learning outcome, please
continue on to the next lesson.

46
Lesson 3: LRFD and AASHTO

Lesson 3 discusses the relationship between LRFD design method and

AASHTO Design Specification. By the end of this lesson, you will be able to
identify the relationship of LRFD and AASHTO.

This lesson will take approximately 15 minutes to complete.

47
The Relationship Between LRFD and AASHTO

Let’s begin our final lesson, Lesson 3, with a review of the LRFD acronym,
while reintroducing the AASHTO and FHWA acronyms.

• LRFD is an acronym for Load and Resistance Factor Design;

• AASHTO is an acronym for the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials; and

• FHWA is an acronym for the Federal Highway Administration.

48
What is it?

What exactly are AASHTO, LRFD, and FHWA? AASHTO is a standards

setting body which publishes specifications, and tests protocols and
guidelines used in highway design. AASHTO publishes and maintains the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification.

LRFD is called Load and Resistance Factor Design, and is a design

method that represents the latest advancement in bridge design practice.
The LRFD load and resistance factors have been developed from the
theory of reliability (or probability of failure) and current statistical
knowledge of loads and structural performance. The AASHTO specification
employs the LRFD design method to design bridges, and is used by state
departments of transportation across the United States.

FHWA is the Federal Highway Administration that is a division of the United

States Department of Transportation. FHWA oversees federal funds used
for constructing and maintaining interstate highways, U.S. routes, and most
state routes. Bridge projects receiving federal aid from FHWA are to follow
the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification.

49
LRFD - When did it start?

When did LRFD begin to be used as a design tool? AASHTO first

introduced LRFD to the engineering community in 1994. AASHTO
recommended the use of LRFD and provided a timeline with goals for
implementation to FHWA. FHWA concurred with AASHTO’s timeline which
resulted in the requirement that all state bridge projects using federal
funding use LRFD for preliminary bridge design, beginning October 1,
2007.

Why did AASHTO recommend use of LRFD? AASHTO transitioned to

LRFD method because LRFD provides a more reliable design when
compared to ASD and LFD methods by using factors statistically
determined from a lot of data instead of engineering judgment associated
with ASD and LFD methods.

50
LRFD – Implementation Guidelines

The implementation guidelines for LRFD were summarized in an FHWA

memo dated June 28, 2000 that included:

• All new bridges on which States initiate preliminary engineering after

October 1, 2007, shall be designed by the LRFD Specifications;

• All new culverts, retaining walls, and other standard structures on

which States initiate preliminary engineering after October 1, 2010,
shall be designed by LRFD Specifications, with the assumption that
the specifications and software for these structures are "mature" at
this time;

• States unable to meet these dates will provide justification and a

schedule for completing the transition to LRFD; and

• For modifications to existing structures, States would have the option

of using LRFD Specifications or the specifications which were used
for the original design.

51
Publication

The current AASHTO publication is AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications, Seventh Edition, 2014, with 2015 Interim Revisions.

Historically, a revised publication has been released every four years, and
interim updates are generally published annually. Although over the recent
past, AASHTO has released new additions in 2010, 2012, and 2014.

Starting in 2016, AASHTO plans to change the publication schedule, with a

new publication planned for every three years, with no interims.

The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications contains 15 sections.

The design engineer uses the current publication and interim updates as
the code to design bridge foundations and substructures.

Section 10 – Foundations is the LRFD design specification that is the focus

of this course.

52
Starting in 2016, how often is AASHTO planning new editions
of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specification?

The correct answer is b) Once every 3 years.

Starting in 2016, how often is AASHTO planning new editions of the

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specification?

a) In the middle of the year

b) Once every 3 years

c) Once every 3 years with interim annual updates

d) Every October

53
AASHTO Section 10 Foundations

The AASHTO foundation section, found in Section 10 of the AASHTO

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Seventh Edition, 2014, includes
information on:

• Soil and rock properties;

• Spread footings for shallow foundation design;

• Driven piles, drilled shafts, and micropiles for deep foundation design;

• Shallow and deep sections discuss general issues of design, service,

strength, and extreme limit state design requirements; and

• Section 10 appendix for seismic analysis and design of foundations.

The soil and rock properties section explains the importance of needing a
minimum level of soil and rock data for justifying the design in LRFD. The
use of shallow foundations is presented in the spread footing section. Deep
foundation sections cover driven piles, drilled shafts, and micropiles. Both
the shallow and deep foundation sections discuss issues for the specific

54
foundation type, service limit state design, strength limit state design, and
extreme limit state design requirements.

LRFD covers abutments and retaining structures in Section 11, and

culverts in Section 12. Even though these sections are not covered in this
course, you should be familiar with these related sections on general
design, loads, and materials. Both shallow and deep foundations are also
addressed in Section 10 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications.

55
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification Section 10

When designing substructures, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications, Section 10, will be your go to resource. To get an idea of the
topics covered, the outline of Section 10 includes:

• 10.1 – Scope;

• 10.2 – Definitions;

• 10.3 – Notation;

• 10.4 – Soil and Rock Properties;

• 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance Factors;

• 10.6 – Spread Footings;

• 10.7 – Driven Piles;

• 10.8 – Drilled Shafts;

• 10.9 – Micropiles;

• 10.10 – References; and

• Appendix A10 – Seismic Analysis and Design Of Foundations.

56
Lesson Review

Let's take a moment to review the concepts you learned during this lesson.

57
When did FHWA mandate use of LRFD?

When did FHWA mandate use of LRFD?

a) 1960s

b) Early 1970s

c) 1994

d) October 1, 2007

The correct answer is d) October 1, 2007.

58
What section in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specification is for
Foundations?

What section in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specification is for Foundations?

a) Section 10

b) Section A

c) Section 9

d) Section 11

The correct answer is a) Section 10.

59
Lesson Summary

Now, let’s review the learning outcome for this lesson.

You learned about the LRFD method and its relationship to AASHTO.

AASHTO developed a design specification that is based on the LRFD

method. AASHTO is a quasi-governmental organization that introduced
LRFD in 1994, and publishes and maintains the LRFD specification. The
current AASHTO publication is titled AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, Seventh Edition, 2014. The publication had been released
every four years with interim updates and recently new editions were
published in 2010, 2012, and 2014. However, beginning in 2016, AASHTO
plans to release a new publication every three years with no interims.

The publication contains 15 sections, with Section 10 devoted to foundation

design including information on soil and rock properties, footing and pile
types, and shallow and deep foundations.

This concludes Lesson 3: LRFD and AASHTO.

60
Lesson Conclusion

If you would like to further review the material covered in this lesson,
please return to the beginning of this lesson.

If you are confident that you understand the learning outcome, please
continue on to the Module Summary.

61
Conclusion

This module described the development and implementation of LRFD.

You should now be able to:

• Summarize the history of LRFD;

• Identify the LRFD formula and describe uncertainty through minor

comparison to ASD and LFD; and

• Identify the relationship of LRFD and AASHTO.

62