AAS HTO L RFD Br idg e d e s i g n s p e c i f i c at i o n s Customary U.S. Units • 2012 ISBN: 978-1-56051-523-4 Publication Code: LRFDUS-6 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Not for Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5800 phone/202-624-5806 fax www.transportation.org © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- ISBN: 978-1-56051-523-4 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Pub Code: LRFDUS-6 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2010–2011 Voting Members --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Officers: President: Kirk T. Steudle, P.E., Michigan* Vice President: Michael P. Lewis, Rhode Island* Secretary-Treasurer: Carlos Braceras, Utah Regional Representatives: REGION I: Beverley Swaim-Staley, Maryland, One-Year Term James P. Redeker, Connecticut, Two-Year Term REGION II: Robert St. Onge, South Carolina, One-Year Term Eugene Conti, North Carolina, Two-Year Term REGION III: Kevin Keith, Missouri, One-Year Term Mark Gottlieb, Wisconsin, Two-Year Term REGION IV: Francis Ziegler, North Dakota, One-Year Term John Cox, Wyoming, Two-Year Term Nonvoting Members Immediate Past President: Susan Martinovich, Nevada AASHTO Executive Director: John Horsley, Washington, DC *Elected at the 2011 Annual Meeting in Detroit, Michigan iii © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS HIGHWAY SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES 2011 NORTH DAKOTA, Terrence R. Udland OHIO, Timothy J. Keller, Jawdat Siddiqi OKLAHOMA, Robert J. Rusch, Gregory D. Allen, John A. Schmiedel OREGON, Bruce V. Johnson, Hormoz Seradj PENNSYLVANIA, Thomas P. Macioce, Lou Ruzzi PUERTO RICO, (Vacant) RHODE ISLAND, David Fish SOUTH CAROLINA, Barry W. Bowers, Jeff Sizemore SOUTH DAKOTA, Kevin Goeden TENNESSEE, Edward P. Wasserman TEXAS, Keith L. Ramsey, David P. Hohmann U.S. DOT, M. Myint Lwin, Raj Ailaney UTAH, Carmen Swanwick VERMONT, Wayne B. Symonds VIRGINIA, Malcolm T. Kerley, Kendal Walus, Prasad L. Nallapaneni, Julius F. J. Volgyi, Jr. WASHINGTON, Jugesh Kapur, Tony M. Allen, Bijan Khaleghi WEST VIRGINIA, Gregory Bailey, James D. Shook WISCONSIN, Scot Becker, Beth A. Cannestra, William Dreher WYOMING, Paul G. Cortez, Michael E. Menghini, Keith R. Fulton ALABAMA, John F. Black, William “Tim” Colquett ALASKA, Richard A. Pratt ARIZONA, Jean A. Nehme ARKANSAS, Carl Fuselier CALIFORNIA, Barton J. Newton , Susan Hida, Michael Keever COLORADO, Mark A. Leonard, Michael G. Salamon CONNECTICUT, Julie F. Georges DELAWARE, Jiten K. Soneji, Barry A. Benton DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Ronaldo T. “Nick” Nicholson, L. Donald Cooney, Konjit “Connie” Eskender FLORIDA, Sam Fallaha, Dennis Golabek, Jeff Pouliotte GEORGIA, Paul V. Liles, Jr. HAWAII, Paul T. Santo IDAHO, Matthew M. Farrar ILLINOIS, D. Carl Puzey, Tim Armbrecht, Thomas J. Domagalski INDIANA, Anne M. Rearick IOWA, Norman L. McDonald KANSAS, James J. Brennan, Loren R. Risch KENTUCKY, Mark Hite, Marvin Wolfe LOUISIANA, Hossein Ghara, Arthur D’Andrea, Paul Fossier MAINE, David B. Sherlock, Jeffrey S. Folsom, Wayne Frankhauser, Jr. MARYLAND, Earle S. Freedman, Robert J. Healy, Jeffrey L. Robert MASSACHUSETTS, Alexander K. Bardow, Shoukry Elnahal MICHIGAN, Steven P. Beck, David Juntunen MINNESOTA, Nancy Daubenberger, Kevin Western MISSISSIPPI, Mitchell K. Carr, B. Keith Carr MISSOURI, Dennis Heckman, Michael Harms MONTANA, Kent M. Barnes NEBRASKA, Mark J. Traynowicz, Mark Ahlman, Fouad Jaber NEVADA, Mark P. Elicegui, Todd Stefonowicz NEW HAMPSHIRE, Mark W. Richardson, David L. Scott NEW JERSEY, (Vacant) NEW MEXICO, Raymond M. Trujillo, Jimmy D. Camp NEW YORK, Wahid Albert,Donald F. Dwyer, Arthur P. Yannotti NORTH CAROLINA, Greg R. Perfetti, Dan Holderman GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, Kary H. Witt MDTA, Dan Williams N.J. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Richard J. Raczynski N.Y. STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY, William J. Moreau PENN. TURNPIKE COMMISSION, James L. Stump TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, Waseem Dekelbab U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS— DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Phillip W. Sauser, Christopher H. Westbrook U.S. COAST GUARD, Hala Elgaaly U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE— FOREST SERVICE, Tom Gillins ALBERTA, Lloyd Atkin KOREA, Eui-Joon Lee, Sang-Soon Lee NEWFOUNDLAND, Peter Lester NOVA SCOTIA, Mark Pertus ONTARIO, Bala Tharmabala SASKATCHEWAN, Howard Yea iv © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- MALCOLM T. KERLEY, Chair DAVID P. HOHMANN, Vice Chair M. MYINT LWIN, Federal Highway Administration, Secretary RAJ AILANEY, Federal Highway Administration, Assistant Secretary KEITH M. PLATTE, AASHTO Liaison KELLEY REHM, AASHTO Liaison FOREWORD The first broadly recognized national standard for the design and construction of bridges in the United States was published in 1931 by the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO), the predecessor to AASHTO. With the advent of the automobile and the establishment of highway departments in all of the American states dating back to just before the turn of the century, the design, construction, and maintenance of most U.S. bridges was the responsibility of these departments and, more specifically, the chief bridge engineer within each department. It was natural, therefore, that these engineers, acting collectively as the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, would become the author and guardian of this first bridge standard. This first publication was entitled Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges and Incidental Structures. It quickly became the de facto national standard and, as such, was adopted and used by not only the state highway departments but also other bridge-owning authorities and agencies in the United States and abroad. Rather early on, the last three words of the original title were dropped and it has been reissued in consecutive editions at approximately four-year intervals ever since as Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, with the final 17th edition appearing in 2002. The body of knowledge related to the design of highway bridges has grown enormously since 1931 and continues to do so. Theory and practice have evolved greatly, reflecting advances through research in understanding the properties of materials, in improved materials, in more rational and accurate analysis of structural behavior, in the advent of computers and rapidly advancing computer technology, in the study of external events representing particular hazards to bridges such as seismic events and stream scour, and in many other areas. The pace of advances in these areas has, if anything, stepped up in recent years. To accommodate this growth in bridge engineering knowledge, the Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures has been granted authority under AASHTO’s governing documents to approve and issue Bridge Interims each year, not only with respect to the Standard Specifications but also to incrementally modify and enhance the twenty-odd additional documents on bridges and structures engineering that are under its guidance and sponsorship. In 1986, the Subcommittee submitted a request to the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research to undertake an assessment of U.S. bridge design specifications, to review foreign design specifications and codes, to consider design philosophies alternative to those underlying the Standard Specifications, and to render recommendations based on these investigations. This work was accomplished under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), an applied research program directed by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research and administered on behalf of AASHTO by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The work was completed in 1987, and, as might be expected with a standard incrementally adjusted over the years, the Standard Specifications were judged to include discernible gaps, inconsistencies, and even some conflicts. Beyond this, the specification did not reflect or incorporate the most recently developing design philosophy, load-and-resistance factor design (LRFD), a philosophy which has been gaining ground in other areas of structural engineering and in other parts of the world such as Canada and Europe. From its inception until the early 1970s, the sole design philosophy embedded within the Standard Specifications was one known as working stress design (WSD). WSD establishes allowable stresses as a fraction or percentage of a given material’s load-carrying capacity, and requires that calculated design stresses not exceed those allowable stresses. Beginning in the early 1970s, WSD began to be adjusted to reflect the variable predictability of certain load types, such as vehicular loads and wind forces, through adjusting design factors, a design philosophy referred to as load factor design (LFD). Both WSD and LFD are reflected in the current edition of the Standard Specifications. A further philosophical extension results from considering the variability in the properties of structural elements, in similar fashion to load variabilities. While considered to a limited extent in LFD, the design philosophy of load-andresistance factor design (LRFD) takes variability in the behavior of structural elements into account in an explicit manner. LRFD relies on extensive use of statistical methods, but sets forth the results in a manner readily usable by bridge designers and analysts. With the advent of these specifications, bridge engineers had a choice of two standards to guide their designs, the long-standing AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, and the alternative, newly adopted AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and its companions, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications and AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications. Subsequently, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the states have established a goal that LRFD standards be incorporated in all new bridge designs after 2007. Interim Specifications are usually published in the middle of the calendar year, and a revised edition of this book is generally published every four years. The Interim Specifications have the same status as AASHTO standards, but are tentative revisions approved by at least two-thirds of the Subcommittee. These revisions are voted on by the AASHTO member departments prior to the publication of each new edition of this book and, if approved by at least two-thirds of the --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- v © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS members, they are included in the new edition as standards of the Association. AASHTO members are the 50 State Highway or Transportation Departments, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Each member has one vote. The U.S. Department of Transportation is a nonvoting member. Annual Interim Specifications are generally used by the states after their adoption by the Subcommittee. Orders for these annual Interim Specifications may be placed by visiting our web site, bookstore.transportation.org; calling the AASHTO Publication Sales Office toll free (within the U.S. and Canada), 1-800-231-3475; or mailing to P.O. Box 933538, Atlanta, GA 31193-3538. A free copy of the current publication catalog can be downloaded from our website or requested from the Publications Sales Office. Attention is also directed to the following publications prepared and published by the Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures: AASHTO Guide for Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements. 1998. AASHTO Guide Manual for Bridge Element Inspection. 2011. AASHTO Guide Specifications for Horizontally Curved Steel Girder Highway Bridges with Design Examples for I-Girder and Box-Girder Bridges. 2003. Archived. AASHTO Guide Specifications—Thermal Effects in Concrete Bridge Superstructures. 1989. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications. 2010. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specifications for GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks and Traffic Railings. 2009. AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications. 2007. Bridge Data Exchange (BDX) Technical Data Guide. 1995. Archived. Bridge Security Guidelines, 2011. Bridge Welding Code: AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5:2010, an American National Standard. 2010. Construction Handbook for Bridge Temporary Works. 1995. Guide Design Specifications for Bridge Temporary Works. 1995. Guide for Painting Steel Structures. 1997. Archived. Guide Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) of Highway Bridges. 2003. Archived but download available. Guide Specifications and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges. 2009. Guide Specifications for Alternate Load Factor Design Procedures for Steel Beam Bridges Using Braced Compact Sections. 1991. Archived. Guide Specifications for Aluminum Highway Bridges. 1991. Archived. Guide Specifications for Bridge Railings. 1989. Archived. Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges. 1999. Guide Specifications for Fatigue Evaluation of Existing Steel Bridges. 1990. Archived but download available. Guide Specifications for Highway Bridge Fabrication with HPS 70W (HPS 485W) Steel. 2003. Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design. 2010. Guide Specifications for Strength Design of Truss Bridges (Load Factor Design). 1986. Archived but download available. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- vi © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Guide Specifications for Strength Evaluation of Existing Steel and Concrete Bridges. 1989. Archived but download available. Guide Specifications for Structural Design of Sound Barriers. 1989. Archived but download available. Guide Specifications for the Design of Stress-Laminated Wood Decks. 1991. Archived but download available. Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems. 1993. Archived but download available. LRFD Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges. 2009. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation. 2011. Movable Bridge Inspection, Evaluation, and Maintenance Manual. 1998. Standard Specifications for Movable Highway Bridges. 1988. Archived but download available. Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. 2009. Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels—Civil Elements. 2010. Additional bridges and structures publications prepared and published by other AASHTO committees and task forces are as follows: AASHTO Maintenance Manual: The Maintenance and Management of Roadways and Bridges. 2007. Guide Specifications for Concrete Overlay of Pavements and Bridge Decks. 1990. Archived but download available. Guide Specifications for Polymer Concrete Bridge Deck Overlays. 1995. Archived but download available. Guide Specifications for Shotcrete Repair of Highway Bridges. 1998. Inspector’s Guide for Shotcrete Repair of Bridges. 1999. Manual for Corrosion Protection of Concrete Components in Bridges. 1992. Archived but download available. The following bridges and structures titles are the result of the AASHTO–NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration and are available for free download from the AASHTO web site, bookstore.transportation.org: Design Drawing Presentation Guidelines, G 1.2. 2003. Guidelines for Design Constructability, G 12.1. 2003. Guidelines for Design Details, G 1.4. 2006. Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis, G 13.1. 2011. Guide Specification for Application of Coating Systems with Zinc-Rich Primers to Steel Bridges, S 8.1. 2006. Recommendations for the Qualification of Structural Bolting Inspectors, G 4.2. 2006. Sample Owners Quality Assurance Manual, G 4.4. 2006. Shop Detail Drawing Presentation Guidelines, G 1.3. 2003. Shop Detail Drawing Review/Approval Guidelines, G1.1. 2000. Steel Bridge Bearing Design and Detailing Guidelines, 1st Edition, G 9.1. 2004. vii © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Guide Specifications for Cathodic Protection of Concrete Bridge Decks. 1994. Archived but download available. Steel Bridge Erection Guide Specification, S 10.1. 2007. Steel Bridge Fabrication Guide Specification, S 2.1. 2008. Steel Bridge Fabrication QC/QA Guide Specification, S 4.1. 2002. The following have served as chairmen of the Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures since its inception in 1921: Messrs. E. F. Kelley, who pioneered the work of the Subcommittee; Albin L. Gemeny; R. B. McMinn; Raymond Archiband; G. S. Paxson; E. M. Johnson; Ward Goodman; Charles Matlock; Joseph S. Jones; Sidney Poleynard; Jack Freidenrich; Henry W. Derthick; Robert C. Cassano; Clellon Loveall; James E. Siebels; David Pope; Tom Lulay; and Malcolm T. Kerley. The Subcommittee expresses its sincere appreciation of the work of these men and of those active members of the past, whose names, because of retirement, are no longer on the roll. The Subcommittee would also like to thank Mr. John M. Kulicki, Ph.D., and his associates at Modjeski and Masters for their valuable assistance in the preparation of the LRFD Specifications. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Suggestions for the improvement of the LRFD Specifications are welcomed, just as they were for the Standard Specifications before them. They should be sent to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, AASHTO, 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001. Inquiries as to intent or application of the specifications should be sent to the same address. viii © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS PREFACE AND ABBREVIATED TABLE OF CONTENTS The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Sixth Edition contains the following 15 sections and an index: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Introduction General Design and Location Features Loads and Load Factors Structural Analysis and Evaluation Concrete Structures Steel Structures Aluminum Structures Wood Structures Decks and Deck Systems Foundations Abutments, Piers, and Walls Buried Structures and Tunnel Liners Railings Joints and Bearings Design of Sound Barriers Index Detailed Tables of Contents precede each section. The last article of each section is a list of references displayed alphabetically by author. Please note that the AASHTO materials standards (starting with M or T) cited throughout the LRFD Specifications can be found in Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, adopted by the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials. The individual standards are also available as downloads on the AASHTO Bookstore, https://bookstore.transportation.org. Unless otherwise indicated, these citations refer to the current edition. ASTM materials specifications are also cited and have been updated to reflect ASTM’s revised coding system, e.g., spaces removed between the letter and number. ix © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figures, tables, and equations are denoted by their home article number and an extension, for example 1.2.3.4.5-1 wherever they are cited. In early editions, when they were referenced in their home article or its commentary, these objects were identified only by the extension. For example, in Article 1.2.3.4.5, Eq. 1.2.3.4.5-2 would simply have been called “Eq. 2.” The same convention applies to figures and tables. Starting with this edition, these objects are identified by their whole nomenclature throughout the text, even within their home articles. This change was to increase the speed and accuracy of electronic production (i.e., CDs and downloadable files) with regard to linking citations to objects. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS CHANGED AND DELETED ARTICLES, 2012 SUMMARY OF AFFECTED SECTIONS The revisions included in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Sixth Edition affect the following sections: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. General Design and Location Features Loads and Load Factors Structural Analysis and Evaluation Concrete Structures Steel Structures Aluminum Structures Decks and Deck Systems Foundations Abutments, Piers, and Walls Buried Structures and Tunnel Liners Railings Joints and Bearings Design of Sound Barriers SECTION 2 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 2 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: 2.5.2.6.3 Deleted Articles No Articles were deleted from Section 2. SECTION 3 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 3 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: 3.3.2 3.4.1 3.4.4 3.6.1.2.5 3.6.1.4.1 3.6.5.1 3.8.1.1 3.8.1.2.1 3.10.2.1 3.10.9.2 3.11.5.10 3.15 3.16 Deleted Articles No Articles were deleted from Section 3. SECTION 4 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 4 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: 4.2 4.6.1.1 4.6.1.2.1 4.6.1.2.2 4.6.1.2.3 4.6.2.1.8 4.6.2.2.3c 4.6.2.5 4.6.2.6.4 4.6.3.2.4 4.7.6 4.9 xi © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Deleted Articles No Articles were deleted from Section 4. SECTION 5 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 5 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: 5.2 5.3 5.4.2.6 5.5.3.1 5.5.4.2.1 5.7.3.3.2 5.8.1.5 5.9 5.9.1.1 5.9.1.6 5.9.4.2.2 5.10.4.3 5.10.4.3.1 5.10.4.3.1a 5.10.4.3.1b 5.10.4.3.1c 5.10.4.3.1d 5.10.4.3.2 5.10.5 5.10.9.3.7 5.13.2.2 5.14.2.3.2 5.14.2.3.4a 5.14.2.3.4b 5.15 Deleted Articles 5.9.4.3 SECTION 6 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 6 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: 6.3 6.5.4.2 6.5.5 6.6.1.2.1 6.6.1.2.3 6.6.1.2.4 6.6.1.2.5 6.6.1.3.1 6.6.1.3.2 6.7.3 6.7.4.1 6.9.4.2.2 6.9.4.4 6.10.1.7 6.10.6.2.3 6.10.10 6.10.11.1.3 6.11.1.1 6.11.5 6.11.8.2.2 6.11.11.2 6.12.2.2.1 6.14.3 6.14.3.1 6.14.3.3 6.14.3.4 6.14.3.2.1 6.14.3.2.2 6.14.3.2.3 6.14.4.2 6.16 6.16.1 6.16.2 6.16.3 6.16.4 6.16.4.1 6.16.4.2 6.16.4.3 6.16.4.4 6.17 Deleted Articles 6.14.3.4 6.14.3.5 SECTION 7 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 7 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: 7.6.1.2.1 Deleted Articles No Articles were deleted from Section 7. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- xii © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 9 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 9 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: 9.8.3.4 9.8.3.4.1 9.8.3.4.2 9.8.3.4.3 9.8.3.4.3a 9.8.3.4.3b 9.8.3.4.3c 9.8.3.4.4 9.8.3.6.2 9.8.3.6.2a 9.8.3.6.2b 9.8.3.6.2c 9.8.3.6.2d 9.8.3.7.1 9.8.3.7.2 9.8.3.7.3 9.8.3.7.4 9.10 Deleted Articles 9.8.3.5 9.8.3.5.1 9.8.3.5.2 9.8.3.5.3 SECTION 10 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 10 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: 10.6.3.3 10.8.3.6.3 Deleted Articles No Articles were deleted from Section 10. SECTION 11 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 11 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 11.3.1 11.4.1 11.5.3 11.5.4 11.5.4.1 11.5.4.2 11.5.5 11.5.6 11.5.7 11.5.8 11.6.3.3 11.6.5 11.6.5.1 11.6.5.2 11.6.5.2.1 11.6.5.2.2 11.6.5.3 11.6.5.4 11.6.5.5 11.6.5.6 11.8.1 11.8.6 11.8.6.1 11.8.6.2 11.8.6.3 11.8.6.4 11.9.6 11.10.1 11.10.2.1 11.10.4.2 11.10.6.3.2 11.10.6.4.2a 11.10.6.4.2b 11.10.6.4.3b 11.10.6.4.4b 11.10.7 11.10.7.1 11.10.7.2 11.10.7.3 11.10.7.4 11.10.10.1 11.11.6 11.12 A11 Deleted Articles No Articles were deleted from Section 11. xiii © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS A11.1 A11.2 A11.3 A11.3.1 A11.3.2 A11.3.3 A11.4 A11.5 A11.6 SECTION 12 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 12 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: 12.3 12.5.5 12.6.6.3 12.7.2.2 12.7.2.5 12.8.9.1 12.8.9.2.2 12.8.9.3.1 12.8.9.3.2 12.8.9.4 12.8.9.5 12.14.5.6 Deleted Articles No Articles were deleted from Section 12. SECTION 13 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 13 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: A13.4.3.1 Deleted Articles No Articles were deleted from Section 13. SECTION 14 REVISIONS Changed Articles The following Articles in Section 14 contain changes or additions to the specifications, the commentary, or both: 14.3 14.6.3.2 14.7.5.3.3 14.7.5.3.6 14.7.6.1 14.7.6.3.2 14.7.6.3.3 14.7.6.3.5a 14.7.6.3.5b 14.7.6.3.6 Deleted Articles 14.7.6.3.5d SECTION 15 Section 15 is completely new. AASHTO Publications Staff January 2012 xiv --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1.1—SCOPE OF THE SPECIFICATIONS .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2—DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3—DESIGN PHILOSOPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.1—General ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.2—Limit States ................................................................................................................................................ 1-3 1.3.2.1—General............................................................................................................................................. 1-3 1.3.2.2—Service Limit State........................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.2.3—Fatigue and Fracture Limit State ...................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.2.4—Strength Limit State ......................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.2.5—Extreme Event Limit States ............................................................................................................. 1-5 1.3.3—Ductility ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.4—Redundancy ............................................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.3.5—Operational Importance.............................................................................................................................. 1-7 1.4—REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................... 1-7 1-i --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 1.1—SCOPE OF THE SPECIFICATIONS C1.1 The provisions of these Specifications are intended for the design, evaluation, and rehabilitation of both fixed and movable highway bridges. Mechanical, electrical, and special vehicular and pedestrian safety aspects of movable bridges, however, are not covered. Provisions are not included for bridges used solely for railway, rail-transit, or public utilities. For bridges not fully covered herein, the provisions of these Specifications may be applied, as augmented with additional design criteria where required. These Specifications are not intended to supplant proper training or the exercise of judgment by the Designer, and state only the minimum requirements necessary to provide for public safety. The Owner or the Designer may require the sophistication of design or the quality of materials and construction to be higher than the minimum requirements. The concepts of safety through redundancy and ductility and of protection against scour and collision are emphasized. The design provisions of these Specifications employ the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methodology. The factors have been developed from the theory of reliability based on current statistical knowledge of loads and structural performance. Methods of analysis other than those included in previous Specifications and the modeling techniques inherent in them are included, and their use is encouraged. Seismic design shall be in accordance with either the provisions in these Specifications or those given in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. The commentary is not intended to provide a complete historical background concerning the development of these or previous Specifications, nor is it intended to provide a detailed summary of the studies and research data reviewed in formulating the provisions of the Specifications. However, references to some of the research data are provided for those who wish to study the background material in depth. The commentary directs attention to other documents that provide suggestions for carrying out the requirements and intent of these Specifications. However, those documents and this commentary are not intended to be a part of these Specifications. Construction specifications consistent with these design specifications are the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications. Unless otherwise specified, the Materials Specifications referenced herein are the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. The term “notional” is often used in these Specifications to indicate an idealization of a physical phenomenon, as in “notional load” or “notional resistance.” Use of this term strengthens the separation of an engineer's “notion” or perception of the physical world in the context of design from the physical reality itself. The term “shall” denotes a requirement for compliance with these Specifications. The term “should” indicates a strong preference for a given criterion. The term “may” indicates a criterion that is usable, but other local and suitably documented, verified, and approved criterion may also be used in a manner consistent with the LRFD approach to bridge design. 1-1 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 1-2 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 1.2—DEFINITIONS Bridge—Any structure having an opening not less than 20.0 ft that forms part of a highway or that is located over or under a highway. Collapse—A major change in the geometry of the bridge rendering it unfit for use. Component—Either a discrete element of the bridge or a combination of elements requiring individual design consideration. Design—Proportioning and detailing the components and connections of a bridge. Ductility—Property of a component or connection that allows inelastic response. Engineer—Person responsible for the design of the bridge and/or review of design-related field submittals such as erection plans. Evaluation—Determination of load-carrying capacity of an existing bridge. Extreme Event Limit States—Limit states relating to events such as earthquakes, ice load, and vehicle and vessel collision, with return periods in excess of the design life of the bridge. Factored Load—The nominal loads multiplied by the appropriate load factors specified for the load combination under consideration. Factored Resistance—The nominal resistance multiplied by a resistance factor. Fixed Bridge—A bridge with a fixed vehicular or navigational clearance. Force Effect—A deformation, stress, or stress resultant (i.e., axial force, shear force, torsional, or flexural moment) caused by applied loads, imposed deformations, or volumetric changes. Limit State—A condition beyond which the bridge or component ceases to satisfy the provisions for which it was designed. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)—A reliability-based design methodology in which force effects caused by factored loads are not permitted to exceed the factored resistance of the components. Load Factor—A statistically-based multiplier applied to force effects accounting primarily for the variability of loads, the lack of accuracy in analysis, and the probability of simultaneous occurrence of different loads, but also related to the statistics of the resistance through the calibration process. Load Modifier—A factor accounting for ductility, redundancy, and the operational classification of the bridge. Model—An idealization of a structure for the purpose of analysis. Movable Bridge—A bridge with a variable vehicular or navigational clearance. Multiple-Load-Path Structure—A structure capable of supporting the specified loads following loss of a main loadcarrying component or connection. Nominal Resistance—Resistance of a component or connection to force effects, as indicated by the dimensions specified in the contract documents and by permissible stresses, deformations, or specified strength of materials. Owner—Person or agency having jurisdiction over the bridge. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Design Life—Period of time on which the statistical derivation of transient loads is based: 75 yr for these Specifications. SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-3 Regular Service—Condition excluding the presence of special permit vehicles, wind exceeding 55 mph, and extreme events, including scour. Rehabilitation—A process in which the resistance of the bridge is either restored or increased. Resistance Factor—A statistically-based multiplier applied to nominal resistance accounting primarily for variability of material properties, structural dimensions and workmanship, and uncertainty in the prediction of resistance, but also related to the statistics of the loads through the calibration process. Service Life—The period of time that the bridge is expected to be in operation. Service Limit States—Limit states relating to stress, deformation, and cracking under regular operating conditions. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Strength Limit States—Limit states relating to strength and stability during the design life. 1.3—DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 1.3.1—General C1.3.1 Bridges shall be designed for specified limit states to achieve the objectives of constructibility, safety, and serviceability, with due regard to issues of inspectability, economy, and aesthetics, as specified in Article 2.5. Regardless of the type of analysis used, Eq. 1.3.2.1-1 shall be satisfied for all specified force effects and combinations thereof. The limit states specified herein are intended to provide for a buildable, serviceable bridge, capable of safely carrying design loads for a specified lifetime. The resistance of components and connections is determined, in many cases, on the basis of inelastic behavior, although the force effects are determined by using elastic analysis. This inconsistency is common to most current bridge specifications as a result of incomplete knowledge of inelastic structural action. 1.3.2—Limit States 1.3.2.1—General C1.3.2.1 Each component and connection shall satisfy Eq. 1.3.2.1-1 for each limit state, unless otherwise specified. For service and extreme event limit states, resistance factors shall be taken as 1.0, except for bolts, for which the provisions of Article 6.5.5 shall apply, and for concrete columns in Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4, for which the provisions of Articles 5.10.11.3 and 5.10.11.4.1b shall apply. All limit states shall be considered of equal importance.  ηi γ i Qi ≤ φRn = Rr (1.3.2.1-1) in which: For loads for which a maximum value of γi is appropriate: ηi = ηD ηR ηI ≥ 0.95 (1.3.2.1-2) For loads for which a minimum value of γi is appropriate: ηi = 1 ≤ 1.0 η D ηR ηI Eq. 1.3.2.1-1 is the basis of LRFD methodology. Assigning resistance factor φ = 1.0 to all nonstrength limit states is a default, and may be over-ridden by provisions in other Sections. Ductility, redundancy, and operational classification are considered in the load modifier η. Whereas the first two directly relate to physical strength, the last concerns the consequences of the bridge being out of service. The grouping of these aspects on the load side of Eq. 1.3.2.1-1 is, therefore, arbitrary. However, it constitutes a first effort at codification. In the absence of more precise information, each effect, except that for fatigue and fracture, is estimated as ±5 percent, accumulated geometrically, a clearly subjective approach. With time, improved quantification of ductility, redundancy, and operational classification, and their interaction with system reliability, may be attained, possibly leading to a rearrangement of Eq. 1.3.2.1-1, in which these effects may appear on either side of the equation or on both sides. (1.3.2.1-3) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 1-4 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS where: γi = load factor: a statistically based multiplier applied to force effects φ = resistance factor: a statistically based multiplier applied to nominal resistance, as specified in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 ηi = load modifier: a factor relating to ductility, redundancy, and operational classification ηD = a factor relating to ductility, as specified in Article 1.3.3 ηR = a factor relating to redundancy as specified in Article 1.3.4 ηI a factor relating to operational classification as specified in Article 1.3.5 = force effect Rn = nominal resistance Rr = factored resistance: φRn --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Qi = 1.3.2.2—Service Limit State The service limit state shall be taken as restrictions on stress, deformation, and crack width under regular service conditions. 1.3.2.3—Fatigue and Fracture Limit State The fatigue limit state shall be taken as restrictions on stress range as a result of a single design truck occurring at the number of expected stress range cycles. The fracture limit state shall be taken as a set of material toughness requirements of the AASHTO Materials Specifications. 1.3.2.4—Strength Limit State Strength limit state shall be taken to ensure that strength and stability, both local and global, are provided to resist the specified statistically significant load combinations that a bridge is expected to experience in its design life. The influence of η on the girder reliability index, β, can be estimated by observing its effect on the minimum values of β calculated in a database of girder-type bridges. Cellular structures and foundations were not a part of the database; only individual member reliability was considered. For discussion purposes, the girder bridge data used in the calibration of these Specifications was modified by multiplying the total factored loads by η = 0.95, 1.0, 1.05, and 1.10. The resulting minimum values of β for 95 combinations of span, spacing, and type of construction were determined to be approximately 3.0, 3.5, 3.8, and 4.0, respectively. In other words, using η > 1.0 relates to a β higher than 3.5. A further approximate representation of the effect of η values can be obtained by considering the percent of random normal data less than or equal to the mean value plus λ σ, where λ is a multiplier, and σ is the standard deviation of the data. If λ is taken as 3.0, 3.5, 3.8, and 4.0, the percent of values less than or equal to the mean value plus λ σ would be about 99.865 percent, 99.977 percent, 99.993 percent, and 99.997 percent, respectively. The Strength I Limit State in the AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications has been calibrated for a target reliability index of 3.5 with a corresponding probability of exceedance of 2.0E-04 during the 75-yr design life of the bridge. This 75-yr reliability is equivalent to an annual probability of exceedance of 2.7E-06 with a corresponding annual target reliability index of 4.6. Similar calibration efforts for the Service Limit States are underway. Return periods for extreme events are often based on annual probability of exceedance and caution must be used when comparing reliability indices of various limit states. C1.3.2.2 The service limit state provides certain experiencerelated provisions that cannot always be derived solely from strength or statistical considerations. C1.3.2.3 The fatigue limit state is intended to limit crack growth under repetitive loads to prevent fracture during the design life of the bridge. C1.3.2.4 The strength limit state considers stability or yielding of each structural element. If the resistance of any element, including splices and connections, is exceeded, it is assumed that the bridge resistance has been exceeded. In fact, in multigirder cross-sections there is significant elastic reserve capacity in almost all such bridges beyond such a load level. The live load cannot be positioned to maximize the force effects on all parts of the cross-section © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-5 simultaneously. Thus, the flexural resistance of the bridge cross-section typically exceeds the resistance required for the total live load that can be applied in the number of lanes available. Extensive distress and structural damage may occur under strength limit state, but overall structural integrity is expected to be maintained. The extreme event limit state shall be taken to ensure the structural survival of a bridge during a major earthquake or flood, or when collided by a vessel, vehicle, or ice flow, possibly under scoured conditions. Extreme event limit states are considered to be unique occurrences whose return period may be significantly greater than the design life of the bridge. 1.3.3—Ductility C1.3.3 The structural system of a bridge shall be proportioned and detailed to ensure the development of significant and visible inelastic deformations at the strength and extreme event limit states before failure. Energy-dissipating devices may be substituted for conventional ductile earthquake resisting systems and the associated methodology addressed in these Specifications or in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Design of Bridges. For the strength limit state: The response of structural components or connections beyond the elastic limit can be characterized by either brittle or ductile behavior. Brittle behavior is undesirable because it implies the sudden loss of load-carrying capacity immediately when the elastic limit is exceeded. Ductile behavior is characterized by significant inelastic deformations before any loss of load-carrying capacity occurs. Ductile behavior provides warning of structural failure by large inelastic deformations. Under repeated seismic loading, large reversed cycles of inelastic deformation dissipate energy and have a beneficial effect on structural survival. If, by means of confinement or other measures, a structural component or connection made of brittle materials can sustain inelastic deformations without significant loss of load-carrying capacity, this component can be considered ductile. Such ductile performance shall be verified by testing. In order to achieve adequate inelastic behavior the system should have a sufficient number of ductile members and either: ηD ≥ 1.05 for nonductile components and connections = 1.00 for conventional designs and details complying with these Specifications ≥ 0.95 for components and connections for which additional ductility-enhancing measures have been specified beyond those required by these Specifications For all other limit states: ηD = 1.00 • Joints and connections that are also ductile and can provide energy dissipation without loss of capacity; or • Joints and connections that have sufficient excess strength so as to assure that the inelastic response occurs at the locations designed to provide ductile, energy absorbing response. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- C1.3.2.5 1.3.2.5—Extreme Event Limit States 1-6 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Statically ductile, but dynamically nonductile response characteristics should be avoided. Examples of this behavior are shear and bond failures in concrete members and loss of composite action in flexural components. Past experience indicates that typical components designed in accordance with these provisions generally exhibit adequate ductility. Connection and joints require special attention to detailing and the provision of load paths. The Owner may specify a minimum ductility factor as an assurance that ductile failure modes will be obtained. The factor may be defined as: μ= Δu Δy (C1.3.3-1) where: Δu = deformation at ultimate Δy = deformation at the elastic limit The ductility capacity of structural components or connections may either be established by full- or largescale testing or with analytical models based on documented material behavior. The ductility capacity for a structural system may be determined by integrating local deformations over the entire structural system. The special requirements for energy dissipating devices are imposed because of the rigorous demands placed on these components. 1.3.4—Redundancy C1.3.4 Multiple-load-path and continuous structures should be used unless there are compelling reasons not to use them. For the strength limit state: For each load combination and limit state under consideration, member redundancy classification (redundant or nonredundant) should be based upon the member contribution to the bridge safety. Several redundancy measures have been proposed (Frangopol and Nakib, 1991). Single-cell boxes and single-column bents may be considered nonredundant at the Owner’s discretion. For prestressed concrete boxes, the number of tendons in each web should be taken into consideration. For steel crosssections and fracture-critical considerations, see Section 6. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation (2008) defines bridge redundancy as “the capability of a bridge structural system to carry loads after damage to or the failure of one or more of its members.” System factors are provided for post-tensioned segmental concrete box girder bridges in Appendix E of the Guide Manual. System reliability encompasses redundancy by considering the system of interconnected components and members. Rupture or yielding of an individual component may or may not mean collapse or failure of the whole structure or system (Nowak, 2000). Reliability indices for ηR ≥ 1.05 for nonredundant members = 1.00 for conventional levels of redundancy, foundation elements where φ already accounts for redundancy as specified in Article 10.5 ≥ 0.95 for exceptional levels of redundancy beyond girder continuity and a torsionally-closed crosssection --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,` © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-7 entire systems are a subject of ongoing research and are anticipated to encompass ductility, redundancy, and member correlation. For all other limit states: ηR = 1.00 1.3.5—Operational Importance C1.3.5 This Article shall apply to the strength and extreme event limit states only. The Owner may declare a bridge or any structural component and connection thereof to be of operational priority. Such classification should be done by personnel responsible for the affected transportation network and knowledgeable of its operational needs. The definition of operational priority may differ from Owner to Owner and network to network. Guidelines for classifying critical or essential bridges are as follows: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- For the strength limit state: ηI ≥ 1.05 for critical or essential bridges = 1.00 for typical bridges ≥ 0.95 for relatively less important bridges. • Bridges that are required to be open to all traffic once inspected after the design event and are usable by emergency vehicles and for security, defense, economic, or secondary life safety purposes immediately after the design event. • Bridges that should, as a minimum, be open to emergency vehicles and for security, defense, or economic purposes after the design event, and open to all traffic within days after that event. Owner-classified bridges may use a value for η < 1.0 based on ADTT, span length, available detour length, or other rationale to use less stringent criteria. For all other limit states: ηI = 1.00 1.4—REFERENCES AASHTO. 2010. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, Third Edition with Interims, LRFDCONS-3-M. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2011. AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, Second Edition, LRFDSEIS-2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2011. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, Second Edition with Interim, MBE-2-M. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2011. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 31th Edition, HM-31. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Frangopol, D. M., and R. Nakib. 1991. “Redundancy in Highway Bridges.” Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 45–50. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 1-8 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Mertz, D. 2009. “Quantification of Structural Safety of Highway Bridges” (white paper), Annual Probability of Failure. Internal communication. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Nowak, A., and K. R. Collins. 2000. Reliability of Structures. McGraw–Hill Companies, Inc., New York, NY. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 2.1—SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2—DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3—LOCATION FEATURES .................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1—Route Location ........................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1.1—General............................................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3.1.2—Waterway and Floodplain Crossings ............................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.2—Bridge Site Arrangement ........................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.2.1—General............................................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.2.2—Traffic Safety ................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.2.2.1—Protection of Structures ......................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.2.2.2—Protection of Users ................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.2.2.3—Geometric Standards .............................................................................................................. 2-5 2.3.2.2.4—Road Surfaces ........................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.2.2.5—Vessel Collisions ................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.3—Clearances .................................................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.3.3.1—Navigational ..................................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.3.2—Highway Vertical ............................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.3.3.3—Highway Horizontal ......................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.3.4—Railroad Overpass ............................................................................................................................ 2-6 2.3.4—Environment ............................................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.4—FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.4.1—General ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.4.2—Topographic Studies .................................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.5—DESIGN OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.5.1—Safety ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.5.2—Serviceability ............................................................................................................................................. 2-8 2.5.2.1—Durability ......................................................................................................................................... 2-8 2.5.2.1.1—Materials ................................................................................................................................ 2-8 2.5.2.1.2—Self-Protecting Measures ....................................................................................................... 2-8 2.5.2.2—Inspectability.................................................................................................................................... 2-9 2.5.2.3—Maintainability ................................................................................................................................. 2-9 2.5.2.4—Rideability........................................................................................................................................ 2-9 2.5.2.5—Utilities ............................................................................................................................................ 2-9 2.5.2.6—Deformations ................................................................................................................................. 2-10 2.5.2.6.1—General ................................................................................................................................ 2-10 2.5.2.6.2—Criteria for Deflection.......................................................................................................... 2-11 2.5.2.6.3—Optional Criteria for Span-to-Depth Ratios ......................................................................... 2-13 2.5.2.7—Consideration of Future Widening ................................................................................................. 2-14 2.5.2.7.1—Exterior Beams on Multibeam Bridges ................................................................................ 2-14 2-i --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 2-ii AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 2.5.2.7.2—Substructure ......................................................................................................................... 2-14 2.5.3—Constructibility .........................................................................................................................................2-14 2.5.4—Economy .................................................................................................................................................. 2-15 2.5.4.1—General ...........................................................................................................................................2-15 2.5.4.2—Alternative Plans ............................................................................................................................ 2-15 2.5.5—Bridge Aesthetics .....................................................................................................................................2-16 2.6—HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS ............................................................................................................... 2-17 2.6.1—General ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-17 2.6.2—Site Data ................................................................................................................................................... 2-18 2.6.3—Hydrologic Analysis .................................................................................................................................2-18 2.6.4—Hydraulic Analysis ...................................................................................................................................2-19 2.6.4.1—General ...........................................................................................................................................2-19 2.6.4.2—Stream Stability .............................................................................................................................. 2-19 2.6.4.3—Bridge Waterway ........................................................................................................................... 2-20 2.6.4.4—Bridge Foundations ........................................................................................................................ 2-20 2.6.4.4.1—General.................................................................................................................................2-20 2.6.4.4.2—Bridge Scour ........................................................................................................................ 2-21 2.6.4.5—Roadway Approaches to Bridge .....................................................................................................2-23 2.6.5—Culvert Location, Length, and Waterway Area ........................................................................................ 2-23 2.6.6—Roadway Drainage ...................................................................................................................................2-24 2.6.6.1—General ...........................................................................................................................................2-24 2.6.6.2—Design Storm..................................................................................................................................2-24 2.6.6.3—Type, Size, and Number of Drains .................................................................................................2-24 2.6.6.4—Discharge from Deck Drains ..........................................................................................................2-25 2.6.6.5—Drainage of Structures.................................................................................................................... 2-25 2.7—BRIDGE SECURITY ........................................................................................................................................2-25 2.7.1—General ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-25 2.7.2—Design Demand ........................................................................................................................................2-26 2.8—REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 2-26 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 2 2.1—SCOPE C2.1 Minimum requirements are provided for clearances, environmental protection, aesthetics, geological studies, economy, rideability, durability, constructibility, inspectability, and maintainability. Minimum requirements for traffic safety are referenced. Minimum requirements for drainage facilities and selfprotecting measures against water, ice, and water-borne salts are included. In recognition that many bridge failures have been caused by scour, hydrology and hydraulics are covered in detail. 2 2.2—DEFINITIONS This Section is intended to provide the Designer with sufficient information to determine the configuration and overall dimensions of a bridge. Aggradation—A general and progressive buildup or raising of the longitudinal profile of the channel bed as a result of sediment deposition. Check Flood for Bridge Scour—Check flood for scour. The flood resulting from storm, storm surge, and/or tide having a flow rate in excess of the design flood for scour, but in no case a flood with a recurrence interval exceeding the typically used 500 yr. The check flood for bridge scour is used in the investigation and assessment of a bridge foundation to determine whether the foundation can withstand that flow and its associated scour and remain stable with no reserve. See also superflood. Clear Zone—An unobstructed, relatively flat area beyond the edge of the traveled way for the recovery of errant vehicles. The traveled way does not include shoulders or auxiliary lanes. Clearance—An unobstructed horizontal or vertical space. Degradation—A general and progressive lowering of the longitudinal profile of the channel bed as a result of long-term erosion. Design Discharge—Maximum flow of water a bridge is expected to accommodate without exceeding the adopted design constraints. Design Flood for Bridge Scour—The flood flow equal to or less than the 100-yr flood that creates the deepest scour at bridge foundations. The highway or bridge may be inundated at the stage of the design flood for bridge scour. The worstcase scour condition may occur for the overtopping flood as a result of the potential for pressure flow. Design Flood for Waterway Opening—The peak discharge, volume, stage, or wave crest elevation and its associated probability of exceedence that are selected for the design of a highway or bridge over a watercourse or floodplain. By definition, the highway or bridge will not be inundated at the stage of the design flood for the waterway opening. Detention Basin—A storm water management facility that impounds runoff and temporarily discharges it through a hydraulic outlet structure to a downstream conveyance system. Drip Groove—Linear depression in the bottom of components to cause water flowing on the surface to drop. Five-Hundred-Year Flood—The flood due to storm and/or tide having a 0.2 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. General or Contraction Scour—Scour in a channel or on a floodplain that is not localized at a pier or other obstruction to flow. In a channel, general/contraction scour usually affects all or most of the channel width and is typically caused by a contraction of the flow. Hydraulics—The science concerned with the behavior and flow of liquids, especially in pipes and channels. 2-1 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2-2 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Hydrology—The science concerned with the occurrence, distribution, and circulation of water on the earth, including precipitation, runoff, and groundwater. Local Scour—Scour in a channel or on a floodplain that is localized at a pier, abutment, or other obstruction to flow. Mixed Population Flood—Flood flows derived from two or more causative factors, e.g., a spring tide driven by hurricanegenerated onshore winds or rainfall on a snowpack. One-Hundred-Year Flood—The flood due to storm and/or tide having a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Overtopping Flood—The flood flow that, if exceeded, results in flow over a highway or bridge, over a watershed divide, or through structures provided for emergency relief. The worst-case scour condition may be caused by the overtopping flood. Relief Bridge—An opening in an embankment on a floodplain to permit passage of overbank flow. River Training Structure—Any configuration constructed in a stream or placed on, adjacent to, or in the vicinity of a streambank to deflect current, induce sediment deposition, induce scour, or in some other way alter the flow and sediment regimens of the stream. Scupper—A device to drain water through the deck. Sidewalk Width—Unobstructed space for exclusive pedestrian use between barriers or between a curb and a barrier. Stable Channel—A condition that exists when a stream has a bed slope and cross-section that allows its channel to transport the water and sediment delivered from the upstream watershed without significant degradation, aggradation, or bank erosion. Stream Geomorphology—The study of a stream and its floodplain with regard to its land forms, the general configuration of its surface, and the changes that take place due to erosion and the buildup of erosional debris. Superelevation—A tilting of the roadway surface to partially counterbalance the centrifugal forces on vehicles on horizontal curves. Superflood—Any flood or tidal flow with a flow rate greater than that of the 100-yr flood but not greater than a 500-yr flood. Tide—The periodic rise and fall of the earth s ocean that results from the effect of the moon and sun acting on a rotating earth. Watershed—An area confined by drainage divides, and often having only one outlet for discharge; the total drainage area contributing runoff to a single point. Waterway—Any stream, river, pond, lake, or ocean. Waterway Opening—Width or area of bridge opening at a specified stage, and measured normal to principal direction of flow. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Spring Tide—A tide of increased range that occurs about every two weeks when the moon is full or new. SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2-3 2.3—LOCATION FEATURES 2.3.1—Route Location 2.3.1.1—General The choice of location of bridges shall be supported by analyses of alternatives with consideration given to economic, engineering, social, and environmental concerns as well as costs of maintenance and inspection associated with the structures and with the relative importance of the above-noted concerns. Attention, commensurate with the risk involved, shall be directed toward providing for favorable bridge locations that: Fit the conditions created by the obstacle being crossed; Facilitate practical cost effective design, construction, operation, inspection and maintenance; Provide for the desired level of traffic service and safety; and Minimize adverse highway impacts. 2.3.1.2—Waterway and Floodplain Crossings Waterway crossings shall be located with regard to initial capital costs of construction and the optimization of total costs, including river channel training works and the maintenance measures necessary to reduce erosion. Studies of alternative crossing locations should include assessments of: The hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of the waterway and its floodplain, including channel stability, flood history, and, in estuarine crossings, tidal ranges and cycles; The effect of the proposed bridge on flood flow patterns and the resulting scour potential at bridge foundations; The potential for creating new or augmenting existing flood hazards; and C2.3.1.2 Detailed guidance on procedures for evaluating the location of bridges and their approaches on floodplains is contained in Federal Regulations and the Planning and Location Chapter of the AASHTO Model Drainage Manual (see Commentary on Article 2.6.1). Engineers with knowledge and experience in applying the guidance and procedures in the AASHTO Model Drainage Manual should be involved in location decisions. It is generally safer and more cost effective to avoid hydraulic problems through the selection of favorable crossing locations than to attempt to minimize the problems at a later time in the project development process through design measures. Experience at existing bridges should be part of the calibration or verification of hydraulic models, if possible. Evaluation of the performance of existing bridges during past floods is often helpful in selecting the type, size, and location of new bridges. Environmental impacts on the waterway and its floodplain. Bridges and their approaches on floodplains should be located and designed with regard to the goals and objectives of floodplain management, including: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Prevention of uneconomic, hazardous, or incompatible use and development of floodplains; © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 2-4 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Avoidance of significant transverse and longitudinal encroachments, where practicable; Minimization of adverse highway impacts and mitigation of unavoidable impacts, where practicable; Consistency with the intent of the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program, where applicable; Long-term aggradation or degradation; and Commitments approvals. made to obtain environmental 2.3.2—Bridge Site Arrangement 2.3.2.1—General C2.3.2.1 The location and the alignment of the bridge should be selected to satisfy both on-bridge and under-bridge traffic requirements. Consideration should be given to possible future variations in alignment or width of the waterway, highway, or railway spanned by the bridge. Where appropriate, consideration should be given to future addition of mass-transit facilities or bridge widening. Although the location of a bridge structure over a waterway is usually determined by other considerations than the hazards of vessel collision, the following preferences should be considered where possible and practical: Locating the bridge away from bends in the navigation channel. The distance to the bridge should be such that vessels can line up before passing the bridge, usually eight times the length of the vessel. This distance should be increased further where high currents and winds are prevalent at the site. Crossing the navigation channel near right angles and symmetrically with respect to the navigation channel. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Providing an adequate distance from locations with congested navigation, vessel berthing maneuvers or other navigation problems. Locating the bridge where the waterway is shallow or narrow and the bridge piers could be located out of vessel reach. 2.3.2.2—Traffic Safety 2.3.2.2.1—Protection of Structures C2.3.2.2.1 Consideration shall be given to safe passage of vehicles on or under a bridge. The hazard to errant vehicles within the clear zone should be minimized by locating obstacles at a safe distance from the travel lanes. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES Pier columns or walls for grade separation structures should be located in conformance with the clear zone concept as contained in Chapter 3 of the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, 1996. Where the practical limits of structure costs, type of structure, volume and design speed of through traffic, span arrangement, skew, and terrain make conformance with the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide impractical, the pier or wall should be protected by the use of guardrail or other barrier devices. The guardrail or other device should, if practical, be independently supported, with its roadway face at least 2.0 ft. from the face of pier or abutment, unless a rigid barrier is provided. The face of the guardrail or other device should be at least 2.0 ft. outside the normal shoulder line. 2.3.2.2.2—Protection of Users Railings shall be provided along the edges of structures conforming to the requirements of Section 13. All protective structures shall have adequate surface features and transitions to safely redirect errant traffic. In the case of movable bridges, warning signs, lights, signal bells, gates, barriers, and other safety devices shall be provided for the protection of pedestrian, cyclists, and vehicular traffic. These shall be designed to operate before the opening of the movable span and to remain operational until the span has been completely closed. The devices shall conform to the requirements for ―Traffic Control at Movable Bridges,‖ in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or as shown on plans. Where specified by the Owner, sidewalks shall be protected by barriers. 2-5 The intent of providing structurally independent barriers is to prevent transmission of force effects from the barrier to the structure to be protected. C2.3.2.2.2 Protective structures include those that provide a safe and controlled separation of traffic on multimodal facilities using the same right-of-way. Special conditions, such as curved alignment, impeded visibility, etc., may justify barrier protection, even with low design velocities. 2.3.2.2.3—Geometric Standards Requirements of the AASHTO publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets shall either be satisfied or exceptions thereto shall be justified and documented. Width of shoulders and geometry of traffic barriers shall meet the specifications of the Owner. 2.3.2.2.4—Road Surfaces Road surfaces on a bridge shall be given antiskid characteristics, crown, drainage, and superelevation in accordance with A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets or local requirements. 2.3.2.2.5—Vessel Collisions --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Bridge structures shall either be protected against vessel collision forces by fenders, dikes, or dolphins as specified in Article 3.14.15, or shall be designed to withstand collision force effects as specified in Article 3.14.14. C2.3.2.2.5 The need for dolphin and fender systems can be eliminated at some bridges by judicious placement of bridge piers. Guidance on use of dolphin and fender systems is included in the AASHTO Highway Drainage Guidelines, Volume 7; Hydraulic Analyses for the Location and Design of Bridges; and the AASHTO Guide Specification and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 2-6 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 2.3.3—Clearances 2.3.3.1—Navigational C2.3.3.1 Permits for construction of a bridge over navigable waterways shall be obtained from the U.S. Coast Guard and/or other agencies having jurisdiction. Navigational clearances, both vertical and horizontal, shall be established in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard. 2.3.3.2—Highway Vertical The vertical clearance of highway structures shall be in conformance with the AASHTO publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for the Functional Classification of the Highway or exceptions thereto shall be justified. Possible reduction of vertical clearance, due to settlement of an overpass structure, shall be investigated. If the expected settlement exceeds 1.0 in., it shall be added to the specified clearance. The vertical clearance to sign supports and pedestrian overpasses should be 1.0 ft. greater than the highway structure clearance, and the vertical clearance from the roadway to the overhead cross bracing of through-truss structures should not be less than 17.5 ft. 2.3.3.3—Highway Horizontal --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The bridge width shall not be less than that of the approach roadway section, including shoulders or curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Horizontal clearance under a bridge should meet the requirements of Article 2.3.2.2.1. No object on or under a bridge, other than a barrier, should be located closer than 4.0 ft. to the edge of a designated traffic lane. The inside face of a barrier should not be closer than 2.0 ft. to either the face of the object or the edge of a designated traffic lane. 2.3.3.4—Railroad Overpass Structures designed to pass over a railroad shall be in accordance with standards established and used by the affected railroad in its normal practice. These overpass structures shall comply with applicable federal, state, county, and municipal laws. Regulations, codes, and standards should, as a minimum, meet the specifications and design standards of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA), the Association of American Railroads, and AASHTO. Where bridge permits are required, early coordination should be initiated with the U.S. Coast Guard to evaluate the needs of navigation and the corresponding location and design requirements for the bridge. Procedures for addressing navigational requirements for bridges, including coordination with the Coast Guard, are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, 23 CFR, Part 650, Subpart H, ―Navigational Clearances for Bridges,‖ and 33 U.S.C. 401, 491, 511, et seq. C2.3.3.2 The specified minimum clearance should include 6.0 in. for possible future overlays. If overlays are not contemplated by the Owner, this requirement may be nullified. Sign supports, pedestrian bridges, and overhead cross bracings require the higher clearance because of their lesser resistance to impact. C2.3.3.3 The usable width of the shoulders should generally be taken as the paved width. The specified minimum distances between the edge of the traffic lane and fixed object are intended to prevent collision with slightly errant vehicles and those carrying wide loads. C2.3.3.4 Attention is particularly called to the following chapters in the Manual for Railway Engineering (AREMA, 2003): Chapter 7—Timber Structures, Chapter 8—Concrete Structures and Foundations, Chapter 9—Highway-Railroad Crossings, Chapter 15— Steel Structures, and Chapter 18—Clearances. The provisions of the individual railroads and the AREMA Manual should be used to determine: © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2-7 Clearances, Loadings, Pier protection, Waterproofing, and Blast protection. 2.3.4—Environment C2.3.4 The impact of a bridge and its approaches on local communities, historic sites, wetlands, and other aesthetically, environmentally, and ecologically sensitive areas shall be considered. Compliance with state water laws; federal and state regulations concerning encroachment on floodplains, fish, and wildlife habitats; and the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program shall be assured. Stream geomorphology, consequences of riverbed scour, removal of embankment stabilizing vegetation, and, where appropriate, impacts to estuarine tidal dynamics shall be considered. Stream, i.e., fluvial, geomorphology is a study of the structure and formation of the earth s features that result from the forces of water. For purposes of this Section, this involves evaluating the streams, potential for aggradation, degradation, or lateral migration. 2.4—FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION 2.4.1—General A subsurface investigation, including borings and soil tests, shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Article 10.4 to provide pertinent and sufficient information for the design of substructure units. The type and cost of foundations should be considered in the economic and aesthetic studies for location and bridge alternate selection. 2.4.2—Topographic Studies Current topography of the bridge site shall be established via contour maps and photographs. Such studies shall include the history of the site in terms of movement of earth masses, soil and rock erosion, and meandering of waterways. 2.5—DESIGN OBJECTIVES --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 2.5.1—Safety C2.5.1 The primary responsibility of the Engineer shall be providing for the safety of the public. Minimum requirements to ensure the structural safety of bridges as conveyances are included in these Specifications. The philosophy of achieving adequate structural safety is outlined in Article 1.3. It is recommended that an approved QC/QA review and checking process be utilized to ensure that the design work meets these Specifications. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 2-8 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 2.5.2—Serviceability 2.5.2.1—Durability C2.5.2.1.1 The contract documents shall call for quality materials and for the application of high standards of fabrication and erection. Structural steel shall be self-protecting, or have longlife coating systems or cathodic protection. Reinforcing bars and prestressing strands in concrete components, which may be expected to be exposed to airborne or waterborne salts, shall be protected by an appropriate combination of epoxy and/or galvanized coating, concrete cover, density, or chemical composition of concrete, including air-entrainment and a nonporous painting of the concrete surface or cathodic protection. Prestress strands in cable ducts shall be grouted or otherwise protected against corrosion. Attachments and fasteners used in wood construction shall be of stainless steel, malleable iron, aluminum, or steel that is galvanized, cadmium-plated, or otherwise coated. Wood components shall be treated with preservatives. Aluminum products shall be electrically insulated from steel and concrete components. Protection shall be provided to materials susceptible to damage from solar radiation and/or air pollution. Consideration shall be given to the durability of materials in direct contact with soil and/or water. 2.5.2.1.2—Self-Protecting Measures Continuous drip grooves shall be provided along the underside of a concrete deck at a distance not exceeding 10.0 in. from the fascia edges. Where the deck is interrupted by a sealed deck joint, all surfaces of piers and abutments, other than bearing seats, shall have a minimum slope of 5 percent toward their edges. For open deck joints, this minimum slope shall be increased to 15 percent. In the case of open deck joints, the bearings shall be protected against contact with salt and debris. Wearing surfaces shall be interrupted at the deck joints and shall be provided with a smooth transition to the deck joint device. Steel formwork shall be protected against corrosion in accordance with the specifications of the Owner. The intent of this Article is to recognize the significance of corrosion and deterioration of structural materials to the long-term performance of a bridge. Other provisions regarding durability can be found in Article 5.12. Other than the deterioration of the concrete deck itself, the single most prevalent bridge maintenance problem is the disintegration of beam ends, bearings, pedestals, piers, and abutments due to percolation of waterborne road salts through the deck joints. Experience appears to indicate that a structurally continuous deck provides the best protection for components below the deck. The potential consequences of the use of road salts on structures with unfilled steel decks and unprestressed wood decks should be taken into account. These Specifications permit the use of discontinuous decks in the absence of substantial use of road salts. Transverse saw-cut relief joints in cast-in-place concrete decks have been found to be of no practical value where composite action is present. Economy, due to structural continuity and the absence of expansion joints, will usually favor the application of continuous decks, regardless of location. Stringers made simply supported by sliding joints, with or without slotted bolt holes, tend to ―freeze‖ due to the accumulation of corrosion products and cause maintenance problems. Because of the general availability of computers, analysis of continuous decks is no longer a problem. Experience indicates that, from the perspective of durability, all joints should be considered subject to some degree of movement and leakage. C2.5.2.1.2 Ponding of water has often been observed on the seats of abutments, probably as a result of construction tolerances and/or tilting. The 15 percent slope specified in conjunction with open joints is intended to enable rains to wash away debris and salt. In the past, for many smaller bridges, no expansion device was provided at the ―fixed joint,‖ and the wearing surface was simply run over the joint to give a continuous riding surface. As the rotation center of the superstructure is always below the surface, the ―fixed joint‖ actually moves due to load and environmental effects, causing the wearing surface to crack, leak, and disintegrate. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 2.5.2.1.1—Materials SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2.5.2.2—Inspectability Inspection ladders, walkways, catwalks, covered access holes, and provision for lighting, if necessary, shall be provided where other means of inspection are not practical. Where practical, access to permit manual or visual inspection, including adequate headroom in box sections, shall be provided to the inside of cellular components and to interface areas, where relative movement may occur. 2.5.2.3—Maintainability Structural systems whose maintenance is expected to be difficult should be avoided. Where the climatic and/or traffic environment is such that a bridge deck may need to be replaced before the required service life, provisions shall be shown on the contract documents for: a contemporary or future protective overlay, a future deck replacement, or supplemental structural resistance. 2-9 C2.5.2.2 The Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges requires external access hatches with a minimum size of 2.5 ft. 4.0 ft., larger openings at interior diaphragms, and venting by drains or screened vents at intervals of no more than 50.0 ft. These recommendations should be used in bridges designed under these Specifications. C2.5.2.3 Maintenance of traffic during replacement should be provided either by partial width staging of replacement or by the utilization of an adjacent parallel structure. Measures for increasing the durability of concrete and wood decks include epoxy coating of reinforcing bars, posttensioning ducts, and prestressing strands in the deck. Microsilica and/or calcium nitrite additives in the deck concrete, waterproofing membranes, and overlays may be used to protect black steel. See Article 5.14.2.3.10e for additional requirements regarding overlays. Areas around bearing seats and under deck joints should be designed to facilitate jacking, cleaning, repair, and replacement of bearings and joints. Jacking points shall be indicated on the plans, and the structure shall be designed for jacking forces specified in Article 3.4.3. Inaccessible cavities and corners should be avoided. Cavities that may invite human or animal inhabitants shall either be avoided or made secure. 2.5.2.4—Rideability --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The deck of the bridge shall be designed to permit the smooth movement of traffic. On paved roads, a structural transition slab should be located between the approach roadway and the abutment of the bridge. Construction tolerances, with regard to the profile of the finished deck, shall be indicated on the plans or in the specifications or special provisions. The number of deck joints shall be kept to a practical minimum. Edges of joints in concrete decks exposed to traffic should be protected from abrasion and spalling. The plans for prefabricated joints shall specify that the joint assembly be erected as a unit. Where concrete decks without an initial overlay are used, consideration should be given to providing an additional thickness of 0.5 in. to permit correction of the deck profile by grinding, and to compensate for thickness loss due to abrasion. 2.5.2.5—Utilities Where required, provisions shall be made to support and maintain the conveyance for utilities. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 2-10 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 2.5.2.6—Deformations C2.5.2.6.1 Bridges should be designed to avoid undesirable structural or psychological effects due to their deformations. While deflection and depth limitations are made optional, except for orthotropic plate decks, any large deviation from past successful practice regarding slenderness and deflections should be cause for review of the design to determine that it will perform adequately. If dynamic analysis is used, it shall comply with the principles and requirements of Article 4.7. Service load deformations may cause deterioration of wearing surfaces and local cracking in concrete slabs and in metal bridges that could impair serviceability and durability, even if self-limiting and not a potential source of collapse. As early as 1905, attempts were made to avoid these effects by limiting the depth-to-span ratios of trusses and girders, and starting in the 1930s, live load deflection limits were prescribed for the same purpose. In a study of deflection limitations of bridges (ASCE, 1958), an ASCE committee found numerous shortcomings in these traditional approaches and noted, for example: The limited survey conducted by the Committee revealed no evidence of serious structural damage that could be attributed to excessive deflection. The few examples of damaged stringer connections or cracked concrete floors could probably be corrected more effectively by changes in design than by more restrictive limitations on deflection. On the other hand, both the historical study and the results from the survey indicate clearly that unfavorable psychological reaction to bridge deflection is probably the most frequent and important source of concern regarding the flexibility of bridges. However, those characteristics of bridge vibration which are considered objectionable by pedestrians or passengers in vehicles cannot yet be defined. For straight skewed steel girder bridges and horizontally curved steel girder bridges with or without skewed supports, the following additional investigations shall be considered: Elastic vertical, lateral, and rotational deflections due to applicable load combinations shall be considered to ensure satisfactory service performance of bearings, joints, integral abutments, and piers. Since publication of the study, there has been extensive research on human response to motion. It is now generally agreed that the primary factor affecting human sensitivity is acceleration, rather than deflection, velocity, or the rate of change of acceleration for bridge structures, but the problem is a difficult subjective one. Thus, there are as yet no simple definitive guidelines for the limits of tolerable static deflection or dynamic motion. Among current specifications, the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code of 1991 contains the most comprehensive provisions regarding vibrations tolerable to humans. Horizontally curved steel bridges are subjected to torsion resulting in larger lateral deflections and twisting than tangent bridges. Therefore, rotations due to dead load and thermal forces tend to have a larger effect on the performance of bearings and expansion joints of curved bridges. Bearing rotations during construction may exceed the dead load rotations computed for the completed bridge, in particular at skewed supports. Identification of this temporary situation may be critical to ensure the bridge can be built without damaging the bearings or expansion devices. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 2.5.2.6.1—General SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2-11 Computed girder rotations at bearings should be accumulated over the Engineer’s assumed construction sequence. Computed rotations at bearings shall not exceed the specified rotational capacity of the bearings for the accumulated factored loads corresponding to the stage investigated. Camber diagrams shall satisfy the provisions of Article 6.7.2 and may reflect the computed accumulated deflections due to the Engineer’s assumed construction sequence. 2.5.2.6.2—Criteria for Deflection The criteria in this Section shall be considered optional, except for the following: The provisions for orthotropic decks shall be considered mandatory. The provisions in Article 12.14.5.9 for precast reinforced concrete three-sided structures shall be considered mandatory. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Metal grid decks and other lightweight metal and concrete bridge decks shall be subject to the serviceability provisions of Article 9.5.2. In applying these criteria, the vehicular load shall include the dynamic load allowance. If an Owner chooses to invoke deflection control, the following principles may be applied: When investigating the maximum absolute deflection for straight girder systems, all design lanes should be loaded, and all supporting components should be assumed to deflect equally; For curved steel box and I-girder systems, the deflection of each girder should be determined individually based on its response as part of a system; C2.5.2.6.2 These provisions permit, but do not encourage, the use of past practice for deflection control. Designers were permitted to exceed these limits at their discretion in the past. Calculated deflections of structures have often been found to be difficult to verify in the field due to numerous sources of stiffness not accounted for in calculations. Despite this, many Owners and designers have found comfort in the past requirements to limit the overall stiffness of bridges. The desire for continued availability of some guidance in this area, often stated during the development of these Specifications, has resulted in the retention of optional criteria, except for orthotropic decks, for which the criteria are required. Deflection criteria are also mandatory for lightweight decks comprised of metal and concrete, such as filled and partially filled grid decks, and unfilled grid decks composite with reinforced concrete slabs, as provided in Article 9.5.2. Additional guidance regarding deflection of steel bridges can be found in Wright and Walker (1971). Additional considerations and recommendations for deflection in timber bridge components are discussed in more detail in Chapters 7, 8, and 9 in Ritter (1990). For a straight multibeam bridge, this is equivalent to saying that the distribution factor for deflection is equal to the number of lanes divided by the number of beams. For curved steel girder systems, the deflection limit is applied to each individual girder because the curvature causes each girder to deflect differently than the adjacent girder so that an average deflection has little meaning. For curved steel girder systems, the span used to compute the deflection limit should be taken as the arc girder length between bearings. For composite design, the stiffness of the design crosssection used for the determination of deflection should include the entire width of the roadway and the structurally continuous portions of the railings, sidewalks, and median barriers; © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 2-12 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS For straight girder systems, the composite bending stiffness of an individual girder may be taken as the stiffness determined as specified above, divided by the number of girders; When investigating maximum relative displacements, the number and position of loaded lanes should be selected to provide the worst differential effect; The live load portion of Load Combination Service I of Table 3.4.1-1 should be used, including the dynamic load allowance, IM; The live load shall be taken from Article 3.6.1.3.2; The provisions of Article 3.6.1.1.2 should apply; and --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- For skewed bridges, a right cross-section may be used, and for curved and curved skewed bridges, a radial cross-section may be used. In the absence of other criteria, the following deflection limits may be considered for steel, aluminum, and/or concrete vehicular bridges: Vehicular load, general ............................. Span/800, Vehicular and pedestrian loads ............... Span/1000, Vehicular load on cantilever arms ............................. Span/300, and Vehicular and pedestrian loads on cantilever arms Span/375. For steel I-shaped beams and girders, and for steel box and tub girders, the provisions of Articles 6.10.4.2 and 6.11.4, respectively, regarding the control of permanent deflections through flange stress controls, shall apply. For pedestrian bridges, i.e., bridges whose primary function is to carry pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, and light maintenance vehicles, the provisions of Section 5 of AASHTO’s LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges shall apply. In the absence of other criteria, the following deflection limits may be considered for wood construction: Vehicular and pedestrian loads .......... Span/425, and Vehicular load on wood planks and panels (extreme relative deflection between adjacent edges) . 0.10 in. The following provisions shall apply to orthotropic plate decks: Vehicular load on deck plate ..................... Span/300, Vehicular load on ribs of orthotropic metal decks Span/1000, and From a structural viewpoint, large deflections in wood components cause fasteners to loosen and brittle materials, such as asphalt pavement, to crack and break. In addition, members that sag below a level plane present a poor appearance and can give the public a perception of structural inadequacy. Deflections from moving vehicle loads also produce vertical movement and vibrations that annoy motorists and alarm pedestrians (Ritter, 1990). Excessive deformation can cause premature deterioration of the wearing surface and affect the performance of fasteners, but limits on the latter have not yet been established. The intent of the relative deflection criterion is to protect the wearing surface from debonding and fracturing due to excessive flexing of the deck. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2-13 Vehicular load on ribs of orthotropic metal decks (extreme relative deflection between adjacent ribs) 0.10 in. The 0.10-in. relative deflection limitation is tentative. 2.5.2.6.3—Optional Criteria for Span-to-Depth Ratios C2.5.2.6.3 Unless otherwise specified herein, if an Owner chooses to invoke controls on span-to-depth ratios, the limits in Table 2.5.2.6.3-1, in which S is the slab span length and L is the span length, both in ft., may be considered in the absence of other criteria. Where used, the limits in Table 2.5.2.6.3-1 shall be taken to apply to overall depth unless noted. For curved steel girder systems, the span-to-depth ratio, Las/D, of each steel girder should not exceed 25 when the specified minimum yield strength of the girder in regions of positive flexure is 50.0 ksi or less, and: When the specified minimum yield strength of the girder is 70.0 ksi or less in regions of negative flexure, or When hybrid sections satisfying the provisions of Article 6.10.1.3 are used in regions of negative flexure. For all other curved steel girder systems, Las/D of each steel girder should not exceed the following: Las D 25 50 Fyt (2.5.2.6.3-1) Traditional minimum depths for constant depth superstructures, contained in previous editions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, are given in Table 2.5.2.6.3-1 with some modifications. A larger preferred minimum girder depth is specified for curved steel girders to reflect the fact that the outermost curved girder receives a disproportionate share of the load and needs to be stiffer. In curved skewed bridges, crossframe forces are directly related to the relative girder deflections. Increasing the depth and stiffness of all the girders in a curved skewed bridge leads to smaller relative differences in the deflections and smaller cross-frame forces. Deeper girders also result in reduced out-of-plane rotations, which may make the bridge easier to erect. An increase in the preferred minimum girder depth for curved steel girders not satisfying the conditions specified herein is recommended according to Eq. 2.5.2.6.3-1. In such cases, the girders will tend to be significantly more flexible and less steel causes increased deflections without an increase in the girder depth. A shallower curved girder might be used if the Engineer evaluates effects such as cross-frame forces and bridge deformations, including girder rotations, and finds the bridge forces and geometric changes within acceptable ranges. For curved composite girders, the recommended ratios apply to the steel girder portion of the composite section. where: Fyt = specified minimum yield strength of the compression flange (ksi) D depth of steel girder (ft.) = Las = an arc girder length defined as follows (ft.): arc span for simple spans; 0.9 times the arc span for continuous end-spans; 0.8 times the arc span for continuous interior spans. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 2-14 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table 2.5.2.6.3-1—Traditional Minimum Depths for Constant Depth Superstructures Minimum Depth (Including Deck) Material Reinforced Concrete Prestressed Concrete Steel Superstructure Type Slabs with main reinforcement parallel to traffic T-Beams Box Beams Pedestrian Structure Beams Slabs CIP Box Beams Precast I-Beams Pedestrian Structure Beams Adjacent Box Beams Overall Depth of Composite I-Beam Depth of I-Beam Portion of Composite I-Beam Trusses When variable depth members are used, values may be adjusted to account for changes in relative stiffness of positive and negative moment sections Simple Spans Continuous Spans S +10 1.2 S 10 0.54 ft. 30 30 0.070L 0.065L 0.060L 0.055L 0.035L 0.033L 0.030L ≥ 6.5 in. 0.045L 0.045L 0.033L 0.030L 0.040L 0.033L 0.027L ≥ 6.5 in. 0.040L 0.040L 0.030L 0.025L 0.032L 0.027L 0.100L 0.100L 2.5.2.7—Consideration of Future Widening 2.5.2.7.1—Exterior Beams on Multibeam Bridges Unless future widening is virtually inconceivable, the load carrying capacity of exterior beams shall not be less than the load carrying capacity of an interior beam. C2.5.2.7.1 This provision applies to any longitudinal flexural members traditionally considered to be stringers, beams, or girders. 2.5.2.7.2—Substructure 2.5.3—Constructibility C2.5.3 Constructability issues should include, but not be limited to, consideration of deflection, strength of steel and concrete, and stability during critical stages of construction. An example of a particular sequence of construction would be where the designer requires a steel girder to be supported while the concrete deck is cast, so that the girder and the deck will act compositely for dead load as well as live load. An example of a complex bridge might be a cablestayed bridge that has limitations on what it will carry, especially in terms of construction equipment, while it is under construction. If these limitations are not evident to an experienced contractor, the contractor may be required to do more prebid analysis than is reasonable. Given the usual constraints of time and budget for bidding, this may not be feasible for the contractor to do. Bridges should be designed in a manner such that fabrication and erection can be performed without undue difficulty or distress and that locked-in construction force effects are within tolerable limits. When the designer has assumed a particular sequence of construction in order to induce certain stresses under dead load, that sequence shall be defined in the contract documents. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- When future widening can be anticipated, consideration should be given to designing the substructure for the widened condition. SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES Where there are, or are likely to be, constraints imposed on the method of construction, by environmental considerations or for other reasons, attention shall be drawn to those constraints in the contract documents. Where the bridge is of unusual complexity, such that it would be unreasonable to expect an experienced contractor to predict and estimate a suitable method of construction while bidding the project, at least one feasible construction method shall be indicated in the contract documents. If the design requires some strengthening and/or temporary bracing or support during erection by the selected method, indication of the need thereof shall be indicated in the contract documents. Details that require welding in restricted areas or placement of concrete through congested reinforcing should be avoided. Climatic and hydraulic conditions that may affect the construction of the bridge shall be considered. 2-15 This Article does not require the designer to educate a contractor on how to construct a bridge; it is expected that the contractor will have the necessary expertise. Nor is it intended to restrict a contractor from using innovation to gain an edge over the competitors. All other factors being equal, designs that are selfsupporting or use standardized falsework systems are normally preferred to those requiring unique and complex falsework. Temporary falsework within the clear zone should be adequately protected from traffic. 2.5.4—Economy 2.5.4.1—General Structural types, span lengths, and materials shall be selected with due consideration of projected cost. The cost of future expenditures during the projected service life of the bridge should be considered. Regional factors, such as availability of material, fabrication, location, shipping, and erection constraints, shall be considered. C2.5.4.1 If data for the trends in labor and material cost fluctuation are available, the effect of such trends should be projected to the time the bridge will likely be constructed. Cost comparisons of structural alternatives should be based on long-range considerations, including inspection, maintenance, repair, and/or replacement. Lowest first cost does not necessarily lead to lowest total cost. In instances where economic studies do not indicate a clear choice, the Owner may require that alternative contract plans be prepared and bid competitively. Designs for alternative plans shall be of equal safety, serviceability, and aesthetic value. Movable bridges over navigable waterways should be avoided to the extent feasible. Where movable bridges are proposed, at least one fixed bridge alternative should be included in the economic comparisons. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 2.5.4.2—Alternative Plans 2-16 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 2.5.5—Bridge Aesthetics C2.5.5 Bridges should complement their surroundings, be graceful in form, and present an appearance of adequate strength. Significant improvements in appearance can often be made with small changes in shape or position of structural members at negligible cost. For prominent bridges, however, additional cost to achieve improved appearance is often justified, considering that the bridge will likely be a feature of the landscape for 75 or more years. Comprehensive guidelines for the appearance of bridges are beyond the scope of these Specifications. Engineers may resort to such documents as the Transportation Research Board s Bridge Aesthetics Around the World (1991) for guidance. The most admired modern structures are those that rely for their good appearance on the forms of the structural component themselves: Alternative bridge designs without piers or with few piers should be studied during the site selection and location stage and refined during the preliminary design stage. Pier form should be consistent in shape and detail with the superstructure. Abrupt changes in the form of components and structural type should be avoided. Where the interface of different structural types cannot be avoided, a smooth transition in appearance from one type to another should be attained. Attention to details, such as deck drain downspouts, should not be overlooked. If the use of a through structure is dictated by performance and/or economic considerations, the structural system should be selected to provide an open and uncluttered appearance. The use of the bridge as a support for message or directional signing or lighting should be avoided wherever possible. Transverse web stiffeners, other than those located at bearing points, should not be visible in elevation. For spanning deep ravines, arch-type structures should be preferred. Components are shaped to respond to the structural function. They are thick where the stresses are greatest and thin where the stresses are smaller. The function of each part and how the function is performed is visible. Components are slender and widely spaced, preserving views through the structure. The bridge is seen as a single whole, with all members consistent and contributing to that whole; for example, all elements should come from the same family of shapes, such as shapes with rounded edges. The bridge fulfills its function with a minimum of material and minimum number of elements. The size of each member compared with the others is clearly related to the overall structural concept and the job the component does, and The bridge as a whole has a clear and logical relationship to its surroundings. Several procedures have been proposed to integrate aesthetic thinking into the design process (Gottemoeller, 1991). Because the major structural components are the largest parts of a bridge and are seen first, they determine the appearance of a bridge. Consequently, engineers should seek excellent appearance in bridge parts in the following order of importance: Horizontal and vertical alignment and position in the environment; Superstructure type, i.e., arch, girder, etc.; Pier placement; Abutment placement and height; Superstructure shape, i.e., haunched, tapered, depth; © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Engineers should seek more pleasant appearance by improving the shapes and relationships of the structural component themselves. The application of extraordinary and nonstructural embellishment should be avoided. The following guidelines should be considered: SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2-17 Pier shape; Abutment shape; Parapet and railing details; Surface colors and textures; and Ornament. The Designer should determine the likely position of the majority of viewers of the bridge, then use that information as a guide in judging the importance of various elements in the appearance of the structure. Perspective drawings of photographs taken from the important viewpoints can be used to analyze the appearance of proposed structures. Models are also useful. The appearance of standard details should be reviewed to make sure they fit the bridge s design concept. 2.6.1—General C2.6.1 Hydrologic and hydraulic studies and assessments of bridge sites for stream crossings shall be completed as part of the preliminary plan development. The detail of these studies should be commensurate with the importance of and risks associated with the structure. Temporary structures for the Contractor s use or for accommodating traffic during construction shall be designed with regard to the safety of the traveling public and the adjacent property owners, as well as minimization of impact on floodplain natural resources. The Owner may permit revised design requirements consistent with the intended service period for, and flood hazard posed by, the temporary structure. Contract documents for temporary structures shall delineate the respective responsibilities and risks to be assumed by the highway agency and the Contractor. Evaluation of bridge design alternatives shall consider stream stability, backwater, flow distribution, stream velocities, scour potential, flood hazards, tidal dynamics where appropriate and consistency with established criteria for the National Flood Insurance Program. The provisions in this Article incorporate improved practices and procedures for the hydraulic design of bridges. Detailed guidance for applying these practices and procedures are contained in the AASHTO Model Drainage Manual. This document contains guidance and references on design procedures and computer software for hydrologic and hydraulic design. It also incorporates guidance and references from the AASHTO Drainage Guidelines, which is a companion document to the AASHTO Model Drainage Manual. Information on the National Flood Insurance Program is contained in 42 USC 4001-4128, The National Flood Insurance Act (see also 44 CFR 59 through 77) and 23 CFR 650, Subpart A, Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachment on Floodplains. Hydrologic, hydraulic, scour, and stream stability studies are concerned with the prediction of flood flows and frequencies and with the complex physical processes involving the actions and interactions of water and soil during the occurrence of predicted flood flows. These studies should be performed by the Engineer with the knowledge and experience to make practical judgments regarding the scope of the studies to be performed and the significance of the results obtained. The design of bridge foundations is best accomplished by an interdisciplinary team of structural, hydraulic, and geotechnical engineers. The AASHTO Model Drainage Manual also contains guidance and references on: Design methods for evaluating the accuracy of hydraulic studies, including elements of a data collection plan; Guidance on estimating flood flow peaks and volumes, including requirements for the design of Interstate highways as per 23 CFR 650, Subpart A, © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 2.6—HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS 2-18 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ―Encroachments;‖ Procedures or references for analysis of tidal waterways, regulated streams, and urban watersheds; Evaluation of stream stability; Use of recommended design procedures and software for sizing bridge waterways; Location and design of bridges to resist damage from scour and hydraulic loads created by stream current, ice, and debris; Calculation of magnitude of contraction scour, local scour, and countermeasures thereto; Design of relief bridges, road overtopping, guide banks, and other river training works; and Procedures for hydraulic design of bridge-size culverts. 2.6.2—Site Data C2.6.2 A site-specific data collection plan shall include consideration of: The assessment of hydraulics necessarily involves many assumptions. Key among these assumptions are the roughness coefficients and projection of long-term flow magnitudes, e.g., the 500-yr flood or other superfloods. The runoff from a given storm can be expected to change with the seasons, immediate past weather conditions, and longterm natural and man-made changes in surface conditions. The ability to statistically project long recurrence interval floods is a function of the adequacy of the database of past floods, and such projections often change as a result of new experience. The above factors make the check flood investigation of scour an important, but highly variable, safety criterion that may be expected to be difficult to reproduce, unless all of the Designer s original assumptions are used in a postdesign scour investigation. Obviously, those original assumptions must be reasonable given the data, conditions, and projections available at the time of the original design. Collection of aerial and/or ground survey data for appropriate distances upstream and downstream from the bridge for the main stream channel and its floodplain; Estimation of roughness elements for the stream and the floodplain within the reach of the stream under study; Sampling of streambed material to a depth sufficient to ascertain material characteristics for scour analysis; Subsurface borings; Factors affecting water stages, including high water from streams, reservoirs, detention basins, tides, and flood control structures and operating procedures; Existing studies and reports, including those conducted in accordance with the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program or other flood control programs; --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Available historical information on the behavior of the stream and the performance of the structure during past floods, including observed scour, bank erosion, and structural damage due to debris or ice flows; and Possible geomorphic changes in channel flow. 2.6.3—Hydrologic Analysis C2.6.3 The Owner shall determine the extent of hydrologic studies on the basis of the functional highway classification, the applicable federal and state requirements, and the flood hazards at the site. The following flood flows should be investigated, as appropriate, in the hydrologic studies: The return period of tidal flows should be correlated to the hurricane or storm tide elevations of water as reported in studies by FEMA or other agencies. Particular attention should be given to selecting design and checking flood discharges for mixed population flood events. For example, flow in an estuary may consist of both © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES For assessing flood hazards and meeting floodplain management requirements—the 100-yr flood; For assessing risks to highway users and damage to the bridge and its roadway approaches—the overtopping flood and/or the design flood for bridge scour; For assessing catastrophic flood damage at high risk sites—a check flood of a magnitude selected by the Owner, as appropriate for the site conditions and the perceived risk; For investigating the adequacy of bridge foundations to resist scour—the check flood for bridge scour; 2-19 tidal flow and runoff from the upland watershed. If mixed population flows are dependent on the occurrence of a major meteorological event, such as a hurricane, the relative timing of the individual peak flow events needs to be evaluated and considered in selecting the design discharge. This is likely to be the case for flows in an estuary. If the events tend to be independent, as might be the case for floods in a mountainous region caused by rainfall runoff or snow melt, the Designer should evaluate both events independently and then consider the probability of their occurrence at the same time. To satisfy agency design policies and criteria—design floods for waterway opening and bridge scour for the various functional classes of highways; To calibrate water surface profiles and to evaluate the performance of existing structures—historical floods, and To evaluate environmental conditions—low or base flow information, and in estuarine crossings, the spring and tide range. Investigation of the effect of sea level rise on tidal ranges should be specified for structures spanning marine/estuarine resources. 2.6.4—Hydraulic Analysis 2.6.4.1—General The Engineer shall utilize analytical models and techniques that have been approved by the Owner and that are consistent with the required level of analysis. 2.6.4.2—Stream Stability Studies shall be carried out to evaluate the stability of the waterway and to assess the impact of construction on the waterway. The following items shall be considered: Whether the stream reach is degrading, aggrading, or in equilibrium; For stream crossing near confluences, the effect of the main stream and the tributary on the flood stages, velocities, flow distribution, vertical, and lateral movements of the stream, and the effect of the foregoing conditions on the hydraulic design of the bridge; Location of favorable stream crossing, taking into account whether the stream is straight, meandering, braided, or transitional, or control devices to protect the bridge from existing or anticipated future stream --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 2-20 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS conditions; The effect of any proposed channel changes; The effect of aggregate mining or other operations in the channel; Potential changes in the rates or volumes of runoff due to land use changes; The effect of natural geomorphic stream pattern changes on the proposed structure; and The effect of geomorphic changes on existing structures in the vicinity of, and caused by, the proposed structure. For unstable streams or flow conditions, special studies shall be carried out to assess the probable future changes to the plan form and profile of the stream and to determine countermeasures to be incorporated in the design, or at a future time, for the safety of the bridge and approach roadways. 2.6.4.3—Bridge Waterway C2.6.4.3 The design process for sizing the bridge waterway shall include: Trial combinations should take the following into account: The evaluation of flood flow patterns in the main channel and floodplain for existing conditions, and Increases in flood water surface elevations caused by the bridge, The evaluation of trial combinations of highway profiles, alignments, and bridge lengths for consistency with design objectives. Changes in flood flow patterns and velocities in the channel and on the floodplain, Where use is made of existing flood studies, their accuracy shall be determined. Location of hydraulic controls affecting flow through the structure or long-term stream stability, Clearances between the flood water elevations and low sections of the superstructure to allow passage of ice and debris, Need for protection of bridge foundations and stream channel bed and banks, and Evaluation of capital costs and flood hazards associated with the candidate bridge alternatives through risk assessment or risk analysis procedures. 2.6.4.4—Bridge Foundations 2.6.4.4.1—General C2.6.4.4.1 The structural, hydraulic, and geotechnical aspects of foundation design shall be coordinated and differences resolved prior to approval of preliminary plans. To reduce the vulnerability of the bridge to damage from scour and hydraulic loads, consideration should be given to the following general design concepts: Set deck elevations as high as practical for the given site conditions to minimize inundation by floods. Where bridges are subject to inundation, provide for overtopping of roadway approach sections, and streamline the superstructure to minimize the area subject to hydraulic loads and the collection of ice, --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2-21 debris, and drifts. Utilize relief bridges, guide banks, dikes, and other river training devices to reduce the turbulence and hydraulic forces acting at the bridge abutments. Utilize continuous span designs. Anchor superstructures to their substructures where subject to the effects of hydraulic loads, buoyancy, ice, or debris impacts or accumulations. Provide for venting and draining of the superstructure. Where practical, limit the number of piers in the channel, streamline pier shapes, and align piers with the direction of flood flows. Avoid pier types that collect ice and debris. Locate piers beyond the immediate vicinity of stream banks. Locate abutments back from the channel banks where significant problems with ice/debris buildup, scour, or channel stability are anticipated, or where special environmental or regulatory needs must be met, e.g., spanning wetlands. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Design piers on floodplains as river piers. Locate their foundations at the appropriate depth if there is a likelihood that the stream channel will shift during the life of the structure or that channel cutoffs are likely to occur. Where practical, use debris racks or ice booms to stop debris and ice before it reaches the bridge. Where significant ice or debris buildup is unavoidable, its effects should be accounted for in determining scour depths and hydraulic loads. 2.6.4.4.2—Bridge Scour As required by Article 3.7.5, scour at bridge foundations is investigated for two conditions: For the design flood for scour, the streambed material in the scour prism above the total scour line shall be assumed to have been removed for design conditions. The design flood storm surge, tide, or mixed population flood shall be the more severe of the 100-yr events or from an overtopping flood of lesser recurrence interval. For the check flood for scour, the stability of bridge foundation shall be investigated for scour conditions resulting from a designated flood storm surge, tide, or mixed population flood not to exceed the 500-yr event or from an overtopping flood of lesser recurrence interval. Excess reserve beyond that required for stability under this condition is not necessary. The extreme event limit state shall apply. If the site conditions, due to ice or debris jams, and low tail water conditions near stream confluences dictate the use C2.6.4.4.2 A majority of bridge failures in the United States and elsewhere are the result of scour. The added cost of making a bridge less vulnerable to damage from scour is small in comparison to the total cost of a bridge failure. The design flood for scour shall be determined on the basis of the Engineer s judgment of the hydrologic and hydraulic flow conditions at the site. The recommended procedure is to evaluate scour due to the specified flood flows and to design the foundation for the event expected to cause the deepest total scour. The recommended procedure for determining the total scour depth at bridge foundations is as follows: Estimate the long-term channel profile aggradation or degradation over the service life of the bridge; Estimate the long-term channel plan form changes over the service life of the bridge; As a design check, adjust the existing channel and floodplain cross-sections upstream and downstream of © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 2-22 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS of a more severe flood event for either the design or check flood for scour, the Engineer may use such flood event. Spread footings on soil or erodible rock shall be located so that the bottom of footing is below scour depths determined for the check flood for scour. Spread footings on scour-resistant rock shall be designed and constructed to maintain the integrity of the supporting rock. Deep foundations with footings shall be designed to place the top of the footing below the estimated contraction scour depth where practical to minimize obstruction to flood flows and resulting local scour. Even lower elevations should be considered for pile-supported footings where the piles could be damaged by erosion and corrosion from exposure to stream currents. Where conditions dictate a need to construct the top of a footing to an elevation above the streambed, attention shall be given to the scour potential of the design. When fendering or other pier protection systems are used, their effect on pier scour and collection of debris shall be taken into consideration in the design. bridge as necessary to reflect anticipated changes in the channel profile and plan form; Determine the combination of existing or likely future conditions and flood events that might be expected to result in the deepest scour for design conditions; Determine water surface profiles for a stream reach that extends both upstream and downstream of the bridge site for the various combinations of conditions and events under consideration; Determine the magnitude of contraction scour and local scour at piers and abutments; and Evaluate the results of the scour analysis, taking into account the variables in the methods used, the available information on the behavior of the watercourse, and the performance of existing structures during past floods. Also consider present and anticipated future flow patterns in the channel and its floodplain. Visualize the effect of the bridge on these flow patterns and the effect of the flow on the bridge. Modify the bridge design where necessary to satisfy concerns raised by the scour analysis and the evaluation of the channel plan form. Foundation designs should be based on the total scour depths estimated by the above procedure, taking into account appropriate geotechnical safety factors. Where necessary, bridge modifications may include: Relocation or redesign of piers or abutments to avoid areas of deep scour or overlapping scour holes from adjacent foundation elements, --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Addition of guide banks, dikes, or other river training works to provide for smoother flow transitions or to control lateral movement of the channel, Enlargement of the waterway area, or Relocation of the crossing to avoid an undesirable location. The stability of abutments in areas of turbulent flow shall be thoroughly investigated. Exposed embankment slopes should be protected with appropriate scour countermeasures. Foundations should be designed to withstand the conditions of scour for the design flood and the check flood. In general, this will result in deep foundations. The design of the foundations of existing bridges that are being rehabilitated should consider underpinning if scour indicates the need. Riprap and other scour countermeasures may be appropriate if underpinning is not cost effective. Available technology has not developed sufficiently to provide reliable scour estimates for some conditions, such as bridge abutments located in areas of turbulence due to converging or diverging flows. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2.6.4.5—Roadway Approaches to Bridge The design of the bridge shall be coordinated with the design of the roadway approaches to the bridge on the floodplain so that the entire flood flow pattern is developed and analyzed as a single, interrelated entity. Where roadway approaches on the floodplain obstruct overbank flow, the highway segment within the floodplain limits shall be designed to minimize flood hazards. Where diversion of flow to another watershed occurs as a result of backwater and obstruction of flood flows, an evaluation of the design shall be carried out to ensure compliance with legal requirements in regard to flood hazards in the other watershed. 2-23 C2.6.4.5 Highway embankments on floodplains serve to redirect overbank flow, causing it to flow generally parallel to the embankment and return to the main channel at the bridge. For such cases, the highway designs shall include countermeasures where necessary to limit damage to highway fills and bridge abutments. Such countermeasures may include: Relief bridges, Retarding the velocity of the overbank flow by promoting growth of trees and shrubs on the floodplain and highway embankment within the highway right-ofway or constructing small dikes along the highway embankment, Protecting fill slopes subject to erosive velocities by use of riprap or other erosion protection materials on highway fills and spill-through abutments, and Although overtopping may result in failure of the embankment, this consequence is preferred to failure of the bridge. The low point of the overtopping section should not be located immediately adjacent to the bridge, because its failure at this location could cause damage to the bridge abutment. If the low point of the overtopping section must be located close to the abutment, due to geometric constraints, the scouring effect of the overtopping flow should be considered in the design of the abutment. Design studies for overtopping should also include evaluation of any flood hazards created by changes to existing flood flow patterns or by flow concentrations in the vicinity of developed properties. 2.6.5—Culvert Location, Length, and Waterway Area C2.6.5 In addition to the provisions of Articles 2.6.3 and 2.6.4, the following conditions should be considered: The discussion of site investigations and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for bridges is generally applicable to large culvert installations classified as bridges. The use of safety grates on culvert ends to protect vehicles that run off the road is generally discouraged for large culverts, including those classified as bridges, because of the potential for clogging and subsequent unexpected increase in the flood hazard to the roadway and adjacent properties. Preferred methods of providing for traffic safety include the installation of barriers or the extension of the culvert ends to increase the vehicle recovery zone at the site. Passage of fish and wildlife, Effect of high outlet velocities and flow concentrations on the culvert outlet, the downstream channel, and adjacent property, Buoyancy effects at culvert inlets, Traffic safety, and The effects of high tail water conditions as may be caused by downstream controls or storm tides. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Use of guide banks where overbank flow is large to protect abutments of main channel and relief bridges from turbulence and resulting scour. 2-24 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 2.6.6—Roadway Drainage 2.6.6.1—General C2.6.6.1 The bridge deck and its highway approaches shall be designed to provide safe and efficient conveyance of surface runoff from the traveled way in a manner that minimizes damage to the bridge and maximizes the safety of passing vehicles. Transverse drainage of the deck, including roadway, bicycle paths, and pedestrian walkways, shall be achieved by providing a cross slope or superelevation sufficient for positive drainage. For wide bridges with more than three lanes in each direction, special design of bridge deck drainage and/or special rough road surfaces may be needed to reduce the potential for hydroplaning. Water flowing downgrade in the roadway gutter section shall be intercepted and not permitted to run onto the bridge. Drains at bridge ends shall have sufficient capacity to carry all contributing runoff. In those unique environmentally sensitive instances where it is not possible to discharge into the underlying watercourse, consideration should be given to conveying the water in a longitudinal storm drain affixed to the underside of the bridge and discharging it into appropriate facilities on natural ground at bridge end. Where feasible, bridge decks should be watertight and all of the deck drainage should be carried to the ends of the bridge. A longitudinal gradient on bridges should be maintained. Zero gradients and sag vertical curves should be avoided. Design of the bridge deck and the approach roadway drainage systems should be coordinated. Under certain conditions, open bridge railings may be desirable for maximum discharge of surface runoff from bridge decks. The ―Storm Drainage‖ chapter of the AASHTO Model Drainage Manual contains guidance on recommended values for cross slopes. 2.6.6.2—Design Storm The design storm for bridge deck drainage shall not be less than the storm used for design of the pavement drainage system of the adjacent roadway, unless otherwise specified by the Owner. 2.6.6.3—Type, Size, and Number of Drains The number of deck drains should be kept to a minimum consistent with hydraulic requirements. In the absence of other applicable guidance, for bridges where the highway design speed is less than 45 mph, the size and number of deck drains should be such that the spread of deck drainage does not encroach on more than one-half the width of any designated traffic lane. For bridges where the highway design speed is not less than 45 mph, the spread of deck drainage should not encroach on any portion of the designated traffic lanes. Gutter flow should be intercepted at cross slope transitions to prevent flow across the bridge deck. Scuppers or inlets of a deck drain shall be hydraulically efficient and accessible for cleaning. C2.6.6.3 For further guidance or design criteria on bridge deck drainage, see the ―Storm Drainage‖ chapter of the AASHTO Model Drainage Manual, Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, and AASHTO/FHWA Research Report RD-87-014, Bridge Deck Drainage Guidelines. The minimum internal dimension of a downspout should not normally be less than 6.0 in., but not less than 8.0 in. where ice accretion on the bridge deck is expected. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2.6.6.4—Discharge from Deck Drains Deck drains shall be designed and located such that surface water from the bridge deck or road surface is directed away from the bridge superstructure elements and the substructure. If the Owner has no specific requirements for controlling the effluent from drains and pipes, consideration should be given to: 2-25 C2.6.6.4 Consideration should be given to the effect of drainage systems on bridge aesthetics. A minimum 4.0-in. projection below the lowest adjacent superstructure component, Location of pipe outlets such that a 45º cone of splash will not touch structural components, Use of free drops or slots in parapets wherever practical and permissible, Use of bends not greater than 45º, and Use of cleanouts. Runoff from bridge decks and deck drains shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with environmental and safety requirements. 2.6.6.5—Drainage of Structures For bridges where free drops are not feasible, attention should be given to the design of the outlet piping system to: Minimize clogging and other maintenance problems and Minimize the intrusive effect of the piping on the bridge symmetry and appearance. Free drops should be avoided where runoff creates problems with traffic, rail, or shipping lanes. Riprap or pavement should be provided under the free drops to prevent erosion. C2.6.6.5 Cavities in structures where there is a likelihood for entrapment of water shall be drained at their lowest point. Decks and wearing surfaces shall be designed to prevent the ponding of water, especially at deck joints. For bridge decks with nonintegral wearing surfaces or stay-in-place forms, consideration shall be given to the evacuation of water that may accumulate at the interface. Weep holes in concrete decks and drain holes in stayin-place forms can be used to permit the egress of water. 2.7—BRIDGE SECURITY 2.7.1—General C2.7.1 An assessment of the priority of a bridge should be conducted during the planning of new bridges and/or during rehabilitation of existing bridges. This should take into account the social/economic impact of the loss of the bridge, the availability of alternate routes, and the effect of closing the bridge on the security/defense of the region. For bridges deemed critical or essential, a formal vulnerability study should be conducted, and measures to mitigate the vulnerabilities should be considered for incorporation into the design. At the time of this writing, there are no uniform procedures for assessing the priority of a bridge to the social/economic and defense/security of a region. Work is being done to produce a uniform procedure to prioritize bridges for security. In the absence of uniform procedures, some states have developed procedures that incorporate their own security prioritization methods which, while similar, differ in details. In addition, procedures to assess bridge priority were developed by departments of transportation in some states to assist in prioritizing seismic rehabilitation. The procedures established for assessing bridge priority may also be used in conjunction with security considerations. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 2-26 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Guidance on security strategies and risk reduction may be found in the following documents: Science Applications International Corporation (2002), The Blue Ribbon Panel on Bridge and Tunnel Security (2003), Winget (2003), Jenkins (2001), Abramson (1999), and Williamson (2006). C2.7.2 Bridge Owners should establish criteria for the size and location of the threats to be considered in the analysis of bridges for security. These criteria should take into account the type, geometry, and priority of the structure being considered. The criteria should also consider multi-tier threat sizes and define the associated level of structural performance for each tier. It is not possible to protect a bridge from every conceivable threat. The most likely threat scenarios should be determined based on the bridge structural system and geometry and the identified vulnerabilities. The most likely attack scenarios will minimize the attacker’s required time on target, possess simplicity in planning and execution, and have a high probability of achieving maximum damage. The level of acceptable damage should be proportionate to the size of the attack. For example, linear behavior and/or local damage should be expected under a small-size attack, while significant permanent deformations and significant damage and/or partial failure of some components should be acceptable under larger size attacks. The level of threat and the operational classification of the bridge should be taken into account when determining the level of analysis to be used in determining the demands. Approximate methods may be used for low-force, low-importance bridges, while more sophisticated analyses should be used for high-force threats to priority bridges. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 2.7.2—Design Demand Design demands should be determined from analysis of a given size design threat, taking into account the associated performance levels. Given the demands, a design strategy should be developed and approved by the Bridge Owner. 2.8—REFERENCES AASHTO. 2009. Guide Specification and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges, Second Edition with Interim Revisions, GVCB-2-M. American Association State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2005. Model Drainage Manual, Third Edition, MDM-3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2011. Roadside Design Guide, RSDG-4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO and FHWA. 1987. Bridge Deck Drainage Guidelines, Research Report RD-87-014. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials/Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Abramson, H. N., et al. 1999. Improving Surface Transportation Security: A Research and Development Strategy. Committee on R & D Strategies to Improve Surface Transportation Security, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. AREMA. 2003. Manual for Railway Engineering. American Railway Engineers Association, Washington, DC. ASCE. 1958. “Deflection Limitations of Bridges: Progress Report of the Committee on Deflection Limitations of Bridges of the Structural Division.” Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 84, No. ST 3, May 1958. The Blue Ribbon Panel on Bridge and Tunnel Security. 2003. Recommendations for Bridge and Tunnel Security. Special report prepared for FHWA and AASHTO, Washington, DC. FHWA. 1991. “Evaluating Scour at Bridges,” FHWA-1P-90-017. Hydraulic Engineering Circular 18. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2-27 FHWA. 1991. “Stream Stability at Highway Structures,” FHWA-1P-90-014. Hydraulic Engineering Circular 20. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Gottemoeller, F. 1991. “Aesthetics and Engineers: Providing for Aesthetic Quality in Bridge Design.” Bridge Aesthetics Around the World, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 80–88. Highway Engineering Division. 1991. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, Highway Engineering Division, Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Toronto, Canada. Jenkins, B. M. 2001. Protecting Public Surface Transportation Against Terrorism and Serious Crime: An Executive Overview. MTI Report 01-14. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, CA. Available at http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/summary/0114.html. Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachment on Floodplains, U.S. Code, 23 CFR 650, Subpart A, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. NRC. 1991. Bridge Aesthetics around the World, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Ritter, M. A. 1990. Timber Bridges, Design, Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance, EM7700-B. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Transportation Policy and Analysis Center. 2002. A Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assessment for Critical Asset Identification and Protection. Report prepared for The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Security Task Force, Washington, DC. Available at http://security.transportation.org/sites/security/docs/guide-VA_FinalReport.pdf. Williamson, E. B., D. G. Winget, J. C. Gannon, and K. A. Marchand. 2006. Design of Critical Bridges for Security Against Terrorist Attacks: Phase II. Pooled Fund Project TPF-5(056) Final Report. University of Texas, Austin, TX. Winget, D. G., and E. B. Williamson. 2003. Design of Critical Bridges for Security Against Terrorist Attacks. TXDOT Project No. 0-4569, Phase 1 Report. University of Texas, Austin, TX. Wright, R. N., and W. H. Walker. 1971. “Criteria for the Deflection of Steel Bridges,” AISI Bulletin, No. 19, November 1971, Washington, DC. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- National Flood Insurance Act, U.S. Code, Title 42, Secs. 4001–28, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 3.1—SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.3—NOTATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.1—General ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.2—Load and Load Designation ....................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.4—LOAD FACTORS AND COMBINATIONS ....................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4.1—Load Factors and Load Combinations ....................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4.2—Load Factors for Construction Loads ....................................................................................................... 3-15 3.4.2.1—Evaluation at the Strength Limit State ........................................................................................... 3-15 3.4.2.2—Evaluation of Deflection at the Service Limit State ....................................................................... 3-15 3.4.3—Load Factors for Jacking and Post-Tensioning Forces............................................................................. 3-16 3.4.3.1—Jacking Forces ............................................................................................................................... 3-16 3.4.3.2—Force for Post-Tensioning Anchorage Zones................................................................................. 3-16 3.4.4—Load Factors for Orthotropic Decks......................................................................................................... 3-16 3.5—PERMANENT LOADS ..................................................................................................................................... 3-16 3.5.1—Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV ................................................................................................................. 3-16 3.5.2—Earth Loads: EH, ES, and DD .................................................................................................................. 3-17 3.6—LIVE LOADS .................................................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.6.1—Gravity Loads: LL and PL ........................................................................................................................ 3-17 3.6.1.1—Vehicular Live Load ...................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.6.1.1.1—Number of Design Lanes ..................................................................................................... 3-17 3.6.1.1.2—Multiple Presence of Live Load ........................................................................................... 3-18 3.6.1.2—Design Vehicular Live Load .......................................................................................................... 3-19 3.6.1.2.1—General ................................................................................................................................ 3-19 3.6.1.2.2—Design Truck ....................................................................................................................... 3-23 3.6.1.2.3—Design Tandem .................................................................................................................... 3-24 3.6.1.2.4—Design Lane Load ................................................................................................................ 3-24 3.6.1.2.5—Tire Contact Area ................................................................................................................ 3-24 3.6.1.2.6—Distribution of Wheel Loads through Earth Fills ................................................................. 3-25 3.6.1.3—Application of Design Vehicular Live Loads ................................................................................ 3-25 3.6.1.3.1—General ................................................................................................................................ 3-25 3.6.1.3.2—Loading for Optional Live Load Deflection Evaluation ...................................................... 3-26 3.6.1.3.3—Design Loads for Decks, Deck Systems, and the Top Slabs of Box Culverts ..................... 3-27 3.6.1.3.4—Deck Overhang Load ........................................................................................................... 3-28 3.6.1.4—Fatigue Load .................................................................................................................................. 3-28 3.6.1.4.1—Magnitude and Configuration .............................................................................................. 3-28 3.6.1.4.2—Frequency ............................................................................................................................ 3-28 3.6.1.4.3—Load Distribution for Fatigue .............................................................................................. 3-29 3.6.1.4.3a—Refined Methods ......................................................................................................... 3-29 3.6.1.4.3b—Approximate Methods ................................................................................................ 3-29 3-i © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.2—DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3-ii AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.6.1.5—Rail Transit Load ...........................................................................................................................3-30 3.6.1.6—Pedestrian Loads ............................................................................................................................3-30 3.6.1.7—Loads on Railings...........................................................................................................................3-30 3.6.2—Dynamic Load Allowance: IM ................................................................................................................. 3-30 3.6.2.1—General ...........................................................................................................................................3-30 3.6.2.2—Buried Components ........................................................................................................................3-31 3.6.2.3—Wood Components .........................................................................................................................3-32 3.6.3—Centrifugal Forces: CE ............................................................................................................................. 3-32 3.6.4—Braking Force: BR .................................................................................................................................... 3-32 3.6.5—Vehicular Collision Force: CT ................................................................................................................. 3-35 3.6.5.1—Protection of Structures ..................................................................................................................3-35 3.6.5.2—Vehicle Collision with Barriers ......................................................................................................3-36 3.7—WATER LOADS: WA ........................................................................................................................................ 3-37 3.7.1—Static Pressure .......................................................................................................................................... 3-37 3.7.2—Buoyancy ................................................................................................................................................. 3-37 3.7.3—Stream Pressure ........................................................................................................................................ 3-37 3.7.3.1—Longitudinal ...................................................................................................................................3-37 3.7.3.2—Lateral ............................................................................................................................................3-38 3.7.4—Wave Load ............................................................................................................................................... 3-39 3.7.5—Change in Foundations Due to Limit State for Scour ............................................................................... 3-39 3.8—WIND LOAD: WL AND WS .............................................................................................................................. 3-39 3.8.1—Horizontal Wind Pressure ........................................................................................................................ 3-39 3.8.1.1—General ...........................................................................................................................................3-39 3.8.1.2—Wind Pressure on Structures: WS ...................................................................................................3-41 3.8.1.2.1—General ................................................................................................................................. 3-41 3.8.1.2.2—Loads from Superstructures ................................................................................................. 3-41 3.8.1.2.3—Forces Applied Directly to the Substructure ........................................................................ 3-42 3.8.1.3—Wind Pressure on Vehicles: WL .....................................................................................................3-42 3.8.2—Vertical Wind Pressure............................................................................................................................. 3-43 3.8.3—Aeroelastic Instability .............................................................................................................................. 3-43 3.8.3.1—General ...........................................................................................................................................3-43 3.8.3.2—Aeroelastic Phenomena ..................................................................................................................3-44 3.8.3.3—Control of Dynamic Responses ......................................................................................................3-44 3.8.3.4—Wind Tunnel Tests .........................................................................................................................3-44 3.9—ICE LOADS: IC ................................................................................................................................................. 3-44 3.9.1—General ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-44 3.9.2—Dynamic Ice Forces on Piers .................................................................................................................... 3-46 3.9.2.1—Effective Ice Strength .....................................................................................................................3-46 3.9.2.2—Crushing and Flexing .....................................................................................................................3-47 3.9.2.3—Small Streams.................................................................................................................................3-48 3.9.2.4—Combination of Longitudinal and Transverse Forces ....................................................................3-49 3.9.2.4.1—Piers Parallel to Flow ........................................................................................................... 3-49 3.9.2.4.2—Piers Skewed to Flow ........................................................................................................... 3-49 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS TABLE OF CONTENTS 3-iii 3.9.2.5—Slender and Flexible Piers ............................................................................................................. 3-50 3.9.3—Static Ice Loads on Piers .......................................................................................................................... 3-50 3.9.4—Hanging Dams and Ice Jams .................................................................................................................... 3-50 3.9.5—Vertical Forces Due to Ice Adhesion ....................................................................................................... 3-50 3.9.6—Ice Accretion and Snow Loads on Superstructures .................................................................................. 3-51 3.11—EARTH PRESSURE: EH, ES, LS, AND DD .................................................................................................... 3-99 3.11.1—General ................................................................................................................................................... 3-99 3.11.2—Compaction .......................................................................................................................................... 3-100 3.11.3—Presence of Water ................................................................................................................................ 3-100 3.11.4—Effect of Earthquake ............................................................................................................................ 3-101 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.10—EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS: EQ ...................................................................................................................... 3-52 3.10.1—General ................................................................................................................................................... 3-52 3.10.2—Seismic Hazard ...................................................................................................................................... 3-54 3.10.2.1—General Procedure........................................................................................................................ 3-54 3.10.2.2—Site Specific Procedure ................................................................................................................ 3-83 3.10.3—Site Effects ............................................................................................................................................. 3-84 3.10.3.1—Site Class Definitions................................................................................................................... 3-84 3.10.3.2—Site Factors .................................................................................................................................. 3-88 3.10.4—Seismic Hazard Characterization ........................................................................................................... 3-89 3.10.4.1—Design Response Spectrum.......................................................................................................... 3-89 3.10.4.2—Elastic Seismic Response Coefficient .......................................................................................... 3-90 3.10.5—Operational Classification ...................................................................................................................... 3-90 3.10.6—Seismic Performance Zones ................................................................................................................... 3-91 3.10.7—Response Modification Factors .............................................................................................................. 3-91 3.10.7.1—General......................................................................................................................................... 3-91 3.10.7.2—Application .................................................................................................................................. 3-92 3.10.8—Combination of Seismic Force Effects ................................................................................................... 3-92 3.10.9—Calculation of Design Forces ................................................................................................................. 3-93 3.10.9.1—General......................................................................................................................................... 3-93 3.10.9.2—Seismic Zone 1............................................................................................................................. 3-93 3.10.9.3—Seismic Zone 2............................................................................................................................. 3-93 3.10.9.4—Seismic Zones 3 and 4 ................................................................................................................. 3-94 3.10.9.4.1—General .............................................................................................................................. 3-94 3.10.9.4.2—Modified Design Forces..................................................................................................... 3-94 3.10.9.4.3—Inelastic Hinging Forces .................................................................................................... 3-94 3.10.9.4.3a—General...................................................................................................................... 3-94 3.10.9.4.3b—Single Columns and Piers ......................................................................................... 3-95 3.10.9.4.3c—Piers with Two or More Columns ............................................................................. 3-96 3.10.9.4.3d— Column and Pile Bent Design Forces ...................................................................... 3-97 3.10.9.4.3e—Pier Design Forces .................................................................................................... 3-97 3.10.9.4.3f—Foundation Design Forces ......................................................................................... 3-97 3.10.9.5—Longitudinal Restrainers .............................................................................................................. 3-98 3.10.9.6—Hold-Down Devices .................................................................................................................... 3-98 3.10.10—Requirements for Temporary Bridges and Stage Construction ............................................................ 3-98 3-iv AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.11.5—Earth Pressure: EH ............................................................................................................................... 3-101 3.11.5.1—Lateral Earth Pressure ................................................................................................................3-101 3.11.5.2—At-Rest Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient, ko ...........................................................................3-102 3.11.5.3—Active Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient, ka .............................................................................3-103 3.11.5.4—Passive Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient, kp............................................................................3-105 3.11.5.5—Equivalent-Fluid Method of Estimating Rankine Lateral Earth Pressures .................................3-107 3.11.5.6—Lateral Earth Pressures for Nongravity Cantilevered Walls .......................................................3-109 3.11.5.7—Apparent Earth Pressure (AEP) for Anchored Walls .................................................................3-113 3.11.5.7.1—Cohesionless Soils ........................................................................................................... 3-113 3.11.5.7.2—Cohesive Soils .................................................................................................................. 3-114 3.11.5.7.2a—Stiff to Hard ............................................................................................................ 3-115 3.11.5.7.2b—Soft to Medium Stiff ............................................................................................... 3-115 3.11.5.8—Lateral Earth Pressures for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls ..............................................3-116 3.11.5.8.1—General ............................................................................................................................. 3-116 3.11.5.8.2—Internal Stability............................................................................................................... 3-118 3.11.5.9—Lateral Earth Pressures for Prefabricated Modular Walls ..........................................................3-118 3.11.6—Surcharge Loads: ES and LS ................................................................................................................ 3-123 3.11.6.1—Uniform Surcharge Loads (ES) ..................................................................................................3-123 3.11.6.2—Point, Line, and Strip Loads (ES): Walls Restrained from Movement .......................................3-124 3.11.6.3—Strip Loads (ES): Flexible Walls ................................................................................................3-127 3.11.6.4—Live Load Surcharge (LS) ..........................................................................................................3-129 3.11.6.5—Reduction of Surcharge ..............................................................................................................3-130 3.11.7—Reduction Due to Earth Pressure .......................................................................................................... 3-131 3.11.8—Downdrag ............................................................................................................................................. 3-131 3.12—FORCE EFFECTS DUE TO SUPERIMPOSED DEFORMATIONS: TU, TG, SH, CR, SE, PS ..................... 3-133 3.12.1—General ................................................................................................................................................. 3-133 3.12.2—Uniform Temperature ........................................................................................................................... 3-133 3.12.2.1—Temperature Range for Procedure A ..........................................................................................3-133 3.12.2.2—Temperature Range for Procedure B ..........................................................................................3-134 3.12.2.3—Design Thermal Movements ......................................................................................................3-136 3.12.3—Temperature Gradient........................................................................................................................... 3-136 3.12.4—Differential Shrinkage .......................................................................................................................... 3-137 3.12.5—Creep .................................................................................................................................................... 3-137 3.12.6—Settlement ............................................................................................................................................. 3-138 3.12.7—Secondary Forces from Post-Tensioning, PS ....................................................................................... 3-138 3.13—FRICTION FORCES: FR ............................................................................................................................... 3-138 3.14—VESSEL COLLISION: CV............................................................................................................................. 3-138 3.14.1—General ................................................................................................................................................. 3-138 3.14.2—Owner’s Responsibility ........................................................................................................................ 3-140 3.14.3—Operational Classification .................................................................................................................... 3-140 3.14.4—Design Vessel ....................................................................................................................................... 3-140 3.14.5—Annual Frequency of Collapse ............................................................................................................. 3-141 3.14.5.1—Vessel Frequency Distribution ...................................................................................................3-142 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS TABLE OF CONTENTS 3-v 3.14.5.2—Probability of Aberrancy............................................................................................................ 3-143 3.14.5.2.1—General ............................................................................................................................ 3-143 3.14.5.2.2—Statistical Method ............................................................................................................ 3-143 3.14.5.2.3—Approximate Method ....................................................................................................... 3-143 3.14.5.3—Geometric Probability ................................................................................................................ 3-146 3.14.5.4—Probability of Collapse .............................................................................................................. 3-147 3.14.5.5 Protection Factor ........................................................................................................................... 3-147 3.14.6—Design Collision Velocity .................................................................................................................... 3-150 3.14.7—Vessel Collision Energy ....................................................................................................................... 3-150 3.14.8—Ship Collision Force on Pier ................................................................................................................ 3-151 3.14.9—Ship Bow Damage Length ................................................................................................................... 3-153 3.14.10—Ship Collision Force on Superstructure.............................................................................................. 3-153 3.14.10.1—Collision with Bow .................................................................................................................. 3-153 3.14.10.2—Collision with Deck House ...................................................................................................... 3-153 3.14.10.3—Collision with Mast .................................................................................................................. 3-154 3.14.11—Barge Collision Force on Pier ............................................................................................................ 3-154 3.14.12—Barge Bow Damage Length ............................................................................................................... 3-155 3.14.13—Damage at the Extreme Limit State ................................................................................................... 3-155 3.14.14—Application of Impact Force .............................................................................................................. 3-156 3.14.14.1—Substructure Design ................................................................................................................. 3-156 3.14.14.2—Superstructure Design .............................................................................................................. 3-157 3.14.15—Protection of Substructures ................................................................................................................ 3-157 3.14.16—Security Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 3-158 3.15—BLAST LOADING ........................................................................................................................................ 3-159 3.15.1—Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3-159 3.16—REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................... 3-159 APPENDIX A3—SEISMIC DESIGN FLOWCHARTS ........................................................................................... 3-167 APPENDIX B3—OVERSTRENGTH RESISTANCE ............................................................................................. 3-169 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3 3.1—SCOPE C3.1 This Section specifies minimum requirements for loads and forces, the limits of their application, load factors, and load combinations used for the design of new bridges. The load provisions may also be applied to the structural evaluation of existing bridges. Where multiple performance levels are provided, the selection of the design performance level is the responsibility of the Owner. A minimum load factor is specified for force effects that may develop during construction. Additional requirements for construction of segmental concrete bridges are specified in Article 5.14.2. This Section includes, in addition to traditional loads, the force effects due to collisions, earthquakes, and settlement and distortion of the structure. Vehicle and vessel collisions, earthquakes, and aeroelastic instability develop force effects that are dependent upon structural response. Therefore, such force effects cannot be determined without analysis and/or testing. With the exception of segmental concrete bridges, construction loads are not provided, but the Designer should obtain pertinent information from prospective contractors. 3.2—DEFINITIONS Active Earth Pressure—Lateral pressure resulting from the retention of the earth by a structure or component that is tending to move away from the soil mass. Active Earth Wedge—Wedge of earth with a tendency to become mobile if not retained by a structure or component. Aeroelastic Vibration—Periodic, elastic response of a structure to wind. Apparent Earth Pressure—Lateral pressure distribution for anchored walls constructed from the top down. Axle Unit—Single axle or tandem axle. Berm—An earthwork used to redirect or slow down impinging vehicles or vessels and to stabilize fill, embankment, or soft ground and cut slopes. Centrifugal Force—A lateral force resulting from a change in the direction of a vehicle’s movement. Damper—A device that transfers and reduces forces between superstructure elements and/or superstructure and substructure elements, while permitting thermal movements. The device provides damping by dissipating energy under seismic, braking or other dynamic loads. Deep Draft Waterways—A navigable waterway used by merchant ships with loaded drafts of 14–60+ ft. Design Lane—A notional traffic lane positioned transversely on the roadway. Design Thermal Movement Range—The structure movement range resulting from the difference between the maximum design temperature and minimum design temperature as defined in Article 3.12. Design Water Depth—Depth of water at mean high water. Distortion—Change in structural geometry. Dolphin—Protective object that may have its own fender system and that is usually circular in plan and structurally independent from the bridge. Dynamic Load Allowance—An increase in the applied static force effects to account for the dynamic interaction between the bridge and moving vehicles. Equivalent Fluid—A notional substance whose density is such that it would exert the same pressure as the soil it is seen to replace for computational purposes. 3-1 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-2 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Exposed—A condition in which a portion of a bridge’s substructure or superstructure is subject to physical contact by any portion of a colliding vessel’s bow, deck house, or mast. Extreme—A maximum or a minimum. Fender—Protection hardware attached to the structural component to be protected or used to delineate channels or to redirect aberrant vessels. Frazil Ice—Ice resulting from turbulent water flow. Global—Pertinent to the entire superstructure or to the whole bridge. Influence Surface—A continuous or discretized function over a bridge deck whose value at a point, multiplied by a load acting normal to the deck at that point, yields the force effect being sought. Knot—A velocity of 1.1508 mph. Lane—The area of deck receiving one vehicle or one uniform load line. Lever Rule—The statical summation of moments about one point to calculate the reaction at a second point. Liquefaction—The loss of shear strength in a saturated soil due to excess hydrostatic pressure. In saturated, cohesionless soils, such a strength loss can result from loads that are applied instantaneously or cyclically, particularly in loose fine to medium sands that are uniformly graded. Load—The effect of acceleration, including that due to gravity, imposed deformation, or volumetric change. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Local—Pertinent to a component or subassembly of components. Mode of Vibration—A shape of dynamic deformation associated with a frequency of vibration. Navigable Waterway—A waterway, determined by the U.S. Coast Guard as being suitable for interstate or foreign commerce, as described in 33CFR205-25. Nominal Load—An arbitrarily selected design load level. Normally Consolidated Soil—A soil for which the current effective overburden pressure is the same as the maximum pressure that has been experienced. Overconsolidated Soil—A soil that has been under greater overburden pressure than currently exists. Overall Stability—Stability of the entire retaining wall or abutment structure and is determined by evaluating potential slip surfaces located outside of the whole structure. Overconsolidation Ratio—Ratio of the maximum preconsolidation pressure to the overburden pressure. Passive Earth Pressure—Lateral pressure resulting from the earth’s resistance to the lateral movement of a structure or component into the soil mass. Permanent Loads—Loads and forces that are, or are assumed to be, either constant upon completion of construction or varying only over a long time interval. Permit Vehicle—Any vehicle whose right to travel is administratively restricted in any way due to its weight or size. Reliability Index—A quantitative assessment of safety expressed as the ratio of the difference between the mean resistance and mean force effect to the combined standard deviation of resistance and force effect. Restrainers—A system of high-strength cables or rods that transfers forces between superstructure elements and/or superstructure and substructure elements under seismic or other dynamic loads after an initial slack is taken up, while permitting thermal movements. Roadway Width—Clear space between barriers and/or curbs. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-3 Setting Temperature—A structure’s average temperature, which is used to determine the dimensions of a structure when a component is added or set in place. Shallow Draft Waterways—A navigable waterway used primarily by barge vessels with loaded drafts of less than 9–10 ft. Shock Transmission Unit (STU)—A device that provides a temporary rigid link between superstructure elements and/or superstructure and substructure elements under seismic, braking or other dynamic loads, while permitting thermal movements. Structurally Continuous Barrier—A barrier, or any part thereof, that is interrupted only at deck joints. Substructure—Structural parts of the bridge that support the horizontal span. Superstructure—Structural parts of the bridge that provide the horizontal span. Surcharge—A load used to model the weight of earth fill or other loads applied to the top of the retained material. Tandem—Two closely spaced axles, usually connected to the same under-carriage, by which the equalization of load between the axles is enhanced. Transient Loads—Loads and forces that can vary over a short time interval relative to the lifetime of the structure. Tonne—2.205 kip. Wall Friction Angle—An angle whose arctangent represents the apparent friction between a wall and a soil mass. Wheel—Single or dual tire at one end of an axle. Wheel Line—A transverse or longitudinal grouping of wheels. 3.3—NOTATION 3.3.1—General A AEP AF a = = = = aB as AS Β B′ Be BM Bp BR b bf C = = = = = = = = = = = = Ca CD CH CL Cn Csm = = = = = = plan area of ice floe (ft2); depth of temperature gradient (in.) (C3.9.2.3) (3.12.3) apparent earth pressure for anchored walls (ksf) (3.4.1) annual frequency of bridge element collapse (number/yr.) (C3.14.4) length of uniform deceleration at braking (ft); truncated distance (ft); average bow damage length (ft) (C3.6.4) (C3.9.5) (C3.14.9) bow damage length of standard hopper barge (ft) (3.14.11) bow damage length of ship (ft) (3.14.9) peak seismic ground acceleration coefficient modified by short-period site factor (3.10.4.2) notional slope of backfill (degrees) (3.11.5.8.1) equivalent footing width (ft) (3.11.6.3) width of excavation (ft) (3.11.5.7.2b) beam (width) for barge, barge tows, and ship vessels (ft) (C3.14.5.1) width of bridge pier (ft) (3.14.5.3) vehicular braking force; base rate of vessel aberrancy (3.3.2) (3.14.5.2.3) braking force coefficient; width of a discrete vertical wall element (ft) (C3.6.4) (3.11.5.6) width of applied load or footing (ft) (3.11.6.3) coefficient to compute centrifugal forces; constant for terrain conditions in relation to wind approach (3.6.3) (C3.8.1.1) coefficient for force due to crushing of ice (3.9.2.2) drag coefficient (s2 lbs./ft4) (3.7.3.1) hydrodynamic mass coefficient (3.14.7) lateral drag coefficient (C3.7.3.1) coefficient for nose inclination to compute Fb (3.9.2.2) elastic seismic response coefficient for the mth mode of vibration (3.10.4.2) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-4 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS c cf D = = = DB DE Do = = = DWT D1 d = = = dc ds E EB e′ F = = = = = = Fa Fb Fc Fpga FSBH Ft Fv = = = = = = = F1 F2 f = = = f′ c g H = = = HL Hp Hs H1 Hn+1 h heq IM KE K1 k ka ko kp ks L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ℓ LOA m N N = = = = = soil cohesion (ksf) (3.11.5.4) distance from back of a wall face to the front of an applied load or footing (ft) (3.11.6.3) depth of embedment for a permanent nongravity cantilever wall with discrete vertical wall elements (ft) (3.11.5.6) bow depth (ft) (C3.14.5.1) minimum depth of earth cover (ft) (3.6.2.2) calculated embedment depth to provide equilibrium for nongravity cantilevered with continuous vertical elements by the simplified method (ft) (3.11.5.6) size of vessel based on deadweight tonnage (tonne) (C3.14.1) effective width of applied load at any depth (ft) (3.11.6.3) depth of potential base failure surface below base of excavation (ft); horizontal distance from the back of a wall face to the centerline of an applied load (ft) (3.11.5.7.2b) (3.11.6.3) total thickness of cohesive soil layers in the top 100 ft (3.10.3.1) total thickness of cohesionless soil layers in the top 100 ft (3.10.3.1) Young’s modulus (ksf) (C3.9.5) deformation energy (kip-ft) (C3.14.11) eccentricity of load on footing (ft) (3.11.6.3) longitudinal force on pier due to ice floe (kip); force required to fail an ice sheet (kip/ft); force at base of nongravity cantilevered wall required to provide force equilibrium (kip/ft) (3.9.2.2) (C3.9.5) (3.11.5.6) site factor for short-period range of acceleration response spectrum (3.10.3.2) horizontal force due to failure of ice flow due to bending (kip) (3.9.2.2) horizontal force due to crushing of ice (kip) (3.9.2.2) site factor at zero-period on acceleration response spectrum (3.10.3.2) factor of safety against basal heave (C3.11.5.6) transverse force on pier due to ice flow (kip) (3.9.2.4.1) vertical ice force due to adhesion (kip); site factor for long-period range of acceleration response spectrum (3.9.5) (3.10.3.2) lateral force due to earth pressure (kip/ft) (3.11.6.3) lateral force due to traffic surcharge (kip/ft) (3.11.6.3) constant applied in calculating the coefficient C used to compute centrifugal forces, taken equal to 4/3 for load combinations other than fatigue and 1.0 for fatigue (3.6.3) specified compressive strength of concrete for use in design (ksi) (3.5.1) gravitational acceleration (ft/s2) (3.6.3) ultimate bridge element strength (kip); final height of retaining wall (ft); total excavation depth (ft); resistance of bridge component to a horizontal force (kip) (C3.11.1) (3.11.5.7.1) (3.14.5.4) depth of barge head-block on its bow (ft) (3.14.14.1) ultimate bridge pier resistance (kip) (3.14.5.4) ultimate bridge superstructure resistance (kip) (3.14.5.4) distance from ground surface to uppermost ground anchor (ft) (3.11.5.7.1) distance from base of excavation to lowermost ground anchor (ft) (3.11.5.7.1) notional height of earth pressure diagram (ft) (3.11.5.7) equivalent height of soil for vehicular load (ft) (3.11.6.4) dynamic load allowance (C3.6.1.2.5) design impact energy of vessel collision (kip-ft) (3.14.7) ice force reduction factor for small streams (C3.9.2.3) coefficient of lateral earth pressure; number of cohesive soil layers in the top 100 ft (3.11.6.2) (3.10.3.1) coefficient of active lateral earth pressure (3.11.5.1) coefficient of at rest lateral earth pressure (3.11.5.1) coefficient of passive lateral earth pressure (3.11.5.1) coefficient of earth pressure due to surcharge (3.11.6.1) perimeter of pier (ft); length of soil reinforcing elements in an MSE wall (ft); length of footing (ft); expansion length (in.) (3.9.5) (3.11.5.8) (3.11.6.3) (3.12.2.3) characteristic length (ft); center-to-center spacing of vertical wall elements (ft) (C3.9.5) (3.11.5.6) length overall of ship or barge tow including the tug or tow boat (ft) (3.14.5) multiple presence factor; number of cohesionless soil layers in the top 100 ft (3.6.1.1.2) (3.10.3.1) number of one-way passages of vessels navigating through the bridge (number/yr.) (3.14.5) average Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (blows/ft) (ASTM D1586) for the upper 100 ft of the soil profile (3.10.3.1) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS N ch = Nchi Ni = = Ns OCR P = = = PA Pa PB = = = PB PBH PC PD PDH PG PGA PH Ph PI PMT Pp PS Pv = = = = = = = = = = = = = = P′v p = = pa pp Q Qi q qs R = = = = = = = RB RBH RC RD RDH RXC r SDS = = = = = = = = SD1 = Sf Sm SS = = = 3-5 average Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (blows/ft) (ASTM D1586) for cohesive soil layers in the upper 100 ft of the soil profile and su for cohesive soil layers (PI > 20) in the top 100 ft ( su method) (3.10.3.1) blowcount for a cohesionless soil layer (not to exceed 100 blows/ft in the above expression) (3.10.3.1) Standard Penetration Test blow count of a layer (not to exceed 100 blows/ft in the above expression). Note that when using Method B, N values are for cohesionless soils and cohesive soil and rock layers within the upper 100 ft Where refusal is met for a rock layer, Ni should be taken as 100 blows/ft (3.10.3.1) stability number (3.11.5.6) overconsolidation ratio (3.11.5.2) maximum vertical force for single ice wedge (kip); load resulting from vessel impact (kip); concentrated wheel load (kip); live load intensity; point load (kip) (C3.9.5) (3.14.5.4) (C3.6.1.2.5) (C3.11.6.2) (3.11.6.1) probability of vessel aberrancy (3.14.5) force resultant per unit width of wall (kip/ft) (3.11.5.8.1) barge collision impact force for head-on collision between barge bow and a rigid object (kip); base wind pressure corresponding to a wind speed of 100 mph (ksf) (3.14.11) (3.8.1.2) average equivalent static barge impact force resulting from Meir-Dornberg Study (kip) (C3.14.11) ship collision impact force between ship bow and a rigid superstructure (kip) (3.14.10.1) probability of bridge collapse (3.14.5) design wind pressure (ksf) (3.8.1.2.1) ship collision impact force between ship deck house and a rigid superstructure (kip) (3.14.5.4) geometric probability of vessel collision with bridge pier/span (3.14.5) peak seismic ground acceleration coefficient on rock (Site Class B) (3.10.2.1) (3.10.4.2) lateral force due to superstructure or other concentrated lateral loads (kip/ft) (3.11.6.3) horizontal component of resultant earth pressure on wall (kip/ft) (3.11.5.5) plasticity index (ASTM D4318) (3.10.3.1) ship collision impact force between ship mast and a rigid superstructure (kip) (3.14.5.4) passive earth pressure (kip/ft) (3.11.5.4) ship collision impact force for head-on collision between ship bow and a rigid object (kip) (3.14.5.4) vertical component of resultant earth pressure on wall (kip/ft); load per linear foot of strip footing (kip/ft) (3.11.5.5) (3.11.6.3) load on isolated rectangular footing or point load (kip) (3.11.6.3) effective ice crushing strength (ksf); stream pressure (ksf); basic earth pressure (psf); fraction of truck traffic in a single lane; load intensity (ksf) (3.9.2.2) (3.7.3.1) (3.11.5.1) (3.6.1.4.2) (3.11.6.1) apparent earth pressure (ksf); maximum ordinate of pressure diagram (ksf) (3.11.5.3) (3.11.5.7.1) passive earth pressure (ksf) (3.11.5.4) total factored load; load intensity for infinitely long line loading (kip/ft) (3.4.1) (3.11.6.2) force effects (3.4.1) surcharge pressure (ksf) (3.11.6.3) uniform surcharge pressure (ksf) (3.11.6.1) radius of curvature (ft); radius of circular pier (ft); seismic response modification factor; reduction factor of lateral passive earth pressure; radial distance from point of load application to a point on the wall (ft); reaction force to be resisted by subgrade below base of excavation (kip/ft) (3.6.3) (3.9.5) (3.10.7.1) (3.11.5.4) (3.11.6.1) (3.11.5.7.1) PA correction factor for bridge location (3.14.5.2.3) ratio of exposed superstructure depth to the total ship bow depth (3.14.10.1) PA correction factor for currents parallel to vessel transit path (3.14.5.2.3) PA correction factor for vessel traffic density (3.14.5.2.3) reduction factor for ship deck house collision force (3.14.10.2) PA correction factor for cross-currents acting perpendicular to vessel transit path (3.14.5.2.3) radius of pier nose (ft) (C3.9.2.3) horizontal response spectral acceleration coefficient at 0.2-s period modified by short-period site factor (3.10.4.2) horizontal response spectral acceleration coefficient at 1.0-s period modified by long-period site factor (3.10.4.2) freezing index (C3.9.2.2) shear strength of rock mass (ksf) (3.11.5.6) horizontal response spectral acceleration coefficient at 0.2-s period on rock (Site Class B) (3.10.2.1) (3.10.4.2) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-6 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Su Sub Sv su = = = = sui S1 = = T = TF = Thi = Tm = Tmax = TMaxDesign= TMinDesign = TS = T0 t V VB VC VDZ VMIN = = = = = = = VT VXC V0 = = = V30 v vs W w = = = = = X = Xc XL X1 X2 Z = = = = = Z0 Z2 z α = = = = β = undrained shear strength of cohesive soil (ksf) (3.11.5.6) undrained strength of soil below excavation base (ksf) (3.11.5.7.2b) vertical spacing of reinforcements (ft) (3.11.5.8.1) average undrained shear strength in ksf (ASTM D2166 or ASTM D2850) for the upper 100 ft of the soil profile (3.10.3.1) undrained shear strength for a cohesive soil layer (not to exceed 5.0 ksf in the above expression) (3.10.3.1) horizontal response spectral acceleration coefficient at 1.0-s period on rock (Site Class B) (3.10.2.1) (3.10.4.2) mean daily air temperature (°F) (C3.9.2.2) period of fundamental mode of vibration of bridge (s) (3.10.2.2) horizontal load in anchor i (kip/ft) (3.11.5.7.1) period of vibration for mth mode (s) (3.10.4.2) applied load to reinforcement in a mechanically stabilized earth wall (kip/ft) (3.11.5.8.2) maximum design temperature used for thermal movement effects (°F) (3.12.2.1) (3.12.2.2) (3.12.2.3) minimum design temperature used for thermal movement effects (°F) (3.12.2.1) (3.12.2.2) (3.12.2.3) corner period at which acceleration response spectrum changes from being independent of period to being inversely proportional to period (s) (3.10.4.2) reference period used to define shape of acceleration response spectrum (s) (3.10.4.2) thickness of ice (ft); thickness of deck (in.) (3.9.2.2) (3.12.3) design velocity of water (ft/s); design impact speed of vessel (ft/s) (3.7.3.1) (3.14.6) base wind velocity taken as 100 mph (3.8.1.1) waterway current component acting parallel to the vessel transit path (knots) (3.14.5.2.3) design wind velocity at design Elevation Z (mph) (3.8.1.1) minimum design impact velocity taken not less than the yearly mean current velocity for the bridge location (ft/s) (3.14.6) vessel transit speed in the navigable channel (ft/s) (3.14.6) waterway current component acting perpendicular to the vessel transit path (knots) (3.14.5.2.3) friction velocity, a meteorological wind characteristic for various upwind surface characteristics (mph) (3.8.1.1) wind speed at 30.0 ft above low ground or water level (mph) (3.8.1.1) highway design speed (ft/s) (3.6.3) average shear wave velocity for the upper 100 ft of the soil profile (3.10.3.1) displacement weight of vessel (tonne) (C3.14.5.1) width of clear roadway (ft); width of clear pedestrian and/or bicycle bridge (ft); width of pier at level of ice action (ft); specific weight of water (kcf); moisture content (ASTM D2216) (3.6.1.1.1) (3.6.1.6) (3.9.2.2) (C3.7.3.1) (3.10.3.1) horizontal distance from back of wall to point of load application (ft); distance to bridge element from the centerline of vessel transit path (ft) (3.11.6.2) (3.14.6) distance to edge of channel from centerline of vessel transit path (ft) (3.14.6) distance from centerline of vessel transit path equal to 3 × LOA (ft) (3.14.6) distance from the back of the wall to the start of the line load (ft) (3.11.6.2) length of the line load (ft) (3.11.6.2) structure height above low ground or water level > 30.0 ft (ft); depth below surface of soil (ft); depth from the ground surface to a point on the wall under consideration (ft); vertical distance from point of load application to the elevation of a point on the wall under consideration (ft) (3.8.1.1) (3.11.6.3) (3.11.6.2) friction length of upstream fetch, a meteorological wind characteristic (ft) (3.8.1.1) depth where effective width intersects back of wall face (ft) (3.11.6.3) depth below surface of backfill (ft) (3.11.5.1) constant for terrain conditions in relation to wind approach; coefficient for local ice condition; inclination of pier nose with respect to a vertical axis (degrees); inclination of back of wall with respect to a vertical axis (degrees); angle between foundation wall and a line connecting the point on the wall under consideration and a point on the bottom corner of the footing nearest to the wall (rad); coefficient of thermal expansion (in./in./°F) (C3.8.1.1) (C3.9.2.2) (3.9.2.2) (C3.11.5.3) (3.11.6.2) (3.12.2.3) safety index; nose angle in a horizontal plane used to calculate transverse ice forces (degrees); slope of backfill surface behind retaining wall; {+ for slope up from wall; − for slope down from wall} (degrees) (C3.4.1) (3.9.2.4.1) (3.11.5.3) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS β′ = γ = γs γ′s γEQ γeq γi γp γSE γTG Δ = = = = = = = = = Δp Δph = = ΔT ΔσH Δσv δ = = = = ηi θ = = θf σ σT ν φ φf φ′f φr φ′s = = = = = = = = = slope of ground surface in front of wall {+ for slope up from wall; − for slope down from wall} (degrees) (3.11.5.6) load factors; unit weight of materials (kcf); unit weight of water (kcf); unit weight of soil (kcf) (C3.4.1) (3.5.1) (C3.9.5) (3.11.5.1) unit weight of soil (kcf) (3.11.5.1) effective soil unit weight (kcf) (3.11.5.6) load factor for live load applied simultaneously with seismic loads (3.4.1) equivalent-fluid unit weight of soil (kcf) (3.11.5.5) load factor (3.4.1) load factor for permanent loading (3.4.1) load factor for settlement (3.4.1) load factor for temperature gradient (3.4.1) movement of top of wall required to reach minimum active or maximum passive pressure by tilting or lateral translation (ft) (C3.11.1) (3.11.5.5) constant horizontal earth pressure due to uniform surcharge (ksf) (3.11.6.1) constant horizontal pressure distribution on wall resulting from various types of surcharge loading (ksf) (3.11.6.2) design thermal movement range (in.) (3.12.2.3) horizontal stress due to surcharge load (ksf) (3.11.6.3) vertical stress due to surcharge load (ksf) (3.11.6.3) angle of truncated ice wedge (degrees); friction angle between fill and wall (degrees); angle between foundation wall and a line connecting the point on the wall under consideration and a point on the bottom corner of the footing furthest from the wall (rad) (C3.9.5) (3.11.5.3) (3.11.6.2) load modifier specified in Article 1.3.2; wall face batter (3.4.1) (3.11.5.9) angle of back of wall to the horizontal (degrees); angle of channel turn or bend (degrees); angle between direction of stream flow and the longitudinal axis of pier (degrees) (3.11.5.3) (3.14.5.2.3) (3.7.3.2) friction angle between ice floe and pier (degrees) (3.9.2.4.1) standard deviation of normal distribution (3.14.5.3) tensile strength of ice (ksf) (C3.9.5) Poisson’s Ratio (dim.) (3.11.6.2) resistance factors (C3.4.1) angle of internal friction (degrees) (3.11.5.4) effective angle of internal friction (degrees) (3.11.5.2) internal friction angle of reinforced fill (degrees) (3.11.6.3) angle of internal friction of retained soil (degrees) (3.11.5.6) 3.3.2—Load and Load Designation The following permanent and transient loads and forces shall be considered: • Permanent Loads CR = DD = DC = DW = EH = EL = ES = EV = 3-7 force effects due to creep downdrag force dead load of structural components and nonstructural attachments dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities horizontal earth pressure load miscellaneous locked-in force effects resulting from the construction process, including jacking apart of cantilevers in segmental construction earth surcharge load vertical pressure from dead load of earth fill --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-8 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS PS = SH = secondary forces from post-tensioning force effects due to shrinkage • Transient Loads BL BR CE CT CV EQ FR IC IM LL LS PL SE TG TU WA WL WS = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = blast loading vehicular braking force vehicular centrifugal force vehicular collision force vessel collision force earthquake load friction load ice load vehicular dynamic load allowance vehicular live load live load surcharge pedestrian live load force effect due to settlement force effect due to temperature gradient force effect due to uniform temperature water load and stream pressure wind on live load wind load on structure 3.4—LOAD FACTORS AND COMBINATIONS 3.4.1—Load Factors and Load Combinations The total factored force effect shall be taken as: Q =  ηi γ i Qi (3.4.1-1) C3.4.1 The background for the load factors specified herein, and the resistance factors specified in other Sections of these Specifications is developed in Nowak (1992). where: ηi = Qi = γi = load modifier specified in Article 1.3.2 force effects from loads specified herein load factors specified in Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2 Components and connections of a bridge shall satisfy Eq. 1.3.2.1-1 for the applicable combinations of factored extreme force effects as specified at each of the following limit states: • Strength I—Basic load combination relating to the normal vehicular use of the bridge without wind. • Strength II—Load combination relating to the use of the bridge by Owner-specified special design vehicles, evaluation permit vehicles, or both without wind. • Strength III—Load combination relating to the bridge exposed to wind velocity exceeding 55 mph. The permit vehicle should not be assumed to be the only vehicle on the bridge unless so assured by traffic control. See Article 4.6.2.2.5 regarding other traffic on the bridge simultaneously. Vehicles become unstable at higher wind velocities. Therefore, high winds prevent the presence of significant live load on the bridge. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS • Strength IV—Load combination relating to very high dead load to live load force effect ratios. • Strength V—Load combination relating to normal vehicular use of the bridge with wind of 55 mph velocity. • Extreme Event I—Load combination including earthquake. The load factor for live load γEQ, shall be determined on a project-specific basis. • Extreme Event II—Load combination relating to ice load, collision by vessels and vehicles, check floods, and certain hydraulic events with a reduced live load other than that which is part of the vehicular collision load, CT. The cases of check floods shall not be combined with BL, CV, CT, or IC. 3-9 The standard calibration process for the strength limit state consists of trying out various combinations of load and resistance factors on a number of bridges and their components. Combinations that yield a safety index close to the target value of β = 3.5 are retained for potential application. From these are selected constant load factors γ and corresponding resistance factors φ for each type of structural component reflecting its use. This calibration process had been carried out for a large number of bridges with spans not exceeding 200 ft These calculations were for completed bridges. For the primary components of large bridges, the ratio of dead and live load force effects is rather high, and could result in a set of resistance factors different from those found acceptable for small- and medium-span bridges. It is believed to be more practical to investigate one additional load case than to require the use of two sets of resistance factors with the load factors provided in Strength Load Combination I, depending on other permanent loads present. Spot checks had been made on a few bridges with up to 600-ft spans, and it appears that Strength Load Combination IV will govern where the dead load to live load force effect ratio exceeds about 7.0. This load combination can control during investigation of construction stages. Past editions of the Standard Specifications used γEQ = 0.0. This issue is not resolved. The possibility of partial live load, i.e., γEQ < 1.0, with earthquakes should be considered. Application of Turkstra’s rule for combining uncorrelated loads indicates that γEQ = 0.50 is reasonable for a wide range of values of average daily truck traffic (ADTT). The following applies to both Extreme Event I and II: • The recurrence interval of extreme events is thought to exceed the design life. • Although these limit states include water loads, WA, the effects due to WA are considerably less significant than the effects on the structure stability due to scour. Therefore, unless specific site conditions dictate otherwise, local pier scour and contraction scour depths should not be combined with BL, EQ, CT, CV, or IC. However, the effects due to degradation of the channel should be considered. Alternatively, one-half of the total scour may be considered in combination with BL, EQ, CT, CV, or IC. • The joint probability of these events is extremely low, and, therefore, the events are specified to be applied separately. Under these extreme conditions, the structure may undergo considerable inelastic deformation by which locked-in force effects due to TU, TG, CR, SH, and SE are expected to be relieved. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-10 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS • Service I—Load combination relating to the normal operational use of the bridge with a 55 mph wind and all loads taken at their nominal values. Also related to deflection control in buried metal structures, tunnel liner plate, and thermoplastic pipe, to control crack width in reinforced concrete structures, and for transverse analysis relating to tension in concrete segmental girders. This load combination should also be used for the investigation of slope stability. • Service II—Load combination intended to control yielding of steel structures and slip of slip-critical connections due to vehicular live load. • Service III—Load combination for longitudinal analysis relating to tension in prestressed concrete superstructures with the objective of crack control and to principal tension in the webs of segmental concrete girders. • Service IV—Load combination relating only to tension in prestressed concrete columns with the objective of crack control. • Fatigue I—Fatigue and fracture load combination related to infinite load-induced fatigue life. The 0.50 live load factor signifies a low probability of the concurrence of the maximum vehicular live load (other than CT) and the extreme events. Compression in prestressed concrete components and tension in prestressed bent caps are investigated using this load combination. Service III is used to investigate tensile stresses in prestressed concrete components. This load combination corresponds to the overload provision for steel structures in past editions of the AASHTO Specifications, and it is applicable only to steel structures. From the point of view of load level, this combination is approximately halfway between that used for Service I and Strength I Limit States. The live load specified in these specifications reflects, among other things, current exclusion weight limits mandated by various jurisdictions. Vehicles permitted under these limits have been in service for many years prior to 1993. For longitudinal loading, there is no nationwide physical evidence that these vehicles have caused cracking in existing prestressed concrete components. The statistical significance of the 0.80 factor on live load is that the event is expected to occur about once a year for bridges with two traffic lanes, less often for bridges with more than two traffic lanes, and about once a day for bridges with a single traffic lane. Service I should be used for checking tension related to transverse analysis of concrete segmental girders. The principal tensile stress check is introduced in order to verify the adequacy of webs of segmental concrete girder bridges for longitudinal shear and torsion. The 0.70 factor on wind represents an 84 mph wind. This should result in zero tension in prestressed concrete columns for ten-year mean reoccurrence winds. The prestressed concrete columns must still meet strength requirements as set forth in Load Combination Strength III in Article 3.4.1. It is not recommended that thermal gradient be combined with high wind forces. Superstructure expansion forces are included. The load factor for the Fatigue I load combination, applied to a single design truck having the axle spacing specified in Article 3.6.1.4.1, reflects load levels found to be representative of the maximum stress range of the truck population for infinite fatigue life design. The factor was chosen on the assumption that the maximum stress range in the random variable spectrum is twice the effective stress range caused by Fatigue II load combination. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS • 3-11 Fatigue II—Fatigue and fracture load combination related to finite load-induced fatigue life. The load factors for various loads comprising a design load combination shall be taken as specified in Table 3.4.1-1. All relevant subsets of the load combinations shall be investigated. For each load combination, every load that is indicated to be taken into account and that is germane to the component being designed, including all significant effects due to distortion, shall be multiplied by the appropriate load factor and multiple presence factor specified in Article 3.6.1.1.2, if applicable. The products shall be summed as specified in Eq. 1.3.2.1-1 and multiplied by the load modifiers specified in Article 1.3.2. The factors shall be selected to produce the total extreme factored force effect. For each load combination, both positive and negative extremes shall be investigated. In load combinations where one force effect decreases another effect, the minimum value shall be applied to the load reducing the force effect. For permanent force effects, the load factor that produces the more critical combination shall be selected from Table 3.4.1-2. Where the permanent load increases the stability or load-carrying capacity of a component or bridge, the minimum value of the load factor for that permanent load shall also be investigated. The load factor for the Fatigue II load combination, applied to a single design truck, reflects a load level found to be representative of the effective stress range of the truck population with respect to a small number of stress range cycles and to their cumulative effects in steel elements, components, and connections for finite fatigue life design. This Article reinforces the traditional method of selecting load combinations to obtain realistic extreme effects and is intended to clarify the issue of the variability of permanent loads and their effects. As has always been the case, the Owner or Designer may determine that not all of the loads in a given load combination apply to the situation under investigation. It is recognized herein that the actual magnitude of permanent loads may also be less than the nominal value. This becomes important where the permanent load reduces the effects of transient loads. It has been observed that permanent loads are more likely to be greater than the nominal value than to be less than this value. The earth load factor for thermoplastic culverts is set to 1.3; however, to preserve the overall safety at the same levels as historical specifications, an earth-load-installation factor is introduced later in these Specifications as part of the implementation of NCHRP Report 631. This factor may be adjusted based on field control of construction practices. In the application of permanent loads, force effects for each of the specified six load types should be computed separately. It is unnecessary to assume that one type of load varies by span, length, or component within a bridge. For example, when investigating uplift at a bearing in a continuous beam, it would not be appropriate to use the maximum load factor for permanent loads in spans that produce a negative reaction and the minimum load factor in spans that produce a positive reaction. Consider the investigation of uplift. Uplift, which was treated as a separate load case in past editions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications, now becomes a strength load combination. Where a permanent load produces uplift, that load would be multiplied by the maximum load factor, regardless of the span in which it is located. If another permanent load reduces the uplift, it would be multiplied by the minimum load factor, regardless of the span in which it is located. For example, at Strength I Limit State where the permanent load reaction is positive and live load can cause a negative reaction, the load combination would be 0.9DC + 0.65DW + 1.75(LL + IM). If both reactions were negative, the load combination would be 1.25DC + 1.50DW + 1.75(LL + IM). For each force effect, both extreme combinations may need to be investigated by applying either the high or the low load factor as appropriate. The algebraic sums of these products are the total force effects for which the bridge and its components should be designed. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-12 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The load factor for temperature gradient, γTG, should be considered on a project-specific basis. In lieu of projectspecific information to the contrary, γTG may be taken as: • 0.0 at the strength and extreme event limit states, • 1.0 at the service limit state when live load is not considered, and • 0.50 at the service limit state when live load is considered. PS, CR, SH, TU, and TG are superimposed deformations as defined in Article 3.12. Load factors for TU, and TG are as shown in Table 3.4.1-1. Load factors for PS, CR, and SH are as shown in Table 3.4.1-3. For prestressed members in typical bridge types, secondary prestressing, creep and shrinkage are generally designed for in the service limit state. In concrete segmental structures, CR and SH are factored by γP for DC because analysis for time-dependent effects in segmental bridges is nonlinear. Abutments, piers, columns, and bent caps are to be considered as substructure components. The calculation of displacements for TU utilizes a factor greater than 1.0 to avoid undersizing joints, expansion devices, and bearings. Applying these criteria for the evaluation of the sliding resistance of walls: • The vertical earth load on the rear of a cantilevered retaining wall would be multiplied by γpmin (1.00) and the weight of the structure would be multiplied by γpmin (0.90) because these forces result in an increase in the contact stress (and shear strength) at the base of the wall and foundation. • The horizontal earth load on a cantilevered retaining wall would be multiplied by γpmax (1.50) for an active earth pressure distribution because the force results in a more critical sliding force at the base of the wall. Similarly, the values of γpmax for structure weight (1.25), vertical earth load (1.35) and horizontal active earth pressure (1.50) would represent the critical load combination for an evaluation of foundation bearing resistance. Water load and friction are included in all strength load combinations at their respective nominal values. For creep and shrinkage, the specified nominal values should be used. For friction, settlement, and water loads, both minimum and maximum values need to be investigated to produce extreme load combinations. The load factor for temperature gradient should be determined on the basis of the: • Type of structure, and • Limit state being investigated. Open girder construction and multiple steel box girders have traditionally, but perhaps not necessarily correctly, been designed without consideration of temperature gradient, i.e., γTG = 0.0. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The larger of the two values provided for load factor of TU shall be used for deformations and the smaller values for all other effects. For simplified analysis of concrete substructures in the strength limit state, a value of 0.50 for γTU may be used when calculating force effects, but shall be taken in conjunction with the gross moment of inertia in the columns or piers. When a refined analysis is completed for concrete substructures in the strength limit state, a value of 1.0 for γTU shall be used in conjunction with a partially cracked moment of inertia determined by analysis. For concrete substructures in the strength limit state, the value of 0.50 for γPS, γCR, and γSH may similarly be used when calculating force effects in non-segmental structures, but shall be taken in conjunction with the gross moment of inertia in the columns or piers. For steel substructures, a value of 1.0 for γTU, γPS, γCR, and γSH shall be used. The evaluation of overall stability of retained fills, as well as earth slopes with or without a shallow or deep foundation unit should be investigated at the service limit state based on the Service I Load Combination and an appropriate resistance factor as specified in Article 11.5.6 and Article 11.6.2.3. For structural plate box structures complying with the provisions of Article 12.9, the live load factor for the vehicular live loads LL and IM shall be taken as 2.0. LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-13 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The load factor for settlement, γSE, should be considered on a project-specific basis. In lieu of projectspecific information to the contrary, γSE, may be taken as 1.0. Load combinations which include settlement shall also be applied without settlement. For segmentally constructed bridges, the following combination shall be investigated at the service limit state: DC + DW + EH + EV + ES + WA + CR + SH + TG + EL + PS (3.4.1-2) Table 3.4.1-1—Load Combinations and Load Factors Use One of These at a Time DC DD DW EH EV ES EL PS CR SH γp LL IM CE BR PL LS 1.75 WA 1.00 WS — WL — FR 1.00 TU 0.50/1.20 TG γTG SE γSE EQ — BL — IC — CT — CV — γp γp 1.35 — 1.00 1.00 — — 1.00 1.00 0.50/1.20 0.50/1.20 γTG γTG γSE γSE — — — — — — — — — — Strength IV Strength V γp γp — 1.35 1.00 1.00 — 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.50/1.20 0.50/1.20 — γTG — γSE — — — — — — — — — — Extreme Event I Extreme Event II Service I γp γEQ 1.00 — 1.4 0 — 0.4 0 — — 1.00 — — — 1.00 — — — — γp 0.50 1.00 — — 1.00 — — — — 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 1.00 1.00/1.20 γTG γSE — — — — — Service II Service III Service IV 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.30 0.80 — 1.00 1.00 1.00 — — — 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00/1.20 1.00/1.20 1.00/1.20 — γTG — — γSE 1.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.50 — 0.3 0 — — 0.7 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.75 — — — — — — — — — — — — Load Combination Limit State Strength I (unless noted) Strength II Strength III Fatigue I— LL, IM & CE only Fatigue II— LL, IM & CE only © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition 3-14 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table 3.4.1-2—Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp DC: Component and Attachments DC: Strength IV only DD: Downdrag Piles, α Tomlinson Method Piles, λ Method Drilled shafts, O’Neill and Reese (1999) Method DW: Wearing Surfaces and Utilities EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure • Active • At-Rest • AEP for anchored walls EL: Locked-in Construction Stresses EV: Vertical Earth Pressure • Overall Stability • Retaining Walls and Abutments • Rigid Buried Structure • Rigid Frames • Flexible Buried Structures o Metal Box Culverts and Structural Plate Culverts with Deep Corrugations o Thermoplastic culverts o All others ES: Earth Surcharge 1.25 1.50 1.4 1.05 1.25 1.50 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.65 1.50 1.35 1.35 1.00 0.90 0.90 N/A 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.30 1.35 N/A 1.00 0.90 0.90 1.5 1.3 1.95 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.50 0.75 Table 3.4.1-3—Load Factors for Permanent Loads Due to Superimposed Deformations, γp PS 1.0 CR, SH See γP for DC, Table 3.4.1-2 1.0 1.0 Substructures supporting non-segmental Superstructures • using Ig • using Ieffectuve 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 Steel Substructures 1.0 1.0 Bridge Component Superstructures—Segmental Concrete Substructures supporting Segmental Superstructures (see 3.12.4, 3.12.5) Concrete Superstructures—non-segmental © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Load Factor Maximum Minimum Type of Load, Foundation Type, and Method Used to Calculate Downdrag SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-15 Where prestressed components are used in conjunction with steel girders, the force effects from the following sources shall be considered as construction loads, EL: • In conjunction with longitudinal prestressing of a precast deck prior to making the deck sections composite with the girders, the friction between the precast deck sections and the steel girders. • When longitudinal post-tensioning is performed after the deck becomes composite with the girders, the additional forces induced in the steel girders and shear connectors. • The effects of differential creep and shrinkage of the concrete. • The Poisson effect. The load factor for live load in Extreme Event Load Combination I, γEQ, shall be determined on a projectspecific basis. Engineering judgment shall be exercised when applying blast loadings and when combining them with other loads. The most common applications of prestressed concrete in steel girder bridges are transverse posttensioning of the deck and integral pier caps in which the tendons penetrate the girder webs. When a composite deck is prestressed longitudinally, the shear connectors transfer force to the steel. The effect of shrinkage and long-term creep around the shear connectors should be evaluated to ensure that the composite girder is able to recognize the prestressing over the life of the bridge. The contribution of long-term deformations in closure pours between precast deck panels which have been aged to reduce shrinkage and creep may need evaluation. The Poisson effect recognizes the bulging of concrete when subjected to prestressing. When used in pier caps, post-tensioning causes a transverse Poisson tensile stress resulting in a longitudinal stress in the steel girders. A load factor for passive lateral earth pressure is not given in Table 3.4.1-2 because, strictly speaking, passive lateral earth pressure is a resistance and not a load. For discussion of the selection of a passive lateral earth pressure resistance factor see Article 10.5.5.2.2. Blast loads are considered an Extreme Event case of loading. However, not enough information exists at the time of this writing to determine what other loads should be combined with blast loads and the appropriate load factors. 3.4.2—Load Factors for Construction Loads 3.4.2.1—Evaluation at the Strength Limit State All appropriate strength load combinations in Table 3.4.1-1, modified as specified herein, shall be investigated. When investigating Strength Load Combinations I, III, and V during construction, load factors for the weight of the structure and appurtenances, DC and DW, shall not be taken to be less than 1.25. Unless otherwise specified by the Owner, the load factor for construction loads and for any associated dynamic effects shall not be less than 1.5 in Strength Load Combination I. The load factor for wind in Strength Load Combination III shall not be less than 1.25. C3.4.2.1 The load factors presented here should not relieve the contractor of responsibility for safety and damage control during construction. Construction loads are permanent loads and other loads that act on the structure only during construction. Construction loads include the weight of equipment such as deck finishing machines or loads applied to the structure through falsework or other temporary supports. Often the construction loads are not accurately known at design time; however, the magnitude and location of these loads considered in the design should be noted on the contract documents. 3.4.2.2—Evaluation of Deflection at the Service Limit State In the absence of special provisions to the contrary, where evaluation of construction deflections are required by the contract documents, Load Combination Service I shall apply. Construction dead loads shall be considered as part of the permanent load and construction transient loads considered part of the live load. The associated permitted deflections shall be included in the contract documents. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-16 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.4.3—Load Factors for Jacking and Post-Tensioning Forces 3.4.3.1—Jacking Forces Unless otherwise specified by the Owner, the design forces for jacking in service shall not be less than 1.3 times the permanent load reaction at the bearing, adjacent to the point of jacking. Where the bridge will not be closed to traffic during the jacking operation, the jacking load shall also contain a live load reaction consistent with the maintenance of traffic plan, multiplied by the load factor for live load. 3.4.3.2—Force for Post-Tensioning Anchorage Zones 3.4.4—Load Factors for Orthotropic Decks C3.4.4 The Fatigue I live load factor (γLL) shall be multiplied by an additional factor of 1.5 when evaluating fatigue at the welded rib-to-floorbeam cut-out detail and the rib-todeck weld. Evaluation of the maximum stress range in the rib-todeck weld as well as in the vicinity of the cut-out for this type of detail has demonstrated that the use of a 1.5 load factor for LL is unconservative. For the rib-to-deck weld and when a cut-out is used to relive the secondary stresses imparted by the rotation of the rib relative to the floorbeam, the appropriate γLL should be increased to 2.25 (Connor, 2002). The increased Fatigue I load factor is based on stress range spectra monitoring of orthotropic decks. Studies indicate that the ratio of maximum stress range to effective stress range is increased as compared to standard bridge girders. This is due to a number of factors such as occasional heavy wheels and reduced local load distribution that occurs in deck elements. These Specifications produce a ratio that is consistent with the original findings of NCHRP Report 299 (Moses et al., 1987). 3.5—PERMANENT LOADS 3.5.1—Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV Dead load shall include the weight of all components of the structure, appurtenances and utilities attached thereto, earth cover, wearing surface, future overlays, and planned widenings. In the absence of more precise information, the unit weights, specified in Table 3.5.1-1, may be used for dead loads. C3.5.1 Table 3.5.1-1 provides traditional unit weights. The unit weight of granular materials depends upon the degree of compaction and water content. The unit weight of concrete is primarily affected by the unit weight of the aggregate, which varies by geographical location and increases with concrete compressive strength. The unit weight of reinforced concrete is generally taken as 0.005 kcf greater than the unit weight of plain concrete. The values provided for wood include the weight of mandatory preservatives. The weight of transit rails, etc., is to be used only for preliminary design. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The design force for post-tensioning anchorage zones shall be taken as 1.2 times the maximum jacking force. SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-17 Table 3.5.1-1—Unit Weights Unit Weight (kcf) 0.175 0.140 0.450 0.060 0.120 0.110 0.120 0.145 0.140 + 0.001 f′c 0.100 0.100 0.140 0.490 0.170 0.060 0.050 0.0624 0.0640 Weight per Unit Length (klf) 0.200 Material --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Aluminum Alloys Bituminous Wearing Surfaces Cast Iron Cinder Filling Compacted Sand, Silt, or Clay Concrete Lightweight Sand-Lightweight Normal Weight with f′c ≤ 5.0 ksi Normal Weight with 5.0 < f′c ≤ 15.0 ksi Loose Sand, Silt, or Gravel Soft Clay Rolled Gravel, Macadam, or Ballast Steel Stone Masonry Wood Hard Soft Water Fresh Salt Item Transit Rails, Ties, and Fastening per Track 3.5.2—Earth Loads: EH, ES, and DD Earth pressure, earth surcharge, and downdrag loads shall be as specified in Article 3.11. 3.6—LIVE LOADS 3.6.1—Gravity Loads: LL and PL 3.6.1.1—Vehicular Live Load 3.6.1.1.1—Number of Design Lanes Generally, the number of design lanes should be determined by taking the integer part of the ratio w/12.0, where w is the clear roadway width in ft between curbs and/or barriers. Possible future changes in the physical or functional clear roadway width of the bridge should be considered. In cases where the traffic lanes are less than 12.0 ft wide, the number of design lanes shall be equal to the number of traffic lanes, and the width of the design lane shall be taken as the width of the traffic lane. Roadway widths from 20.0 to 24.0 ft shall have two design lanes, each equal to one-half the roadway width. C3.6.1.1.1 It is not the intention of this Article to promote bridges with narrow traffic lanes. Wherever possible, bridges should be built to accommodate the standard design lane and appropriate shoulders. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-18 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The provisions of this Article shall not be applied to the fatigue limit state for which one design truck is used, regardless of the number of design lanes. Where the single-lane approximate distribution factors in Articles 4.6.2.2 and 4.6.2.3 are used, other than the lever rule and statical method, the force effects shall be divided by 1.20. Unless specified otherwise herein, the extreme live load force effect shall be determined by considering each possible combination of number of loaded lanes multiplied by a corresponding multiple presence factor to account for the probability of simultaneous lane occupation by the full HL93 design live load. In lieu of site specific data, the values in Table 3.6.1.1.2-1: • Shall be used when investigating the effect of one lane loaded, • May be used when investigating the effect of three or more lanes loaded. For the purpose of determining the number of lanes when the loading condition includes the pedestrian loads specified in Article 3.6.1.6 combined with one or more lanes of the vehicular live load, the pedestrian loads may be taken to be one loaded lane. The factors specified in Table 3.6.1.1.2-1 shall not be applied in conjunction with approximate load distribution factors specified in Articles 4.6.2.2 and 4.6.2.3, except where the lever rule is used or where special requirements for exterior beams in beam-slab bridges, specified in Article 4.6.2.2.2d, are used. Table 3.6.1.1.2-1—Multiple Presence Factors, m Multiple Presence Factors, m 1.20 1.00 0.85 0.65 Number of Loaded Lanes 1 2 3 >3 C3.6.1.1.2 The multiple presence factors have been included in the approximate equations for distribution factors in Articles 4.6.2.2 and 4.6.2.3, both for single and multiple lanes loaded. The equations are based on evaluation of several combinations of loaded lanes with their appropriate multiple presence factors and are intended to account for the worst case scenario. Where use of the lever rule is specified in Article 4.6.2.2 and 4.6.2.3, the Engineer must determine the number and location of vehicles and lanes, and, therefore, must include the multiple presence. Stated another way, if a sketch is required to determine load distribution, the Engineer is responsible for including multiple presence factors and selecting the worst design case. The factor 1.20 from Table 3.6.1.1.2-1 has already been included in the approximate equations and should be removed for the purpose of fatigue investigations. The entry greater than 1.0 in Table 3.6.1.1.2-1 results from statistical calibration of these Specifications on the basis of pairs of vehicles instead of a single vehicle. Therefore, when a single vehicle is on the bridge, it can be heavier than each one of a pair of vehicles and still have the same probability of occurrence. The consideration of pedestrian loads counting as a “loaded lane” for the purpose of determining a multiple presence factor (m) is based on the assumption that simultaneous occupancy by a dense loading of people combined with a 75-yr design live load is remote. For the purpose of this provision, it has been assumed that if a bridge is used as a viewing stand for eight hours each year for a total time of about one month, the appropriate live load to combine with it would have a one-month recurrence interval. This is reasonably approximated by use of the multiple presence factors, even though they are originally developed for vehicular live load. Thus, if a component supported a sidewalk and one lane, it would be investigated for the vehicular live load alone with m = 1.20, and for the pedestrian loads combined with the vehicular live load with m = 1.0. If a component supported a sidewalk and two lanes of vehicular live load, it would be investigated for: • One lane of vehicular live load, m = 1.20; • The greater of the more significant lanes of vehicular live load and the pedestrian loads or two lanes of vehicular live load, m = 1.0, applied to the governing case; and • Two lanes of vehicular live load and the pedestrian loads, m = 0.85. The multiple presence factor of 1.20 for a single lane does not apply to the pedestrian loads. Therefore, the case of the pedestrian loads without the vehicular live load is a subset of the second bulleted item. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.6.1.1.2—Multiple Presence of Live Load SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-19 The multiple presence factors in Table 3.6.1.1.2-1 were developed on the basis of an ADTT of 5,000 trucks in one direction. The force effect resulting from the appropriate number of lanes may be reduced for sites with lower ADTT as follows: • If 100 ≤ ADTT ≤ 1,000, 95 percent of the specified force effect may be used; and • If ADTT < 100, 90 percent of the specified force effect may be used. This adjustment is based on the reduced probability of attaining the design event during a 75-year design life with reduced truck volume. 3.6.1.2—Design Vehicular Live Load 3.6.1.2.1—General C3.6.1.2.1 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Vehicular live loading on the roadways of bridges or incidental structures, designated HL-93, shall consist of a combination of the: Consideration should be given to site-specific modifications to the design truck, design tandem, and/or the design lane load under the following conditions: • Design truck or design tandem, and • • Design lane load. The legal load of a given jurisdiction is significantly greater than typical; • The roadway is expected to carry unusually high percentages of truck traffic; • Flow control, such as a stop sign, traffic signal, or toll booth, causes trucks to collect on certain areas of a bridge or to not be interrupted by light traffic; or • Special industrial loads are common due to the location of the bridge. Except as modified in Article 3.6.1.3.1, each design lane under consideration shall be occupied by either the design truck or tandem, coincident with the lane load, where applicable. The loads shall be assumed to occupy 10.0 ft transversely within a design lane. See also discussion in Article C3.6.1.3.1. The live load model, consisting of either a truck or tandem coincident with a uniformly distributed load, was developed as a notional representation of shear and moment produced by a group of vehicles routinely permitted on highways of various states under “grandfather” exclusions to weight laws. The vehicles considered to be representative of these exclusions were based on a study conducted by the Transportation Research Board (Cohen, 1990). The load model is called “notional” because it is not intended to represent any particular truck. In the initial development of the notional live load model, no attempt was made to relate to escorted permit loads, illegal overloads, or short duration special permits. The moment and shear effects were subsequently compared to the results of truck weight studies (Csagoly and Knobel, 1981; Nowak, 1992), selected WIM data, and the 1991 OHBDC live load model. These subsequent comparisons showed that the notional load could be scaled by appropriate load factors to be representative of these other load spectra. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-20 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS M POS 0.4L = positive moment at 4/10 point in either span M NEG 0.4L = negative moment at 4/10 point in either span M SUPPORT= moment at interior support Vab = shear adjacent to either exterior support Vba = shear adjacent to interior support Mss = midspan moment in a simply supported span The “span” is the length of the simple-span or of one of each of the two continuous spans. The comparison is in the form of ratios of the load effects produced in either simple-span or two-span continuous girders. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that one or more of the exclusion vehicles produces a larger load effect than the HS20 loading. The figures indicate the degree by which the exclusion loads deviate from the HS loading of designation, e.g., HS25. Figures C3.6.1.2.1-1 and C3.6.1.2.1-2 show moment and shear comparisons between the envelope of effects caused by 22 truck configurations chosen to be representative of the exclusion vehicles and the HS20 loading, either the HS20 truck or the lane load, or the interstate load consisting of two 24.0-kip axles 4.0 ft apart, as used in previous editions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications. The largest and smallest of the 22 configurations can be found in Kulicki and Mertz (1991). In the case of negative moment at an interior support, the results presented are based on two identical exclusion vehicles in tandem and separated by at least 50.0 ft. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The following nomenclature applies to Figures C3.6.1.2.1-1 through C3.6.1.2.1-6, which show results of live load studies involving two equal continuous spans or simple spans: SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-21 Figure C3.6.1.2.1-1—Moment Ratios: Exclusion Vehicles to HS20 (truck or lane) or Two 24.0-kip Axles at 4.0 ft Figure C3.6.1.2.1-2—Shear Ratios: Exclusion Vehicles to HS20 (truck or lane) or Two 24.0-kip Axles at 4.0 ft Figures C3.6.1.2.1-3 and C3.6.1.2.1-4 show comparisons between the force effects produced by a single exclusion truck per lane and the notional load model, except for negative moment, where the tandem exclusion vehicles were used. In the case of negative moment at a support, the provisions of Article 3.6.1.3.1 requiring investigation of 90 percent of the effect of two design trucks, plus 90 percent of the design lane load, has been included in Figures C3.6.1.2.1-3 and C3.6.1.2.1-5. Compared with Figures C3.6.1.2.1-1 and C3.6.1.2.1-2, the range of ratios can be seen as more closely grouped: • Over the span range, • Both for shear and moment, and • Both for simple-span and continuous spans. The implication of close grouping is that the notional load model with a single-load factor has general applicability. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-22 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure C3.6.1.2.1-3—Moment Ratios: Exclusion Vehicles to Notional Model --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure C3.6.1.2.1-4—Shear Ratios: Exclusion Vehicles to Notional Model Figures C3.6.1.2.1-5 and C3.6.1.2.1-6 show the ratios of force effects produced by the notional load model and the greatest of the HS20 truck or lane loading, or Alternate Military Loading. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-23 Figure C3.6.1.2.1-5—Moment Ratios: Notional Model to HS20 (truck or lane) or Two 24.0-kip Axles at 4.0 ft Figure C3.6.1.2.1-6—Shear Ratios: Notional Model to HS20 (truck and lane) or Two 24.0-kip Axles at 4.0 ft In reviewing Figures C3.6.1.2.1-5 and C3.6.1.2.1-6, it should be noted that the total design force effect is also a function of load factor, load modifier, load distribution, and dynamic load allowance. 3.6.1.2.2—Design Truck The weights and spacings of axles and wheels for the design truck shall be as specified in Figure 3.6.1.2.2-1. A dynamic load allowance shall be considered as specified in Article 3.6.2. Except as specified in Articles 3.6.1.3.1 and 3.6.1.4.1, the spacing between the two 32.0-kip axles shall be varied between 14.0 ft and 30.0 ft to produce extreme force effects. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-24 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.6.1.2.2-1—Characteristics of the Design Truck 3.6.1.2.3—Design Tandem The design tandem shall consist of a pair of 25.0-kip axles spaced 4.0 ft apart. The transverse spacing of wheels shall be taken as 6.0 ft. A dynamic load allowance shall be considered as specified in Article 3.6.2. 3.6.1.2.4—Design Lane Load --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The design lane load shall consist of a load of 0.64 klf uniformly distributed in the longitudinal direction. Transversely, the design lane load shall be assumed to be uniformly distributed over a 10.0-ft width. The force effects from the design lane load shall not be subject to a dynamic load allowance. 3.6.1.2.5—Tire Contact Area The tire contact area of a wheel consisting of one or two tires shall be assumed to be a single rectangle, whose width is 20.0 in. and whose length is 10.0 in. The tire pressure shall be assumed to be uniformly distributed over the contact area. The tire pressure shall be assumed to be distributed as follows: C3.6.1.2.5 The area load applies only to the design truck and tandem. For other design vehicles, the tire contact area should be determined by the engineer. As a guideline for other truck loads, the tire area in in.2 may be calculated from the following dimensions: Tire width = P/0.8 • On continuous surfaces, uniformly over the specified contact area, and • On interrupted surfaces, uniformly over the actual contact area within the footprint with the pressure increased in the ratio of the specified to actual contact areas. For the design of orthotropic decks and wearing surfaces on orthotropic decks, the front wheels shall be assumed to be a single rectangle whose width and length are both 10.0 in. as specified in Article 3.6.1.4.1. Tire length = 6.4γ(1 + IM/100) where: γ = IM = P = load factor dynamic load allowance percent design wheel load (kip) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3.6.1.2.6—Distribution of Wheel Loads through Earth Fills Where the depth of fill is less than 2.0 ft, live loads shall be distributed to the top slabs of culverts as specified in Article 4.6.2.10. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- In lieu of a more precise analysis, or the use of other acceptable approximate methods of load distribution permitted in Section 12, where the depth of fill is 2.0 ft or greater, wheel loads may be considered to be uniformly distributed over a rectangular area with sides equal to the dimension of the tire contact area, as specified in Article 3.6.1.2.5, and increased by either 1.15 times the depth of the fill in select granular backfill, or the depth of the fill in all other cases. The provisions of Articles 3.6.1.1.2 and 3.6.1.3 shall apply. Where such areas from several wheels overlap, the total load shall be uniformly distributed over the area. For single-span culverts, the effects of live load may be neglected where the depth of fill is more than 8.0 ft and exceeds the span length; for multiple span culverts, the effects may be neglected where the depth of fill exceeds the distance between faces of end walls. Where the live load and impact moment in concrete slabs, based on the distribution of the wheel load through earth fills, exceeds the live load and impact moment calculated according to Article 4.6.2.10, the latter moment shall be used. 3-25 C3.6.1.2.6 Elastic solutions for pressures produced within an infinite half-space by loads on the ground surface can be found in Poulos and Davis (1974), NAVFAC DM-7.1 (1982), and soil mechanics textbooks. This approximation is similar to the 60-degree rule found in many texts on soil mechanics. The dimensions of the tire contact area are determined at the surface based on the dynamic load allowance of 33 percent at depth = 0. They are projected through the soil as specified. The pressure intensity on the surface is based on the wheel load without dynamic load allowance. A dynamic load allowance is added to the pressure on the projected area. The dynamic load allowance also varies with depth as specified in Article 3.6.2.2. The design lane load is applied where appropriate and multiple presence factors apply. This provision applies to relieving slabs below grade and to top slabs of box culverts. Traditionally, the effect of fills less than 2.0 ft deep on live load has been ignored. Research (McGrath, et al. 2004) has shown that in design of box sections allowing distribution of live load through fill in the direction parallel to the span provides a more accurate design model to predict moment, thrust, and shear forces. Provisions in Article 4.6.2.10 provide a means to address the effect of shallow fills. 3.6.1.3—Application of Design Vehicular Live Loads 3.6.1.3.1—General Unless otherwise specified, the extreme force effect shall be taken as the larger of the following: • The effect of the design tandem combined with the effect of the design lane load, or • The effect of one design truck with the variable axle spacing specified in Article 3.6.1.2.2, combined with the effect of the design lane load, and C3.6.1.3.1 The effects of an axle sequence and the lane load are superposed in order to obtain extreme values. This is a deviation from the traditional AASHTO approach, in which either the truck or the lane load, with an additional concentrated load, provided for extreme effects. The lane load is not interrupted to provide space for the axle sequences of the design tandem or the design truck; interruption is needed only for patch loading patterns to produce extreme force effects. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-26 • AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS For negative moment between points of contraflexure under a uniform load on all spans, and reaction at interior piers only, 90 percent of the effect of two design trucks spaced a minimum of 50.0 ft between the lead axle of one truck and the rear axle of the other truck, combined with 90 percent of the effect of the design lane load. The distance between the 32.0-kip axles of each truck shall be taken as 14.0 ft. The two design trucks shall be placed in adjacent spans to produce maximum force effects. Axles that do not contribute to the extreme force effect under consideration shall be neglected. Both the design lanes and the 10.0-ft loaded width in each lane shall be positioned to produce extreme force effects. The design truck or tandem shall be positioned transversely such that the center of any wheel load is not closer than: • For the design of the deck overhang—1.0 ft from the face of the curb or railing, and • For the design of all other components—2.0 ft from the edge of the design lane. The notional design loads were based on the information described in Article C3.6.1.2.1, which contained data on “low boy” type vehicles weighing up to about 110 kip. Where multiple lanes of heavier versions of this type of vehicle are considered probable, consideration should be given to investigating negative moment and reactions at interior supports for pairs of the design tandem spaced from 26.0 ft to 40.0 ft apart, combined with the design lane load specified in Article 3.6.1.2.4. The design tandems should be placed in adjacent spans to produce maximum force effect. One hundred percent of the combined effect of the design tandems and the design lane load should be used. This is consistent with Article 3.6.1.2.1 and should not be considered a replacement for the Strength II Load Combination. Only those areas or parts of areas that contribute to the same extreme being sought should be loaded. The loaded length should be determined by the points where the influence surface meets the centerline of the design lane. Where a sidewalk is not separated from the roadway by a crashworthy traffic barrier, consideration should be given to the possibility that vehicles can mount the sidewalk. Unless otherwise specified, the lengths of design lanes, or parts thereof, that contribute to the extreme force effect under consideration, shall be loaded with the design lane load. 3.6.1.3.2—Loading for Optional Live Load Deflection Evaluation If the Owner invokes the optional live load deflection criteria specified in Article 2.5.2.6.2, the deflection should be taken as the larger of: • That resulting from the design truck alone, or • That resulting from 25 percent of the design truck taken together with the design lane load. C3.6.1.3.2 As indicated in C2.5.2.6.1, live load deflection is a service issue, not a strength issue. Experience with bridges designed under previous editions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications indicated no adverse effects of live load deflection per se. Therefore, there appears to be little reason to require that the past criteria be compared to a deflection based upon the heavier live load required by these Specifications. The provisions of this Article are intended to produce apparent live load deflections similar to those used in the past. The current design truck is identical to the HS20 truck of past Standard Specifications. For the span lengths where the design lane load controls, the design lane load together with 25 percent of the design truck, i.e., three concentrated loads totaling 18.0 kip, is similar to the past lane load with its single concentrated load of 18.0 kip. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-27 3.6.1.3.3—Design Loads for Decks, Deck Systems, and the Top Slabs of Box Culverts The provisions of this Article shall not apply to decks designed under the provisions of Article 9.7.2, “Empirical Design.” Where the approximate strip method is used to analyze decks and top slabs of culverts, force effects shall be determined on the following basis: • Where the slab spans primarily in the transverse direction, only the axles of the design truck of Article 3.6.1.2.2 or design tandem of Article 3.6.1.2.3 shall be applied to the deck slab or the top slab of box culverts. • Where the slab spans primarily in the longitudinal direction: o C3.6.1.3.3 This Article clarifies the selection of wheel loads to be used in the design of bridge decks, slab bridges, and top slabs of box culverts. The design load is always an axle load; single wheel loads should not be considered. The design truck and tandem without the lane load and with a multiple presence factor of 1.2 results in factored force effects that are similar to the factored force effects using earlier specifications for typical span ranges of box culverts. Individual Owners may choose to develop other axle weights and configurations to capture the load effects of the actual loads in their jurisdiction based upon local legalload and permitting policies. Triple axle configurations of single unit vehicles have been observed to have load effects in excess of the HL-93 tandem axle load. For top slabs of box culverts of all spans and for all other cases, including slab-type bridges where the span does not exceed 15.0 ft, only the axle loads of the design truck or design tandem of Articles 3.6.1.2.2 and 3.6.1.2.3, respectively, shall be applied. o For all other cases, including slab-type bridges (excluding top slabs of box culverts) where the span exceeds 15.0 ft, all of the load specified in Article 3.6.1.2 shall be applied. Where the refined methods are used to analyze decks, force effects shall be determined on the following basis: • • Where the slab spans primarily in the transverse direction, only the axles of the design truck of Article 3.6.1.2.2 or design tandem of Article 3.6.1.2.3 shall be applied to the deck slab. Where the slab spans primarily in the longitudinal direction (including slab-type bridges), all of the loads specified in Article 3.6.1.2 shall be applied. Wheel loads shall be assumed to be equal within an axle unit, and amplification of the wheel loads due to centrifugal and braking forces need not be considered for the design of decks. It is theoretically possible that an extreme force effect could result from a 32.0-kip axle in one lane and a 50.0-kip tandem in a second lane, but such sophistication is not warranted in practical design. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-28 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.6.1.3.4—Deck Overhang Load C3.6.1.3.4 For the design of deck overhangs with a cantilever, not exceeding 6.0 ft from the centerline of the exterior girder to the face of a structurally continuous concrete railing, the outside row of wheel loads may be replaced with a uniformly distributed line load of 1.0 klf intensity, located 1.0 ft from the face of the railing. Horizontal loads on the overhang resulting from vehicle collision with barriers shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 13. Structurally continuous barriers have been observed to be effective in distributing wheel loads in the overhang. Implicit in this provision is the assumption that the 25.0-kip half weight of a design tandem is distributed over a longitudinal length of 25.0 ft, and that there is a cross beam or other appropriate component at the end of the bridge supporting the barrier which is designed for the half tandem weight. This provision does not apply if the barrier is not structurally continuous. 3.6.1.4—Fatigue Load 3.6.1.4.1—Magnitude and Configuration The fatigue load shall be one design truck or axles thereof specified in Article 3.6.1.2.2, but with a constant spacing of 30.0 ft between the 32.0-kip axles. The dynamic load allowance specified in Article 3.6.2 shall be applied to the fatigue load. For the design of orthotropic decks and wearing surfaces on orthotropic decks, the loading pattern as shown in Figure 3.6.1.4.1-1 shall be used. 2’–0” C3.6.1.4.1 For orthotropic steel decks, the governing 16.0-kip wheel loads should be modeled in more detail as two closely spaced 8.0-kip wheels 4.0 ft apart to more accurately reflect a modern tractor-trailer with tandem rear axles. Further, these wheel loads should be distributed over the specified contact area (20.0 in. wide × 10.0 in. long for rear axles and 10.0 in. square for front axles), which better approximates actual pressures applied from a dual tire unit (Kulicki and Mertz, 2006; Nowak, 2008). Note that the smaller 10.0 in. × 10.0 in. front wheels can be the controlling load for fatigue design of many orthotropic deck details. This loading should be positioned both longitudinally and transversely on the bridge deck, ignoring the striped lanes, to create the worst stress or deflection, as applicable. C L 1st Rear Axle Group (32 kip) C L 2nd Rear Axle Group (32 kip) 2’–0” 2’–0” C L Steering Axle (8 kip) 2’–0” 3’–0” 3’–0” 6’–0” C L Wheel Patch C L Truck 10” × 10” Front Axle Patch (TYP) 20” × 10” Patch (TYP) 30’–0” 14’–0” Figure 3.6.1.4.1-1—Refined Design Truck Footprint for Fatigue Design 3.6.1.4.2—Frequency C3.6.1.4.2 The frequency of the fatigue load shall be taken as the single-lane average daily truck traffic (ADTTSL). This frequency shall be applied to all components of the bridge, even to those located under lanes that carry a lesser number of trucks. In the absence of better information, the single-lane average daily truck traffic shall be taken as: Since the fatigue and fracture limit state is defined in terms of accumulated stress-range cycles, specification of load alone is not adequate. Load should be specified along with the frequency of load occurrence. For the purposes of this Article, a truck is defined as any vehicle with more than either two axles or four wheels. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS ADTTSL = p × ADTT 3-29 (3.6.1.4.2-1) where: ADTT = ADTTSL = p = the number of trucks per day in one direction averaged over the design life the number of trucks per day in a single-lane averaged over the design life fraction of traffic in a single lane, taken as specified in Table 3.6.1.4.2-1 Table 3.6.1.4.2-1—Fraction of Truck Traffic in a Single Lane, p Number of Lanes Available to Trucks 1 2 3 or more p 1.00 0.85 0.80 The single-lane ADTT is that for the traffic lane in which the majority of the truck traffic crosses the bridge. On a typical bridge with no nearby entrance/exit ramps, the shoulder lane carries most of the truck traffic. The frequency of the fatigue load for a single lane is assumed to apply to all lanes since future traffic patterns on the bridge are uncertain. Consultation with traffic engineers regarding any directionality of truck traffic may lead to the conclusion that one direction carries more than one-half of the bidirectional ADTT. If such data is not available from traffic engineers, designing for 55 percent of the bidirectional ADTT is suggested. The value of ADTTSL is best determined in consultation with traffic engineers. However, traffic growth data is usually not predicted for the design life of the bridge, taken as 75 yr in these Specifications unless specified otherwise by the Owner. Techniques exist to extrapolate available data such as curve fitting growth rate vs. time and using extreme value distributions, but some judgment is required. Research has shown that the average daily traffic (ADT), including all vehicles, i.e., cars and trucks, is physically limited to about 20,000 vehicles per lane per day under normal conditions. This limiting value of traffic should be considered when estimating the ADTT. The ADTT can be determined by multiplying the ADT by the fraction of trucks in the traffic. In lieu of site-specific fraction of truck traffic data, the values of Table C3.6.1.4.2-1 may be applied for routine bridges. Table C3.6.1.4.2-1—Fraction of Trucks in Traffic Class of Highway Rural Interstate Urban Interstate Other Rural Other Urban Fraction of Trucks in Traffic 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.6.1.4.3—Load Distribution for Fatigue 3.6.1.4.3a—Refined Methods Where the bridge is analyzed by any refined method, as specified in Article 4.6.3, a single design truck shall be positioned transversely and longitudinally to maximize stress range at the detail under consideration, regardless of the position of traffic or design lanes on the deck. C3.6.1.4.3a If it were assured that the traffic lanes would remain as they are indicated at the opening of the bridge throughout its entire service life, it would be more appropriate to place the truck at the center of the traffic lane that produces maximum stress range in the detail under consideration. But because future traffic patterns on the bridge are uncertain and in the interest of minimizing the number of calculations required of the Designer, the position of the truck is made independent of the location of both the traffic lanes and the design lanes. 3.6.1.4.3b—Approximate Methods Where the bridge is analyzed by approximate load distribution, as specified in Article 4.6.2, the distribution factor for one traffic lane shall be used. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-30 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.6.1.5—Rail Transit Load If rail transit is designed to occupy an exclusive lane, transit loads should be included in the design, but the bridge should not have less strength than if it had been designed as a highway bridge of the same width. If the rail transit is supposed to mix with regular highway traffic, the Owner should specify or approve an appropriate combination of transit and highway loads for the design. Transit load characteristics may include: • Loads, • Load distribution, • Load frequency, • Dynamic allowance, and • Dimensional requirements. 3.6.1.6—Pedestrian Loads A pedestrian load of 0.075 ksf shall be applied to all sidewalks wider than 2.0 ft and considered simultaneously with the vehicular design live load in the vehicle lane. Where vehicles can mount the sidewalk, sidewalk pedestrian load shall not be considered concurrently. If a sidewalk may be removed in the future, the vehicular live loads shall be applied at 1 ft from edge-of-deck for design of the overhang, and 2 ft from edge-of-deck for design of all other components. The pedestrian load shall not be considered to act concurrently with vehicles. The dynamic load allowance need not be considered for vehicles. Bridges intended for only pedestrian, equestrian, light maintenance vehicle, and/or bicycle traffic should be designed in accordance with AASHTO’s LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges. C3.6.1.6 See the provisions of Article C3.6.1.1.2 for applying the pedestrian loads in combination with the vehicular live load. 3.6.1.7—Loads on Railings Loads on railings shall be taken as specified in Section 13. 3.6.2—Dynamic Load Allowance: IM C3.6.2.1 3.6.2.1—General Unless otherwise permitted in Articles 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3, the static effects of the design truck or tandem, other than centrifugal and braking forces, shall be increased by the percentage specified in Table 3.6.2.1-1 for dynamic load allowance. The factor to be applied to the static load shall be taken as: (1 + IM/100). The dynamic load allowance shall not be applied to pedestrian loads or to the design lane load. Page (1976) contains the basis for some of these provisions. The dynamic load allowance (IM) in Table 3.6.2.1-1 is an increment to be applied to the static wheel load to account for wheel load impact from moving vehicles. Dynamic effects due to moving vehicles may be attributed to two sources: • Hammering effect is the dynamic response of the wheel assembly to riding surface discontinuities, such as deck joints, cracks, potholes, and delaminations, and © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Where a bridge also carries rail-transit vehicles, the Owner shall specify the transit load characteristics and the expected interaction between transit and highway traffic. C3.6.1.5 SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-31 • Table 3.6.2.1-1—Dynamic Load Allowance, IM Component Deck Joints—All Limit States All Other Components: IM 75% • Fatigue and Fracture Limit State 15% • All Other Limit States 33% The application of dynamic load allowance for buried components, covered in Section 12, shall be as specified in Article 3.6.2.2. Dynamic load allowance need not be applied to: • Retaining walls not subject to vertical reactions from the superstructure, and • Foundation components that are entirely below ground level. The dynamic load allowance may be reduced for components, other than joints, if justified by sufficient evidence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4.7.2.1. Dynamic response of the bridge as a whole to passing vehicles, which may be due to long undulations in the roadway pavement, such as those caused by settlement of fill, or to resonant excitation as a result of similar frequencies of vibration between bridge and vehicle. Field tests indicate that in the majority of highway bridges, the dynamic component of the response does not exceed 25 percent of the static response to vehicles. This is the basis for dynamic load allowance with the exception of deck joints. However, the specified live load combination of the design truck and lane load, represents a group of exclusion vehicles that are at least 4/3 of those caused by the design truck alone on short- and medium-span bridges. The specified value of 33 percent in Table 3.6.2.1-1 is the product of 4/3 and the basic 25 percent. Generally speaking, the dynamic amplification of trucks follows the following general trends: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • As the weight of the vehicle goes up, the apparent amplification goes down. • Multiple vehicles produce a lower dynamic amplification than a single vehicle. • More axles result in a lower dynamic amplification. For heavy permit vehicles which have many axles compared to the design truck, a reduction in the dynamic load allowance may be warranted. A study of dynamic effects presented in a report by the Calibration Task Group (Nowak 1992) contains details regarding the relationship between dynamic load allowance and vehicle configuration. This Article recognizes the damping effect of soil when in contact with some buried structural components, such as footings. To qualify for relief from impact, the entire component must be buried. For the purpose of this Article, a retaining type component is considered to be buried to the top of the fill. 3.6.2.2—Buried Components The dynamic load allowance for culverts and other buried structures covered by Section 12, in percent, shall be taken as: IM = 33(1.0 − 0.125 DE ) ≥ 0% (3.6.2.2-1) where: DE = the minimum depth of earth cover above the structure (ft) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-32 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS C3.6.2.3 3.6.2.3—Wood Components Dynamic load allowance need not be applied to wood components. Wood structures are known to experience reduced dynamic wheel load effects due to internal friction between the components and the damping characteristics of wood. Additionally, wood is stronger for short duration loads, as compared to longer duration loads. This increase in strength is greater than the increase in force effects resulting from the dynamic load allowance. 3.6.3—Centrifugal Forces: CE C3.6.3 For the purpose of computing the radial force or the overturning effect on wheel loads, the centrifugal effect on live load shall be taken as the product of the axle weights of the design truck or tandem and the factor C, taken as: Centrifugal force is not required to be applied to the design lane load, as the spacing of vehicles at high speed is assumed to be large, resulting in a low density of vehicles following and/or preceding the design truck. For all other consideration of live load other than for fatigue, the design lane load is still considered even though the centrifugal effect is not applied to it. The specified live load combination of the design truck and lane load, however, represents a group of exclusion vehicles that produce force effects of at least 4/3 of those caused by the design truck alone on short- and medium-span bridges. This ratio is indicated in Eq. 3.6.3-1 for the service and strength limit states. For the fatigue and fracture limit state, the factor 1.0 is consistent with cumulative damage analysis. The provision is not technically perfect, yet it reasonably models the representative exclusion vehicle traveling at design speed with large headways to other vehicles. The approximation attributed to this convenient representation is acceptable in the framework of the uncertainty of centrifugal force from random traffic patterns. 1.0 ft/s = 0.682 mph Centrifugal force also causes an overturning effect on the wheel loads because the radial force is applied 6.0 ft above the top of the deck. Thus, centrifugal force tends to cause an increase in the vertical wheel loads toward the outside of the bridge and an unloading of the wheel loads toward the inside of the bridge. Superelevation helps to balance the overturning effect due to the centrifugal force and this beneficial effect may be considered. The effects due to vehicle cases with centrifugal force effects included should be compared to the effects due to vehicle cases with no centrifugal force, and the worst case selected. 2 C= f v gR (3.6.3-1) where: v f = = g R = = highway design speed (ft/s) 4/3 for load combinations other than fatigue and 1.0 for fatigue gravitational acceleration: 32.2 (ft/s2) radius of curvature of traffic lane (ft) Highway design speed shall not be taken to be less than the value specified in the current edition of the AASHTO publication, A Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The multiple presence factors specified in Article 3.6.1.1.2 shall apply. Centrifugal forces shall be applied horizontally at a distance 6.0 ft above the roadway surface. A load path to carry the radial force to the substructure shall be provided. The effect of superelevation in reducing the overturning effect of centrifugal force on vertical wheel loads may be considered. C3.6.4 3.6.4—Braking Force: BR The braking force shall be taken as the greater of: • 25 percent of the axle weights of the design truck or design tandem or, • Five percent of the design truck plus lane load or five percent of the design tandem plus lane load Based on energy principles, and assuming uniform deceleration, the braking force determined as a fraction of vehicle weight is: 2 b= v 2 ga --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS (C3.6.4-1) SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS where a is the length of uniform deceleration and b is the fraction. Calculations using a braking length of 400 ft and a speed of 55 mph yield b = 0.25 for a horizontal force that will act for a period of about 10 s. The factor b applies to all lanes in one direction because all vehicles may have reacted within this time frame. For short- and medium-span bridges, the specified braking force can be significantly larger than was required in the Standard Specifications. The braking force specified in the Standard Specifications dates back to at least the early 1940’s without any significant changes to address the improved braking capacity of modern trucks. A review of other bridge design codes in Canada and Europe showed that the braking force required by the Standard Specification is much lower than that specified in other design codes for most typical bridges. One such comparison is shown in Figure C3.6.4-1. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- This braking force shall be placed in all design lanes which are considered to be loaded in accordance with Article 3.6.1.1.1 and which are carrying traffic headed in the same direction. These forces shall be assumed to act horizontally at a distance of 6.0 ft above the roadway surface in either longitudinal direction to cause extreme force effects. All design lanes shall be simultaneously loaded for bridges likely to become one-directional in the future. The multiple presence factors specified in Article 3.6.1.1.2 shall apply. 3-33 Figure C3.6.4-1—Comparison of Braking Force Models © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-34 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure C3.6.4-1 (continued)—Comparison of Braking Force Models --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- where: OHBDC = LFD = LRFD = LRFD′ = CHBDC = factored braking force as specified in the 3rd edition of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code factored braking force as specified in the AASHTO Standard Specifications (Load Factor) factored braking force as specified in previous versions of the LRFD Specifications (up to 2001 Interim edition) factored braking force as specified in Article 3.6.4 factored braking force as specified in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code The sloping portion of the curves represents the braking force that includes a portion of the lane load. This represents the possibility of having multiple lanes of vehicles contributing to the same braking event on a long bridge. Although the probability of such an event is likely to be small, the inclusion of a portion of the lane load gives such an event consideration for bridges with heavy truck traffic and is consistent with other design codes. Because the LRFD braking force is significantly higher than that required in the Standard Specifications, this issue becomes important in rehabilitation projects designed under previous versions of the design code. In © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-35 cases where substructures are found to be inadequate to resist the increased longitudinal forces, consideration should be given to design and detailing strategies which distribute the braking force to additional substructure units during a braking event. 3.6.5—Vehicular Collision Force: CT 3.6.5.1—Protection of Structures Unless the Owner determines that site conditions indicate otherwise, abutments and piers located within a distance of 30.0 ft to the edge of roadway shall be investigated for collision. Collision shall be addressed by either providing structural resistance or by redirecting or absorbing the collision load. The provisions of Article 2.3.2.2.1 shall apply as appropriate. Where the design choice is to provide structural resistance, the pier or abutment shall be designed for an equivalent static force of 600 kip, which is assumed to act in a direction of zero to 15 degrees with the edge of the pavement in a horizontal plane, at a distance of 5.0 ft above ground. Where the design choice is to redirect or absorb the collision load, protection shall consist of one of the following: • An embankment; • A structurally independent, crashworthy groundmounted 54.0-in. high barrier, located within 10.0 ft from the component being protected; or • A 42.0-in. high barrier located at more than 10.0 ft from the component being protected. Such barrier shall be structurally and geometrically capable of surviving the crash test for Test Level 5, as specified in Section 13. C3.6.5.1 Where an Owner chooses to make an assessment of site conditions for the purpose of implementing this provision, input from highway or safety engineers and structural engineers should be part of that assessment. The equivalent static force of 600 kip is based on the information from full-scale crash tests of rigid columns impacted by 80.0-kip tractor trailers at 50 mph. For individual column shafts, the 600-kip load should be considered a point load. Field observations indicate shear failures are the primary mode of failure for individual columns and columns that are 30.0 in. in diameter and smaller are the most vulnerable. For wall piers, the load may be considered to be a point load or may be distributed over and area deemed suitable for the size of the structure and the anticipated impacting vehicle, but not greater than 5.0 ft wide by 2.0 ft high. These dimensions were determined by considering the size of a truck frame. Requirements for train collision load found in previous editions have been removed. Designers are encouraged to consult the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering or local railroad company guidelines for train collision requirements. For the purpose of this Article, a barrier may be considered structurally independent if it does not transmit loads to the bridge. Full-scale crash tests have shown that some vehicles have a greater tendency to lean over or partially cross over a 42.0-in. high barrier than a 54.0-in. high barrier. This behavior would allow a significant collision of the vehicle with the component being protected if the component is located within a few ft of the barrier. If the component is more than about 10.0 ft behind the barrier, the difference between the two barrier heights is no longer important. One way to determine whether site conditions qualify for exemption from protection is to evaluate the annual frequency of impact from heavy vehicles. With the approval of the Owner, the annual frequency for a bridge pier to be hit by a heavy vehicle, AFHPB, can be calculated by: AFHBP = 2(ADTT) (PHBP)365 (C3.6.5.1-1) where: ADTT = PHBP = the number of trucks per day in one direction the annual probability for a bridge pier to be hit by a heavy vehicle --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-36 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table C3.6.1.4.2-1 may be used to determine ADTT from available ADT data. PHBP = 3.457 x 10–9 for undivided roadways in tangent and horizontally curved sections 1.090 x 10–9 for divided roadways in tangent sections 2.184 x 10–9 for divided roadways in horizontally curved sections Design for vehicular collision force is not required if AFHBP is less than 0.0001 for critical or essential bridges or 0.001 for typical bridges. The determination of the annual frequency for a bridge pier to be hit by a heavy vehicle, AFHPB, is derived from limited statistical studies performed by the Texas Transportation Institute. Due to limited data, no distinction has been made between tangent sections and horizontally curved sections for undivided roadways. The target values for AFHBP mirror those for vessel collision force found in Article 3.14.5. Table C3.6.5.1-1 provides typical resulting values for AFHBP. Table C3.6.5.1-1—Typical Values of AFHBP Undivided ADT (Both Directions) 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 26000 28000 ADTT* (One Way) 50 100 150 200 300 400 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 Divided Curved PHBP=3.457E-09 PHBP=2.184E-09 PHBP=1.09E-09 AFHPB = 2 × ADTT × 365 × PHBP 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0003 0.0002 0.0001 0.0004 0.0002 0.0001 0.0005 0.0003 0.0002 0.0008 0.0005 0.0002 0.0010 0.0006 0.0003 0.0015 0.0010 0.0005 0.0018 0.0011 0.0006 0.0020 0.0013 0.0006 0.0023 0.0014 0.0007 0.0025 0.0016 0.0008 0.0028 0.0018 0.0009 0.0030 0.0019 0.0010 0.0033 0.0021 0.0010 0.0035 0.0022 0.0011 *Assumes ten percent of ADT is truck traffic. 3.6.5.2—Vehicle Collision with Barriers The provisions of Section 13 shall apply. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Divided Tangent SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-37 3.7—WATER LOADS: WA 3.7.1—Static Pressure Static pressure of water shall be assumed to act perpendicular to the surface that is retaining the water. Pressure shall be calculated as the product of height of water above the point of consideration and the specific weight of water. Design water levels for various limit states shall be as specified and/or approved by the Owner. 3.7.2—Buoyancy C3.7.2 Buoyancy shall be considered to be an uplift force, taken as the sum of the vertical components of static pressures, as specified in Article 3.7.1, acting on all components below design water level. For substructures with cavities in which the presence or absence of water cannot be ascertained, the condition producing the least favorable force effect should be chosen. 3.7.3—Stream Pressure 3.7.3.1—Longitudinal C3.7.3.1 The pressure of flowing water acting in the longitudinal direction of substructures shall be taken as: CDV 2 1, 000 (3.7.3.1-1) p = CD where: p = CD = V = pressure of flowing water (ksf) drag coefficient for piers as specified in Table 3.7.3.1-1 design velocity of water for the design flood in strength and service limit states and for the check flood in the extreme event limit state (ft/s) Table 3.7.3.1-1—Drag Coefficient Type Semicircular-nosed pier Square-ended pier Debris lodged against the pier Wedged-nosed pier with nose angle 90 degrees or less w 2 V 2g where: w = specific weight of water (kcf) V = velocity of water (ft/s) g = gravitational acceleration constant—32.2 (ft/s2) As a convenience, Eq. 3.7.3.1-1 recognizes that w/2g ~ 1/1,000, but the dimensional consistency is lost in the simplification. CD 0.7 1.4 1.4 0.8 The longitudinal drag force shall be taken as the product of longitudinal stream pressure and the projected surface exposed thereto. The drag coefficient, CD, and the lateral drag coefficient, CL, given in Tables 3.7.3.1-1 and 3.7.3.2-1, were adopted from the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (1991). The more favorable drag coefficients measured by some researchers for wedge-type pier nose angles of less than 90 degrees are not given here because such pier noses are more prone to catching debris. Floating logs, roots, and other debris may accumulate at piers and, by blocking parts of the waterway, increase stream pressure load on the pier. Such accumulation is a © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS (C3.7.3.1-1) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- p= For the purpose of this Article, the longitudinal direction refers to the major axis of a substructure unit. The theoretically correct expression for Eq. 3.7.3.1-1 is: 3-38 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS function of the availability of such debris and level of maintenance efforts by which it is removed. It may be accounted for by the judicious increase in both the exposed surface and the velocity of water. The draft New Zealand Highway Bridge Design Specification contains the following provision, which may be used as guidance in the absence of site-specific criteria: Where a significant amount of driftwood is carried, water pressure shall also be allowed for on a driftwood raft lodged against the pier. The size of the raft is a matter of judgment, but as a guide, Dimension A in Figure C3.7.3.1-1 should be half the water depth, but not greater than 10.0 ft. Dimension B should be half the sum of adjacent span lengths, but no greater than 45.0 ft. Pressure shall be calculated using Eq. 3.7.3.1-1, with CD = 0.5. (Distances have been changed from SI.) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure C3.7.3.1-1—Debris Raft for Pier Design 3.7.3.2—Lateral C3.7.3.2 The lateral, uniformly distributed pressure on a substructure due to water flowing at an angle, θ, to the longitudinal axis of the pier shall be taken as: p= CLV 2 1000 The discussion of Eq. 3.7.3.1-1 also applies to Eq. 3.7.3.2-1. (3.7.3.2-1) where: p = CL = lateral pressure (ksf) lateral drag coefficient Table 3.7.3.2-1 specified in Figure 3.7.3.2-1—Plan View of Pier Showing Stream Flow Pressure © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-39 Table 3.7.3.2-1—Lateral Drag Coefficient Angle, θ, between direction of flow and longitudinal axis of the pier 0 degrees 5 degrees 10 degrees 20 degrees ≥30 degrees CL 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 The lateral drag force shall be taken as the product of the lateral stream pressure and the surface exposed thereto. 3.7.4—Wave Load C3.7.4 Wave action on bridge structures shall be considered for exposed structures where the development of significant wave forces may occur. Loads due to wave action on bridge structures shall be determined using accepted engineering practice methods. Site-specific conditions should be considered. The latest edition of the Shore Protection Manual, published by the Coastal Engineering Research Center, Department of the Army, is recommended for the computation of wave forces. 3.7.5—Change in Foundations Due to Limit State for Scour C3.7.5 The provisions of Article 2.6.4.4 shall apply. The consequences of changes in foundation conditions resulting from the design flood for scour shall be considered at strength and service limit states. The consequences of changes in foundation conditions due to scour resulting from the check flood for bridge scour and from hurricanes shall be considered at the extreme event limit states. Statistically speaking, scour is the most common reason for the failure of highway bridges in the United States. Provisions concerning the effects of scour are given in Section 2. Scour per se is not a force effect, but by changing the conditions of the substructure it may significantly alter the consequences of force effects acting on structures. 3.8—WIND LOAD: WL AND WS 3.8.1—Horizontal Wind Pressure 3.8.1.1—General Pressures specified herein shall be assumed to be caused by a base design wind velocity, VB, of 100 mph. Wind load shall be assumed to be uniformly distributed on the area exposed to the wind. The exposed area shall be the sum of areas of all components, including floor system, railing, and sound barriers, as seen in elevation taken perpendicular to the assumed wind direction. This direction shall be varied to determine the extreme force effect in the structure or in its components. Areas that do not contribute to the extreme force effect under consideration may be neglected in the analysis. For bridges or parts of bridges and sound barriers more than 30.0 ft above low ground or water level, the design wind velocity, VDZ, should be adjusted according to: C3.8.1.1 Base design wind velocity varies significantly due to local conditions. For small and/or low structures, wind usually does not govern. For large and/or tall bridges and sound barriers, however, the local conditions should be investigated. Pressures on windward and leeward sides are to be taken simultaneously in the assumed direction of wind. Typically, a bridge structure should be examined separately under wind pressures from two or more different directions in order to ascertain those windward, leeward, and side pressures producing the most critical loads on the structure. Eq. 3.8.1.1-1 is based on boundary layer theory combined with empirical observations and represents the most recent approach to defining wind speeds for various --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-40 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (3.8.1.1-1) where: VDZ = V30 = VB = Z = V0 = Z0 = design wind velocity at design elevation, Z (mph) wind velocity at 30.0 ft above low ground or above design water level (mph) base wind velocity of 100 mph at 30.0 ft height, yielding design pressures specified in Articles 3.8.1.2.1 and 3.8.1.2.2 height of structure at which wind loads are being calculated as measured from low ground, or from water level, > 30.0 ft friction velocity, a meteorological wind characteristic taken, as specified in Table 3.8.1.1-1, for various upwind surface characteristics (mph) friction length of upstream fetch, a meteorological wind characteristic taken as specified in Table 3.8.1.1-1 (ft) conditions as used in meteorology. In the past, an exponential equation was sometimes used to relate wind speed to heights above 30.0 ft. This formulation was based solely on empirical observations and had no theoretical basis. Z  VDZ = CV30    30  α The purpose of the term C and exponent α was to adjust the equation for various upstream surface conditions, similar to the use of Table 3.8.1.1-1. Further information can be found in Liu (1991) and Simiu (1973, 1976). The following descriptions for the terms “open country,” “suburban,” and “city” in Table 3.8.1.1-1 are paraphrased from ASCE-7-93: • Open Country—Open terrain with scattered obstructions having heights generally less than 30.0 ft. This category includes flat open country and grasslands. • Suburban—Urban and suburban areas, wooded areas, or other terrain with numerous closely spaced obstructions having the size of single-family or larger dwellings. Use of this category shall be limited to those areas for which representative terrain prevails in the upwind direction at least 1,500 ft. • City—Large city centers with at least 50 percent of the buildings having a height in excess of 70.0 ft. Use of this category shall be limited to those areas for which representative terrain prevails in the upwind direction at least one-half mile. Possible channeling effects of increased velocity pressures due to the bridge or structure’s location in the wake of adjacent structures shall be taken into account. Table 3.8.1.1-1—Values of V0 and Z0 for Various Upstream Surface Conditions Condition V0 (mph) Z0 (ft) Open Country 8.20 0.23 Suburban 10.90 3.28 City 12.00 8.20 Except for sound barriers, V30 may be established from: • Fastest-mile-of-wind charts available in ASCE 7-88 for various recurrence intervals, • Site-specific wind surveys, and • In the absence of better criterion, the assumption that V30 = VB = 100 mph. For sound barriers, V30 shall be taken as specified in Article 15.8.2. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS (C3.8.1.1-1) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- V   Z  VDZ = 2.5V0  30  ln    VB   Z0  SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-41 3.8.1.2—Wind Pressure on Structures: WS 3.8.1.2.1—General C3.8.1.2.1 If justified by local conditions, a different base design wind velocity may be selected for load combinations not involving wind on live load. The direction of the design wind shall be assumed to be horizontal, unless otherwise specified in Article 3.8.3. In the absence of more precise data, design wind pressure, in ksf, may be determined as: 2 V  V 2 PD = PB  DZ  = PB DZ 10, 000  VB  PB = (3.8.1.2.1-1) base wind pressure specified in Table 3.8.1.2.1-1 (ksf) The wind force on the structure shall be calculated by multiplying the design wind pressure, PD, calculated using Eq. 3.8.1.2.1-1, by the exposed area, including the area of sound barriers, if existing, regardless of the design wind pressure used in designing the sound barriers themselves. Table 3.8.1.2.1-1—Base Pressures, PB, Corresponding to VB = 100 mph Superstructure Component Trusses, Columns, and Arches Beams Large Flat Surfaces Windward Load, ksf 0.050 Leeward Load, ksf 0.025 0.050 0.040 NA NA The stagnation pressure associated with a wind velocity of 100 mph is 0.0256 ksf, which is significantly less than the values specified in Table 3.8.1.2.1-1. The difference reflects the effect of gusting combined with some tradition of long-time usage. The pressures specified in klf or ksf should be chosen to produce the greater net wind load on the structure. Wind tunnel tests may be used to provide more precise estimates of wind pressures. Such testing should be considered where wind is a major design load. Due to the lack of information on the wind force on sound barriers, the wind pressure specified in Article 15.8.2 for the design of sound barriers is based on producing similar wind pressures to those used for the design of sound barriers (AASHTO, 1989). Such values of wind pressures proved to produce safe designs in the past. The term “columns” in Table 3.8.1.2.1-1 refers to columns in superstructures such as spandrel columns in arches. The total wind loading shall not be taken less than 0.30 klf in the plane of a windward chord and 0.15 klf in the plane of a leeward chord on truss and arch components, and not less than 0.30 klf on beam or girder spans. 3.8.1.2.2—Loads from Superstructures Except where specified herein, where the wind is not taken as normal to the structure, the base wind pressures, PB, for various angles of wind direction may be taken as specified in Table 3.8.1.2.2-1 and shall be applied to the centroid of a single plane of exposed area. The skew angle shall be taken as measured from a perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. The wind direction for design shall be that which produces the extreme force effect on the component under investigation. The transverse and longitudinal pressures shall be applied simultaneously. C3.8.1.2.2 For trusses, columns, and arches, the base wind pressures specified in Table 3.8.1.2.2-1 are the sum of the pressures applied to both the windward and leeward areas. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-42 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table 3.8.1.2.2-1—Base Wind Pressures, PB, for Various Angles of Attack and VB = 100 mph Skew Angle of Wind (degrees) 0 15 30 45 60 Trusses, Columns and Arches Lateral Load Longitudinal Load (ksf) (ksf) 0.075 0.000 0.070 0.012 0.065 0.028 0.047 0.041 0.024 0.050 Lateral Load (ksf) 0.050 0.044 0.041 0.033 0.017 Girders Longitudinal Load (ksf) 0.000 0.006 0.012 0.016 0.019 For the usual girder and slab bridges having an individual span length of not more than 125 ft and a maximum height of 30.0 ft above low ground or water level the following wind loading may be used: • 0.05 ksf, transverse • 0.012 ksf, longitudinal Both forces shall be applied simultaneously. These forces shall not be used in determining the forces on sound barriers. Wind pressure on sound barriers should be determined using the provisions of Article 15.8.2. 3.8.1.2.3—Forces Applied Directly to the Substructure 3.8.1.3—Wind Pressure on Vehicles: WL When vehicles are present, the design wind pressure shall be applied to both structure and vehicles. Wind pressure on vehicles shall be represented by an interruptible, moving force of 0.10 klf acting normal to, and 6.0 ft above, the roadway and shall be transmitted to the structure. Except where specified herein, when wind on vehicles is not taken as normal to the structure, the components of normal and parallel force applied to the live load may be taken as specified in Table 3.8.1.3-1 with the skew angle taken as referenced normal to the surface. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The transverse and longitudinal forces to be applied directly to the substructure shall be calculated from an assumed base wind pressure of 0.040 ksf. For wind directions taken skewed to the substructure, this force shall be resolved into components perpendicular to the end and front elevations of the substructure. The component perpendicular to the end elevation shall act on the exposed substructure area as seen in end elevation, and the component perpendicular to the front elevation shall act on the exposed areas and shall be applied simultaneously with the wind loads from the superstructure. C3.8.1.3 Based on practical experience, maximum live loads are not expected to be present on the bridge when the wind velocity exceeds 55 mph. The load factor corresponding to the treatment of wind on structure only in Load Combination Strength III would be (55/100)2 (1.4) = 0.42, which has been rounded to 0.40 in the Strength V Load Combination. This load factor corresponds to 0.3 in Service I. The 0.10 klf wind load is based on a long row of randomly sequenced passenger cars, commercial vans, and trucks exposed to the 55 mph design wind. This horizontal live load, similar to the design lane load, should be applied only to the tributary areas producing a force effect of the same kind. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-43 Table 3.8.1.3-1—Wind Components on Live Load Skew Angle (degrees) 0 15 30 45 60 Normal Component (klf) 0.100 0.088 0.082 0.066 0.034 Parallel Component (klf) 0.000 0.012 0.024 0.032 0.038 For the usual girder and slab bridges having an individual span length of not more than 125 ft and a maximum height of 30.0 ft above low ground or water level, the following wind loading may be used: • 0.10 klf, transverse • 0.04 klf, longitudinal Both forces shall be applied simultaneously. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.8.2—Vertical Wind Pressure C3.8.2 Unless otherwise determined in Article 3.8.3, a vertical upward wind force of 0.020 ksf times the width of the deck, including parapets and sidewalks, shall be considered to be a longitudinal line load. This force shall be applied only for the Strength III and Service IV limit states which do not involve wind on live load, and only when the direction of wind is taken to be perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the bridge. This lineal force shall be applied at the windward quarterpoint of the deck width in conjunction with the horizontal wind loads specified in Article 3.8.1. The intent of this Article is to account for the effect resulting from interruption of the horizontal flow of air by the superstructure. This load is to be applied even to discontinuous bridge decks, such as grid decks. This load may govern where overturning of the bridge is investigated. 3.8.3—Aeroelastic Instability 3.8.3.1—General Aeroelastic force effects shall be taken into account in the design of bridges and structural components apt to be wind-sensitive. For the purpose of this Article, all bridges with a span to depth ratio, and structural components thereof with a length to width ratio, exceeding 30.0 shall be deemed to be wind-sensitive. The vibration of cables due to the interaction of wind and rain shall also be considered. C3.8.3.1 Because of the complexity of analyses often necessary for an in-depth evaluation of structural aeroelasticity, this Article is intentionally kept to a simple statement. Many bridges, decks, or individual structural components have been shown to be aeroelastically insensitive if the specified ratios are under 30.0, a somewhat arbitrary value helpful only in identifying likely wind-sensitive cases. Flexible bridges, such as cable-supported or very long spans of any type, may require special studies based on wind tunnel information. In general, appropriate wind tunnel tests involve simulation of the wind environment local to the bridge site. Details of this are part of the existing wind tunnel state of the art and are beyond the scope of this commentary. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-44 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The aeroelastic phenomena of vortex excitation, galloping, flutter, and divergence shall be considered where applicable. 3.8.3.3—Control of Dynamic Responses Bridges and structural components thereof, including cables, shall be designed to be free of fatigue damage due to vortex-induced or galloping oscillations. Bridges shall be designed to be free of divergence and catastrophic flutter up to 1.2 times the design wind velocity applicable at bridge deck height. 3.8.3.4—Wind Tunnel Tests Representative wind tunnel tests may be used to satisfy the requirements of Articles 3.8.3.2 and 3.8.3.3. C3.8.3.2 Excitation due to vortex shedding is the escape of wind-induced vortices behind the member, which tend to excite the component at its fundamental natural frequency in harmonic motion. It is important to keep stresses due to vortex-induced oscillations below the “infinite life” fatigue stress. Methods exist for estimating such stress amplitudes, but they are outside the scope of this commentary. Tubular components can be protected against vortex-induced oscillation by adding bracing, strakes, or tuned mass dampers or by attaching horizontal flat plates parallel to the tube axis above and/or below the central third of their span. Such aerodynamic damper plates should lie about one-third tube diameter above or below the tube to allow free passage of wind. The width of the plates may be the diameter of the tube. Galloping is a high-amplitude oscillation associated with ice-laden cables or long, flexible members having aerodynamically unsymmetrical cross-sections. Cablestays, having circular sections, will not gallop unless their circumferences are deformed by ice, dropping water, or accumulated debris. Flexible bridge decks, as in very long spans and some pedestrian bridges, may be prone to wind-induced flutter, a wind-excited oscillation of destructive amplitudes, or, on some occasions, divergence, an irreversible twist under high wind. Analysis methods, including wind tunnel studies leading to adjustments of the deck form, are available for prevention of both flutter and divergence. C3.8.3.3 Cables in stayed-girder bridges have been successfully stabilized against excessive dynamic responses by attaching automotive dampers to the bridge at deck level or by cross-tying multiple cablestays. C3.8.3.4 Wind tunnel testing of bridges and other civil engineering structures is a highly developed technology, which may be used to study the wind response characteristics of a structural model or to verify the results of analysis (Simiu, 1976). 3.9—ICE LOADS: IC 3.9.1—General C3.9.1 This Article refers only to freshwater ice in rivers and lakes; ice loads in seawater should be determined by suitable specialists using site-specific information. Most of the information for ice loads was taken from Montgomery et al. (1984), which provided background for the clauses on ice loads for Canadian © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.8.3.2—Aeroelastic Phenomena SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Ice forces on piers shall be determined with regard to site conditions and expected modes of ice action as follows: 3-45 • Dynamic pressure due to moving sheets or floes of ice being carried by stream flow, wind, or currents; • Static pressure due to thermal movements of ice sheets; • Pressure resulting from hanging dams or jams of ice; and Standards Association (1988). A useful additional source has been Neill (1981). It is convenient to classify ice forces on piers as dynamic forces and static forces. Dynamic forces occur when a moving ice floe strikes a bridge pier. The forces imposed by the ice floe on a pier are dependent on the size of the floe, the strength and thickness of the ice, and the geometry of the pier. The following types of ice failure have been observed (Montgomery et al., 1984): • Static uplift or vertical load resulting from adhering ice in waters of fluctuating level. • The expected thickness of ice, the direction of its movement, and the height of its action shall be determined by field investigations, review of public records, aerial surveys, or other suitable means. Crushing, where the ice fails by local crushing across the width of a pier. The crushed ice is continually cleared from a zone around the pier as the floe moves past. • Bending, where a vertical reaction component acts on the ice floe impinging on a pier with an inclined nose. This reaction causes the floe to rise up the pier nose, as flexural cracks form. • Splitting, where a comparatively small floe strikes a pier and is split into smaller parts by stress cracks propagating from the pier. • Impact, where a small floe is brought to a halt by impinging on the nose of the pier before it has crushed over the full width of the pier, bent or split. • Buckling, where compressive forces cause a large floe to fail by buckling in front of the nose of a very wide pier. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- For bridge piers of usual proportions on larger bodies of water, crushing and bending failures usually control the magnitude of the design dynamic ice force. On smaller streams, which cannot carry large ice floes, impact failure can be the controlling mode. In all three cases, it is essential to recognize the effects of resonance between the pier and the ice forces. Montgomery et al. (1980) have shown that for a massive pier with a damping coefficient of 20 percent of critical, the maximum dynamic effect is approximately equal to the greatest force, but for lesser damping values there is a considerable amplification. Montgomery and Lipsett (1980) measured damping of a massive pier at 19 percent of critical, but it is expected that slender piers and individual piles may have damping values of five percent or less. In the discussion of impact-type ice failure above, the indication is that the floe is “small.” Small is extremely difficult to define and is site-specific. Floes up to 75.0 ft long have been observed to fail by splitting when driven by water velocities of 10.0 ft/s (Haynes, 1996). Static forces may be caused by the thermal expansion of ice in which a pier is embedded or by irregular growth of the ice field. This has typically been © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-46 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS observed downstream of a dam, or hydroelectric plant or other channel where ice predominantly forms only on one side of the river or pier. Ice jams can arch between bridge piers. The breakup ice jam is a more or less cohesionless accumulation of ice fragments (Montgomery et al., 1984). Hanging dams are created when frazil ice passes under the surface layer of ice and accumulates under the surface ice at the bridge site. The frazil ice comes typically from rapids or waterfalls upstream. The hanging dam can cause a backup of water, which exerts pressure on the pier and can cause scour around or under piers as water flows at an increased velocity. 3.9.2—Dynamic Ice Forces on Piers 3.9.2.1—Effective Ice Strength In the absence of more precise information, the following values may be used for effective ice crushing strength: • 8.0 ksf, where breakup occurs at melting temperatures and the ice structure is substantially disintegrated; • 16.0 ksf, where breakup occurs at melting temperatures and the ice structure is somewhat disintegrated; • 24.0 ksf, where breakup or major ice movement occurs at melting temperatures, but the ice moves in large pieces and is internally sound; and • 32.0 ksf, where breakup or major ice movement occurs when the ice temperature, averaged over its depth, is measurably below the melting point. C3.9.2.1 It should be noted that the effective ice strengths given herein are for the purpose of entering into a formula to arrive at forces on piers. Different formulas might require different effective ice strengths to arrive at the same result. As a guide, the 8.0 ksf strength is appropriate for piers where long experience indicates that ice forces are minimal, but some allowance is required for ice effects; the 32.0 ksf strength is considered to be a reasonable upper limit based on the observed history of bridges that have survived ice conditions (Neill, 1981). Effective ice strengths of up to 57.6 ksf have been used in the design of some bridges in Alaska (Haynes, 1996). The effective ice strength depends mostly on the temperature and grain size of the ice (Montgomery et al., 1984). For example, laboratory measured compressive strengths at 32°F vary from about 60.0 ksf for grain sizes of 0.04 in. to 27.0 ksf for grain sizes of 0.2 in., and at 23°F ice strengths are approximately double the values given. Thus, the effective ice strengths given herein are not necessarily representative of laboratory tests or actual ice strengths, and, in fact, are on the order of one-half of observed values (Neill, 1981). The compressive strength of the ice depends upon temperature, but the tensile strength is not sensitive to temperature. Because much ice failure is the result of splitting or tensile failure in bending, and because grain sizes, cracks, and other imperfections vary in the field, only crude approximations of ice strengths can be made. Thus, temperature is not a consideration for setting effective ice strengths in these Specifications. Some of the most severe ice runs in the United States occur during a rapid January thaw, when the air temperature is about 50°F, but the average ice temperature can still be below 32°F because of an insulating snow cover (Haynes, 1996). --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-47 3.9.2.2—Crushing and Flexing C3.9.2.2 The horizontal force, F, resulting from the pressure of moving ice shall be taken as: • If F = • If F = w ≤ 6.0 , then: t lesser of either Fc or, when ice failure by flexure is considered applicable as described herein, Fb, and w > 6.0 , then: t Fc in which: Fc = Ca ptw (3.9.2.2-1) Fb = Cn pt 2 (3.9.2.2-2) Ca = (5 t / w + 1) 0.5 (3.9.2.2-3) 0.5 tan(α − 15 ) (3.9.2.2-4) Cn = where: t α p = = = w = Fc = Fb = Ca = Cn = thickness of ice (ft) inclination of the nose to the vertical (degrees) effective ice crushing strength as specified in Article 3.9.2.1 (ksf) pier width at level of ice action (ft) horizontal ice force caused by ice floes that fail by crushing over the full width of the pier (kip) horizontal ice force caused by ice floes that fail by flexure as they ride up the inclined pier nose (kip) coefficient accounting for the effect of the pier width/ice thickness ratio where the floe fails by crushing coefficient accounting for the inclination of the pier nose with respect to a vertical where α ≤ 15 degrees, ice failure by flexure shall not be considered to be a possible ice failure mode for the purpose of calculating the horizontal force, F, in which case F shall be taken as Fc. The expression of Fc is based on field measurements of forces on two bridge piers in Alberta (Lipsett and Gerard, 1980). See also Huiskamp (1983), with a Ca proposed by Afanas'ev et al. (1971), and verified by Neill (1976). The expression for Fb is taken from Lipsett and Gerard (1980). w/t = 6.0 is a rough estimate of the upper limit of w/t at which ice that has failed by bending will be washed around the pier. It is assumed that the force on the pier is governed by the crushing or bending strength of the ice, and thus there is not a term in Eqs. 3.9.2.2-1 or 3.9.2.2-2 relating to velocity of the ice. The interaction between an ice floe and a pier depends on the size and strength of the floe and how squarely it strikes the pier. It has been reported that an ice floe 200 ft in size will usually fail by crushing if it hits a pier squarely. If a floe 100 ft in size does not hit the pier squarely, it will usually impact the pier and rotate around the pier and pass downstream with only little local crushing. Although no account is taken of the shape of the nose of the pier, laboratory tests at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) have shown the bullet-shaped pier nose can reduce ice forces the most compared to other types of geometry. Pointed angular noses, as shown in Figure C3.9.2.4.1-1, have been found to cause lateral vibrations of the pier without reducing the streamwise force. CRREL has measured lateral or torsional vibrations on the pointed nose Yukon River Bridge piers. The longterm ramifications of these vibrations are not known at this time (Haynes, 1996). Ice thickness is the greatest unknown in the determination of ice forces on piers. Equations can be used for estimating ice thickness. The design should be based on the extreme, not average, ice thickness. The elevation on the pier where the design force shall be applied is important for calculating the overturning moments. Because ice stage increases during an ice run, relying on local knowledge of the maximum stage is vital to proper design (Haynes, 1995). For the purpose of design, the preferred method to establish the thickness of ice, t, is to base it on measurements of maximum thicknesses, taken over a period of several years, at the potential bridge sites. Where observations over a long period of time are not available, an empirical method based on Neill (1981) is suggested as follows: t = 0.083α S f (C3.9.2.2-1) where: α = coefficient for local conditions, normally less than 1.0 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-48 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Sf = T = freezing index, being the algebraic sum, Σ(32 – T), summed from the date of freeze-up to the date of interest, in degree days mean daily air temperature (degrees F) Assuming that temperature records are available, the maximum recorded value of Sf can be determined. One possible method of determining α is by simple calibration in which, through the course of a single winter, the ice thickness can be measured at various times and plotted against S f . As a guide, Neill (1981) indicates the following values for α: windy lakes without snow .......................................0.8 average lake with snow ....................................0.5–0.7 average river with snow....................................0.4–0.5 sheltered small river with snow ........................0.2–0.4 Due to its good insulating characteristics, snow has a significant effect on ice growth. Williams (1963) has shown that a snow cover greater than 6.0 in. in thickness has the effect of reducing α by as much as 50 percent. Neill does not define “average,” and it has been noted by Gerard and Stanely (1992) that deep snow can produce snow-ice, thus offsetting the benefits of snow insulation. Large lakes take longer to cool down, which leads to a later freeze-up date. This results in fewer degreedays of freezing and, hence, smaller ice thicknesses. The remaining decision is to establish the appropriate elevation of the ice force to be applied to the pier. The elevation required is that at break-up, not at the mean winter level. Neill (1981) suggests several methods of determining ice elevations, but the most common method in general use is probably to rely on local knowledge and examination of the river banks to determine the extent of damage by ice, such as the marking or removal of trees. C3.9.2.3 3.9.2.3—Small Streams On small streams not conducive to the formation of large ice floes, consideration may be given to reducing the forces Fb and Fc, determined in accordance with Article 3.9.2.2, but under no circumstances shall the forces be reduced by more than 50 percent. CAN/CSA-S6-88 has an expression for ice forces in small streams, for which a theory is given by Montgomery et al. (1984). It is considered insufficiently verified to be included herein. On small streams, with a width of less than 300 ft at the mean water level, dynamic ice forces, as determined in Article 3.9.2.2, may be reduced in accordance with Table C3.9.2.3-1. Another important factor that determines the ice floe size are the type of features in the river upstream of the site. Islands, dams, and bridge piers can break ice into small floes. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- where: A r = = plan area of the largest ice floe in (ft2) radius of pier nose (ft) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-49 Table C3.9.2.3-1—Reduction Factor K1 for Small Streams A/r2 1000 500 200 100 50 Reduction Factor, K1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 The rationale for the reduction factor, K1, is that the bridge may be struck only by small ice floes with insufficient momentum to cause failure of the floe. 3.9.2.4—Combination of Longitudinal and Transverse Forces C3.9.2.4.1 The force F, determined as specified in Articles 3.9.2.2 and 3.9.2.3, shall be taken to act along the longitudinal axis of the pier if the ice movement has only one direction and the pier is approximately aligned with that direction. In this case, two design cases shall be investigated as follows: • A longitudinal force equal to F shall be combined with a transverse force of 0.15F, or • A longitudinal force of 0.5F shall be combined with a transverse force of Ft. It would be unrealistic to expect the ice force to be exactly parallel to the pier, so a minimum lateral component of 15 percent of the longitudinal force is specified. The expression for Ft comes from Montgomery et al. (1984), and is explained in Figure C3.9.2.4.1-1 taken from the same source. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.9.2.4.1—Piers Parallel to Flow The transverse force, Ft, shall be taken as: Ft = F 2 tan(β / 2 + θ f ) (3.9.2.4.1-1) where: β = θf = nose angle in a horizontal plane for a round nose taken as 100 (degrees) friction angle between ice and pier nose (degrees) Both the longitudinal and transverse forces shall be assumed to act at the pier nose. Figure C3.9.2.4.1-1—Transverse Ice Force Where a Floe Fails over a Portion of a Pier 3.9.2.4.2—Piers Skewed to Flow Where the longitudinal axis of a pier is not parallel to the principal direction of ice action, or where the direction of ice action may shift, the total force on the pier shall be determined on the basis of the projected pier width and resolved into components. Under such conditions, forces transverse to the longitudinal axis of the pier shall be taken to be at least 20 percent of the total force. C3.9.2.4.2 The provisions for piers skewed to flow are taken from CAN/CSA-S6-88 (1988). © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-50 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.9.2.5—Slender and Flexible Piers C3.9.2.5 Slender and flexible piers shall not be used in regions where ice forces are significant, unless advice on ice/structure interaction has been obtained from an ice specialist. This provision also applies to slender and flexible components of piers, including piles that come into contact with water-borne ice. It has been shown by Montgomery et al. (1980) and others that flexible piers and pier components may experience considerable amplification of the ice forces as a result of resonant ice/structure interaction at low levels of structural damping. In this case, the provisions of Article 3.9.5 may be inadequate for vertical forces on piers. 3.9.3—Static Ice Loads on Piers C3.9.3 Ice pressures on piers frozen into ice sheets shall be investigated where the ice sheets are subject to significant thermal movements relative to the pier where the growth of shore ice is on one side only or in other situations that may produce substantial unbalanced forces on the pier. Little guidance is available for predicting static ice loads on piers. Under normal circumstances, the effects of static ice forces on piers may be strain-limited, but expert advice should be sought if there is reason for concern. Static ice forces due to thermal expansion of ice are discussed in Haynes (1995). Ice force can be reduced by several mitigating factors that usually apply. For example, ice does not act simultaneously over the full length of the pier. Thermal stresses relax in time and prevent high stresses over the full ice thickness. A snow cover on the ice insulates the ice and reduces the thermal stresses, and ice usually acts simultaneously on both sides of the pier surrounded by the ice so that the resultant force is considerably less than the larger directional force, i.e., force on one side of the pier. Article C3.9.1 contains additional discussion. 3.9.4—Hanging Dams and Ice Jams C3.9.4 The frazil accumulation in a hanging dam may be taken to exert a pressure of 0.2 to 2.0 ksf as it moves by the pier. An ice jam may be taken to exert a pressure of 0.02 to 0.20 ksf. The theory behind the ice pressures given for hanging dams can be found in Montgomery et al. (1984). The wide spread of pressures quoted reflects both the variability of the ice and the lack of firm information on the subject. 3.9.5—Vertical Forces Due to Ice Adhesion C3.9.5 The vertical force, in kips, on a bridge pier due to rapid water level fluctuation shall be taken as: Eq. 3.9.5-1 was derived by considering the failure of a semi-infinite, wedge-shaped ice sheet on an elastic foundation under vertical load applied at its apex. For a single ice wedge, the maximum vertical force, P, can be evaluated from the expression (Nevel, 1972). For a circular pier: 0.03R   Fv = 80.0t 2  0.35 + 0.75  t   (3.9.5-1) δ tan   σT t 2 2 P= 3 3  a a  1.05 + 2   + 0.5          (C3.9.5-1) in which: For an oblong pier: 0.03R   Fv = 0.2t1.25 L + 80.0t 2  0.35 + 0.75  t   where: t = 0.25 (3.9.5-2)  Et 3  =    12 γ  = 21.0t 0.75 where: ice thickness (ft) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS (C3.9.5-2) SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS R = L = radius of circular pier (ft); or radius of half circles at ends of an oblong pier (ft); or radius of a circle that circumscribes each end of an oblong pier of which the ends are not circular in plan at water level (ft) perimeter of pier, excluding half circles at ends of oblong pier (ft) 3-51 σT t δ a = = = = ℓ = E γ = = tensile strength of ice (ksf) maximum thickness of ice (ft) angle of the truncated wedge (degrees) truncated distance, which is assumed to be equal to the radius of a circular pier (ft) characteristic length calculated from the expression (ft) Young’s modulus for ice (ksf) unit weight of water (kcf) To obtain Eq. 3.9.5-1, the vertical force is summed for four wedges, each with a truncated angle of 90 degrees. It is assumed that the tensile strength of ice is 0.84 times an effective crushing strength of 23 ksf and that the ratio of the truncated distance to the characteristic length, a/ ℓ, is less than 0.6. Eq. 3.9.5-2 is the sum of two expressions: • Eq. 3.9.5-1, which accounts for the vertical ice forces acting on the half circles at the ends of an oblong pier, and • An expression that calculates the vertical ice forces on the straight walls of the pier. The expression for calculating the vertical ice forces on the long straight walls of the pier was derived by considering a semi-infinite, rectangular ice sheet on an elastic foundation under a uniformly distributed edge load. The force required to fail the ice sheet, F, can be expressed as F = 0.236 σT t2/ ℓ (Montgomery et al., 1984). Eqs. 3.9.5-1 and 3.9.5-2 are based on the conservative assumption that ice adheres around the full perimeter of the pier cross-section. They neglect creep and are, therefore, conservative for water level fluctuations occurring over more than a few minutes. However, they are also based on the nonconservative assumption that failure occurs on the formation of the first crack. Some issues surrounding ice forces have been reported in Zabilansky (1996). 3.9.6—Ice Accretion and Snow Loads on Superstructures C3.9.6 Generally snow loads, other than those caused by an avalanche, need not be considered. However, Owners in areas where unique accumulations of snow and/or ice are possible should specify appropriate loads for that condition. Loads due to icing of the superstructure by freezing rain shall be specified if local conditions so warrant. The following discussion of snow loads is taken from Ritter (1990). Snow loads should be considered where a bridge is located in an area of potentially heavy snowfall. This can occur at high elevations in mountainous areas with large seasonal accumulations. Snow loads are normally negligible in areas of the United States that are below 2,000 ft elevation and east of longitude 105°W, or below 1,000 ft elevation and west of longitude 105°W. In other areas of the country, snow loads as large as 0.7 ksf may be encountered in mountainous locations. The effects of snow are assumed to be offset by an accompanying decrease in vehicle live load. This assumption is valid for most structures, but is not realistic in areas where snowfall is significant. When --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-52 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS prolonged winter closure of a road makes snow removal impossible, the magnitude of snow loads may exceed those from vehicular live loads. Loads also may be notable where plowed snow is stockpiled or otherwise allowed to accumulate. The applicability and magnitude of snow loads are left to the Designer’s judgment. Snow loads vary from year to year and depend on the depth and density of snowpack. The depth used for design should be based on a mean recurrence interval or the maximum recorded depth. Density is based on the degree of compaction. The lightest accumulation is produced by fresh snow falling at cold temperatures. Density increases when the snowpack is subjected to freeze-thaw cycles or rain. Probable densities for several snowpack conditions are indicated in Table C3.9.6-1, ASCE (1980). Table C3.9.6-1—Snow Density Condition of Snowpack Freshly Fallen Accumulated Compacted Rain or Snow Probable Density (kcf) 0.006 0.019 0.031 0.031 Estimated snow load can be determined from historical records or other reliable data. General information on ground snow loads is available from the National Weather Service, from state and local agencies, and ASCE (1988). Snow loads in mountain areas are subject to extreme variations. The extent of these loads should be determined on the basis of local experience or records, instead of on generalized information. The effect of snow loads on a bridge structure is influenced by the pattern of snow accumulation. Windblown snow drifts may produce unbalanced loads considerably greater than those produced from uniformly distributed loads. Drifting is influenced by the terrain, structure shape, and other features that cause changes in the general wind flow. Bridge components, such as railings, can serve to contain drifting snow and cause large accumulations to develop. 3.10—EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS: EQ 3.10.1—General C3.10.1 Bridges shall be designed to have a low probability of collapse but may suffer significant damage and disruption to service when subject to earthquake ground motions that have a seven percent probability of exceedance in 75 yr. Partial or complete replacement may be required. Higher levels of performance may be used with the authorization of the Bridge Owner. Earthquake loads shall be taken to be horizontal force effects determined in accordance with the The design earthquake motions and forces specified in these provisions are based on a low probability of their being exceeded during the normal life expectancy of a bridge. Bridges that are designed and detailed in accordance with these provisions may suffer damage, but should have low probability of collapse due to seismically induced ground shaking. The principles used for the development of these Specifications are: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-53 provisions of Article 4.7.4 on the basis of the elastic response coefficient, Csm, specified in Article 3.10.4, and the equivalent weight of the superstructure, and adjusted by the response modification factor, R, specified in Article 3.10.7.1. The provisions herein shall apply to bridges of conventional construction. The Owner shall specify and/or approve appropriate provisions for nonconventional construction. Unless otherwise specified by the Owner, these provisions need not be applied to completely buried structures. Seismic effects for box culverts and buried structures need not be considered, except where they cross active faults. The potential for soil liquefaction and slope movements shall be considered. • Small to moderate earthquakes should be resisted within the elastic range of the structural components without significant damage; • Realistic seismic ground motion intensities and forces should be used in the design procedures; and • Exposure to shaking from large earthquakes should not cause collapse of all or part of the bridge. Where possible, damage that does occur should be readily detectable and accessible for inspection and repair. Bridge Owners may choose to mandate higher levels of performance for special bridges. Earthquake loads are given by the product of the elastic seismic response coefficient Csm and the equivalent weight of the superstructure. The equivalent weight is a function of the actual weight and bridge configuration and is automatically included in both the single-mode and multimode methods of analysis specified in Article 4.7.4. Design and detailing provisions for bridges to minimize their susceptibility to damage from earthquakes are contained in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11. A flow chart summarizing these provisions is presented in Appendix A3. Conventional bridges include those with slab, beam, box girder, or truss superstructures, and single- or multiple-column piers, wall-type piers, or pile-bent substructures. In addition, conventional bridges are founded on shallow or piled footings, or shafts. Substructures for conventional bridges are also listed in Table 3.10.7.1-1. Nonconventional bridges include bridges with cable-stayed/cable-suspended superstructures, bridges with truss towers or hollow piers for substructures, and arch bridges. These Specifications are considered to be forcebased wherein a bridge is designed to have adequate strength (capacity) to resist earthquake forces (demands). In recent years, there has been a trend away from forcebased procedures to those that are displacement-based, wherein a bridge is designed to have adequate displacement capacity to accommodate earthquake demands. Displacement-based procedures are believed to more reliably identify the limit states that cause damage leading to collapse, and in some cases produce more efficient designs against collapse. It is recommended that the displacement capacity of bridges designed in accordance with these Specifications, be checked using a displacement-based procedure, particularly those bridges in high seismic zones. The AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Design (AASHTO, 2009), are displacement-based. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-54 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.10.2—Seismic Hazard The seismic hazard at a bridge site shall be characterized by the acceleration response spectrum for the site and the site factors for the relevant site class. The acceleration spectrum shall be determined using either the General Procedure specified in Article 3.10.2.1 or the Site Specific Procedure specified in Article 3.10.2.2. A Site-Specific Procedure shall be used if any one of the following conditions exist: • The site is located within 6 mi. of an active fault, • The site is classified as Site Class F (Article 3.10.3.1), • Long-duration earthquakes are expected in the region, • The importance of the bridge is such that a lower probability of exceedance (and therefore a longer return period) should be considered. If time histories of ground acceleration are used to characterize the seismic hazard for the site, they shall be determined in accordance with Article 4.7.4.3.4b. 3.10.2.1—General Procedure The General Procedure shall use the peak ground acceleration coefficient (PGA) and the short- and longperiod spectral acceleration coefficients (SS and S1 respectively) to calculate the spectrum as specified in Article 3.10.4. Values of PGA, SS and S1 shall be determined from either Figures 3.10.2.1-1 to 3.10.2.1-21 as appropriate, or from state ground motion maps approved by the Owner. Linear interpolation shall be used for sites located between contour lines or between a contour line and a local maximum or minimum. The effect of site class on the seismic hazard shall be as specified in Article 3.10.3. C3.10.2.1 Values for the coefficients PGA, SS and S1 are expressed in percent in Figures 3.10.2.1-1 to 3.10.2.1-21. Numerical values are obtained by dividing contour values by 100. Local maxima and minima are given inside the highest and lowest contour for a particular region. The above coefficients are based on a uniform risk model of seismic hazard. The probability that a coefficient will not be exceeded at a given location during a 75-yr period is estimated to be about 93 percent, i.e., a seven percent probability of exceedance. The use of a 75-yr interval to characterize this probability is an arbitrary convenience and does not imply that all bridges are thought to have a useful life of 75 yr. It can be shown that an event with the above probability of exceedance has a return period of about 1,000 yr and is called the design earthquake. Larger earthquakes than that implied by the above set of coefficients have a finite probability of occurrence throughout the United States. Values for the ground coefficient (PGA) and the spectral coefficients (SS and S1) are also available on the USGS 2007 Seismic Parameters CD, which is included with this book. Coefficients are given by the longitude and latitude of the bridge site, or by the zip code for the site. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-55 An error has been identified in the “Spectral Response Accelerations SDS and SD1” results produced by the CD-ROM software. Specifically, the As value is erroneously calculated as As=Fa PGA. Although the corrected value for As is presented in the tabulated design spectrum table, designers should be aware of this error until the problem is corrected. The software error will likely have negligible effects on bridge analysis results because: • Fpga is approximately equal to Fa, • As is properly calculated and displayed in the tabulated design spectra, and • Bridges have fundamental periods greater than the effected period range (Tm<To). In lieu of using the national ground motion maps in Figures 3.10.2.1-1 to 3.10.2.1-21, values for the coefficients PGA, SS and S1 may be derived from approved state ground motion maps. To be acceptable, the development of state maps should conform to the following: • The definition of design ground motions should be the same as described in Articles 3.10.1 and 3.10.2. • Ground motion maps should be based on a detailed analysis demonstrated to lead to a quantification of ground motion, at a regional scale, that is as accurate or more so, as is achieved in the national maps. The analysis should include: characterization of seismic sources and ground motion that incorporates current scientific knowledge; incorporation of uncertainty in seismic source models, ground motion models, and parameter values used in the analysis; and detailed documentation of map development. Detailed peer review should be undertaken as deemed appropriate by the Owner. The peer review process should include one or more individuals from the U.S. Geological Survey who participated in the development of the national maps. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-56 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.10.2.1-1—Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient for the Conterminous United States (PGA) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`, © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure 3.10.2.1-1 (continued)—Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient for the Conterminous United States (PGA) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-57 3-58 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.10.2.1-2—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for the Conterminous United States at Period of 0.2 s (SS) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure 3.10.2.1-2 (continued)—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for the Conterminous United States at Period of 0.2 s (SS) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-59 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3-60 Figure 3.10.2.1-3—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for the Conterminous United States at Period of 1.0 s (S1) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-61 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure 3.10.2.1-3 (continued)—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for the Conterminous United States at Period of 1.0 s (S1) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-62 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure 3.10.2.1-4—Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient for Region 1 (PGA) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-63 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure 3.10.2.1-4 (continued)—Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient for Region 1 (PGA) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-64 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.10.2.1-5—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Region 1 at Period of 0.2 s (SS) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-65 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure 3.10.2.1-5 (continued)—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Region 1 at Period of 0.2 s (SS) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-66 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.10.2.1-6—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Region 1 at Period of 1.0 s (S1) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-67 Figure 3.10.2.1-6 (continued)—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Region 1 at Period of 1.0 s (S1) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-68 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.10.2.1-7—Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient for Region 2 (PGA) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-69 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure 3.10.2.1-8—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Region 2 at Period of 0.2 s (SS) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-70 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.10.2.1-9—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Region 2 at Period of 1.0 s (S1) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure 3.10.2.1-10—Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient for Region 3 (PGA) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-71 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3-72 Figure 3.10.2.1-11—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Region 3 at Period of 0.2 s (SS) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-73 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure 3.10.2.1-12—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Region 3 at Period of 1.0 s (S1) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-74 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.10.2.1-13—Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient for Region 4 (PGA) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-75 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure 3.10.2.1-14—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficients for Region 4 at Periods of 0.2 s (SS) and 1.0 s (S1) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-76 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.10.2.1-15—Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient for Hawaii (PGA) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-77 Figure 3.10.2.1-16—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficients for Hawaii at Periods of 0.2 s (SS) and 1.0 s (S1) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-78 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure 3.10.2.1-17—Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient for Alaska (PGA) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Figure 3.10.2.1-18—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Alaska at Period of 0.2 s (SS) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-79 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3-80 Figure 3.10.2.1-19—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Alaska at Period of 1.0 s (S1) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure 3.10.2.1-20—Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient for Puerto Rico, Culebra, Vieques, St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix (PGA) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-81 3-82 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.10.2.1-21—Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficients for Puerto Rico, Culebra, Vieques, St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix at Periods of 0.2 s (SS) and 1.0 s (S1) with Seven Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 yr (Approx. 1000-yr Return Period) and Five Percent Critical Damping --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-83 C3.10.2.2 A site-specific procedure to develop design response spectra of earthquake ground motions shall be performed when required by Article 3.10.2 and may be performed for any site. The objective of the site-specific probabilistic ground-motion analysis should be to generate a uniform-hazard acceleration response spectrum considering a seven percent probability of exceedance in 75 yr for spectral values over the entire period range of interest. This analysis should involve establishing: The intent in conducting a site-specific probabilistic ground motion study is to develop ground motions that are more accurate for the local seismic and site conditions than can be determined from national ground motion maps and the procedure of Article 3.10.2.1. Accordingly, such studies should be comprehensive and incorporate current scientific interpretations at a regional scale. Because there are typically scientifically credible alternatives for models and parameter values used to characterize seismic sources and ground-motion attenuation, it is important to incorporate these uncertainties formally in a site-specific probabilistic analysis. Examples of these uncertainties include seismic source location, extent and geometry; maximum earthquake magnitude; earthquake recurrence rate; and ground-motion attenuation relationship. Near-fault effects on horizontal response spectra include: • The contributing seismic sources; • An upper-bound earthquake magnitude for each source zone; • Median attenuation relations for acceleration response spectral values and their associated standard deviations; • A magnitude-recurrence relation for each source zone; and • Higher ground motions due to the proximity of the active fault; • A fault-rupture-length contributing fault. • Directivity effects that increase ground motions for periods greater than 0.5 s if the fault rupture propagates toward the site; and • Directionality effects that increase ground motions for periods greater than 0.5 s in the direction normal (perpendicular) to the strike of the fault. relation for each Uncertainties in source modeling and parameter values shall be taken into consideration. Detailed documentation of ground-motion analysis is required and shall be peer reviewed. Where analyses to determine site soil response effects are required by Articles 3.10.3.1 for Site Class F soils, the influence of the local soil conditions shall be determined based on site-specific geotechnical investigations and dynamic site response analyses. For sites located within 6 miles of an active surface or a shallow fault, as depicted in the USGS Active Fault Map, studies shall be considered to quantify near-fault effects on ground motions to determine if these could significantly influence the bridge response. A deterministic spectrum may be utilized in regions having known active faults if the deterministic spectrum is no less than two-thirds of the probabilistic spectrum in the region of 0.5TF to 2TF of the spectrum where TF is the bridge fundamental period. Where use of a deterministic spectrum is appropriate, the spectrum shall be either: • the envelope of a median spectra calculated for characteristic maximum magnitude earthquakes on known active faults; or • a deterministic spectra may be defined for each fault, and, in the absence of a clearly controlling spectra, each spectrum should be used. If the active fault is included and appropriately modeled in the development of national ground motion maps, then the first effect above is already included in the national ground motion maps. The second and third effects are not included in the national maps. These effects are significant only for periods longer than 0.5 s and normally would be evaluated only for essential or critical bridges having natural periods of vibration longer than 0.5 s. Further discussions of the second and third effects are contained in Somerville (1997) and Somerville et al. (1997). The fault-normal component of near-field (D < 6 mi.) motion may contain relatively long-duration velocity pulses which can cause severe nonlinear structural response, predictable only through nonlinear time-history analyses. For this case the recorded nearfield horizontal components of motion need to be transformed into principal components before modifying them to be response-spectrum-compatible. The ratio of vertical-to-horizontal ground motions increases for short-period motions in the near-fault environment. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.10.2.2—Site Specific Procedure 3-84 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Where response spectra are determined from a sitespecific study, the spectra shall not be lower than twothirds of the response spectra determined using the general procedure of Article 3.10.2.1 in the region of 0.5TF to 2TF of the spectrum where TF is the bridge fundamental period. 3.10.3—Site Effects C3.10.3 Site classes and site factors specified herein shall be used in the General Procedure for characterizing the seismic hazard specified in Article 3.10.4. The behavior of a bridge during an earthquake is strongly related to the soil conditions at the site. Soils can amplify ground motions in the underlying rock, sometimes by factors of two or more. The extent of this amplification is dependent on the profile of soil types at the site and the intensity of shaking in the rock below. Sites are classified by type and profile for the purpose of defining the overall seismic hazard, which is quantified as the product of the soil amplification and the intensity of shaking in the underlying rock. 3.10.3.1—Site Class Definitions A site shall be classified as A though F in accordance with the site class definitions in Table 3.10.3.1-1. Sites shall be classified by their stiffness as determined by the shear wave velocity in the upper 100 ft. Standard Penetration Test (SPT), blow counts and undrained shear strengths of soil samples from soil borings may also be used to classify sites as indicated in Table 3.10.3.1-1. C3.10.3.1 Steps that may be followed to classify a site are given in Table C3.10.3.1-1. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-85 Table 3.10.3.1-1—Site Class Definitions Site Class Soil Type and Profile A Hard rock with measured shear wave velocity, vs > 5,000 ft/s B Rock with 2,500 ft/sec < vs < 5,000 ft/s C Very dense soil and soil rock with 1,200 ft/sec < vs < 2,500 ft/s, or with either N > 50 blows/ft, or su > 2.0 ksf D Stiff soil with 600 ft/s < vs < 1,200 ft/s, or with either 15 < N < 50 blows/ft, or 1.0 < su < 2.0 ksf E Soil profile with vs < 600 ft/s or with either N < 15 blows/ft or su < 1.0 ksf, or any profile with more than 10 ft of soft clay defined as soil with PI > 20, w > 40 percent and su < 0.5 ksf F Soils requiring site-specific evaluations, such as: • Peats or highly organic clays (H > 10 ft of peat or highly organic clay where H = thickness of soil) • Very high plasticity clays (H > 25 ft with PI > 75) • Very thick soft/medium stiff clays (H >120 ft) Exceptions: Where the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to determine the site class, a site investigation shall be undertaken sufficient to determine the site class. Site classes E or F should not be assumed unless the authority having jurisdiction determines that site classes E or F could be present at the site or in the event that site classes E or F are established by geotechnical data. where: vs = average shear wave velocity for the upper 100 ft of the soil profile N = su = PI w = = average Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (blows/ft) (ASTM D1586) for the upper 100 ft of the soil profile average undrained shear strength in ksf (ASTM D2166 or ASTM D2850) for the upper 100 ft of the soil profile plasticity index (ASTM D4318) moisture content (ASTM D2216) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-86 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table C3.10.3.1-1—Steps for Site Classification Step Description 1 Check for the three categories of Site Class F in Table 3.10.3.1-1 requiring site-specific evaluation. If the site corresponds to any of these categories, classify the site as Site Class F and conduct a site-specific evaluation. 2 Check for existence of a soft layer with total thickness > 10 ft, where soft layer is defined by su < 0.5 ksf, w > 40%, and PI >20. If these criteria are met, classify site as Site Class E. 3 Categorize the site into one of the site classes in Table 3.10.3.1-1 using one of the following three methods to calculate: • vs for the top 100 ft ( vs method) • N for the top 100 ft ( N method) • N ch for cohesionless soil layers (PI < 20) in the top 100 ft and su for cohesive soil layers (PI > 20) in the top 100 ft ( su method) To make these calculations, the soil profile is subdivided into n distinct soil and rock layers, and in the methods below the symbol i refers to any one of these layers from 1 to n. Method A: vs method The average vs for the top 100 ft is determined as: n --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- di  i=1 vs = n di  v i=1 si where: n  di = 100 ft i=1 vsi = shear wave velocity in ft/s of a layer di thickness of a layer between 0 and 100 ft = Method B: N method The average N for the top 100 ft shall be determined as: n di N = in=1 d i  N i=1 i where: Ni = Note: Standard Penetration Test blow count of a layer (not to exceed 100 blows/ft in the above expression) When using Method B, N values are for cohesionless soils and cohesive soil and rock layers within the upper 100 ft. Where refusal is met for a rock layer, Ni should be taken as 100 blows/ft. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-87 Table C3.10.3.1-1 (continued)—Steps for Site Classification Method C: su method The average N ch for cohesionless soil layers in the top 100 ft is determined as: N ch = m ds di  N i=1 chi m  di = d s , i=1 where: m = Nchi = ds = number of cohesionless soil layers in the top 100 ft blow count for a cohesionless soil layer (not to exceed 100 blows/ft in the above expression) total thickness of cohesionless soil layers in the top 100 ft The average su for cohesive soil layers in the top 100 ft is determined as: su = dc k d i sui i=1  in which: k  di = d c , i =1 where: k = sui = dc = Note: number of cohesive soil layers in the top 100 ft undrained shear strength for a cohesive soil layer (not to exceed 5.0 ksf in the above expression) total thickness of cohesive soil layers in the top 100 ft When using Method C, if the site class resulting from N ch and su differ, select the site class that gives the highest site factors and design spectral response in the period range of interest. For example, if N ch was equal to 20 blows/ft and su was equal to 0.8 ksf, the site would classify as D or E in accordance with Method C and the site class definitions of Table 3.10.3.1-1. In this example, for relatively low response spectral acceleration and for long-period motions, Table 3.10.3.2-3 indicates that the site factors are highest for Site Class E. However, for relatively high short-period spectral acceleration (Ss > 0.75), short period site factors, Fa, are higher for Site Class D. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- in which: 3-88 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.10.3.2—Site Factors C3.10.3.2 Site Factors Fpga, Fa and Fv specified in Tables 3.10.3.2-1, 3.10.3.2-2, and 3.10.3.2-3 shall be used in the zero-period, short-period range, and long-period range, respectively. These factors shall be determined using the Site Class given in Table 3.10.3.1-1 and the mapped values of the coefficients PGA, SS , and S1 in Figures 3.10.2.1-1 to 3.10.2.1-21. Site Class B (soft rock) is taken to be the reference site category for the USGS and NEHRP MCE ground shaking maps. Site class B rock is therefore the site condition for which the site factor is 1.0. Site classes A, C, D, and E have separate sets of site factors for zero-period (Fpga), the shortperiod range (Fa) and long-period range (Fv), as indicated in Tables 3.10.3.2-1, 3.10.3.2-2, and 3.10.3.2-3. These site factors generally increase as the soil profile becomes softer (in going from site class A to E). Except for site class A (hard rock), the factors also decrease as the ground motion level increases, due to the strongly nonlinear behavior of the soil. For a given site class, C, D, or E, these nonlinear site factors increase the ground motion more in areas having lower rock ground motions than in areas having higher rock ground motions. Table 3.10.3.2-1—Values of Site Factor, Fpga, at ZeroPeriod on Acceleration Spectrum Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (PGA)1 Site Class PGA < 0.10 PGA = 0.20 PGA = 0.30 PGA = 0.40 PGA > 0.50 A B C D E F2 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.5 * 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 * 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 * 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 * 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 * Notes: 1 Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA. 2 Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis should be performed for all sites in Site Class F. Table 3.10.3.2-2—Values of Site Factor, Fa, for ShortPeriod Range of Acceleration Spectrum Site Class SS < 0.25 SS = 0.50 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.00 SS > 1.25 A B C D E F2 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.5 * 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 * 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 * 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 * 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 * Notes: 1 Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of Ss. 2 Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis should be performed for all sites in Site Class F. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Spectral Acceleration Coefficient at Period 0.2 sec (SS)1 SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-89 Table 3.10.3.2-3—Values of Site Factor, Fv, for LongPeriod Range of Acceleration Spectrum Site Class A B C D E F2 Spectral Acceleration Coefficient at Period 1.0 sec (S1)1 S1 < S1 = S1 = S1 = S1 > 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.7 2.4 3.5 * 0.8 1.0 1.6 2.0 3.2 * 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.8 2.8 * 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.6 2.4 * 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 2.4 * Notes: 1 Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of Sl. 2 Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis should be performed for all sites in Site Class F. 3.10.4—Seismic Hazard Characterization The five-percent-damped-design response spectrum shall be taken as specified in Figure 3.10.4.1-1. This spectrum shall be calculated using the mapped peak ground acceleration coefficients and the spectral acceleration coefficients from Figures 3.10.2.1-1 to 3.10.2.1-21, scaled by the zero-, short-, and long-period site factors, Fpga , Fa , and Fv , respectively. C3.10.4.1 The long-period portion of the response spectrum in Figure 3.10.4.1-1 is inversely proportional to the period, T. In the previous edition of these Specifications, this portion of the spectrum was inversely proportional to T2/3. The consequence of this change is that spectral accelerations at periods greater than 1.0 s are smaller than previously specified (for the same ground acceleration and soil type), and greater than previously specified for periods less than 1.0 s (but greater than TS). This change is consistent with the observed characteristics of response spectra calculated from recorded ground motions. This revised shape is recommended in recent publications by NCHRP (2002, 2006), MCEER/ATC (2003), and FHWA (2006). For periods exceeding about 3 s, it has been observed that in certain seismic environments spectral displacements tend to a constant value which implies that the acceleration spectrum becomes inversely proportional to T2 at these periods. As a consequence, the spectrum in Figure 3.10.4.1-1 (and Eq. 3.10.4.2-5) may give conservative results for long period bridges (greater than about 3 s). Figure 3.10.4.1-1—Design Response Spectrum © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.10.4.1—Design Response Spectrum 3-90 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.10.4.2—Elastic Seismic Response Coefficient For periods less than or equal to T0, the elastic seismic coefficient for the mth move of vibration, Csm, shall be taken as: Csm = AS + (SDS – AS) (Tm / T0) (3.10.4.2-1) in which: AS = Fpga PGA (3.10.4.2-2) SDS = Fa SS (3.10.4.2-3) where: PGA = SS = Tm T0 = = TS = peak ground acceleration coefficient on rock (Site Class B) horizontal response spectral acceleration coefficient at 0.2-sec period on rock (Site Class B) period of vibration of mth mode (s) reference period used to define spectral shape = 0.2 TS (s) corner period at which spectrum changes from being independent of period to being inversely proportional to period = SD1/SDS (s) C 3.10.4.2 An earthquake may excite several modes of vibration in a bridge and, therefore, the elastic response coefficient should be found for each relevant mode. The discussion of the single-mode method in the commentary to Article 4.7.4.3.2 illustrates the relationship between period, Csm , and quasi-static seismic forces, pe(x). The structure is analyzed for these seismic forces in the single-mode method. In the multimode method, the structure is analyzed for several sets of seismic forces, each corresponding to the period and mode shape of one of the modes of vibration, and the results are combined using acceptable methods, such as the Complete Quadratic Combination method as required in Article 4.7.4.3.3. Csm applies to weight, not mass. For periods greater than or equal to T0 and less than or equal to TS , the elastic seismic response coefficient shall be taken as: Csm = SDS (3.10.4.2-4) For periods greater than TS , the elastic seismic response coefficient shall be taken as: Csm = SD1 / Tm (3.10.4.2-5) in which: SD1 = Fv S1 (3.10.4.2-6) where: horizontal response spectral acceleration coefficient at 1.0 sec period on rock (Site Class B) 3.10.5—Operational Classification C3.10.5 For the purpose of Article 3.10, the Owner or those having jurisdiction shall classify the bridge into one of three operational categories as follows: Essential bridges are generally those that should, as a minimum, be open to emergency vehicles and for security/defense purposes immediately after the design earthquake, i.e., a 1,000-yr return period event. However, some bridges must remain open to all traffic after the design earthquake and be usable by emergency vehicles and for security/defense purposes immediately after a large earthquake, e.g., a 2,500-yr return period event. These bridges should be regarded as critical structures. • Critical bridges, • Essential bridges, or • Other bridges. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- S1 = SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-91 The basis of classification shall include social/survival and security/defense requirements. In classifying a bridge, consideration should be given to possible future changes in conditions and requirements. 3.10.6—Seismic Performance Zones C3.10.6 Each bridge shall be assigned to one of the four seismic zones in accordance with Table 3.10.6-1 using the value of SD1 given by Eq. 3.10.4.2-6. These seismic zones reflect the variation in seismic risk across the country and are used to permit different requirements for methods of analysis, minimum support lengths, column design details, and foundation and abutment design procedures. Table 3.10.6-1—Seismic Zones Acceleration Coefficient, SD1 Seismic Zone 1 2 3 4 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SD1 ≤ 0.15 0.15 < SD1 ≤ 0.30 0.30 < SD1 ≤ 0.50 0.50 < SD1 3.10.7—Response Modification Factors 3.10.7.1—General To apply the response modification factors specified herein, the structural details shall satisfy the provisions of Articles 5.10.2.2, 5.10.11, and 5.13.4.6. Except as noted herein, seismic design force effects for substructures and the connections between parts of structures, listed in Table 3.10.7.1-2, shall be determined by dividing the force effects resulting from elastic analysis by the appropriate response modification factor, R, as specified in Tables 3.10.7.1-1 and 3.10.7.1-2, respectively. As an alternative to the use of the R-factors, specified in Table 3.10.7.1-2 for connections, monolithic joints between structural members and/or structures, such as a column-to-footing connection, may be designed to transmit the maximum force effects that can be developed by the inelastic hinging of the column or multicolumn bent they connect as specified in Article 3.10.9.4.3. If an inelastic time history method of analysis is used, the response modification factor, R, shall be taken as 1.0 for all substructure and connections. C3.10.7.1 These Specifications recognize that it is uneconomical to design a bridge to resist large earthquakes elastically. Columns are assumed to deform inelastically where seismic forces exceed their design level, which is established by dividing the elastically computed force effects by the appropriate R-factor. R-factors for connections are smaller than those for substructure members in order to preserve the integrity of the bridge under these extreme loads. For expansion joints within the superstructure and connections between the superstructure and abutment, the application of the R-factor results in force effect magnification. Connections that transfer forces from one part of a structure to another include, but are not limited to, fixed bearings, expansion bearings with either restrainers, STUs, or dampers, and shear keys. For one-directional bearings, these R-factors are used in the restrained direction only. In general, forces determined on the basis of plastic hinging will be less than those given by using Table 3.10.7.1-2, resulting in a more economical design. Table 3.10.7.1-1—Response Modification Factors—Substructures Substructure Wall-type piers—larger dimension Reinforced concrete pile bents • Vertical piles only • With batter piles Single columns Steel or composite steel and concrete pile bents • Vertical pile only • With batter piles Multiple column bents Critical 1.5 Operational Category Essential 1.5 Other 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 5.0 3.0 5.0 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-92 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table 3.10.7.1-2 Response Modification Factors—Connections Connection Superstructure to abutment Expansion joints within a span of the superstructure Columns, piers, or pile bents to cap beam or superstructure Columns or piers to foundations 3.10.7.2—Application All Operational Categories 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 C3.10.7.2 Seismic loads shall be assumed to act in any lateral direction. The appropriate R-factor shall be used for both orthogonal axes of the substructure. A wall-type concrete pier may be analyzed as a single column in the weak direction if all the provisions for columns, as specified in Section 5, are satisfied. Usually the orthogonal axes will be the longitudinal and transverse axes of the bridge. In the case of a curved bridge, the longitudinal axis may be the chord joining the two abutments. Wall-type piers may be treated as wide columns in the strong direction, provided the appropriate R-factor in this direction is used. 3.10.8—Combination of Seismic Force Effects C3.10.8 The elastic seismic force effects on each of the principal axes of a component resulting from analyses in the two perpendicular directions shall be combined to form two load cases as follows: 100 percent of the absolute value of the force effects in one of the perpendicular directions combined with 30 percent of the absolute value of the force effects in the second perpendicular direction, and • 100 percent of the absolute value of the force effects in the second perpendicular direction combined with 30 percent of the absolute value of the force effects in the first perpendicular direction. Where foundation and/or column connection forces are determined from plastic hinging of the columns specified in Article 3.10.9.4.3, the resulting force effects may be determined without consideration of combined load cases specified herein. For the purpose of this provision, “column connection forces” shall be taken as the shear and moment, computed on the basis of plastic hinging. The axial load shall be taken as that resulting from the appropriate load combination with the axial load, if any, associated with plastic hinging taken as EQ. If a pier is designed as a column as specified in Article 3.10.7.2, this exception shall be taken to apply for the weak direction of the pier where force effects resulting from plastic hinging are used; the combination load cases specified must be used for the strong direction of the pier. The exception to these load combinations indicated at the end of this Section should also apply to bridges in Zone 2 where foundation forces are determined from plastic hinging of the columns. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-93 3.10.9—Calculation of Design Forces 3.10.9.1—General For single-span bridges, regardless of seismic zone, the minimum design connection force effect in the restrained direction between the superstructure and the substructure shall not be less than the product of the acceleration coefficient, AS , specified in Eq. 3.10.4.2-2, and the tributary permanent load. Minimum support lengths at expansion bearings of multispan bridges shall either comply with Article 4.7.4.4 or STUs, and dampers shall be provided. 3.10.9.2—Seismic Zone 1 For bridges in Zone 1 where the acceleration coefficient, AS, as specified in Eq. 3.10.4.2-2, is less than 0.05, the horizontal design connection force in the restrained directions shall not be less than 0.15 times the vertical reaction due to the tributary permanent load and the tributary live loads assumed to exist during an earthquake. For all other sites in Zone 1, the horizontal design connection force in the restrained directions shall not be less than 0.25 times the vertical reaction due to the tributary permanent load and the tributary live loads assumed to exist during an earthquake. The horizontal design connection force shall be addressed from the point of application through the substructure and into the foundation elements. For each uninterrupted segment of a superstructure, the tributary permanent load at the line of fixed bearings, used to determine the longitudinal connection design force, shall be the total permanent load of the segment. If each bearing supporting an uninterrupted segment or simply supported span is restrained in the transverse direction, the tributary permanent load used to determine the connection design force shall be the permanent load reaction at that bearing. Each elastomeric bearing and its connection to the masonry and sole plates shall be designed to resist the horizontal seismic design forces transmitted through the bearing. For all bridges in Seismic Zone 1 and all singlespan bridges, these seismic shear forces shall not be less than the connection force specified herein. 3.10.9.3—Seismic Zone 2 Structures in Seismic Zone 2 shall be analyzed according to the minimum requirements specified in Articles 4.7.4.1 and 4.7.4.3. Except for foundations, seismic design forces for all components, including pile bents and retaining walls, shall be determined by dividing the elastic seismic forces, obtained from Article 3.10.8, by the appropriate response modification factor, R, specified in Table 3.10.7.1-1. C3.10.9.1 This Article refers to superstructure effects carried into substructure. Abutments on multispan bridges, but not single-span bridges, and retaining walls are subject to acceleration-augmented soil pressures as specified in Articles 3.11.4 and 11.6.5. Wingwalls on single-span structures are not fully covered at this time, and the Engineer should use judgment in this area. C3.10.9.2 These provisions arise because, as specified in Article 4.7.4, seismic analysis for bridges in Zone 1 is not generally required. These default values are used as minimum design forces in lieu of rigorous analysis. The division of Zone 1 at a value for the acceleration coefficient, AS, of 0.05 recognizes that, in parts of the country with very low seismicity, seismic forces on connections are very small. If each bearing supporting a continuous segment or simply supported span is an elastomeric bearing, there are no restrained directions due to the flexibility of the bearings. Lateral connection forces are transferred from the superstructure into the foundation elements through the substructure. The force effects in this load path from seismic and other lateral loads should be addressed in the design. If each bearing supporting a continuous segment or simply supported span is an elastomeric bearing, there may be no fully restrained directions due to the flexibility of the bearings. However, the forces transmitted through these bearings to substructure and foundation elements should be determined in accordance with this Article and Article 14.6.3. The magnitude of live load assumed to exist at the time of the earthquake should be consistent with the value of γeq used in conjunction with Table 3.4.1-1. C3.10.9.3 This Article specifies the design forces for foundations which include the footings, pile caps and piles. The design forces are essentially twice the seismic design forces of the columns. This will generally be conservative and was adopted to simplify the design procedure for bridges in Zone 2. However, if seismic forces do not govern the design of columns and piers there is a possibility that during an earthquake the foundations will --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-94 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Seismic design forces for foundations, other than pile bents and retaining walls, shall be determined by dividing elastic seismic forces, obtained from Article 3.10.8, by half of the response modification factor, R, from Table 3.10.7.1-1, for the substructure component to which it is attached. The value of R/2 shall not be taken as less than 1.0. Where a group load other than Extreme Event I, specified in Table 3.4.1-1, governs the design of columns, the possibility that seismic forces transferred to the foundations may be larger than those calculated using the procedure specified above, due to possible overstrength of the columns, shall be considered. be subjected to forces larger than the design forces. For example, this may occur due to unintended column overstrengths which may exceed the capacity of the foundations. An estimate of this effect may be found by using a resistance factor, φ, of 1.3 for reinforced concrete columns and 1.25 for structural steel columns. It is also possible that even in cases when seismic loads govern the column design, the columns may have insufficient shear strength to enable a ductile flexural mechanism to develop, but instead allow a brittle shear failure to occur. Again, this situation is due to potential overstrength in the flexural capacity of columns and could possibly be prevented by arbitrarily increasing the column design shear by the overstrength factor cited above. Conservatism in the design, and in some cases underdesign, of foundations and columns in Zone 2 based on the simplified procedure of this Article has been widely debated (Gajer and Wagh, 1994). In light of the above discussion, it is recommended that for critical or essential bridges in Zone 2 consideration should be given to the use of the forces specified in Article 3.10.9.4.3f for foundations in Zone 3 and Zone 4. Ultimate soil and pile strengths are to be used with the specified foundation seismic design forces. 3.10.9.4—Seismic Zones 3 and 4 C3.10.9.4.1 3.10.9.4.1—General Structures in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 shall be analyzed according to the minimum requirements specified in Articles 4.7.4.1 and 4.7.4.3. The design forces of each component shall be taken as the lesser of those determined using: • the provisions of Article 3.10.9.4.2; or • the provisions of Article 3.10.9.4.3, In general, the design forces resulting from an Rfactor and inelastic hinging analysis will be less than those from an elastic analysis. However, in the case of architecturally oversized column(s), the forces from an inelastic hinging analysis may exceed the elastic forces in which case the elastic forces may be used for that column, column bent and its connections and foundations. for all components of a column, column bent and its foundation and connections. Modified design forces shall be determined as specified in Article 3.10.9.3, except that for foundations the R-factor shall be taken as 1.0. C3.10.9.4.2 Acceptable damage is restricted to inelastic hinges in the columns. The foundations should, therefore, remain in their elastic range. Hence the value for the R-factor is taken as 1.0. 3.10.9.4.3—Inelastic Hinging Forces 3.10.9.4.3a—General Where inelastic hinging is invoked as a basis for seismic design, the force effects resulting from plastic hinging at the top and/or bottom of the column shall be calculated after the preliminary design of the columns has been completed utilizing the modified design forces specified in Article 3.10.9.4.2 as the seismic loads. The C3.10.9.4.3a By virtue of Article 3.10.9.4.2, alternative conservative design forces are specified if plastic hinging is not invoked as a basis for seismic design. In most cases, the maximum force effects on the foundation will be limited by the extreme horizontal force that a column is capable of developing. In these © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.10.9.4.2—Modified Design Forces SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS consequential forces resulting from plastic hinging shall then be used for determining design forces for most components as identified herein. The procedures for calculating these consequential forces for single column and pier supports and bents with two or more columns shall be taken as specified in the following Articles. Inelastic hinges shall be ascertained to form before any other failure due to overstress or instability in the structure and/or in the foundation. Inelastic hinges shall only be permitted at locations in columns where they can be readily inspected and/or repaired. Inelastic flexural resistance of substructure components shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Sections 5 and 6. Superstructure and substructure components and their connections to columns shall also be designed to resist a lateral shear force from the column determined from the factored inelastic flexural resistance of the column using the resistance factors specified herein. These consequential shear forces, calculated on the basis of inelastic hinging, may be taken as the extreme seismic forces that the bridge is capable of developing. 3.10.9.4.3b—Single Columns and Piers 3-95 circumstances, the use of a lower force, lower than that specified in Article 3.10.9.4.2, is justified and should result in a more economic foundation design. See also Appendix B3. C3.10.9.4.3b Force effects shall be determined for the two principal axes of a column and in the weak direction of a pier or bent as follows: • Step 1—Determine the column overstrength moment resistance. Use a resistance factor, φ of 1.3 for reinforced concrete columns and 1.25 for structural steel columns. For both materials, the applied axial load in the column shall be determined using Extreme Event Load Combination I, with the maximum elastic column axial load from the seismic forces determined in accordance with Article 3.10.8 taken as EQ. • Step 2—Using the column overstrength moment resistance, calculate the corresponding column shear force. For flared columns, this calculation shall be performed using the overstrength resistances at both the top and bottom of the flare in conjunction with the appropriate column height. If the foundation of a column is significantly below ground level, consideration should be given to the possibility of the plastic hinge forming above the foundation. If this can occur, the column length between plastic hinges shall be used to calculate the column shear force. The use of the factors 1.3 and 1.25 corresponds to the normal use of a resistance factor for reinforced concrete. In this case, it provides an increase in resistance, i.e., overstrength. Thus, the term “overstrength moment resistance” denotes a factor resistance in the parlance of these Specifications. Force effects corresponding to a single column hinging shall be taken as: • Axial Forces—Those determined using Extreme Event Load Combination I, with the unreduced maximum and minimum seismic axial load of Article 3.10.8 taken as EQ. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS • Moments—Those calculated in Step 1. • Shear Force—That calculated in Step 2. 3.10.9.4.3c—Piers with Two or More Columns C3.10.9.4.3c Force effects for bents with two or more columns shall be determined both in the plane of the bent and perpendicular to the plane of the bent. Perpendicular to the plane of the bent, the forces shall be determined as for single columns in Article 3.10.9.4.3b. In the plane of the bent, the forces shall be calculated as follows: • Step 1—Determine the column overstrength moment resistances. Use a resistance factor, φ of 1.3 for reinforced concrete columns and 1.25 for structural steel columns. For both materials the initial axial load should be determined using the Extreme Event Load Combination I with EQ = 0. • Step 2—Using the column overstrength moment resistance, calculate the corresponding column shear forces. Sum the column shears of the bent to determine the maximum shear force for the pier. If a partial-height wall exists between the columns, the effective column height should be taken from the top of the wall. For flared columns and foundations below ground level, the provisions of Article 3.10.9.4.3b shall apply. For pile bents, the length of pile above the mud line shall be used to calculate the shear force. • Step 3—Apply the bent shear force to the center of mass of the superstructure above the pier and determine the axial forces in the columns due to overturning when the column overstrength moment resistances are developed. • Step 4—Using these column axial forces as EQ in the Extreme Event Load Combination I, determine revised column overstrength moment resistance. With the revised overstrength moment resistances, calculate the column shear forces and the maximum shear force for the bent. If the maximum shear force for the bent is not within ten percent of the value previously determined, use this maximum bent shear force and return to Step 3. See Article C3.10.9.4.3b. The forces in the individual columns in the plane of a bent corresponding to column hinging shall be taken as: • Axial Forces—The maximum and minimum axial loads determined using Extreme Event Load Combination I, with the axial load determined from the final iteration of Step 3 taken as EQ and treated as plus and minus. • Moments—The column overstrength moment resistances corresponding to the maximum compressive axial load specified above. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3-96 SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Shear Force—The shear force corresponding to the column overstrength moment resistances specified above, noting the provisions in Step 2 above. 3.10.9.4.3d— Column and Pile Bent Design Forces Design forces for columns and pile bents shall be taken as a consistent set of the lesser of the forces determined as specified in Article 3.10.9.4.1, applied as follows: • Axial Forces—The maximum and minimum design forces determined using Extreme Event Load Combination I with either the elastic design values determined in Article 3.10.8 taken as EQ, or the values corresponding to plastic hinging of the column taken as EQ. • Moments—The modified design moments determined for Extreme Event Limit State Load Combination I. • Shear Force—The lesser of either the elastic design value determined for Extreme Event Limit State Load Combination I with the seismic loads combined as specified in Article 3.10.8 and using an R-factor of 1 for the column, or the value corresponding to plastic hinging of the column. 3.10.9.4.3e—Pier Design Forces The design forces shall be those determined for Extreme Event Limit State Load Combination I, except where the pier is designed as a column in its weak direction. If the pier is designed as a column, the design forces in the weak direction shall be as specified in Article 3.10.9.4.3d and all the design requirements for columns, as specified in Section 5, shall apply. When the forces due to plastic hinging are used in the weak direction, the combination of forces, specified in Article 3.10.8, shall be applied to determine the elastic moment which is then reduced by the appropriate R-factor. 3.10.9.4.3f—Foundation Design Forces The design forces for foundations including footings, pile caps and piles may be taken as either those forces determined for the Extreme Event Load Combination I, with the seismic loads combined as specified in Article 3.10.8, or the forces at the bottom of the columns corresponding to column plastic hinging as determined in Article 3.10.8. When the columns of a bent have a common footing, the final force distribution at the base of the columns in Step 4 of Article 3.10.9.4.3c may be used for the design of the footing in the plane of the bent. This force distribution produces lower shear forces and moments on the footing because one exterior column may be in tension and the other in compression due to the seismic overturning C3.10.9.4.3d The design axial forces which control both the flexural design of the column and the shear design requirements are either the maximum or minimum of the unreduced design forces or the values corresponding to plastic hinging of the columns. In most cases, the values of axial load and shear corresponding to plastic hinging of the columns will be lower than the unreduced design forces. The design shear forces are specified so that the possibility of a shear failure in the column is minimized. When an inelastic hinging analysis is performed, these moments and shear forces are the maximum forces that can develop and, therefore, the directional load combinations of Article 3.10.8 do not apply. C3.10.9.4.3e The design forces for piers specified in Article 3.10.9.4.3e are based on the assumption that a pier has low ductility capacity and no redundancy. As a result, a low R-factor of 2 is used in determining the reduced design forces, and it is expected that only a small amount of inelastic deformation will occur in the response of a pier when subjected to the forces of the design earthquake. If a pier is designed as a column in its weak direction, then both the design forces and, more importantly, the design requirements of Articles 3.10.9.4.3d and Section 5 are applicable. C3.10.9.4.3f The foundation design forces specified are consistent with the design philosophy of minimizing damage that would not be readily detectable. The recommended design forces are the maximum forces that can be transmitted to the footing by plastic hinging of the column. The alternate design forces are the elastic design forces. It should be noted that these may be considerably greater than the recommended design forces, although where architectural considerations govern the design of a column, the alternate elastic design forces may be less than the forces resulting from column plastic hinging. See also the second paragraph of C3.10.9.4.3d. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • 3-97 3-98 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS moment. This effectively increases the ultimate moments and shear forces on one column and reduces them on the other. 3.10.9.5—Longitudinal Restrainers Friction shall not be considered to be an effective restrainer. Restrainers shall be designed for a force calculated as the acceleration coefficient, AS , as specified in Eq. 3.10.4.2-2, times the permanent load of the lighter of the two adjoining spans or parts of the structure. If the restrainer is at a point where relative displacement of the sections of superstructure is designed to occur during seismic motions, sufficient slack shall be allowed in the restrainer so that the restrainer does not start to act until the design displacement is exceeded. Where a restrainer is to be provided at columns or piers, the restrainer of each span may be attached to the column or pier rather than to interconnecting adjacent spans. In lieu of restrainers, STUs may be used and designed for either the elastic force calculated in Article 4.7 or the maximum force effects generated by inelastic hinging of the substructure as specified in Article 3.10.7.1. 3.10.9.6—Hold-Down Devices For Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4, hold-down devices shall be provided at supports and at hinges in continuous structures where the vertical seismic force due to the longitudinal seismic load opposes and exceeds 50 percent, but is less than 100 percent, of the reaction due to permanent loads. In this case, the net uplift force for the design of the hold-down device shall be taken as ten percent of the reaction due to permanent loads that would be exerted if the span were simply supported. If the vertical seismic forces result in net uplift, the hold-down device shall be designed to resist the larger of either: • 120 percent of the difference between the vertical seismic force and the reaction due to permanent loads, or • Ten percent of the reaction due to permanent loads. 3.10.10—Requirements for Temporary Bridges and Stage Construction C3.10.10 Any bridge or partially constructed bridge that is expected to be temporary for more than 5 yr shall be designed using the requirements for permanent structures and shall not use the provisions of this Article. The requirement that an earthquake shall not cause collapse of all or part of a bridge, as stated in Article 3.10.1, shall apply to temporary bridges expected to carry traffic. It shall also apply to those bridges that are The option to use a reduced response coefficient and a reduced ground acceleration coefficient reflects the limited exposure period for a temporary bridge. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-99 constructed in stages and expected to carry traffic and/or pass over routes that carry traffic. The elastic seismic response coefficient and the ground acceleration coefficient given in Article 3.10.4.2 may be reduced by a factor of not more than 2 in order to calculate the component elastic forces and displacements. Response and acceleration coefficients for construction sites that are close to active faults shall be the subject of special study. The response modification factors given in Article 3.10.7 may be increased by a factor of not more than 1.5 in order to calculate the design forces. This factor shall not be applied to connections as defined in Table 3.10.7.1-2. The minimum support length provisions of Article 4.7.4.4 shall apply to all temporary bridges and staged construction. 3.11—EARTH PRESSURE: EH, ES, LS, AND DD C3.11.1 3.11.1—General Earth pressure shall be considered as a function of the: • Type and unit weight of earth, • Water content, • Soil creep characteristics, • Degree of compaction, • Location of groundwater table, • Earth-structure interaction, • Amount of surcharge, • Earthquake effects, • Back slope angle, and • Wall inclination. Walls that can tolerate little or no movement should be designed for at-rest earth pressure. Walls which can move away from the soil mass should be designed for pressures between active and at-rest conditions, depending on the magnitude of the tolerable movements. Movement required to reach the minimum active pressure or the maximum passive pressure is a function of the wall height and the soil type. Some typical values of these mobilizing movements, relative to wall height, are given in Table C3.11.1-1, where: Δ = H = movement of top of wall required to reach minimum active or maximum passive pressure by tilting or lateral translation (ft) height of wall (ft) Table C3.11.1-1—Approximate Values of Relative Movements Required to Reach Active or Passive Earth Pressure Conditions (Clough and Duncan, 1991) Type of Backfill Dense sand Medium dense sand Loose sand Compacted silt Compacted lean clay Compacted fat clay --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Silt and lean clay shall not be used for backfill unless suitable design procedures are followed and construction control measures are incorporated in the construction documents to account for their presence. Consideration shall be given for the development of pore water pressure within the soil mass in accordance with Article 3.11.3. Appropriate drainage provisions shall be provided to prevent hydrostatic and seepage forces from developing The evaluation of the stress induced by cohesive soils is highly uncertain due to their sensitivity to shrink-swell, wet-dry and degree of saturation. Tension cracks can form, which considerably alter the assumptions for the estimation of stress. Extreme caution is advised in the determination of lateral earth pressures assuming the most unfavorable conditions. If possible, cohesive or other finegrained soils should be avoided as backfill. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Values of Δ/H Active Passive 0.001 0.01 0.002 0.02 0.004 0.04 0.002 0.02 0.010 0.05 0.010 0.05 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS behind the wall in accordance with the provisions in Section 11. In no case shall highly plastic clay be used for backfill. For walls retaining cohesive materials, the effects of soil creep should be taken into consideration in estimating the design earth pressures. Evaluation of soil creep is complex and requires duplication in the laboratory of the stress conditions in the field as discussed by Mitchell (1976). Under stress conditions close to the minimum active or maximum passive earth pressures, cohesive soils indicated in Table C3.11.1-1 creep continually, and the movements shown produce active or passive pressures only temporarily. If there is no further movement, active pressures will increase with time, approaching the at-rest pressure, and passive pressures will decrease with time, approaching values on the order of 40 percent of the maximum short-term value. A conservative assumption to account for unknowns would be to use the at-rest pressure based on the residual strength of the soil. 3.11.2—Compaction C3.11.2 Where activity by mechanical compaction equipment is anticipated within a distance of one-half the height of the wall, taken as the difference in elevation between the point where finished grade intersects the back of the wall and the base of the wall, the effect of additional earth pressure that may be induced by compaction shall be taken into account. Compaction-induced earth pressures may be estimated using the procedures described by Clough and Duncan (1991). The heavier the equipment used to compact the backfill, and the closer it operates to the wall, the larger are the compaction-induced pressures. The magnitude of the earth pressures exerted on a wall by compacted backfill can be minimized by using only small rollers or hand compactors within a distance of one-half wall height from the back of the wall. For MSE structures, compaction stresses are already included in the design model and specified compaction procedures. 3.11.3—Presence of Water C3.11.3 If the retained earth is not allowed to drain, the effect of hydrostatic water pressure shall be added to that of earth pressure. In cases where water is expected to pond behind a wall, the wall shall be designed to withstand the hydrostatic water pressure plus the earth pressure. Submerged unit weights of the soil shall be used to determine the lateral earth pressure below the groundwater table. The effect of additional pressure caused by groundwater is shown in Figure C3.11.3-1. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3-100 SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-101 Figure C3.11.3-1—Effect of Groundwater Table --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- If the groundwater levels differ on opposite sides of the wall, the effects of seepage on wall stability and the potential for piping shall be considered. Pore water pressures shall be added to the effective horizontal stresses in determining total lateral earth pressures on the wall. The development of hydrostatic water pressure on walls should be eliminated through use of crushed rock, pipe drains, gravel drains, perforated drains or geosynthetic drains. Pore water pressures behind the wall may be approximated by flow net procedures or various analytical methods. 3.11.4—Effect of Earthquake C3.11.4 The effects of wall inertia and probable amplification of active earth pressure and/or mobilization of passive earth masses by earthquake shall be considered. The Mononobe-Okabe method for determining equivalent static fluid pressures for seismic loads on gravity and semigravity retaining walls is presented in the Appendix A11. The Mononobe-Okabe analysis is based, in part, on the assumption that the backfill soils are unsaturated and thus, not susceptible to liquefaction. Where soils are subject to both saturation and seismic or other cyclic/instantaneous loads, special consideration should be given to address the possibility of soil liquefaction. 3.11.5—Earth Pressure: EH C3.11.5.1 3.11.5.1—Lateral Earth Pressure Lateral earth pressure shall be assumed to be linearly proportional to the depth of earth and taken as: p = k γ sz (3.11.5.1-1) where: p = lateral earth pressure (ksf) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-102 k = γs z = = AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS coefficient of lateral earth pressure taken as ko, specified in Article 3.11.5.2, for walls that do not deflect or move, ka, specified in Articles 3.11.5.3, 3.11.5.6 and 3.11.5.7, for walls that deflect or move sufficiently to reach minimum active conditions, or kp, specified in Article 3.11.5.4, for walls that deflect or move sufficiently to reach a passive condition unit weight of soil (kcf) depth below the surface of earth (ft) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The resultant lateral earth load due to the weight of the backfill shall be assumed to act at a height of H/3 above the base of the wall, where H is the total wall height, measured from the surface of the ground at the back of the wall to the bottom of the footing or the top of the leveling pad (for MSE walls). 3.11.5.2—At-Rest Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient, ko For normally consolidated soils, vertical wall, and level ground, the coefficient of at-rest lateral earth pressure may be taken as: ko = 1 − sin φ′f (3.11.5.2-1) where: φ′f = effective friction angle of soil Although previous versions of these Specifications have required design of conventional gravity walls for a resultant earth pressure located 0.4H above the wall base, the current specifications require design for a resultant located H/3 above the base. This requirement is consistent with historical practice and with calibrated resistance factors in Section 11. The resultant lateral load due to the earth pressure may act as high as 0.4H above the base of the wall for a mass concrete gravity retaining wall, where H is the total wall height measured from the top of the backfill to the base of the footing, where the wall deflects laterally, i.e., translates, in response to lateral earth loading. For such structures, the backfill behind the wall must slide down along the back of the wall for the retained soil mass to achieve the active state of stress. Experimental results indicate that the backfill arches against the upper portion of the wall as the wall translates, causing an upward shift in the location at which the resultant of the lateral earth load is transferred to the wall (Terzaghi, 1934; Clausen and Johansen et al., 1972; Sherif et al., 1982). Such walls are not representative of typical gravity walls used in highway applications. For most gravity walls which are representative of those used in highway construction, nongravity cantilever retaining walls or other flexible walls which tilt or deform laterally in response to lateral loading, e.g., MSE walls, as well as walls which cannot translate or tilt, e.g., integral abutment walls, significant arching of the backfill against the wall does not occur, and the resultant lateral load due to earth pressure acts at a height of H/3 above the base of the wall. Furthermore, where wall friction is not considered in the analysis, it is sufficiently conservative to use a resultant location of H/3 even if the wall can translate. C3.11.5.2 For typical cantilevered walls over 5.0 ft high with structural grade backfill, calculations indicate that the horizontal movement of the top of the wall due to a combination of structural deformation of the stem and rotation of the foundation is sufficient to develop active conditions. In many instances, the OCR may not be known with enough accuracy to calculate ko using Eq. 3.11.5.2-2. Based on information on this issue provided by Holtz and © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS = coefficient of at-rest lateral earth pressure For overconsolidated soils, the coefficient of at-rest lateral earth pressure may be assumed to vary as a function of the overconsolidation ratio or stress history, and may be taken as: ′ ko = (1 − sin φ′f ) (OCR ) sin φ f Kovacs (1981), in general, for lightly overconsolidated sands (OCR = 1 to 2), ko is in the range of 0.4 to 0.6. For highly overconsolidated sand, ko can be on the order of 1.0. (3.11.5.2-2) where: OCR = overconsolidation ratio Silt and lean clay shall not be used for backfill unless suitable design procedures are followed and construction control measures are incorporated in the construction documents to account for their presence. Consideration must be given for the development of pore water pressure within the soil mass in accordance with Article 3.11.3. Appropriate drainage provisions shall be provided to prevent hydrostatic and seepage forces from developing behind the wall in accordance with the provisions of Section 11. In no case shall highly plastic clay be used for backfill. 3.11.5.3—Active Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient, ka Values for the coefficient of active lateral earth pressure may be taken as: ka = 2 sin (θ + φ′f ) Γ [sin 2 θ sin(θ − δ)] (3.11.5.3-1) in which:  sin ( φ′f + δ ) sin ( φ′f − β )  Γ =  1+  sin ( θ − δ ) sin ( θ + β )   2 (3.11.5.3-2) where: δ = β = θ = φ′f = friction angle between fill and wall taken as specified in Table 3.11.5.3-1 (degrees) angle of fill to the horizontal as shown in Figure 3.11.5.3-1 (degrees) angle of back face of wall to the horizontal as shown in Figure 3.11.5.3-1 (degrees) effective angle of internal friction (degrees) For conditions that deviate from those described in Figure 3.11.5.3-1, the active pressure may be calculated by using a trial procedure based on wedge theory using the Culmann method (e.g., see Terzaghi et al., 1996). The evaluation of the stress induced by cohesive soils is highly uncertain due to their sensitivity to shrink-swell, wet-dry and degree of saturation. Tension cracks can form, which considerably alter the assumptions for the estimation of stress. Extreme caution is advised in the determination of lateral earth pressures assuming the most unfavorable conditions. See Article C3.11.1 for additional guidance on estimating earth pressures in fine-grained soils. If possible, cohesive or other fine-grained soils should be avoided as backfill. C3.11.5.3 The values of ka by Eq. 3.11.5.3-1 are based on the Coulomb earth pressure theories. The Coulomb theory is necessary for design of retaining walls for which the back face of the wall interferes with the development of the full sliding surfaces in the backfill soil assumed in Rankine theory (Figure C3.11.5.3-1 and Article C3.11.5.8). Either Coulomb or Rankine wedge theory may be used for long heeled cantilever walls shown in Figure C3.11.5.3-1a. In general, Coulomb wedge theory applies for gravity, semigravity and prefabricated modular walls with relatively steep back faces, and concrete cantilever walls with short heels. For the cantilever wall in Figure C3.11.5.3-1b, the earth pressure is applied to a plane extending vertically up from the heel of the wall base, and the weight of soil to the left of the vertical plane is considered as part of the wall weight. The differences between the Coulomb theory currently specified, and the Rankine theory specified in the past is illustrated in Figure C3.11.5.3-1. The Rankine theory is the basis of the equivalent fluid method of Article 3.11.5.5. Silt and lean clay should not be used for backfill where free-draining granular materials are available. When using poorly draining silts or cohesive soils, extreme caution is advised in the determination of lateral earth pressures assuming the most unfavorable conditions. Consideration must be given for the development of pore water pressure within the soil mass in accordance with Article 3.11.3. Appropriate drainage provisions should be provided to prevent hydrostatic and seepage forces from © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- ko 3-103 3-104 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS developing behind the wall in accordance with the provisions in Section 11. In no case should highly plastic clay be used for backfill. Figure 3.11.5.3-1—Notation for Coulomb Active Earth Pressure Figure C3.11.5.3-1—Application of (a) Rankine and (b) Coulomb Earth Pressure Theories in Retaining Wall Design --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-105 Table 3.11.5.3-1—Friction Angle for Dissimilar Materials (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1982a) Interface Materials Mass concrete on the following foundation materials: • • • • • • • Clean sound rock Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, coarse sand Clean fine to medium sand, silty medium to coarse sand, silty or clayey gravel Clean fine sand, silty or clayey fine to medium sand Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt Very stiff and hard residual or preconsolidated clay Medium stiff and stiff clay and silty clay Friction Angle, δ (degrees) Coefficient of Friction, tan δ (dim.) 35 29 to 31 0.70 0.55 to 0.60 24 to 29 19 to 24 17 to 19 22 to 26 17 to 19 0.45 to 0.55 0.34 to 0.45 0.31 to 0.34 0.40 to 0.49 0.31 to 0.34 22 17 14 11 0.40 0.31 0.25 0.19 22 to 26 17 to 22 17 14 0.40 to 0.49 0.31 to 0.40 0.31 0.25 35 33 29 26 17 0.70 0.65 0.55 0.49 0.31 • Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, well-graded rock fill with spalls • Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixture, single-size hard rock fill • Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with silt or clay • Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt Formed or precast concrete or concrete sheet piling against the following soils: • Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixture, well-graded rock fill with spalls • Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixture, single-size hard rock fill • Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with silt or clay • Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt Various structural materials: • • • Masonry on masonry, igneous and metamorphic rocks: o dressed soft rock on dressed soft rock o dressed hard rock on dressed soft rock o dressed hard rock on dressed hard rock Masonry on wood in direction of cross grain Steel on steel at sheet pile interlocks 3.11.5.4—Passive Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient, kp For noncohesive soils, values of the coefficient of passive lateral earth pressure may be taken from Figure 3.11.5.4-1 for the case of a sloping or vertical wall with a horizontal backfill or from Figure 3.11.5.4-2 for the case of a vertical wall and sloping backfill. For conditions that deviate from those described in Figures 3.11.5.4-1 and 3.11.5.4-2, the passive pressure may be calculated by using a trial procedure based on wedge theory, e.g., see Terzaghi et al. (1996). When wedge theory is used, the limiting value of the wall friction angle should not be taken larger than one-half the angle of internal friction, φf. For cohesive soils, passive pressures may be estimated by: C3.11.5.4 The movement required to mobilize passive pressure is approximately 10.0 times as large as the movement needed to induce earth pressure to the active values. The movement required to mobilize full passive pressure in loose sand is approximately five percent of the height of the face on which the passive pressure acts. For dense sand, the movement required to mobilize full passive pressure is smaller than five percent of the height of the face on which the passive pressure acts, and five percent represents a conservative estimate of the movement required to mobilize the full passive pressure. For poorly compacted cohesive soils, the movement required to mobilize full passive pressure is larger than five percent of the height of the face on which the pressure acts. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Masonry on foundation materials has same friction factors. Steel sheet piles against the following soils: 3-106 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS p p = k p γ s z + 2c (3.11.5.4-1) kp Wedge solutions are inaccurate and unconservative for larger values of wall friction angle. where: pp γs z c kp = = = = = passive lateral earth pressure (ksf) unit weight of soil (kcf) depth below surface of soil (ft) soil cohesion (ksf) coefficient of passive lateral earth pressure specified in Figures 3.11.5.4-1 and 3.11.5.4-2, as appropriate Figure 3.11.5.4-1—Computational Procedures for Passive Earth Pressures for Vertical and Sloping Walls with Horizontal Backfill (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1982a) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-107 Figure 3.11.5.4-2—Computational Procedures for Passive Earth Pressures for Vertical Wall with Sloping Backfill (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1982a) 3.11.5.5—Equivalent-Fluid Method of Estimating Rankine Lateral Earth Pressures The equivalent-fluid method may be used where Rankine earth pressure theory is applicable. The equivalent-fluid method shall only be used where the backfill is free-draining. If this criterion cannot be satisfied, the provisions of Articles 3.11.3, 3.11.5.1 and 3.11.5.3 shall be used to determine horizontal earth pressure. C3.11.5.5 Applicability of Rankine theory is discussed in Article C3.11.5.3. Values of the unit weights of equivalent fluids are given for walls that can tolerate very little or no movement as well as for walls that can move as much as 1.0 in. in 20.0 ft. The concepts of equivalent fluid unit weights have taken into account the effect of soil creep on walls. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-108 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Where the equivalent-fluid method is used, the basic earth pressure, p (ksf), may be taken as: p = γ eq z (3.11.5.5-1) If the backfill qualifies as free-draining (i.e., granular material with <5 percent passing a No. 200 sieve), water is prevented from creating hydrostatic pressure. For discussion on the location of the resultant of the lateral earth force see Article C3.11.5.1. where: γeq = z = equivalent fluid unit weight of soil, not less than 0.030 (kcf) depth below surface of soil (ft) The resultant lateral earth load due to the weight of the backfill shall be assumed to act at a height of H/3 above the base of the wall, where H is the total wall height, measured from the surface of the ground to the bottom of the footing. Typical values for equivalent fluid unit weights for design of a wall of height not exceeding 20.0 ft may be taken from Table 3.11.5.5-1, where: Δ = H β = = movement of top of wall required to reach minimum active or maximum passive pressure by tilting or lateral translation (ft) height of wall (ft) angle of fill to the horizontal (degrees) The magnitude of the vertical component of the earth pressure resultant for the case of sloping backfill surface may be determined as: Pv = Ph tan β (3.11.5.5-2) The values of equivalent fluid unit weight presented in Table 3.11.5.5-1 for Δ/H = 1/240 represent the horizontal component of active earth pressure based on Rankine earth pressure theory. This horizontal earth pressure is applicable for cantilever retaining walls for which the wall stem does not interfere with the sliding surface defining the Rankine failure wedge within the wall backfill (Figure C3.11.5.3-1). The horizontal pressure is applied to a vertical plane extending up from the heel of the wall base, and the weight of soil to the left of the vertical plane is included as part of the wall weight. For the case of a sloping backfill surface in Table 3.11.5.5-1, a vertical component of earth pressure also acts on the vertical plane extending up from the heel of the wall. where: Ph = 0.5γ eq H 2 (3.11.5.5-3) Table 3.11.5.5-1—Typical Values for Equivalent Fluid Unit Weights of Soils Level Backfill Type of Soil Backfill with β = 25 degrees Active At-Rest Δ/H = 1/240 γeq (kcf) γeq (kcf) At-Rest γeq (kcf) Active Δ/H = 1/240 γeq (kcf) 0.055 0.050 0.040 0.035 0.065 0.060 0.050 0.045 0.045 0.030 0.055 0.040 Loose sand or gravel Medium dense sand or gravel Dense sand or gravel --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3.11.5.6—Lateral Earth Pressures for Nongravity Cantilevered Walls For permanent walls, the simplified lateral earth pressure distributions shown in Figures 3.11.5.6-1 through 3.11.5.6-3 may be used. If walls will support or are supported by cohesive soils for temporary applications, walls may be designed based on total stress methods of analysis and undrained shear strength parameters. For this latter case, the simplified earth pressure distributions shown in Figures 3.11.5.6-4 through 3.11.5.6-7 may be used with the following restrictions: • The ratio of total overburden pressure to undrained shear strength, Ns (see Article 3.11.5.7.2), should be < 3 at the wall base. • The active earth pressure shall not be less than 0.25 times the effective overburden pressure at any depth, or 0.035 ksf/ft of wall height, whichever is greater. For temporary walls with discrete vertical elements embedded in granular soil or rock, Figures 3.11.5.6-1 and 3.11.5.6-2 may be used to determine passive resistance and Figures 3.11.5.6-4 and 3.11.5.6-5 may be used to determine the active earth pressure due to the retained soil. Where discrete vertical wall elements are used for support, the width, b, of each vertical element shall be assumed to equal the width of the flange or diameter of the element for driven sections and the diameter of the concrete-filled hole for sections encased in concrete. The magnitude of the sloping surcharge above the wall for the determination of Pa2 in Figure 3.11.5.6-4 should be based on the wedge of soil above the wall within the active wedge. In Figure 3.11.5.6-5, a portion of negative loading at top of wall due to cohesion is ignored and hydrostatic pressure in a tension crack should be considered, but is not shown on the figure. 3-109 C3.11.5.6 Nongravity cantilevered walls temporarily supporting or supported by cohesive soils are subject to excessive lateral deformation if the undrained soil shear strength is low compared to the shear stresses. Therefore, use of these walls should be limited to soils of adequate strength as represented by the stability number Ns (see Article 3.11.5.7.2). Base movements in the soil in front of a wall become significant for values of Ns of about 3 to 4, and a base failure can occur when Ns exceeds about 5 to 6 (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967). In Figures 3.11.5.6-1, 3.11.5.6-2, 3.11.5.6-4, and 3.11.5.6-5, the width b of discrete vertical wall elements effective in mobilizing the passive resistance of the soil is based on a method of analysis by Broms (1964a, 1964b) for single vertical piles embedded in cohesive or cohesionless soil and assumes a vertical element. The effective width for passive resistance of three times the element width, 3b, is due to the arching action in soil and side shear on resisting rock wedges. The maximum width of 3b can be used when material in which the vertical element is embedded does not contain discontinuities that would affect the failure geometry. This width should be reduced if planes or zones of weakness would prevent mobilization of resistance through this entire width, or if the passive resistance zones of adjacent elements overlap. If the element is embedded in soft clay having a stability number less than three, soil arching will not occur and the actual width shall be used as the effective width for passive resistance. Where a vertical element is embedded in rock, i.e., Figure 3.11.5.6-2, the passive resistance of the rock is assumed to develop through the shear failure of a rock wedge equal in width to the vertical element, b, and defined by a plane extending upward from the base of the element at an angle of 45 degrees. For the active zone behind the wall below the mudline or groundline in front of the wall, the active pressure is assumed to act over one vertical element width, b, in all cases. The design grade is generally taken below finished grade to account for excavation during or after wall construction or other disturbance to the supporting soil during the service life of the wall. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-110 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.11.5.6-1—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Permanent Nongravity Cantilevered Walls with Discrete Vertical Wall Elements Embedded in Granular Soil Figure 3.11.5.6-2—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Permanent Nongravity Cantilevered Walls with Discrete Vertical Wall Elements Embedded in Rock --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure 3.11.5.6-3—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Permanent Nongravity Cantilevered Walls with Continuous Vertical Wall Elements Embedded in Granular Soil Modified after Teng (1962) Figure 3.11.5.6-4—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Temporary Nongravity Cantilevered Walls with Discrete Vertical Wall Elements Embedded in Cohesive Soil and Retaining Granular Soil --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-111 3-112 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.11.5.6-5—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Temporary Nongravity Cantilevered Walls with Discrete Vertical Wall Elements Embedded in Cohesive Soil and Retaining Cohesive Soil --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Note: For walls embedded in granular soil, refer to Figure 3.11.5.6.3-3 and use Figure 3.11.5.6-7 for retained cohesive soil when appropriate. Figure 3.11.5.6-6—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Temporary Nongravity Cantilevered Walls with Continuous Vertical Wall Elements Embedded in Cohesive Soil and Retaining Granular Soil Modified after Teng (1962) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-113 Figure 3.11.5.6-7—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Temporary Nongravity Cantilevered Walls with Continuous Vertical Wall Elements Embedded in Cohesive Soil and Retaining Cohesive Soil Modified after Teng (1962) For anchored walls constructed from the top down, the earth pressure may be estimated in accordance with Articles 3.11.5.7.1 or 3.11.5.7.2. In developing the design pressure for an anchored wall, consideration shall be given to wall displacements that may affect adjacent structures and/or underground utilities. C3.11.5.7 In the development of lateral earth pressures, the method and sequence of construction, the rigidity of the wall/anchor system, the physical characteristics and stability of the ground mass to be supported, allowable wall deflections, anchor spacing and prestress and the potential for anchor yield should be considered. Several suitable apparent earth pressure distribution diagrams are available and in common use for the design of anchored walls, Sabatini et al. (1999); Cheney (1988); and U. S. Department of the Navy (1982a). Some of the apparent earth pressure diagrams, such as those described in Articles 3.11.5.7.1 and 3.11.5.7.2, are based on the results of measurements on anchored walls, Sabatini et al. (1999). Others are based on the results of measurements on strutted excavations, Terzaghi and Peck (1967), the results of analytical and scale model studies, Clough and Tsui (1974); Hanna and Matallana (1970), and observations of anchored wall installations (Nicholson et al., 1981); Schnabel (1982). While the results of these efforts provide somewhat different and occasionally conflicting results, they all tend to confirm the presence of higher lateral pressures near the top of the wall than would be predicted by classical earth pressure theories, due to the constraint provided by the upper level of anchors, and a generally uniform pressure distribution with depth. 3.11.5.7.1—Cohesionless Soils The earth pressure on temporary or permanent anchored walls constructed in cohesionless soils may be determined using Figure 3.11.5.7.1-1, for which the maximum ordinate, pa, of the pressure diagram is computed as follows: © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.11.5.7—Apparent Earth Pressure (AEP) for Anchored Walls 3-114 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS For walls with one anchor level: pa = ka γ ′s H (3.11.5.7.1-1) For walls with multiple anchor levels: pa = k a γ ′s H 2 1.5 H − 0.5 H 1 − 0.5 H n+1 (3.11.5.7.1-2) where: pa = ka = = γ′s = H = H1 = Hn+1= Thi = R = maximum ordinate of pressure diagram (ksf) active earth pressure coefficient tan2 (45 degrees – φf /2) (dim.) for β = 0 use Eq. 3.11.5.3-1 for β ≠ 0 effective unit weight of soil (kcf) total excavation depth (ft) distance from ground surface to uppermost ground anchor (ft) distance from base of excavation to lowermost ground anchor (ft) horizontal load in ground anchor i (kip/ft) reaction force to be resisted by subgrade (i.e., below base of excavation) (kip/ft) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure 3.11.5.7.1-1—Apparent Earth Pressure Distributions for Anchored Walls Constructed from the Top Down in Cohesionless Soils 3.11.5.7.2—Cohesive Soils The apparent earth pressure distribution for cohesive soils is related to the stability number, Ns, which is defined as: © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Ns = γsH Su 3-115 (3.11.5.7.2-1) where: γs = H = Su = total unit weight of soil (kcf) total excavation depth (ft) average undrained shear strength of soil (ksf) C3.11.5.7.2a 3.11.5.7.2a—Stiff to Hard For temporary anchored walls in stiff to hard cohesive soils (Ns ≤ 4), the earth pressure may be determined using Figure 3.11.5.7.1-1, with the maximum ordinate, pa, of the pressure diagram computed as: pa = 0.2 γ s H to 0.4 γ s H (3.11.5.7.2a-1) where: pa = γs = H = maximum ordinate of pressure diagram (ksf) total unit weight of soil (kcf) total excavation depth (ft) For permanent anchored walls in stiff to hard cohesive soils, the apparent earth pressure distributions described in Article 3.11.5.7.1 may be used with ka based on the drained friction angle of the cohesive soil. For permanent walls, the distribution, permanent or temporary, resulting in the maximum total force shall be used for design. 3.11.5.7.2b—Soft to Medium Stiff The earth pressure on temporary or permanent walls in soft to medium stiff cohesive soils (Ns ≥ 6) may be determined using Figure 3.11.5.7.2b-1, for which the maximum ordinate, pa, of the pressure diagram is computed as: pa = ka γ s H The determination of earth pressures in cohesive soils described in this Article and Article 3.11.5.7.2b are based on the results of measurements on anchored walls, Sabatini et al. (1999). In the absence of specific experience in a particular deposit, pa = 0.3 γs H should be used for the maximum pressure ordinate when ground anchors are locked off at 75 percent of the unfactored design load or less. Where anchors are to be locked off at 100 percent of the unfactored design load or greater, a maximum pressure ordinate of pa = 0.4 γs H should be used. For temporary walls, the apparent earth pressure distribution in Figure 3.11.5.7.1-1 should only be used for excavations of controlled short duration, where the soil is not fissured and where there is no available free water. Temporary loading may control design of permanent walls and should be evaluated in addition to permanent loading. C3.11.5.7.2b For soils with 4 < Ns < 6, use the larger pa from Eq. 3.11.5.7.2a-1 and Eq. 3.11.5.7.2b-1. (3.11.5.7.2b-1) where: pa = ka = γs H = = maximum ordinate of pressure diagram (ksf) active earth pressure coefficient from Eq. 3.11.5.7.2b-2 total unit weight of soil (kcf) total excavation depth (ft) The active earth pressure coefficient, ka, may be determined by: ka = 1 − 4 Su d  1 − 5.14Sub  +2 2   ≥ 0.22 γs H H  γs H  (3.11.5.7.2b-2) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-116 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS where: Su = Sub = γs H d = = = undrained strength of retained soil (ksf) undrained strength of soil below excavation base (ksf) total unit weight of retained soil (kcf) total excavation depth (ft) depth of potential base failure surface below base of excavation (ft) The value of d is taken as the thickness of soft to medium stiff cohesive soil below the excavation base up to a maximum value of Be/√2, where Be is the excavation width. Figure 3.11.5.7.2b-1—Apparent Earth Pressure Distribution for Anchored Walls Constructed from the Top Down in Soft to Medium Stiff Cohesive Soils 3.11.5.8—Lateral Earth Pressures for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls The resultant force per unit width behind an MSE wall, shown in Figures 3.11.5.8.1-1, 3.11.5.8.1-2, and 3.11.5.8.1-3 as acting at a height of h/3 above the base of the wall, shall be taken as: Pa = 0.5ka γ s h 2 (3.11.5.8.1-1) where: Pa = γs = h = ka = force resultant per unit width (kip/ft) total unit weight of backfill (kcf) height of horizontal earth pressure diagram taken as shown in Figures 3.11.5.8.1-1, 3.11.5.8.1-2, and 3.11.5.8.1-3 (ft) active earth pressure coefficient specified in Article 3.11.5.3, with the angle of backfill slope taken as β, as specified in Figure 3.11.5.8.1-2; Β, as specified in Figure 3.11.5.8.1-3; and δ = β and Β in Figures 3.11.5.8.1-2 and 3.11.5.8.1-3, respectively. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.11.5.8.1—General SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-117 Figure 3.11.5.8.1-1—Earth Pressure Distribution for MSE Wall with Level Backfill Surface --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure 3.11.5.8.1-2—Earth Pressure for MSE Wall with Sloping Backfill Surface Figure 3.11.5.8.1-3—Earth Pressure Distribution for MSE Wall with Broken Back Backfill Surface © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-118 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.11.5.8.2—Internal Stability The load factor γp to be applied to the maximum load carried by the reinforcement Tmax for reinforcement strength, connection strength, and pullout calculations (see Article 11.10.6.2) shall be EV, for vertical earth pressure. For MSE walls, ηi shall be taken as 1. 3.11.5.9—Lateral Earth Pressures for Prefabricated Modular Walls The magnitude and location of resultant loads and resisting forces for prefabricated modular walls may be determined using the earth pressure distributions presented in Figures 3.11.5.9-1 and 3.11.5.9-2. Where the back of the prefabricated modules forms an irregular, stepped surface, the earth pressure shall be computed on a plane surface drawn from the upper back corner of the top module to the lower back heel of the bottom module using Coulomb earth pressure theory. C3.11.5.8.2 Loads carried by the soil reinforcement in mechanically stabilized earth walls are the result of vertical and lateral earth pressures which exist within the reinforced soil mass, reinforcement extensibility, facing stiffness, wall toe restraint, and the stiffness and strength of the soil backfill within the reinforced soil mass. The calculation method for Tmax is empirically derived, based on reinforcement strain measurements, converted to load based on the reinforcement modulus, from full scale walls at working stress conditions. The load factor EV, on the other hand, was determined in consideration of vertical earth pressure exerted by a soil mass without inclusions, and was calibrated to address uncertainties implied by allowable stress design for external stability for walls. EV is not directly applicable to internal reinforcement loads in MSE walls, since the calibration of EV was not performed with internal stability of a reinforced system in mind. The use of EV for the load factor in this case should be considered an interim measure until research is completed to quantify load prediction bias and uncertainty. C3.11.5.9 Prefabricated modular walls are gravity walls constructed of prefabricated concrete elements that are infilled with soil. They differ from modular block MSE structures in that they contain no soil reinforcing elements. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS H 3 1 Pa = γ ′s H 2 ka 2 Pa @ Figure 3.11.5.9-1—Earth Pressure Distributions for Prefabricated Modular Walls with Continuous Pressure Surfaces Figure 3.11.5.9-2—Earth Pressure Distributions for Prefabricated Modular Walls with Irregular Pressure Surfaces --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-119 3-120 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The value of ka used to compute lateral thrust resulting from retained backfill and other loads behind the wall shall be computed based on the friction angle of the backfill behind the modules. In the absence of specific data, if granular backfill is used behind the prefabricated modules within a zone of at least 1V:1H from the heal of the wall, a value of 34 degrees may be used for φf. Otherwise, without specific data, a maximum friction angle of 30 degrees shall be used. The wall friction angle, δ, is a function of the direction and magnitude of possible movements, and the properties of the backfill. When the structure settles more than the backfill, the wall friction angle is negative. As a maximum, the wall friction angles, given in Table C3.11.5.9-1, should be used to compute ka, unless more exact coefficients are demonstrated: Case Modules settle more than backfill Continuous pressure surface of precast concrete (uniform width modules) Average pressure surface (stepped modules) 3.11.5.10—Lateral Earth Pressures for Sound Barriers Supported on Discrete and Continuous Vertical Embedded Elements For sound barriers supported on discrete vertical wall elements embedded in granular soil, rock, or cohesive soil, the simplified lateral earth pressure distributions shown in Figures 3.11.5.10-1, 3.11.5.10-2, and 3.11.5.10-3, respectively, may be used. For sound barriers supported on continuous vertical elements embedded in granular soil or cohesive soil, the simplified earth pressure distributions shown in Figures 3.11.5.10-4 and 3.11.5.10-5, respectively, may be used. For sound barriers supported on retaining walls, the applicable provisions of Section 11 shall apply. Where discrete vertical elements are used for support, the width, b, of each vertical element shall be assumed to equal the width of the flange or diameter of the element for driven sections and the diameter of the concrete-filled hole for sections encased in concrete. The reversal in the direction of applied lateral forces on sound barriers shall be considered in the design. 0.50 φf 0.75 φf C3.11.5.10 Earth pressure on foundations of sound barriers is similar to that on nongravity retaining walls discussed in Article 3.11.5.6 except that the soil elevation on both sides of the wall is often the same or, if there is a difference, does not reach the top of the wall on one side. The provisions of this Article are applicable to the foundations of any wall that is not primarily intended to retain earth, i.e. there is no or little difference in the elevation of fill on either side of the wall. In Figures 3.11.5.10-1 and 3.11.5.10-3, the width, b, of discrete vertical elements effective in mobilizing the passive resistance of the soil is based on a method of analysis by Broms (1964a, 1964b) for single vertical piles embedded in cohesive or granular soil. Additional information on the background of the earth pressure on discrete vertical elements is presented in Article C3.11.5.6. The main applied lateral forces on sound barriers are wind and seismic forces; both of them are reversible. When the ground surface in front of or behind the sound barrier, or both, is not flat or the ground surface is not at the same elevation on both sides of the sound barrier, the design should be checked assuming that the lateral force is applied in either direction. The effect of the direction of ground surface slope, i.e. toward the barrier or away from the barrier, should be considered in earth pressure calculations for both directions of lateral loads. The earth pressure diagrams shown in Figures 3.11.5.10-1 through 3.11.5.10-5 correspond to the lateral load direction shown in these figures. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Wall Friction Angle (δ) 0 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Table C3.11.5.9-1—Maximum Wall Friction Angles, δ SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure 3.11.5.10-1—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Discrete Vertical Wall Elements Embedded in Granular Soil --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure 3.11.5.10-2—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Discrete Vertical Wall Elements Embedded in Rock © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-121 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3-122 Figure 3.11.5.10-3—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Discrete Vertical Wall Elements Embedded in Cohesive Soil Figure 3.11.5.10-4—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Continuous Vertical Elements Embedded in Granular Soil Modified after Teng (1962) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-123 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure 3.11.5.10-5—Unfactored Simplified Earth Pressure Distributions for Continuous Vertical Wall Elements Embedded in Cohesive Soil Modified after Teng (1962) 3.11.6—Surcharge Loads: ES and LS C3.11.6 The factored soil stress increase behind or within the wall caused by concentrated surcharge loads or stresses shall be the greater of (1) the unfactored surcharge loads or stresses multiplied by the specified load factor, ES, or (2) the factored loads for the structure as applied to the structural element causing the surcharge load, setting ES to 1.0. The load applied to the wall due to the structural element above the wall shall not be double factored. Concentrated surcharge loads induced by foundations are typically the result of dead load, live load, wind load, and possibly other loads that are associated with load factors other than ES. However, the controlling uncertainty in load prediction for surcharges is the transmission of the surcharge load through the soil to the wall or other structure below the surcharge. Hence, ES should be applied to the unfactored concentrated surcharge loads, unless the combined effect of the factored loads applicable to the foundation unit transmitting load to the top of the wall is more conservative. In this latter case, ES should be set equal to 1.0 and the factored footing loads used as the concentrated surcharge load in the wall design. 3.11.6.1—Uniform Surcharge Loads (ES) Where a uniform surcharge is present, a constant horizontal earth pressure shall be added to the basic earth pressure. This constant earth pressure may be taken as: Δ p = ksqs C3.11.6.1 When the uniform surcharge is produced by an earth loading on the upper surface, the load factor for both vertical and horizontal components shall be taken as specified in Table 3.4.1-2 for earth surcharge. (3.11.6.1-1) where: Δp = constant horizontal earth pressure due to uniform surcharge (ksf) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-124 = = coefficient of earth pressure due to surcharge uniform surcharge applied to the upper surface of the active earth wedge (ksf) For active earth pressure conditions, ks shall be taken as ka, and for at-rest conditions, ks shall be taken as ko. Otherwise, intermediate values appropriate for the type of backfill and amount of wall movement may be used. 3.11.6.2—Point, Line, and Strip Loads (ES): Walls Restrained from Movement The horizontal pressure, Δph in ksf, on a wall resulting from a uniformly loaded strip parallel to the wall may be taken as: Δ ph = 2p [δ − sin δ cos (δ + 2 α)] π (3.11.6.2-1) where: p = α δ = = Wall movement needed to mobilize extreme active and passive pressures for various types of backfill can be found in Table C3.11.1-1. C3.11.6.2 Eqs. 3.11.6.2-2, 3.11.6.2-3, 3.11.6.2-4, and 3.11.6.2-5 are based on the assumption that the wall does not move, i.e., walls which have a high degree of structural rigidity or restrained at the top combined with an inability to slide in response to applied loads. For flexible walls, this assumption can be very conservative. Additional guidance regarding the ability of walls to move is provided in Article C3.11.1. uniform load intensity on strip parallel to wall (ksf) angle specified in Figure 3.11.6.2-1 (rad) angle specified in Figure 3.11.6.2-1 (rad) Figure 3.11.6.2-1—Horizontal Pressure on Wall Caused by a Uniformly Loaded Strip The horizontal pressure, Δph in ksf, on a wall resulting from a point load may be taken as: Δ ph = P πR 2  3ZX 2 R (1 − 2ν )   3 −  R + Z   R (3.11.6.2-2) where: © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- ks qs AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS P R = = X = Y = Z = ν = 3-125 point load (kip) radial distance from point of load application to a point on the wall as specified in Figure 3.11.6.2-2 where R = (x2 + y2 + z2)0.5 (ft) horizontal distance from back of wall to point of load application (ft) horizontal distance from point on the wall under consideration to a plane, which is perpendicular to the wall and passes through the point of load application measured along the wall (ft) vertical distance from point of load application to the elevation of a point on the wall under consideration (ft) Poisson’s ratio (dim.) The point on the wall does not have to lie in a plane which is perpendicular to the wall and passes through the point of load application. Poisson’s ratio for soils varies from about 0.25 to 0.49, with lower values more typical for granular and stiff cohesive soils and higher values more typical for soft cohesive soils. Figure 3.11.6.2-2—Horizontal Pressure on a Wall Caused by a Point Load The horizontal pressure, Δph in ksf, resulting from an infinitely long line load parallel to a wall may be taken as: Δ ph = 4Q X 2 Z π R4 (3.11.6.2-3) where: Q = load intensity in kip/ft and all other notation is as defined above and shown in Figure 3.11.6.2-3. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-126 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 3.11.6.2-3—Horizontal Pressure on a Wall Caused by an Infinitely Long Line Load Parallel to the Wall The horizontal pressure distribution, Δph in ksf, on a wall resulting from a finite line load perpendicular to a wall may be taken as:  Q  1 1 − 2ν 1 1 − 2ν = − − 3+ Z πZ  A3 A + Z B B+  X X 2 1  Δ ph       (3.11.6.2-4) in which:  Z  A = 1+    X2  B = 2  Z  1+    X1  (3.11.6.2-5) 2 (3.11.6.2-6) where: X1 = X2 = Z = ν Q = = distance from the back of the wall to the start of the line load as specified in Figure 3.11.6.2-4 (ft) length of the line load (ft) depth from the ground surface to a point on the wall under consideration (ft) Poisson’s Ratio (dim.) load intensity (kip/ft) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-127 Figure 3.11.6.2-4—Horizontal Pressure on a Wall Caused by a Finite Line Load Perpendicular to the Wall 3.11.6.3—Strip Loads (ES): Flexible Walls --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Concentrated dead loads shall be incorporated into the internal and external stability design by using a simplified uniform vertical distribution of 2 vertical to 1 horizontal to determine the vertical component of stress with depth within the reinforced soil mass as specified in Figure 3.11.6.3-1. Concentrated horizontal loads at the top of the wall shall be distributed within the reinforced soil mass as specified in Figure 3.11.6.3-2. If concentrated dead loads are located behind the reinforced soil mass, they shall be distributed in the same way as would be done within the reinforced soil mass. The vertical stress distributed behind the reinforced zone shall be multiplied by ka when determining the effect of this surcharge load on external stability. The concentrated horizontal stress distributed behind the wall as specified in Figure 3.11.6.3-2 shall not be multiplied by ka. C3.11.6.3 Figures 3.11.6.3-1 and 3.11.6.3-2 are based on the assumption that the wall is relatively free to move laterally (e.g., MSE walls). © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3-128 Figure 3.11.6.3-1—Distribution of Stress from Concentrated Vertical Load Pv for Internal and External Stability Calculations © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-129 e′ = eccentricity of load on footing (see Figure 11.10.10.1-1 for example of how to calculate this) a—Distribution of Stress for Internal Stability Calculations b—Distribution of Stress for External Stability Calculations Figure 3.11.6.3-2—Distribution of Stress from Concentrated Horizontal Loads 3.11.6.4—Live Load Surcharge (LS) A live load surcharge shall be applied where vehicular load is expected to act on the surface of the backfill within a distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the back face of the wall. If the surcharge is for a highway, the intensity of the load shall be consistent with the provisions of Article 3.6.1.2. If the surcharge is for other than a highway, the Owner shall specify and/or approve appropriate surcharge loads. The increase in horizontal pressure due to live load surcharge may be estimated as: C3.11.6.4 The tabulated values for heq were determined by evaluating the horizontal force against an abutment or wall from the pressure distribution produced by the vehicular live load of Article 3.6.1.2. The pressure distributions were developed from elastic half-space solutions using the following assumptions: • Vehicle loads are distributed through a two-layer system consisting of pavement and soil subgrade --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-130 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Δ p = k γ s heq (3.11.6.4-1) where: Δp = γs = k = heq = constant horizontal earth pressure due to live load surcharge (ksf) total unit weight of soil (kcf) coefficient of lateral earth pressure equivalent height of soil for vehicular load (ft) Equivalent heights of soil, heq, for highway loadings on abutments and retaining walls may be taken from Tables 3.11.6.4-1 and 3.11.6.4-2. Linear interpolation shall be used for intermediate wall heights. The wall height shall be taken as the distance between the surface of the backfill and the bottom of the footing along the pressure surface being considered. Table 3.11.6.4-1—Equivalent Height of Soil for Vehicular Loading on Abutments Perpendicular to Traffic heq (ft) 4.0 3.0 2.0 Abutment Height (ft) 5.0 10.0 ≥20.0 Table 3.11.6.4-2—Equivalent Height of Soil for Vehicular Loading on Retaining Walls Parallel to Traffic Retaining Wall Height (ft) 5.0 10.0 ≥20.0 heq (ft) Distance from wall backface to edge of traffic 1.0 ft or 0.0 ft Further 5.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 • Poisson’s ratio for the pavement and subgrade materials are 0.2 and 0.4, respectively • Wheel loads were modeled as a finite number of point loads distributed across the tire area to produce an equivalent tire contact stress • The process for equating wall moments resulting from the elastic solution with the equivalent surcharge method used a wall height increment of 0.25 ft. The value of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure k is taken as ko, specified in Article 3.11.5.2, for walls that do not deflect or move, or ka, specified in Articles 3.11.5.3, 3.11.5.6 and 3.11.5.7, for walls that deflect or move sufficiently to reach minimum active conditions. The analyses used to develop Tables 3.11.6.4-1 and 3.11.6.4-2 are presented in Kim and Barker (1998). The values for heq given in Tables 3.11.6.4-1 and 3.11.6.4-2 are generally greater than the traditional 2.0 ft of earth load historically used in the AASHTO specifications, but less than those prescribed in previous editions (i.e., before 1998) of this specification. The traditional value corresponds to a 20.0-kip single unit truck formerly known as an H10 truck, Peck et al. (1974). This partially explains the increase in heq in previous editions of this specification. Subsequent analyses, i.e., Kim and Barker (1998) show the importance of the direction of traffic, i.e., parallel for a wall and perpendicular for an abutment on the magnitude of heq. The magnitude of heq is greater for an abutment than for a wall due to the proximity and closer spacing of wheel loads to the back of an abutment compared to a wall. The backface of the wall should be taken as the pressure surface being considered. Refer to Article C11.5.5 for application of surcharge pressures on retaining walls. The load factor for both vertical and horizontal components of live load surcharge shall be taken as specified in Table 3.4.1-1 for live load surcharge. 3.11.6.5—Reduction of Surcharge C3.11.6.5 If the vehicular loading is transmitted through a structural slab, which is also supported by means other than earth, a corresponding reduction in the surcharge loads may be permitted. This Article relates primarily to approach slabs which are supported at one edge by the backwall of an abutment, thus transmitting load directly thereto. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-131 3.11.7—Reduction Due to Earth Pressure C3.11.7 For culverts and bridges and their components where earth pressure may reduce effects caused by other loads and forces, such reduction shall be limited to the extent earth pressure can be expected to be permanently present. In lieu of more precise information, a 50 percent reduction may be used, but need not be combined with the minimum load factor specified in Table 3.4.1-2. This provision is intended to refine the traditional approach in which the earth pressure is reduced by 50 percent in order to obtain maximum positive moment in top slab of culverts and frames. It permits obtaining more precise estimates of force effects where earth pressures are present. 3.11.8—Downdrag C3.11.8 Possible development of downdrag on piles or shafts shall be evaluated where: Downdrag, also known as negative skin friction, can be caused by soil settlement due to loads applied after the piles were driven, such as an approach embankment as shown in Figure C3.11.8-1. Consolidation can also occur due to recent lowering of the groundwater level as shown in Figure C3.11.8-2. • Sites are underlain by compressible material such as clays, silts or organic soils, • Fill will be or has recently been placed adjacent to the piles or shafts, such as is frequently the case for bridge approach fills, • The groundwater is substantially lowered, or • Liquefaction of loose sandy soil can occur. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- When the potential exists for downdrag to act on a pile or shaft due to downward movement of the soil relative to the pile or shaft, and the potential for downdrag is not eliminated by preloading the soil to reduce downward movements or other mitigating measure, the pile or shaft shall be designed to resist the induced downdrag. Consideration shall be given to eliminating the potential for downdrag loads through the use of embankment surcharge loads, ground improvement techniques, and/or vertical drainage and settlement monitoring measurements. For Extreme Event I limit state, downdrag induced by liquefaction settlement shall be applied to the pile or shaft in combination with the other loads included within that load group. Liquefaction-induced downdrag shall not be combined with downdrag induced by consolidation settlements. For downdrag load applied to pile or shaft groups, group effects shall be evaluated. Figure C3.11.8-1—Common Downdrag Situation Due to Fill Weight (Hannigan, et al., 2005) Figure C3.11.8-2—Common Downdrag Situation Due to Causes Other than Recent Fill Placement © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-132 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS If transient loads act to reduce the magnitude of downdrag loads and this reduction is considered in the design of the pile or shaft, the reduction shall not exceed that portion of transient load equal to the downdrag force effect. Force effects due to downdrag on piles or drilled shafts should be determined as follows: Step 1—Establish soil profile and soil properties for computing settlement using the procedures in Article 10.4. Step 2—Perform settlement computations for the soil layers along the length of the pile or shaft using the procedures in Article 10.6.2.4.3. Step 3—Determine the length of pile or shaft that will be subject to downdrag. If the settlement in the soil layer is 0.4 in. or greater relative to the pile or shaft, downdrag can be assumed to fully develop. Regarding the load factors for downdrag in Table 3.4.1-2, use the maximum load factor when investigating maximum downward pile loads. The minimum load factor shall only be utilized when investigating possible uplift loads. For some downdrag estimation methods, the magnitude of the load factor is dependent on the magnitude of the downdrag load relative to the dead load. The downdrag load factors were developed considering that downdrag loads equal to or greater than the magnitude of the dead load become somewhat impractical for design. See Allen (2005) for additional background and guidance on the effect of downdrag load magnitude. Methods for eliminating static downdrag potential include preloading. The procedure for designing a preload is presented in Cheney and Chassie (2000). Post-liquefaction settlement can also cause downdrag. Methods for mitigating liquefaction-induced downdrag are presented in Kavazanjian, et al. (1997). The application of downdrag to pile or shaft groups can be complex. If the pile or shaft cap is near or below the fill material causing consolidation settlement of the underlying soft soil, the cap will prevent transfer of stresses adequate to produce settlement of the soil inside the pile or shaft group. The downdrag applied in this case is the frictional force around the exterior of the pile or shaft group and along the sides of the pile or shaft cap (if any). If the cap is located well up in the fill causing consolidation stresses or if the piles or shafts are used as individual columns to support the structure above ground, the downdrag on each individual pile or shaft will control the magnitude of the load. If group effects are likely, the downdrag calculated using the group perimeter shear force should be determined in addition to the sum of the downdrag forces for each individual pile or shaft. The greater of the two calculations should be used for design. The skin friction used to estimate downdrag due to liquefaction settlement should be conservatively assumed to be equal to the residual soil strength in the liquefiable zone, and nonliquefied skin friction in nonliquefiable layers above the zone of liquefaction. Transient loads can act to reduce the downdrag because they cause a downward movement of the pile resulting in a temporary reduction or elimination of the downdrag load. It is conservative to include the transient loads together with downdrag. The step-by-step procedure for determining downdrag is presented in detail in Hannigan, et al. (2005). The stress increases in each soil layer due to embankment load can be estimated using the procedures in Hannigan et al. (2005) or Cheney and Chassie (2000). If the settlement is due to liquefaction, the Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) or the Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) procedures can be used to estimate settlement. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Step 4—Determine the magnitude of the downdrag, DD, by computing the negative skin resistance using any of the static analysis procedures in Article 10.7.3.8.6 for piles in all soils and Article 10.8.3.4 for shafts if the zone subject to downdrag is characterized as a cohesive soil. If the downdrag zone is characterized as a cohesionless soil, the procedures provided in Article 10.8.3.4 should be used to estimate the downdrag for shafts. Sum the negative skin resistance for all layers contributing to downdrag from the lowest layer to the bottom of the pile cap or ground surface. The neutral plane method may also be used to determine downdrag. 3-133 The methods used to estimate downdrag are the same as those used to estimate skin friction, as described in Articles 10.7 and 10.8. The distinction between the two is that downdrag acts downward on the sides of the piles or shafts and loads the foundation, whereas skin friction acts upward on the sides of piles or shafts and, thus, supports the foundation loads. Downdrag can be estimated for piles using the α or λ methods for cohesive soils. An alternative approach would be to use the β method where the long-term conditions after consolidation should be considered. Cohesionless soil layers overlying the consolidating layers will also contribute to downdrag, and the negative skin resistance in these layers should be estimated using an effective stress method. Downdrag loads for shafts may be estimated using the α method for cohesive soils and the β method for granular soils, as specified in Article 10.8, for calculating negative shaft resistance. As with positive shaft resistance, the top 5.0 ft and a bottom length taken as one shaft diameter do not contribute to downdrag loads. When using the α method, an allowance should be made for a possible increase in the undrained shear strength as consolidation occurs. The neutral plane method is described and discussed in NCHRP 393 (Briaud and Tucker, 1993). 3.12—FORCE EFFECTS DUE TO SUPERIMPOSED DEFORMATIONS: TU, TG, SH, CR, SE, PS 3.12.1—General Internal force effects in a component due to creep and shrinkage shall be considered. The effect of a temperature gradient should be included where appropriate. Force effects resulting from resisting component deformation, displacement of points of load application, and support movements shall be included in the analysis. 3.12.2—Uniform Temperature The design thermal movement associated with a uniform temperature change may be calculated using Procedure A or Procedure B below. Either Procedure A or Procedure B may be employed for concrete deck bridges having concrete or steel girders. Procedure A shall be employed for all other bridge types. 3.12.2.1—Temperature Range for Procedure A The ranges of temperature shall be as specified in Table 3.12.2.1-1. The difference between the extended lower or upper boundary and the base construction temperature assumed in the design shall be used to calculate thermal deformation effects. C3.12.2.1 Procedure A is the historic method that has been used for bridge design. For these Specifications, a moderate climate may be determined by the number of freezing days per yr. If the number of freezing days is less than 14, the climate is considered to be moderate. Freezing days are days when the average temperature is less than 32°F. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-134 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The minimum and maximum temperatures specified in Table 3.12.2.1-1 shall be taken as TMinDesign and TMaxDesign, respectively, in Eq. 3.12.2.3-1. Although temperature changes in a bridge do not occur uniformly, bridges generally are designed for an assumed uniform temperature change. The orientation of bearing guides and the freedom of bearing movement is important. Sharp curvature and sharply skewed supports can cause excessive lateral thermal forces at supports if only tangential movement is permitted. Wide bridges are particularly prone to large lateral thermal forces because the bridge expands radially as well as longitudinally. Table 3.12.2.1-1—Procedure A Temperature Ranges Climate Moderate Cold Steel or Aluminum 0° to 120°F −30° to 120°F Concrete 10° to 80°F 0° to 80°F 3.12.2.2—Temperature Range for Procedure B The temperature range shall be defined as the difference between the maximum design temperature, TMaxDesign, and the minimum design temperature, TMinDesign. For all concrete girder bridges with concrete decks, TMaxDesign shall be determined from the contours of Figure 3.12.2.2-1 and TMinDesign shall be determined from the contours of Figure 3.12.2.1-2. For steel girder bridges with concrete decks, TMaxDesign shall be determined from the contours of Figure 3.12.2.1-3 and TMinDesign shall be determined from the contours of Figure 3.12.2.1-4. Wood 10° to 75°F 0° to 75°F C3.12.2.2 The Procedure B design was developed on the basis of the report Thermal Movement Design Procedure for Steel and Concrete Bridges (Roeder, 2002). Procedure B is a calibrated procedure and does not cover all bridge types. The temperatures provided in the maps of Figures 3.12.2.1-1 to 3.12.2.1-4 are extreme bridge design temperatures for an average history of 70 yr with a minimum of 60 yr of data for locations throughout the U.S. The design values for locations between contours should be determined by linear interpolation. As an alternative method, the largest adjacent contour may be used to define TMaxDesign and the smallest adjacent contour may be used to define TMinDesign. Both the minimum and maximum design temperatures should be noted on the drawings for the girders, expansion joints, and bearings. Figure 3.12.2.2-1—Contour Maps for TMaxDesign for Concrete Girder Bridges with Concrete Decks --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure 3.12.2.2-2—Contour Maps for TMinDesign for Concrete Girder Bridges with Concrete Decks --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure 3.12.2.2-3—Contour Maps for TMaxDesign for Steel Girder Bridges with Concrete Decks Figure 3.12.2.2-4—Contour Maps for TMinDesign for Steel Girder Bridges with Concrete Decks © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-135 3-136 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.12.2.3—Design Thermal Movements The design thermal movement range, ΔT, shall depend upon the extreme bridge design temperatures defined in Article 3.12.2.1 or 3.12.2.2, and be determined as: ΔT = α L (TMaxDesign -TMinDesign) (3.12.2.3-1) where: L = expansion length (in.) α = coefficient of thermal expansion (in./in./ºF) 3.12.3—Temperature Gradient C3.12.3 For the purpose of this Article, the country shall be subdivided into zones as indicated in Figure 3.12.3-1. Positive temperature values for the zones shall be taken as specified for various deck surface conditions in Table 3.12.3-1. Negative temperature values shall be obtained by multiplying the values specified in Table 3.12.3-1 by −0.30 for plain concrete decks and −0.20 for decks with an asphalt overlay. The vertical temperature gradient in concrete and steel superstructures with concrete decks may be taken as shown in Figure 3.12.3-2. Dimension A in Figure 3.12.3-2 shall be taken as: Temperature gradient is included in various load combinations in Table 3.4.1-1. This does not mean that it need be investigated for all types of structures. If experience has shown that neglecting temperature gradient in the design of a given type of structure has not lead to structural distress, the Owner may choose to exclude temperature gradient. Multibeam bridges are an example of a type of structure for which judgment and past experience should be considered. Redistribution of reactive loads, both longitudinally and transversely, should also be calculated and considered in the design of the bearings and substructures. • For concrete superstructures that are 16.0 in. or more in depth—12.0 in. • For concrete sections shallower than 16.0 in.—4.0 in. less than the actual depth • For steel superstructures—12.0 in. and the distance t shall be taken as the depth of the concrete deck The temperature gradient given herein is a modification of that proposed in Imbsen et al. (1985), which was based on studies of concrete superstructures. The addition for steel superstructures is patterned after the temperature gradient for that type of bridge in the Australian bridge specifications (AUSTROADS, 1992). The data in Table 3.12.3-1 does not make a distinction regarding the presence or lack of an asphaltic overlay on decks. Field measurements have yielded apparently different indications concerning the effect of asphalt as an insulator or as a contributor (Spring, 1997). Therefore, any possible insulating qualities have been ignored herein. The temperatures given in Table 3.12.3-1 form the basis for calculating the change in temperature with depth in the cross-section, not absolute temperature. Temperature value T3 shall be taken as 0.0°F, unless a site-specific study is made to determine an appropriate value, but it shall not exceed 5°F. Where temperature gradient is considered, internal stresses and structure deformations due to both positive and negative temperature gradients may be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 4.6.6. Table 3.12.3-1—Basis for Temperature Gradients Zone 1 2 3 4 T1 (°F) 54 46 41 38 T2 (°F) 14 12 11 9 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-137 Figure 3.12.3-1—Solar Radiation Zones for the United States Figure 3.12.3-2—Positive Vertical Temperature Gradient in Concrete and Steel Superstructures 3.12.4—Differential Shrinkage C3.12.4 Where appropriate, differential shrinkage strains between concretes of different age and composition, and between concrete and steel or wood, shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 5. The Designer may specify timing and sequence of construction in order to minimize stresses due to differential shrinkage between components. The load factor may be reduced to 1.0 if physical testing is performed to establish material properties and upper bound values are used in the analysis. 3.12.5—Creep C3.12.5 Creep strains for concrete and wood shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 and Section 8, respectively. In determining force effects and deformations due to creep, dependence on time and changes in compressive stresses shall be taken into account. Traditionally, only creep of concrete is considered. Creep of wood is addressed only because it applies to prestressed wood decks. The load factor may be reduced to 1.0 if physical testing is performed to establish material properties and upper bound values are used in the analysis. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-138 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS C3.12.6 Force effects due to extreme values of differential settlements among substructures and within individual substructure units shall be considered. Estimates of settlement for individual substructure units may be made in accordance with the provisions in Article 10.7.2.3. Force effects due to settlement may be reduced by considering creep. Analysis for the load combinations in Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2 which include settlement should be repeated for settlement of each possible substructure unit settling individually, as well as combinations of substructure units settling, that could create critical force effects in the structure. 3.12.7—Secondary Forces from Post-Tensioning, PS C3.12.7 The application of post-tensioning forces on a continuous structure produces reactions at the supports and internal forces that are collectively called secondary forces, which shall be considered where applicable. In frame analysis software, secondary forces are generally obtained by subtracting the primary prestress forces from the total prestresssing. 3.13—FRICTION FORCES: FR C3.13 Forces due to friction shall be established on the basis of extreme values of the friction coefficient between the sliding surfaces. Where appropriate, the effect of moisture and possible degradation or contamination of sliding or rotating surfaces upon the friction coefficient shall be considered. Low and high friction coefficients may be obtained from standard textbooks. If so warranted, the values may be determined by physical tests, especially if the surfaces are expected to be roughened in service. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.12.6—Settlement 3.14—VESSEL COLLISION: CV 3.14.1—General C3.14.1 The provisions of this Article apply to the accidental collision between a vessel and a bridge. These provisions may be revised as stated in Article 3.14.16 to account for intentional collisions. All bridge components in a navigable waterway crossing, located in design water depths not less than 2.0 ft, shall be designed for vessel impact. The minimum design impact load for substructure design shall be determined using an empty hopper barge drifting at a velocity equal to the yearly mean current for the waterway location. The design barge shall be a single 35.0-ft × 195-ft barge, with an empty displacement of 200 ton, unless approved otherwise by the Owner. Where bridges span deep draft waterways and are not sufficiently high to preclude contact with the vessel, the minimum superstructure design impact may be taken to be the mast collision impact load specified in Article 3.14.10.3. Intentional collision between a vessel and a bridge may be considered when conducting security studies. The determination of the navigability of a waterway is usually made by the U.S. Coast Guard. The requirements herein have been adapted from the AASHTO Guide Specifications and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges (1991) using the Method II risk acceptance alternative, and modified for the second edition (2009). The 1991 Guide Specifications required the use of a single vessel length overall (LOA) selected in accordance with the Method I criteria for use in estimating the geometric probability and impact speed to represent all vessel classifications. This was a conservative simplification applied to reduce the amount of effort required in the analysis. With the introduction of personal computers and programming, the simplification can be lifted and AF can be quickly obtained for each design vessel, which was originally envisioned. The end result is a more accurate model for the vessel collision study as well as more informative conclusions about the vessel fleet and associated probabilities of collision. Another source of information has been the proceedings of an international colloquium, Ship Collisions with Bridges and Offshore Structures (IABSE, 1983). Barges are categorized by ton = 2,000 lbs. and ships by tonne = 2,205 lbs. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS In navigable waterways where vessel collision is anticipated, structures shall be: • Designed to resist vessel collision forces, and/or • Adequately protected by fenders, dolphins, berms, islands, or other sacrifice-able devices. In determining vessel collision loads, consideration shall be given to the relationship of the bridge to: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • Waterway geometry, • Size, type, loading condition, and frequency of vessels using the waterway, • Available water depth, • Vessel speed and direction, and • The structural response of the bridge to collision. 3-139 The deadweight tonnage (DWT) of a ship is the weight of the cargo, fuel, water, and stores. The DWT is only a portion of the total vessel weight, but it gives a general estimation of the ship size. A minimum impact requirement from an empty barge drifting in all waterways and the mast impact of a drifting ship in deep draft waterways is specified because of the high frequency of occurrences of such collision accidents in United States’ waterways. The intent of the vessel collision provisions is to minimize the risk of catastrophic failure of bridges crossing navigable waterways due to collisions by aberrant vessels. The collision impact forces represent a probabilistically based, worst-case, head-on collision, with the vessel moving in a forward direction at a relatively high velocity. The requirements are applicable to steel-hulled merchant ships larger than 1,000 DWT and to inland waterway barges. The channel layout and geometry can affect the navigation conditions, the largest vessel size that can use the waterway and the loading condition and the speed of vessels approaching a bridge. The presence of bends, intersections with other waterways, and the presence of other bridge crossings near the bridge increase the probability of accidents. The vessel transit paths in the waterway in relation to the navigation channel and the bridge piers can affect the risk of aberrant vessels hitting the piers and the exposed portions of the superstructure. The water level and the loading conditions of vessels influence the location on the pier where vessel impact loads are applied, and the susceptibility of the superstructure to vessel hits. The water depth plays a critical role in the accessibility of vessels to piers and spans outside the navigation channel. The water depth at the pier should not include short-term scour. In addition, the water depth should not just be evaluated at the specific pier location itself, but also at locations upstream and downstream of the pier— which may be shallower and would potentially block certain deeper draft vessels from hitting the pier. In waterways with large water stage fluctuations, the water level used can have a significant effect on the structural requirements for the pier and/or pier protection design. The maneuverability of ships is reduced by the low underkeel clearance typical in inland waterways. Shallow underkeel clearance can also affect the hydrodynamic forces during a collision increasing the collision energy, especially in the transverse direction. In addition, ships riding in ballast can be greatly affected by winds and currents. When under ballast, vessels are susceptible to wind gusts that could push them into the bridge. It is very difficult to control and steer barge tows, especially near bends and in waterways with high stream velocities and cross currents. In maneuvering a bend, tows experience a sliding effect in a direction opposite to the direction of the turn, due to inertia forces which are often coupled with the current flow. Bridges located in a high velocity waterway and near a bend in the channel will probably be hit by barges at frequent intervals. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-140 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Unless otherwise indicated in these Specifications, an evaluation of the following two vessel collision events combined with scour conditions are recommended: • A drifting empty barge breaking loose from its moorings and striking the bridge. The vessel impact loads should be combined with one-half of the predicted long-term scour plus one-half of the predicted short term scour. The flow rate, water level, and short-term scour depth are those associated with the design flood for bridge scour (100-year flood event). 3.14.2—Owner’s Responsibility C3.14.2 The Owner shall establish and/or approve the bridge operational classification, the vessel traffic density in the waterway, and the design velocity of vessels for the bridge. The Owner shall specify or approve the degree of damage that the bridge components, including protective systems, are allowed to sustain. Pier protection systems may also be warranted for bridges over navigable channels transversed only by pleasure boats or small commercial vessels. For such locations, dolphins and fender systems are commonly used to protect the pier and to minimize the hazards of passage under the bridge for the vessels using the waterway. 3.14.3—Operational Classification C3.14.3 For the purpose of Article 3.14, an operational classification, either “critical or essential” or “typical,” shall be determined for all bridges located in navigable waterways. Critical bridges shall continue to function after an impact, the probability of which is smaller than regular bridges. This Article implies that a critical or essential bridge may be damaged to an extent acceptable to the Owner, as specified in Article 3.14.2, but should not collapse and should remain serviceable, even though repairs are needed. 3.14.4—Design Vessel C3.14.4 A design vessel for each pier or span component shall be selected, such that the estimated annual frequency of collapse computed in accordance with Article 3.14.5, due to vessels not smaller than the design vessel, is less than the acceptance criterion for the component. An analysis of the annual frequency of collapse is performed for each pier or span component exposed to collision. From this analysis, a design vessel and its associated collision loads can be determined for each pier or span component. The design vessel size and impact loads can vary greatly among the components of the same structure, depending upon the waterway geometry, available water depth, bridge geometry, and vessel traffic characteristics. The design vessel is selected using a probabilitybased analysis procedure in which the predicted annual frequency of bridge collapse, AF, is compared to an acceptance criterion. The analysis procedure is an iterative process in which a trial design vessel is selected for a bridge component and a resulting AF is computed using the characteristics of waterway, bridge, and vessel fleet. This AF is compared to the acceptance criterion, and revisions to the analysis variables are made as necessary to achieve compliance. The primary variables that the Designer can usually alter include the: The design vessels shall be selected on the basis of the bridge operational classification and the vessel, bridge, and waterway characteristics. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- A ship or barge tow striking the bridge while transiting the navigation channel under typical waterway conditions. The vessel impact loads should be combined with the effects of one-half of the long-term scour and no short-term scour. The flow rate and water level should be taken as the yearly mean conditions. SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-141 • Location of the bridge in the waterway, • Location and clearances of bridge pier and span components, • Resistance of piers and superstructures, and • Use of protective systems to either reduce or eliminate the collision forces. 3.14.5—Annual Frequency of Collapse C3.14.5 The annual frequency of a bridge component collapse shall be taken as: Various types of risk assessment models have been developed for vessel collision with bridges by researchers worldwide (IABSE, 1983; Modjeski and Masters, 1984; Prucz, 1987; Larsen, 1993). Practically all of these models are based on a form similar to Eq. 3.14.5-1, which is used to compute the annual frequency of bridge collapse, AF, associated with a particular bridge component. The inverse of the annual frequency of collapse, 1/AF, is equal to the return period in yr. The summation of AFs computed over all of the vessel classification intervals for a specific component equals the annual frequency of collapse of the component. AF = ( N ) ( PA ) ( PG ) ( PC )( PF ) (3.14.5-1) where: AF = N = PA = PG = PC = PF = annual frequency of bridge component collapse due to vessel collision the annual number of vessels, classified by type, size, and loading condition, that utilize the channel the probability of vessel aberrancy the geometric probability of a collision between an aberrant vessel and a bridge pier or span the probability of bridge collapse due to a collision with an aberrant vessel adjustment factor to account for potential protection of the piers from vessel collision due to upstream or downstream land masses or other structures that block the vessel AF shall be computed for each bridge component and vessel classification. The annual frequency of collapse for the total bridge shall be taken as the sum of all component AFs. For critical or essential bridges, the maximum annual frequency of collapse, AF, for the whole bridge, shall be taken as 0.0001. For typical bridges, the maximum annual frequency of collapse, AF, for the total bridge, shall be taken as 0.001. For waterways with widths less than 6.0 times the length overall of the design vessel, LOA, the acceptance criterion for the annual frequency of collapse for each pier and superstructure component shall be determined by distributing the total bridge acceptance criterion, AF, over the number of pier and span components located in the waterway. For wide waterways with widths greater than 6.0 times LOA, the acceptance criterion for the annual frequency of collapse for each pier and span component shall be determined by distributing the total bridge acceptance criterion over the number of pier and superstructure components located within the distance 3.0 times LOA on each side of the inbound and outbound vessel transit centerline paths. Risk can be defined as the potential realization of unwanted consequences of an event. Both a probability of occurrence of an event and the magnitude of its consequences are involved. Defining an acceptable level of risk is a value-oriented process and is by nature subjective (Rowe, 1977). Based on historical collision data, the primary area of concern for vessel impact is the central portion of the bridge near the navigation channel. The limits of this area extend to a distance of 3.0 times LOA on each side of the inbound and outbound vessel transit path centerlines. For most bridges, these vessel transit path centerlines coincide with the centerline of the navigable channel. Where twoway vessel traffic exists under the bridge, the vessel transit path centerline of the inbound and outbound vessels should be taken as the centerline of each half of the channel, respectively. The distribution of the AF acceptance criterion among the exposed pier and span components is based on the Designer’s judgment. One method is to equally spread the acceptable risk among all the components. This method is usually not desirable because it fails to take into account the importance and higher cost of most main span components. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-142 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The preferred method is to apportion the risk to each pier and span component on the basis of its percentage value to the replacement cost of the structure in the central analysis area. 3.14.5.1—Vessel Frequency Distribution The number of vessels, N, based on size, type, and loading condition and available water depth shall be developed for each pier and span component to be evaluated. Depending on waterway conditions, a differentiation between the number and loading condition of vessels transiting inbound and outbound shall be considered. C3.14.5.1 In developing the design vessel distribution, the Designer should first establish the number and characteristics of the vessels using the navigable waterway or channel under the bridge. Because the water depth limits the size of vessel that could strike a bridge component, the navigable channel vessel frequency data can be modified, as required, on the basis of the water depth at each bridge component to determine the number and characteristics of the vessels that could strike the pier or span component being analyzed. Thus, each component could have a different value of N. Vessel characteristics necessary to conduct the analysis include: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • Type, i.e., ship or barge; • Size based on the vessel’s deadweight tonnage, DWT; • Inbound and outbound operating characteristics; • Loading condition, i.e., loaded, partly loaded, ballasted, or empty; • Length overall, LOA; • Width or beam, BM; • Draft associated with each loading condition; • • Bow depth, DB; Bow shape; • Displacement tonnage, W; • Vertical clearances; and • Number of transits under the bridge each year. Sources for the vessel data and typical ship and barge characteristics are included in the AASHTO Guide Specifications and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges (2009). The Designer should use judgment in developing a distribution of the vessel frequency data based on discrete groupings or categories of vessel size by DWT. It is recommended that the DWT intervals used in developing the vessel distribution not exceed 20,000DWT for vessels smaller than 100,000DWT, and not exceeding 50,000DWT for ships larger than 100,000DWT. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-143 3.14.5.2—Probability of Aberrancy 3.14.5.2.1—General C3.14.5.2.1 The probability of vessel aberrancy, PA, may be determined by the statistical or the approximate method. 3.14.5.2.2—Statistical Method C3.14.5.2.2 The probability of aberrancy may be computed on the basis of a statistical analysis of historical data on vessel collisions, rammings, and groundings in the waterway and on the number of vessels transiting the waterway during the period of accident reporting. The probability of aberrancy may be taken as: (3.14.5.2.3-1) where: PA BR RB RC = = = = RXC = RD = probability of aberrancy aberrancy base rate correction factor for bridge location correction factor for current acting parallel to vessel transit path correction factor for cross-currents acting perpendicular to vessel transit path correction factor for vessel traffic density The base rate, BR, of aberrancy shall be taken as: • For ships: BR = 0.6 × 10−4 The most accurate procedure for determining PA is to compute it using long-term vessel accident statistics in the waterway and data on the frequency of ship/barge traffic in the waterway during the same period of time (Larsen 1983). Data from ship simulation studies and radar analysis of vessel movements in the waterway have also been used to estimate PA. Based on historical data, it has been determined that the aberrancy rate for barges is usually two to three times that measured for ships in the same waterway. C3.14.5.2.3 3.14.5.2.3—Approximate Method PA = ( BR ) ( R B ) ( R C ) ( R XC ) ( R D ) The probability of aberrancy is mainly related to the navigation conditions at the bridge site. Vessel traffic regulations, vessel traffic management systems and aids to navigation can improve the navigation conditions and reduce the probability of aberrancy. The probability of aberrancy, PA, sometimes referred to as the causation probability, is a measure of the risk that a vessel is in trouble as a result of pilot error, adverse environmental conditions, or mechanical failure. An evaluation of accident statistics indicates that human error and adverse environmental conditions, not mechanical failures, are the primary reasons for accidents. In the United States, an estimated 60 percent to 85 percent of all vessel accidents have been attributed to human error. Because the determination of PA based on actual accident data in the waterway is often a difficult and timeconsuming process, an alternative method for estimating PA was established during the development of the AASHTO Guide Specification on Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges. The equations in this Article are empirical relationships based on historical accident data. The predicted PA value using these equations and the values determined from accident statistics are generally in agreement, although exceptions do occur. It should be noted that the procedure for computing PA using Eq. 3.14.5.2.3-1 should not be considered to be either rigorous or exhaustive. Several influences, such as wind, visibility conditions, navigation aids, pilotage, etc., were not directly included in the method because their effects were difficult to quantify. These influences have been indirectly included because the empirical equations were developed from accident data in which these factors had a part. It is anticipated that future research will provide a better understanding of the probability of aberrancy and --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-144 • AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS For barges: BR = 1.2 × 10 −4 The correction factor for bridge location, RB, based on the relative location of the bridge in either of three waterway regions, as shown in Figure 3.14.5.2.3-1, shall be taken as: • For straight regions: RB = 1.0 • (3.14.5.2.3-2) For transition regions: θ   RB =  1 +  90 °   • how to accurately estimate its value. The implementation of advanced vessel traffic control systems using automated surveillance and warning technology should significantly reduce the probability of aberrancy in navigable waterways. (3.14.5.2.3-3) For turn/bend regions: θ   RB =  1 + 45 °   (3.14.5.2.3-4) where: θ = angle of the turn or bend specified in Figure 3.14.5.2.3-1 (degrees) The correction factor, RC, for currents acting parallel to the vessel transit path in the waterway shall be taken as: V   RC =  1 + C  10   where: VC = (3.14.5.2.3-5) current velocity component parallel to the vessel transit path (knots) The correction factor, RXC, for cross-currents acting perpendicular to the vessel transit path in the waterway shall be taken as: RXC = (1 + VXC ) (3.14.5.2.3-6) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- where: VXC = current velocity component perpendicular to the vessel transit path (knots) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-145 Figure 3.14.5.2.3-1—Waterway Regions for Bridge Location The correction factor for vessel traffic density, RD, shall be selected on the basis of the ship/barge traffic density level in the waterway in the immediate vicinity of the bridge defined as: • Low density—vessels rarely meet, pass, or overtake each other in the immediate vicinity of the bridge: RD = 1.0 • (3.14.5.2.3-7) Average density—vessels occasionally meet, pass, or overtake each other in the immediate vicinity of the bridge: RD = 1.3 • (3.14.5.2.3-8) High density—vessels routinely meet, pass, or overtake each other in the immediate vicinity of the bridge: RD = 1.6 (3.14.5.2.3-9) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-146 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.14.5.3—Geometric Probability A normal distribution may be utilized to model the sailing path of an aberrant vessel near the bridge. The geometric probability, PG, shall be taken as the area under the normal distribution bounded by the pier width and the width of the vessel on each side of the pier, as specified in Figure 3.14.5.3-1. The standard deviation, σ, of the normal distribution shall be assumed to be equal to the length overall, LOA, of the design vessel selected in accordance with Article 3.14.4. The location of the mean of the standard distribution shall be taken at the centerline of the vessel transit path. PG shall be determined based on the width, BM, of each vessel classification category, or it may be determined for all classification intervals using the BM of the design vessel selected in accordance with Article 3.14.4. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure 3.14.5.3-1—Geometric Probability of Pier Collision C3.14.5.3 The geometric probability, PG, is defined as the conditional probability that a vessel will hit a bridge pier or superstructure component, given that it has lost control, i.e., it is aberrant, in the vicinity of the bridge. The probability of occurrence depends on the following factors: • Geometry of waterway; • Water depths of waterway; • Location of bridge piers; • Span clearances; • Sailing path of vessel; • Maneuvering characteristics of vessel; • Location, heading, and velocity of vessel; • Rudder angle at time of failure; • Environmental conditions; • Width, length, and shape of vessel; and • Vessel draft. The horizontal clearance of the navigation span has a significant impact on the risk of vessel collision with the main piers. Analysis of past collision accidents has shown that fixed bridges with a main span less than two to three times the design vessel length or less than two times the channel width are particularly vulnerable to vessel collision. Various geometric probability models, some based on simulation studies, have been recommended and used on different bridge projects and for the development of general design provisions. Descriptions of these models may be found in IABSE (1983), Modjeski and Masters (1984), Prucz (1987), and Larsen (1993). The method used to determine PG herein is similar to that proposed by Knott et al. (1985). The use of a normal distribution is based on historical ship/bridge accident data. It is recommended that σ = LOA of the design vessel for computing PG, and that bridge components located beyond 3σ from the centerline of the vessel transit path not be included in the analysis, other than the minimum impact requirement of Article 3.14.1. The accident data used to develop the PG methodology primarily represents ships. Although barge accidents occur relatively frequently in United States waterways, there have been little published research findings concerning the distribution of barge accidents over a waterway. Until such data and research become available, it is recommended that the same σ = LOA developed for ships be applied to barges with the barge LOA equal to the total length of the barge tow, including the towboat. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-147 C3.14.5.4 The probability of bridge collapse, PC, based on the ratio of the ultimate lateral resistance of the pier, HP, and span, Hs, to the vessel impact force, P, shall be taken as: • If 0.0 ≤ H/P < 0.1, then H   PC = 0.1 + 9  0.1 −  P   • If 0.1 ≤ H/P < 1.0, then •  H PC = 0.1111 −  P  If H/P ≥ 1.0, then PC = 0.0 (3.14.5.4-1) (3.14.5.4-2) (3.14.5.4-3) where: PC = H = P = probability of collapse resistance of bridge component to a horizontal force expressed as pier resistance, HP, or superstructure resistance, Hs (kip) vessel impact force, PS, PBH, PDH, or PMT, specified in Articles 3.14.8, 3.14.10.1, 3.14.10.2, and 3.14.10.3, respectively (kip) The probability that the bridge will collapse once it has been struck by an aberrant vessel, PC, is complex and is a function of the vessel size, type, configuration, speed, direction, and mass. It is also dependent on the nature of the collision and stiffness/strength characteristic of the bridge pier and superstructure to resist the collision impact loads. The methodology for estimating PC was developed by Cowiconsult (1987) from studies performed by Fujii and Shiobara (1978) using Japanese historical damage data on vessels colliding at sea. The damage to bridge piers is based on ship damage data because accurate damage data for collision with bridges is relatively scarce. Figure C3.14.5.4-1 is a plot of the probability of collapse relationships. From this figure, the following results are evident: • Where the pier or superstructure impact resistance exceeds the vessel collision impact force of the design vessel, the bridge collapse probability becomes 0.0. • Where the pier or superstructure impact resistance is in the range 10–100 percent of the collision force of the design vessel, the bridge collapse probability varies linearly between 0.0 and 0.10. • Where the pier or superstructure impact resistance is below ten percent of the collision force, the bridge collapse probability varies linearly between 0.10 and 1.0. Figure C3.14.5.4-1—Probability of Collapse Distribution 3.14.5.5 Protection Factor C3.14.5.5 The protection factor, PF, shall be computed as: PF = 1 – (% Protection Provided/100) (3.14.5.5-1) If no protection of the pier exists, then PF = 1.0. If the pier is 100 percent protected, then PF = 0.0. If the pier protection (for example, a dolphin system) provides 70 percent protection, then PF would be equal to 0.3. Values for PF may vary from pier to pier and may vary depending on the The purpose of the protection factor, PF, is to adjust the annual frequency of collapse, AF, for full or partial protection of selected bridge piers from vessel collisions such as: • Dolphins, islands, etc., • Existing site conditions such as a parallel bridge protecting a bridge from impacts in one direction, © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.14.5.4—Probability of Collapse 3-148 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS direction of the vessel traffic (i.e., vessel traffic moving inbound versus traffic moving outbound). • A feature of the waterway (such as a peninsula extending out on one side of the bridge) that may block vessels from hitting bridge piers, or • A wharf structure near the bridge that may block vessels from a certain direction. The recommended procedure for estimating values for PF is shown in Figure C3.14.5.5-1. It illustrates a simple model developed to estimate the effectiveness of dolphin protection on a bridge pier. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure C3.14.5.5-1—Illustrative Model of the Protection Factor (PF) of Dolphin Protection around a Bridge Pier © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-149 3-150 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 3.14.6—Design Collision Velocity C3.14.6 The design collision velocity may be determined as specified in Figure 3.14.6-1, for which: A triangular distribution of collision impact velocity across the length of the bridge and centered on the centerline of the vessel transit path in the channel was based on historical accident data. This data indicated that aberrant ships and barges that collide with bridge piers further away from the channel are moving at reduced velocities compared with those hitting piers located closer to the navigable channel limits. Aberrant vessels located at long distances from the channel are usually drifting with the current. Aberrant vessels, located very near the channel, are moving at velocities approaching that of ships and barges in the main navigation channel. The exact distribution of the velocity reduction is unknown. However, a triangular distribution was chosen because of its simplicity as well as its reasonableness in modeling the aberrant vessel velocity situation. The use of the distance 3.0 times LOA in Figure 3.14.6-1 to define the limits at which the design velocity becomes equal to that of the water current was based on the observation that very few accidents, other than with drifting vessels, have historically occurred beyond that boundary. The selection of the design collision velocity is one of the most significant design parameters associated with the vessel collision requirements. Judgment should be exercised in determining the appropriate design velocity for a vessel transiting the waterway. The chosen velocity should reflect the “typical” transit velocity of the design vessel under “typical” conditions of wind, current, visibility, opposing traffic, waterway geometry, etc. A different vessel velocity may be required for inbound vessels than for outbound vessels given the presence of currents that may exist in the waterway. In waterways subject to seasonal flooding, consideration should be given to flood flow velocities in determining the minimum collision velocity. In general, the design velocity should not be based on extreme values representing extreme events, such as exceptional flooding and other extreme environmental conditions. Vessels transiting under these conditions are not representative of the “annual average” situations reflecting the typical transit conditions. V = VT = design impact velocity (ft/s) typical vessel transit velocity in the channel under normal environmental conditions but not taken to be less than VMIN (ft/s) minimum design impact velocity taken as not less than the yearly mean current velocity for the bridge location (ft/s) distance to face of pier from centerline of channel (ft) distance to edge of channel (ft) distance equal to 3.0 times the length overall of the design vessel (ft) VMIN = X = XC = XL = The length overall, LOA, for barge tows shall be taken as the total length of the tow plus the length of the tug/tow boat. Figure 3.14.6-1—Design Collision Velocity Distribution 3.14.7—Vessel Collision Energy C3.14.7 The kinetic energy of a moving vessel to be absorbed during a noneccentric collision with a bridge pier shall be taken as: Eq. 3.14.7-1 is the standard mV2/2 relationship for computing kinetic energy with conversion from mass to weight, conversion of units and incorporation of a hydrodynamic mass coefficient, CH, to account for the influence of the surrounding water upon the moving vessel. Recommendations for estimating CH for vessels moving in a forward direction were based on studies by Saul and Svensson (1980) and data published by PIANC (1984). It should be noted that these hydrodynamic mass coefficients are smaller than those normally used for ship berthing computations, in which a relatively large mass of water KE = CH WV 2 29.2 (3.14.7-1) where: KE = W = vessel collision energy (kip-ft) vessel displacement tonnage (tonne) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS CH = V = 3-151 hydrodynamic mass coefficient vessel impact velocity (ft/s) moves with the vessel as it approaches a dock from a lateral, or broadside, direction. The vessel displacement tonnage, W, shall be based upon the loading condition of the vessel and shall include the empty weight of the vessel, plus consideration of the weight of cargo, DWT, for loaded vessels, or the weight of water ballast for vessels transiting in an empty or lightly loaded condition. The displacement tonnage for barge tows shall be the sum of the displacement of the tug/tow vessel and the combined displacement of a row of barges in the length of the tow. The hydrodynamic mass coefficient, CH, shall be taken as: • If underkeel clearance exceeds 0.5 × draft: CH = 1.05 • (3.14.7-2) If underkeel clearance is less than 0.1 × draft: CH = 1.25 (3.14.7-3) Values of CH may be interpolated from the range shown above for intermediate values of underkeel clearance. The underkeel clearance shall be taken as the distance between the bottom of the vessel and the bottom of the waterway. 3.14.8—Ship Collision Force on Pier C3.14.8 The head-on ship collision impact force on a pier shall be taken as: The determination of the impact load on a bridge structure during a ship collision is complex and depends on many factors as follows: PS = 8.15 V DWT (3.14.8-1) where: PS DWT V = = = equivalent static vessel impact force (kip) deadweight tonnage of vessel (tonne) vessel impact velocity (ft/s) • Structural type and shape of the ship’s bow, • Degree of water ballast carried in the forepeak of the bow, • Size and velocity of the ship, • Geometry of the collision, and • Geometry and strength characteristics of the pier. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,, Eq. 3.14.8-1 was developed from research conducted by Woisin (1976) in West Germany to generate collision data with a view to protecting the reactors of nuclearpowered ships from collisions with other ships. The ship collision data resulted from collision tests with physical ship models at scales of 1:12.0 and 1:7.5. Woisin’s results have been found to be in good agreement with the results of research conducted by other ship collision investigators worldwide (IABSE, 1983). Figure C3.14.8-1 indicates the scatter in Woisin’s test data due to the various collision factors discussed herein, the triangular probability density function used to model the scatter, and the selection of a 70 percent fractile force for use as an equivalent static impact force for bridge design. Using a 70 percent fractile force for a given design © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-152 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS vessel, the number of smaller ships with a crushing strength greater than this force would be approximately equal to the number of larger ships with a crushing strength less than this force. Figure C3.14.8-2 indicates typical ship impact forces computed with Eq. 3.14.8-1. Figure C3.14.8-1—Probability Density Function of Ship Impact Force Data Figure C3.14.8-2—Typical Ship Impact Forces --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-153 3.14.9—Ship Bow Damage Length C3.14.9 The horizontal length of the ship’s bow, crushed by impact with a rigid object, shall be taken as: The average bow damage length, a, is computed based on the impact force averaged against the work path, P(a), such that:  KE  aS = 1.54    PS  (3.14.9-1) where: as = KE = PS = bow damage length of ship (ft) vessel collision energy (kip-ft) ship impact force as specified in Eq. 3.14.8-1 (kip) a= KE P (a ) (C3.14.9-1) The 1.54 coefficient used to compute the design ship damage depth in Eq. 3.14.9-1 results from the multiplication of the following factors: • 1.25 to account for the increase in average impact force over time versus damage length, • 1.11 to account for the increase in average impact force to the 70 percent design fractile, and • 1.11 to provide an increase in the damage length to provide a similar level of design safety as that used to compute PS. 3.14.10.1—Collision with Bow C3.14.10.1 The bow collision impact force on a superstructure shall be taken as: PBH = ( RBH )( PS ) Limited data exists on the collision forces between ship bows and bridge superstructure components. (3.14.10.1-1) where: PBH = RBH = PS = ship bow impact force on an exposed superstructure (kip) ratio of exposed superstructure depth to the total bow depth ship impact force specified in Eq. 3.14.8-1 (kip) For the purpose of this Article, exposure is the vertical overlap between the vessel and the bridge superstructure with the depth of the impact zone. 3.14.10.2—Collision with Deck House The deck house collision impact force on a superstructure shall be taken as: PDH = ( RDH )( PS ) (3.14.10.2-1) C3.14.10.2 According to the Great Belt Bridge investigation in Denmark (Cowiconsult, Inc., 1981) forces for deck house collision with a bridge superstructure: PDH = 1,200 kip for the deck house collision of a 1,000DWT freighter ship, and PDH = 6,000 kip for the deck house collision of a 100,000DWT tanker ship. where: PDH = RDH = PS = ship deck house impact force (kip) reduction factor specified herein ship impact force as specified in Eq. 3.14.8-1 (kip) For ships exceeding 100,000 tonne, RDH shall be taken as 0.10. For ships smaller than 100,000 tonne: Based on these values, the approximate empirical relationship of Eq. 3.14.10.2-1 was developed for selecting superstructure design impact values for deck house collision. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3.14.10—Ship Collision Force on Superstructure 3-154 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS  DWT  RDH = 0.2 −   (0.10)  100, 000  (3.14.10.2-2) C3.14.10.3 3.14.10.3—Collision with Mast The mast collision impact force on a superstructure shall be taken as: PMT = 0.10 PDH Eq. 3.14.10.3-1 was developed by estimating the impact forces based on bridge girder and superstructure damage from a limited number of mast impact accidents. (3.14.10.3-1) where: PMT = PDH = ship mast impact force (kip) ship deck house impact force specified in Eq. 3.14.10.2-1 (kip) 3.14.11—Barge Collision Force on Pier C3.14.11 For the purpose of Article 3.14, the standard hopper barge shall be taken as an inland river barge with: There is less reported data on impact forces resulting from barge collisions than from ship collision. The barge collision impact forces determined by Eqs. 3.14.11-1 and 3.14.11-2 were developed from research conducted by Meir-Dornberg (1983) in West Germany. Meir-Dornberg’s study included dynamic loading with a pendulum hammer on barge bottom models in scale 1:4.5, static loading on one bottom model in scale 1:6, and numerical analysis. The results for the standard European Barge, Type IIa, which has a similar bow to the standard hopper barge in the United States, are shown in Figure C3.14.11-1 for barge deformation and impact loading. No significant difference was found between the static and dynamic forces measured during the study. Typical barge tow impact forces using Eqs. 3.14.11-1 and 3.14.11-2 are shown in Figure C3.14.11-2. width length depth empty draft loaded draft DWT = = = = = = 35.0 ft 195.0 ft 12.0 ft 1.7 ft 8.7 ft 1,700 tons The collision impact force on a pier for a standard hopper barge shall be taken as: • If aB < 0.34 then: PB = 4,112aB • (3.14.11-1) where: If aB ≥ 0.34 then: PB = 1,349 + 110aB (3.14.11-2) where: equivalent static barge impact force (kip) barge bow damage length specified Eq. 3.14.12-1 (ft) deformation energy (kip-ft) average equivalent static barge impact force resulting from the study (kip) in --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- PB = aB = EB = PB = Figure C3.14.11-1—Barge Impact Force, Deformation Energy, and Damage Length Data © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-155 Figure C3.14.11-2—Typical Hopper Barge Impact Forces Since the barge collision load formulation is for a standard rake head log height of 2.0 to 3.0 feet, the possibility of deeper head logs that may occur in tanker barges and special deck barges should also be considered. In lieu of better information, the barge force may be increased in proportion to the head log height compared to that of the standard hopper barge. 3.14.12—Barge Bow Damage Length C3.14.12 The barge bow horizontal damage length for a standard hopper barge shall be taken as: The relationship for barge horizontal damage length, aB, was developed from the same research conducted on barge collisions by Meir-Dornberg, as discussed in Article C3.14.11.   KE aB = 10.2  1 + − 1  5, 672   where: aB = KE = (3.14.12-1) barge bow damage length (ft) vessel collision energy (kip-ft) 3.14.13—Damage at the Extreme Limit State C3.14.13 Inelastic behavior and redistribution of force effects is permitted in substructure and superstructure components, provided that sufficient ductility and redundancy of the remaining structure exists in the extreme event limit state to prevent catastrophic superstructure collapse. As an alternative, pier protection may be provided for the bridge structure to eliminate or reduce the vessel collision loads applied to the bridge structure to acceptable levels. Two basic protection options are available to the Bridge Designer. The first option involves designing the bridge to withstand the impact loads in either an elastic or inelastic manner. If the response to collision is inelastic, the design must incorporate redundancy or other means to prevent collapse of the superstructure. The second option is to provide a protective system of fenders, pile-supported structures, dolphins, islands, etc., either to reduce the magnitude of the impact loads to less than the strength of the bridge pier or superstructure --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-156 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS components or to independently protect those components. The requirements for either of these two options are general in nature because the actual design procedures that could be used vary considerably. This is particularly true for inelastic design. Because little information is available on the behavior of the inelastic deformation of materials and structures during the type of dynamic impacts associated with vessel impact, assumptions based on experience and sound engineering practice should be substituted. 3.14.14—Application of Impact Force 3.14.14.1—Substructure Design C3.14.14.1 For substructure design, equivalent static forces, parallel and normal to the centerline of the navigable channel, shall be applied separately as follows: • 100 percent of the design impact force in a direction parallel to the alignment of the centerline of the navigable channel, or • 50 percent of the design impact force in the direction normal to the direction of the centerline of the channel. All components of the substructure, exposed to physical contact by any portion of the design vessel’s hull or bow, shall be designed to resist the applied loads. The bow overhang, rake, or flair distance of ships and barges shall be considered in determining the portions of the substructure exposed to contact by the vessel. Crushing of the vessel’s bow causing contact with any setback portion of the substructure shall also be considered. The impact force in both design cases, specified herein, shall be applied to a substructure in accordance with the following criteria: • • For overall stability, the design impact force is applied as a concentrated force on the substructure at the mean high water level of the waterway, as shown in Figure 3.14.14.1-1, and For local collision forces, the design impact force is applied as a vertical line load equally distributed along the ship’s bow depth, as shown in Figure 3.14.14.1-2. The ship’s bow is considered to be raked forward in determining the potential contact area of the impact force on the substructure. For barge impact, the local collision force is taken as a vertical line load equally distributed on the depth of the head block, as shown in Figure 3.14.14.1-3. Two cases should be evaluated in designing the bridge substructure for vessel impact loadings: • The overall stability of the substructure and foundation, assuming that the vessel impact acts as a concentrated force at the waterline, and • The ability of each component of the substructure to withstand any local collision force resulting from a vessel impact. The need to apply local collision forces on substructures exposed to contact by overhanging portions of a ship or barge’s bow is well documented by accident case histories. The Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay, Florida, collapsed in 1980 as a result of the ship’s bow impacting a pier column at a point 42.0 ft above the waterline. Ship and barge bow rake lengths are often large enough that they can even extend over protective fender systems and contact vulnerable bridge components, as shown in Figures C3.14.14.1-1 and C3.14.14.1-2. Bow shapes and dimensions vary widely, and the Designer may need to perform special studies to establish vessel bow geometry for a particular waterway location. Typical bow geometry data is provided in AASHTO (2009). --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-157 Figure 3.14.14.1-1—Ship Impact Concentrated Force on Pier Figure C3.14.14.1-1—Plan of Ship Bow Overhang Impacting Pier Figure 3.14.14.1-2—Ship Impact Line Load on Pier Figure C3.14.14.1-2—Elevation of Barge Bow Impacting Pier --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure 3.14.14.1-3—Barge Impact Force on Pier 3.14.14.2—Superstructure Design C3.14.14.2 For superstructure design, the design impact force shall be applied as an equivalent static force transverse to the superstructure component in a direction parallel to the alignment of the centerline of the navigable channel. The ability of various portions of a ship or barge to impact a superstructure component depends on the available vertical clearance under the structure, the water depth, vessel-type and characteristics, and the loading condition of the vessel. 3.14.15—Protection of Substructures C3.14.15 Protection may be provided to reduce or to eliminate the exposure of bridge substructures to vessel collision by physical protection systems, including fenders, pile cluster, pile-supported structures, dolphins, islands, and combinations thereof. The development of bridge protection alternatives for vessel collisions generally follows three approaches: • Reducing the annual frequency of collision events, for example, by improving navigation aids near a bridge; © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Severe damage and/or collapse of the protection system may be permitted, provided that the protection system stops the vessel prior to contact with the pier or redirects the vessel away from the pier. • Reducing the probability of collapse, for example, by imposing vessel speed restrictions in the waterway; or • Reducing the disruption costs of a collision, for example, by physical protection and motorist warning systems. Because modifications to navigation aids in the waterway and vessel operating conditions are normally beyond the Bridge Designer’s ability to implement, the primary area of bridge protection to be considered by the Designer are physical protection and motorist warning systems. The current practice in the design of protective structures is almost invariably based on energy considerations. It is assumed that the loss of kinetic energy of the vessel is transformed into an equal amount of energy absorbed by the protective structure. The kinetic impact energy is dissipated by the work done by flexure, shear, torsion, and displacement of the components of the protective system. Design of a protective system is usually an iterative process in which a trial configuration of a protective system is initially developed. For the trial, a force versus deflection diagram is developed via analysis or physical modeling and testing. The area under the diagram is the energy capacity of the protective system. The forces and energy capacity of the protective system is then compared with the design vessel impact force and energy to see if the vessel loads have been safely resisted. 3.14.16—Security Considerations C3.14.16 The Owner of the bridge shall establish the size and velocity of the vessel to be used in bridge security analysis. As the intent of intentionally ramming a vessel into a bridge is to cause the bridge to collapse, the velocity of the vessel at the moment of collision is expected to be higher than the normal travel speed. In addition to accounting for the effects of impact, consideration should also be given to the potential for vessel-delivered explosives and subsequent fire. The physical limitations on the velocity and size of the vessel should be taken into account when determining the design velocity for intentional collision as well as the likely maximum explosive size that can be delivered. For example, the velocity of a barge tow is limited by the power of the tug boats and by the geometry of the waterway in the approach to the bridge. Similarly, the factors limiting the size of the vessel should be considered when determining the design vessel. The vessel impact force shall be determined in accordance with Articles 3.14.8, 3.14.10.1, 3.14.10.2, or 3.14.10.3, as applicable. The probability of bridge collapse due to intentional collision with the design vessel at the design speed shall be taken equal to PC, which shall be determined using the provisions of Article 3.14.5.4. The design vessel and velocity are site-specific variables that should be selected by the Owner as part of a security assessment. In case of accidental collision, determining the annual probability of collapse using Eq. 3.14.5-1 involves the annual number of vessels, N, the probability of vessel aberrancy, PA, and the geometric probability of a collision, PG. In the case of intentional collision, the value of each of the three variables may be taken as 1.0. Therefore, the probability of collapse in case of intentional collision is taken equal to PC. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 3-158 SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-159 3.15—BLAST LOADING: BL 3.15.1—Introduction C3.15.1 Where it has been determined that a bridge or a bridge component should be designed for intentional or unintentional blast force, the following should be considered: The size, shape, location, and type of an explosive charge determine the intensity of the blast force produced by an explosion. For comparison purposes, all explosive charges are typically converted to their equivalent TNT charge weights. Stand-off refers to the distance between the center of an explosive charge and a target. Due to the dispersion of blast waves in the atmosphere, increasing stand-off causes the peak pressure on a target to drop as a cubic function of the distance (i.e., for a given quantity of explosives, doubling the stand-off distance causes the peak pressure to drop by a factor of eight). The location of the charge determines the amplifying effects of the blast wave reflecting from the ground surface or from the surfaces of surrounding structural elements. The location of the charge also determines the severity of damage caused by fragments from the components closest to the blast traveling away from the blast center. Information on the analysis of blast loads and their effects on structures may be found in J. M. Biggs (1964), W. E. Baker, et al. (1983), Department of the Army (1990), P. S. Bulson (1997), and Department of the Army (1986). • Size of explosive charge, • Shape of explosive charge, • Type of explosive, • Stand-off distance, • Location of the charge, • Possible modes of delivery and associated capacities (e.g., maximum charge weight will depend upon vehicle type and can include cars, trucks, ships, etc.), and • Fragmentation associated with vehicle-delivered explosives. 3.16—REFERENCES AASHTO. 1989 with 1992 and 2002 interims. Guide Specifications for Structural Design of Sound Barriers. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 1991. Guide Specification and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges, First Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, HB-17. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2009 with 2010 interim. Guide Specifications and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges, Second Edition, GVCB-2-M. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2009. LRFD Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges, Second Edition, GSDPB-2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2011. AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, Second Edition, LRFDSEIS-2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, GDHS-6. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Afanas'ev, V. P., Y. V. Dolgopolov, and I. Shyaishstein. 1971. “Ice Pressure on Individual Marine Structures.” In Ice Physics and Ice Engineering. G. N. Yakocev, ed. Translated from the Russian by Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, Israel. Allen, T. M. 2005. Development of Geotechnical Resistance Factors and Downdrag Load Factors for LRFD Foundation Strength Limit State Design. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-052. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-160 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Allen, T. M., A. Nowak, and R. Bathurst. 2005. Calibration to Determine Load and Resistance Factors for Geotechnical and Structural Design. TRB Circular E-C079, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. ASCE. 1980. “Loads and Forces on Bridges.” Preprint 80-173. American Society of Civil Engineers National Convention, Portland, OR, April 14–18, 1980. ASCE. 1988. Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, ASCE 7-88. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. AUSTROADS. 1992. Bridge Design Code. Hay Market, Australia. Briaud, J. and L. Tucker. 1993. Downdrag on Bitumen-Coated Piles, NCHRP 393/Project 24-05, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Burg, R. G. and A.E. Fiorato. 1999. “High-Strength Concrete in Massive Foundation Elements.” PCA Research and Development Bulletin RD117. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL. Burg, R. G. and B.W. Ost. 1992. “Engineering Properties of Commercially Available High-Strength Concretes.” PCA Research and Development Bulletin RD104T. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL. Buth, C. E, W. F. Williams, M. S. Brackin, D. Lord, S. R. Geedipally and A. Y. Abu-Odeh. 2010. “Analysis of Large Truck Collisions with Bridge Piers: Phase 1. Report of Guidelines for Designing Bridge Piers and Abutments for Vehicle Collisions,” Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. Buth, C.E, M. S. Brackin, W. F. Williams, G. T. Fry, 2010. “Collision Loads on Bridge Piers: Phase 2. Report of Guidelines for Designing Bridge Piers and Abutments for Vehicle Collisions”, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. Caquot, A., and J. Kerisel. 1948. Tables for the Calculation of Passive Pressure, Active Pressure and Bearing Capacity of Foundations. Gauthier-Villars, Libraire du Bureau des Longitudes, de L'Ecole Polytechnique, Paris. CBA/Buckland and Taylor. 1982. “Annacis Island Bridge.” In Report No. 3, Ship Collision Risk Analysis. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways, July 1982. Cheney, R. S. 1984. “Permanent Ground Anchors.” FHWA-DP-68-1R Demonstration Project. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, p. 132. Cheney, R. S. and R. Chassie. 2000. Soils and Foundations Workshop Reference Manual, NHI-00-045. National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Clausen, C. J. F., and S. Johansen. 1972. “Earth Pressures Measured Against a Section of a Basement Wall,” Proceedings, 5th European Conference on SMFE. Madrid, Spain, pp. 515–516. Clough, G. W., and J. M. Duncan. 1991. “Earth Pressures.” Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition. H. Y. Fang, ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, Chap. 6. Clough, G. W., and T. D. O’Rourke. 1990. “Construction-Induced Movements of In-Situ Walls.” In Proc., 1990 Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures. Ithaca, NY, pp. 439–470. Clough, G. W., and Y. Tsui. 1974. “Performance of Tied-Back Retaining Walls.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 100, No. GT 12, pp. 1259–1273. Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1984. Shore Protection Manual, 4th Edition. Coastal Engineering Research Center, Washington, DC. Cohen, H. 1990. Truck Weight Limits: Issues and Options, Special Report 225. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-161 Connor, R. J. 2002. A Comparison of the In-Service Response of an Orthotropic Steel Deck with Laboratory Studies and Design Assumptions, Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. Cowiconsult, Inc. 1981. Sunshine Skyway Bridge Ship Collision Risk Assessment. Prepared for Figg and Muller Engineers, Inc., Lyngby, Denmark, September 1981. Cowiconsult. 1987. “General Principles for Risk Evaluation of Ship Collisions, Strandings, and Contact Incidents.” Technical note, January 1987. CSA. 2000. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, CAN/CSA-S6-00. Canadian Standards Association International, Section 3, Loads, Toronto, ON. CSA. 1988. Design of Highway Bridges, CAN/CSA-S6-88. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, ON. Csagoly, P. F., and Z. Knobel. 1981. The 1979 Survey of Commercial Vehicle Weights in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Toronto, ON. D’Appolonia, E. 1999. Developing New AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Retaining Walls, Report for NCHRP Project 20-7, Task 88, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. FHWA. 2001. “Highway Performance Concrete.” Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, August 2001. FHWA. 2006. Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures, Part 1–Bridges, FHWA Publication No. FHWA-HRT06-032. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Flaate, K. S. 1966. Stresses and Movements in Connection with Braced Cuts in Sand and Clay. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. Fujii, Y. and R. Shiobara. 1978. “The Estimation of Losses Resulting from Marine Accidents.” Journal of Navigation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, Vol. 31, No. 1. Gerard, R., and S. J. Stanely. 1992. “Probability Analysis of Historical Ice Jam Data for a Complex Reach: A Case Study.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, NRC Research Press, Ottawa, ON. Hanna, T. H., and G. A. Matallana. 1970. “The Behavior of Tied-Back Retaining Walls.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, NRC Research Press, Ottawa, ON, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 372–396. Hannigan, P. J., G. G. Goble, G. Thendean, G. E. Likins, and F. Rausche. 2005. Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, Vol. I and II. Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-HI-05. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Haynes, F. D. 1995. Bridge Pier Design for Ice Forces. Ice Engineering, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. Haynes, F. D. 1996. Private communications. Highway Engineering Division. 1991. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, 3rd Edition. Highway Engineering Division, Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Toronto, ON. Hirsch, T. J. 1989. Analysis and Design of Metrorail-Railroad Barrier Systems. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Gajer, R. B., and V. P. Wagh. 1994. “Bridge Design for Seismic Performance Category B: The Problem with Foundation Design,” Proceeding No. 11th International Bridge Conference, Paper IBC-94-62, Pittsburgh, PA. 3-162 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Holtz, R. D., and W. D. Kovacs. 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Huiskamp, W. J. 1983. Ice Force Measurements on Bridge Piers, 1980–1982, Report No. SWE 83-1. Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, AB. International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineers. 1983. “Ship Collision with Bridges and Offshore Structures.” In International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineers Colloquium, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3 vols. Ishihara, K. and M. Yoshimine. 1992. “Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction during Earthquakes.” Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 32, No. 1, March, pp. 173–188. Kavazanjian, E., Jr., N. Matasoviæ, T. Hadj-Hamou, and P. J. Sabatini. 1997. Design Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for Highways. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3, Report No. FHWA-SA-97-076. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Knott, J., D. Wood, and D. Bonyun. 1985. “Risk Analysis for Ship-Bridge Collisions.” Fourth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. American Society of Civil Engineers, Baltimore, MD, July 30–August 2, 1985. Kulicki, J. M., and D. R. Mertz. 1991. “A New Live Load Model for Bridge Design.” In Proc., 8th Annual International Bridge Conference, June 1991, pp. 238–246. Kulicki, J. M. and D. Mertz. 2006. “Evolution of Vehicular Live Load Models During the Interstate Design Era and Beyond, in: 50 Years of Interstate Structures: Past, Present and Future”, Transportation Research Circular, E-C104, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Larsen, D. D. 1983. “Ship Collision Risk Assessment for Bridges.” In Vol. 1, International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineers Colloquium. Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 113–128. Larsen, O. D. 1993. “Ship Collision with Bridges—The Interaction Between Vessel Traffic and Bridge Structures.” IABSE Structural Engineering Document 4, IABSE-AIPC-IVBH, Zürich, Switzerland. Lipsett, A. W., and R. Gerard. 1980. Field Measurement of Ice Forces on Bridge Piers 1973–1979, Report SWE 80-3. Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, AB. Liu, H. 1991. Wind Engineering: A Handbook for Structural Engineers, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mander, J. B., M. J. N. Priestley, and R. Park. 1988. “Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete.” Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, August 1988. Mander, J. B., M. J. N. Priestley, and R. Park. 1988. “Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete.” Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, August 1988. MCEER/ATC. 2003. Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, Special Publication No. MCEER-03-SP03. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY. Meir-Dornberg, K. E. 1983. “Ship Collisions, Safety Zones, and Loading Assumptions for Structures on Inland Waterways.” VDI-Berichte, No. 496, pp. 1–9. Modjeski and Masters, Consulting Engineers. 1984. Criteria for the Design of Bridge Piers with Respect to Vessel Collision in Louisiana Waterways. Prepared for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and the Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, PA, November 1984. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Imbsen, R. A., D. E. Vandershaf, R. A. Schamber, and R. V. Nutt. 1985. Thermal Effects in Concrete Bridge Superstructures, NCHRP Report 276. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-163 Montgomery, C. T., R. Gerard, W. J. Huiskamp, and R. W. Kornelsen. 1984. “Application of Ice Engineering to Bridge Design Standards.” In Proc., Cold Regions Engineering Specialty Conference. Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, QC, April 4–6, 1984, pp. 795–810. Montgomery, C. J., R. Gerard, and A. W. Lipsett. 1980. “Dynamic Response of Bridge Piers to Ice Forces.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, , NRC Research Press, Ottawa, ON, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 345–356. Montgomery, C. J., and A. W. Lipsett. 1980. “Dynamic Tests and Analysis of a Massive Pier Subjected to Ice Forces.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, , NRC Research Press, Ottawa, ON, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 432–441. NCHRP. 2002. Comprehensive Specification for the Seismic Design of Bridges, NCHRP Report 472. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. NCHRP. 2006. Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, Draft Report NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 193. TRC Imbsen & Associates, Sacramento, CA. NCHRP. 2009. Updated Test and Design Methods for Thermoplastic Drainage Pipe, NCHRP Report 631. National Cooperation Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Prepared by T. J. McGrath, I. D. Moore, and G. Y. Hsuan. Neill, C. R. 1976. “Dynamic Ice Forces on Piers and Piles: An Assessment of Design Guidelines in the Light of Recent Research.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, , NRC Research Press, Ottawa, ON, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 305–341. Neill, C. R., ed. 1981. Ice Effects on Bridges. Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, ON. Nevel, D. E. 1972. “The Ultimate Failure of a Floating Ice Sheet.” In Proc., International Association for Hydraulic Research, Ice Symposium, pp. 17–22. Nicholson, P. J., D. D. Uranowski, and P. T. Wycliffe-Jones. 1981. Permanent Ground Anchors: Nicholson Design Criteria, FHWA/RD/81-151. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, p. 151. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Nowak, A. S. 1992. Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code, NCHRP Project 12-33. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Nowak, A. S. 1995. “Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code.” Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 121, No. 8, pp. 1245–1251. Nowak, A. S. 1999. Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code. NCHRP Report 368, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. O’Rourke, T. D. 1975. A Study of Two Braced Excavations in Sand and Interbedded Stiff Clay. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. Page, J. 1976. Dynamic Wheel Load Measurements on Motorway Bridges. Transportation and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshare, UK. Paikowsky, S. G., with contributions from B. Birgisson, M. McVay, T. Nguyen, C. Kuo, G. Baecher, B. Ayyab, K. Stenersen, K. O’Malley, L. Chernauskas, and M. O’Neill. 2004. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations. NCHRP (Final) Report 507, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Peck, R. B., W. E. Hanson, and T. H. Thornburn. 1974. Foundation Engineering, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. PIANC. 1984. Report of the International Commission for Improving the Design of Fender Systems. International Navagation Association, Brussels, Belgium. Poulos, H. G., and E. H. Davis. 1974. Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-164 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Priestley, M. J. N., R. Parks, and R. T. Potangaroa. 1981. “Ductility of Spirally Confined Concrete Columns.” Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, January 1981. Priestley, M. J. N., F. Seible and G. M. Calvi. 1996. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Priestley, M. J. N., F. Seible, and Y. H. Chai. 1992. “Design Guidelines for Assessment Retrofit and Repair of Bridges for Seismic Performance.” University of California, San Diego, CA. Prucz, Z., and W. B. Conway. 1987. “Design of Bridge Piers Against Ship Collision.” Bridges and Transmission Line Structures. L. Tall, ed: American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 209–223. Ritter, M. A. 1990. Timber Bridges: Design, Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance, EM7700-B. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Roeder, C. W. 2002. Thermal Design Procedure for Steel and Concrete Bridges. Final Report for NCHRP 20-07/106. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., April 2002. Rowe, W. D. 1977. An Anatomy of Risk. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Sabatini, P. J., D. G. Pass, and R. C. Bachus. 1999. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4—Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-SA-99-015. NTIS, Springfield, VA. Saul, R. and H. Svensson. 1980. “On the Theory of Ship Collision Against Bridge Piers.” In IABSE Proceedings, February 1980, pp. 51–82. Schnabel, Jr., H. 1982. Tiebacks in Foundation Engineering and Construction. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, p. 171. Sherif, M. A., I. Ishibashi, and C. D. Lee. 1982. “Earth Pressures Against Rigid Retaining Walls.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 108, GT5, pp. 679–695. Simiu, E. 1973. “Logarithmic Profiles and Design Wind Speeds.” Journal of the Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 99, No. EM5, October 1973, pp. 1073–1083. Simiu, E. 1976. “Equivalent Static Wind Loads for Tall Building Design.” Journal of the Structures Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 102, No. ST4, April, 1976, pp. 719–737. Somerville, P.G. 1997. “The Characteristics and Quantification of Near Fault Ground Motion,” Proceedings of the FHWA/NCEER Workshop on the National Representation of Seismic Ground Motion for New and Existing Highway Facilities. Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, Technical Report 97-0010, State University of New York at Buffalo, pp. 1293–1318. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Somerville, P. G., N. G. Smith, R. W. Graves, and N. A. Abrahamson. 1997. “Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity,” Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, pp. 199–222. Terzaghi, K. 1934. “Retaining Wall Design for Fifteen-Mile Falls Dam.” Engineering News Record, May 1934, pp. 632 –636. Terzaghi, K., and R. B. Peck. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, p. 729. Tokimatsu, K. and B. Bolton Seed. 1987. Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861–878. Transit New Zealand. 1991. Bridge Manual: Design and Evaluation. Draft. Transit New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-165 U.S. Department of the Navy. 1982. Foundations and Earth Structures, Technical Report NAVFAC DM-7.1 and DM-7.2. Naval Facilities Command, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC, p. 244. U.S. Department of the Navy. 1982. “Soil Mechanics.” Design Manual 7.1, NAVFAC DM-7.1. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, U.S. Department of Defense, Alexandria, VA, p. 348. Whitman, R.V. 1984. “Evaluating Calculated Risk in Geotechnical Engineering.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 110, No. 2, February 1984, pp. 145–188. Williams, G. P. 1963. “Probability Charts for Predicting Ice Thickness.” Engineering Journal, June 1963, pp. 3–7. Woisin, G. 1976. “The Collision Tests of the GKSS.” In Jahrbuch der Schiffbautechnischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 70. Berlin, Germany, pp. 465–487. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Zabilansky, L. J. 1996. “Ice Force and Scour Instrumentation for the White River, Vermont.” Special Report 96-6. U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, U.S. Department of Defense, Hanover, NH. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS APPENDIX A3—SEISMIC DESIGN FLOWCHARTS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure A3-1—Seismic Design Procedure Flow Chart © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-167 3-168 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Figure A3-2—Seismic Detailing and Foundation Design Flow Chart © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-169 APPENDIX B3—OVERSTRENGTH RESISTANCE Article 3.10.9.4.3a defines the forces resulting from plastic hinging, i.e., a column reaching its ultimate moment capacity, in the columns and presents two procedures. One is for a single column hinging about its two principal axes; this is also applicable for piers and bents acting as single columns. The other procedure is for a multiple column bent in the plane of the bent. The forces are based on the potential overstrength resistance of the materials, and to be valid the design detail requirements of this Section must be used so that plastic hinging of the columns can occur. The overstrength resistance results from actual properties being greater than the minimum specified values and is implemented by specifying resistance factors greater than unity. This fact must be accounted for when forces generated by yielding of the column are used as design forces. Generally, overstrength resistance depends on the following factors: • The actual size of the column and the actual amount of reinforcing steel. • The effect of an increased steel strength over the specified fy and for strain hardening effects. • The effect of an increased concrete strength over the specified f′c and confinement provided by the transverse steel. Also, with time, concrete will gradually increase in strength. • The effect of an actual concrete ultimate compressive strain above 0.003. Column Size and Reinforcement Configuration The design engineer should select the minimum column section size and steel reinforcement ratio when satisfying structural design requirements. As these parameters increase, the overstrength resistance increases. This may lead to an increase in the foundation size and cost. A size and reinforcement ratio which forces the design below the nose of the interaction curve is preferable, especially in high seismic areas. However, the selection of size and reinforcement must also satisfy architectural, and perhaps other requirements, which may govern the design. Increase in Reinforcement Strength Almost all reinforcing bars will have a yield strength larger than the minimum specified value which may be up to 30 percent higher, with an average increase of 12 percent. Combining this increase with the effect of strain hardening, it is realistic to assume an increased yield strength of 1.25 fy, when computing the column overstrength. Increase in Concrete Strength Concrete strength is defined as the specified 28-day compression strength; this is a low estimate of the strength expected in the field. Typically, conservative concrete batch designs result in actual 28-day strengths of about 20–25 percent higher than specified. Concrete will also continue to gain strength with age. Tests on cores taken from older California bridges built in the 1950s and 1960s have consistently yielded compression strength in excess of 1.5 f′c . Concrete compression strength is further enhanced by the possible confinement provided by the transverse reinforcement. Rapid loading due to seismic forces could also result in significant increase in strength, i.e., strain rate effect. In view of all the above, the actual concrete strength when a seismic event occurs is likely to significantly exceed the specified 28-day strength. Therefore, an increased concrete strength of 1.5 f′c could be assumed in the calculation of the column overstrength resistance. Ultimate Compressive Strain (εc) Although tests on unconfined concrete show 0.003 to be a reasonable strain at first crushing, tests on confined column sections show a marked increase in this value. The use of such a low extreme fiber strain is a very conservative estimate of strains at which crushing and spalling first develop in most columns, and considerably less than the expected strain at maximum response to the design seismic event. Research has supported strains on the order of 0.01 and higher as the likely magnitude of ultimate compressive strain. Therefore, designers could assume a value of ultimate strain equal to 0.01 as a realistic value. For calculation purposes, the thickness of clear concrete cover used to compute the section overstrength shall not be taken to be greater than 2.0 in. This reduced section shall be adequate for all applied loads associated with the plastic hinge. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-170 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Overstrength Capacity The derivation of the column overstrength capacity is depicted in Figure B3-1. The effect of higher material properties than specified is illustrated by comparing the actual overstrength curve, computed with realistic f′c, fy and εc values, to the nominal strength interaction curve, Pn, Mn. It is generally satisfactory to approximate the overstrength capacity curve by multiplying the nominal moment strength by the 1.3 factor for axial loads below the nose of the interaction curve, i.e., Pn, 1.3 Mn curve. However, as shown, this curve may be in considerable error for axial loads above the nose of the interaction curve. Therefore, it is recommended that the approximate overstrength curve be obtained by multiplying both Pn and Mn by φ = 1.3, i.e., 1.3 Pn, 1.3 Mn. This curve follows the general shape of the actual curve very closely at all levels of axial loads. In the light of the above discussion, it is recommended that: • For all bridges with axial loads below Pb, the overstrength moment capacity shall be assumed to be 1.3 times the nominal moment capacity. • For bridges in Zones 3 and 4 with operational classification of “other”, and for all bridges in Zone 2 for which plastic hinging has been invoked, the overstrength curve for axial loads greater than Pb shall be approximated by multiplying both Pn and Mn by φ = 1.3. • For bridges in Zones 3 and 4 with operational classification of “essential” or “critical”, the overstrength curve for axial loads greater than Pb shall be computed using realistic values for f′c, fy and εc as recommended in Table B3-1 or from values based on actual test results. The column overstrength, thus calculated, should not be less than the value estimated by the approximate curve based on 1.3 Pn, 1.3 Mn. Table B3-1—Recommended Increased Values of Materials Properties Increased fy (minimum) 1.25 fy Increased f′c 1.5 f′c Increased εc 0.01 Shear Failure The shear mode of failure in a column or pile bent will probably result in a partial or total collapse of the bridge; therefore, the design shear force must be calculated conservatively. In calculating the column or pile bent shear force, consideration must be given to the potential locations of plastic hinges. For flared columns, these may occur at the top and bottom of the flare. For multiple column bents with a partial-height wall, the plastic hinges will probably occur at the top of the wall unless the wall is structurally separated from the column. For columns with deeply embedded foundations, the plastic hinge may occur above the foundation mat or pile cap. For pile bents, the plastic hinge may occur above the calculated point of fixity. Because of the consequences of a shear failure, it is recommended that conservatism be used in locating possible plastic hinges such that the smallest potential column length be used with the plastic moments to calculate the largest potential shear force for design. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 3-171 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS Figure B3-1—Development of Approximate Overstrength Interaction Curves from Nominal Strength Curves after Gajer and Wagh (1994) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 Eq 4.1—SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2—DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3—NOTATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.4—ACCEPTABLE METHODS OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 4-9 4.6—STATIC ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................... 4-17 4.6.1—Influence of Plan Geometry ..................................................................................................................... 4-17 4.6.1.1—Plan Aspect Ratio .......................................................................................................................... 4-17 4.6.1.2—Structures Curved in Plan .............................................................................................................. 4-17 4.6.1.2.1—General ................................................................................................................................ 4-17 4.6.1.2.2—Single-Girder Torsionally Stiff Superstructures .................................................................. 4-18 4.6.1.2.3—Concrete Box Girder Bridges .............................................................................................. 4-18 4.6.1.2.4—Steel Multiple-Beam Superstructures .................................................................................. 4-20 4.6.1.2.4a—General ....................................................................................................................... 4-20 4.6.1.2.4b—I-Girders ..................................................................................................................... 4-20 4.6.1.2.4c—Closed Box and Tub Girders ...................................................................................... 4-21 4.6.2—Approximate Methods of Analysis .......................................................................................................... 4-22 4.6.2.1—Decks ............................................................................................................................................. 4-22 4.6.2.1.1—General ................................................................................................................................ 4-22 4.6.2.1.2—Applicability ........................................................................................................................ 4-22 4.6.2.1.3—Width of Equivalent Interior Strips ..................................................................................... 4-23 4.6.2.1.4—Width of Equivalent Strips at Edges of Slabs ...................................................................... 4-25 4.6.2.1.4a—General ....................................................................................................................... 4-25 4.6.2.1.4b—Longitudinal Edges ..................................................................................................... 4-25 4.6.2.1.4c—Transverse Edges ........................................................................................................ 4-25 4-i © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 4.5—MATHEMATICAL MODELING ..................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.5.1—General ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.5.2—Structural Material Behavior.................................................................................................................... 4-11 4.5.2.1—Elastic Versus Inelastic Behavior .................................................................................................. 4-11 4.5.2.2—Elastic Behavior ............................................................................................................................. 4-11 4.5.2.3—Inelastic Behavior .......................................................................................................................... 4-11 4.5.3—Geometry ................................................................................................................................................. 4-12 4.5.3.1—Small Deflection Theory................................................................................................................ 4-12 4.5.3.2—Large Deflection Theory................................................................................................................ 4-12 4.5.3.2.1—General ................................................................................................................................ 4-12 4.5.3.2.2—Approximate Methods ......................................................................................................... 4-13 4.5.3.2.2a—General ....................................................................................................................... 4-13 4.5.3.2.2b—Moment Magnification—Beam Columns .................................................................. 4-14 4.5.3.2.2c—Moment Magnification—Arches ................................................................................ 4-15 4.5.3.2.3—Refined Methods ................................................................................................................. 4-16 4.5.4—Modeling Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................... 4-16 4.5.5—Equivalent Members ................................................................................................................................ 4-16 4-ii AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.6.2.1.5—Distribution of Wheel Loads ................................................................................................ 4-26 4.6.2.1.6—Calculation of Force Effects ................................................................................................ 4-26 4.6.2.1.7—Cross-Sectional Frame Action ............................................................................................. 4-27 4.6.2.1.8—Live Load Force Effects for Fully and Partially Filled Grids and for Unfilled Grid Decks Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slabs ....................................................................... 4-27 4.6.2.1.9—Inelastic Analysis ................................................................................................................. 4-29 4.6.2.2—Beam-Slab Bridges ........................................................................................................................4-29 4.6.2.2.1—Application .......................................................................................................................... 4-29 4.6.2.2.2—Distribution Factor Method for Moment and Shear ............................................................. 4-35 4.6.2.2.2a—Interior Beams with Wood Decks ...............................................................................4-35 4.6.2.2.2b—Interior Beams with Concrete Decks ..........................................................................4-35 4.6.2.2.2c—Interior Beams with Corrugated Steel Decks ..............................................................4-38 4.6.2.2.2d—Exterior Beams ...........................................................................................................4-39 4.6.2.2.2e—Skewed Bridges ..........................................................................................................4-40 4.6.2.2.2f—Flexural Moments and Shear in Transverse Floorbeams.............................................4-41 4.6.2.2.3—Distribution Factor Method for Shear .................................................................................. 4-42 4.6.2.2.3a—Interior Beams .............................................................................................................4-42 4.6.2.2.3b—Exterior Beams ...........................................................................................................4-44 4.6.2.2.3c—Skewed Bridges ..........................................................................................................4-46 4.6.2.2.4—Curved Steel Bridges ........................................................................................................... 4-46 4.6.2.2.5—Special Loads with Other Traffic ......................................................................................... 4-47 4.6.2.3—Equivalent Strip Widths for Slab-Type Bridges.............................................................................4-48 4.6.2.4—Truss and Arch Bridges..................................................................................................................4-49 4.6.2.5—Effective Length Factor, K .............................................................................................................4-49 4.6.2.6—Effective Flange Width ..................................................................................................................4-54 4.6.2.6.1—General ................................................................................................................................. 4-54 4.6.2.6.2—Segmental Concrete Box Beams and Single-Cell, Cast-in-Place Box Beams ..................... 4-55 4.6.2.6.3—Cast-in-Place Multicell Superstructures............................................................................... 4-59 4.6.2.6.4—Orthotropic Steel Decks ....................................................................................................... 4-59 4.6.2.6.5—Transverse Floorbeams and Integral Bent Caps................................................................... 4-61 4.6.2.7—Lateral Wind Load Distribution in Multibeam Bridges .................................................................4-62 4.6.2.7.1—I-Sections ............................................................................................................................. 4-62 4.6.2.7.2—Box Sections ........................................................................................................................ 4-63 4.6.2.7.3—Construction ......................................................................................................................... 4-63 4.6.2.8—Seismic Lateral Load Distribution .................................................................................................4-63 4.6.2.8.1—Applicability ........................................................................................................................ 4-63 4.6.2.8.2—Design Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 4-64 4.6.2.8.3—Load Distribution ................................................................................................................. 4-64 4.6.2.9—Analysis of Segmental Concrete Bridges .......................................................................................4-65 4.6.2.9.1—General ................................................................................................................................. 4-65 4.6.2.9.2—Strut-and-Tie Models ........................................................................................................... 4-65 4.6.2.9.3—Effective Flange Width ........................................................................................................ 4-65 4.6.2.9.4—Transverse Analysis ............................................................................................................. 4-66 4.6.2.9.5—Longitudinal Analysis .......................................................................................................... 4-66 4.6.2.9.5a—General ........................................................................................................................4-66 4.6.2.9.5b—Erection Analysis ........................................................................................................4-66 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-iii 4.6.2.9.5c—Analysis of the Final Structural System...................................................................... 4-66 4.6.2.10—Equivalent Strip Widths for Box Culverts ................................................................................... 4-67 4.6.2.10.1—General .............................................................................................................................. 4-67 4.6.2.10.2—Case 1: Traffic Travels Parallel to Span ............................................................................ 4-67 4.6.2.10.3—Case 2: Traffic Travels Perpendicular to Span .................................................................. 4-67 4.6.2.10.4—Precast Box Culverts ........................................................................................................ 4-68 4.6.3—Refined Methods of Analysis................................................................................................................... 4-68 4.6.3.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 4-68 4.6.3.2—Decks ............................................................................................................................................. 4-69 4.6.3.2.1—General ................................................................................................................................ 4-69 4.6.3.2.2—Isotropic Plate Model........................................................................................................... 4-69 4.6.3.2.3—Orthotropic Plate Model ...................................................................................................... 4-70 4.6.3.2.4—Refined Orthotropic Deck Model ........................................................................................ 4-70 4.6.3.3—Beam-Slab Bridges ........................................................................................................................ 4-70 4.6.3.3.1—General ................................................................................................................................ 4-70 4.6.3.3.2—Curved Steel Bridges ........................................................................................................... 4-71 4.6.3.4—Cellular and Box Bridges............................................................................................................... 4-72 4.6.3.5—Truss Bridges ................................................................................................................................. 4-72 4.6.3.6—Arch Bridges .................................................................................................................................. 4-73 4.6.3.7—Cable-Stayed Bridges .................................................................................................................... 4-73 4.6.3.8—Suspension Bridges........................................................................................................................ 4-74 4.6.4—Redistribution of Negative Moments in Continuous Beam Bridges ........................................................ 4-74 4.6.4.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 4-74 4.6.4.2—Refined Method ............................................................................................................................. 4-75 4.6.4.3—Approximate Procedure ................................................................................................................. 4-75 4.6.5—Stability .................................................................................................................................................... 4-75 4.6.6—Analysis for Temperature Gradient.......................................................................................................... 4-75 4.7—DYNAMIC ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 4-77 4.7.1—Basic Requirements of Structural Dynamics ........................................................................................... 4-77 4.7.1.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 4-77 4.7.1.2—Distribution of Masses ................................................................................................................... 4-77 4.7.1.3—Stiffness ......................................................................................................................................... 4-78 4.7.1.4—Damping ........................................................................................................................................ 4-78 4.7.1.5—Natural Frequencies ....................................................................................................................... 4-78 4.7.2—Elastic Dynamic Responses ..................................................................................................................... 4-79 4.7.2.1—Vehicle-Induced Vibration ............................................................................................................ 4-79 4.7.2.2—Wind-Induced Vibration ................................................................................................................ 4-79 4.7.2.2.1—Wind Velocities ................................................................................................................... 4-79 4.7.2.2.2—Dynamic Effects .................................................................................................................. 4-79 4.7.2.2.3—Design Considerations ......................................................................................................... 4-79 4.7.3—Inelastic Dynamic Responses .................................................................................................................. 4-80 4.7.3.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 4-80 4.7.3.2—Plastic Hinges and Yield Lines ...................................................................................................... 4-80 4.7.4—Analysis for Earthquake Loads ................................................................................................................ 4-80 4.7.4.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 4-80 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- TABLE OF CONTENTS AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.7.4.2—Single-Span Bridges.......................................................................................................................4-80 4.7.4.3—Multispan Bridges ..........................................................................................................................4-81 4.7.4.3.1—Selection of Method ............................................................................................................. 4-81 4.7.4.3.2—Single-Mode Methods of Analysis ...................................................................................... 4-82 4.7.4.3.2a—General ........................................................................................................................4-82 4.7.4.3.2b—Single-Mode Spectral Method ....................................................................................4-82 4.7.4.3.2c—Uniform Load Method ................................................................................................4-83 4.7.4.3.3—Multimode Spectral Method ................................................................................................ 4-85 4.7.4.3.4—Time-History Method .......................................................................................................... 4-85 4.7.4.3.4a—General ........................................................................................................................4-85 4.7.4.3.4b—Acceleration Time Histories .......................................................................................4-85 4.7.4.4—Minimum Support Length Requirements .......................................................................................4-88 4.7.4.5 P-∆ Requirements .............................................................................................................................4-89 4.7.5—Analysis for Collision Loads .................................................................................................................... 4-90 4.7.6—Analysis of Blast Effects .......................................................................................................................... 4-90 4.8—ANALYSIS BY PHYSICAL MODELS ............................................................................................................4-90 4.8.1—Scale Model Testing................................................................................................................................. 4-90 4.8.2—Bridge Testing .......................................................................................................................................... 4-90 4.9—REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................4-91 APPENDIX A4—DECK SLAB DESIGN TABLE ....................................................................................................4-97 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 4-iv SECTION 4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4.1—SCOPE C4.1 This section describes methods of analysis suitable for the design and evaluation of bridges and is limited to the modeling of structures and the determination of force effects. Other methods of analysis that are based on documented material characteristics and that satisfy equilibrium and compatibility may also be used. In general, bridge structures are to be analyzed elastically. However, this section permits the inelastic analysis or redistribution of force effects in some continuous beam superstructures. It specifies inelastic analysis for compressive members behaving inelastically and as an alternative for extreme event limit states. This section identifies and promotes the application of methods of structural analysis that are suitable for bridges. The selected method of analysis may vary from the approximate to the very sophisticated, depending on the size, complexity, and priority of the structure. The primary objective in the use of more sophisticated methods of analysis is to obtain a better understanding of structural behavior. Such improved understanding may often, but not always, lead to the potential for saving material. The outlined methods of analysis, which are suitable for the determination of deformations and force effects in bridge structures, have been successfully demonstrated, and most have been used for years. Although many methods will require a computer for practical implementation, simpler methods that are amenable to hand calculation and/or to the use of existing computer programs based on line-structure analysis have also been provided. Comparison with hand calculations should always be encouraged and basic equilibrium checks should be standard practice. With rapidly improving computing technology, the more refined and complex methods of analysis are expected to become commonplace. Hence, this section addresses the assumptions and limitations of such methods. It is important that the user understand the method employed and its associated limitations. In general, the suggested methods of analysis are based on linear material models. This does not mean that cross-sectional resistance is limited to the linear range. This presents an obvious inconsistency in that the analysis is based on material linearity and the resistance model may be based on inelastic behavior for the strength limit states. This same inconsistency existed, however, in the load factor design method of previous editions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications, and is present in design codes of other nations using a factored design approach. The loads and load factors, defined in Section 3, and the resistance factors specified throughout these Specifications were developed using probabilistic principles combined with analyses based on linear material models. Hence, analysis methods based on material nonlinearities to obtain force effects that are more realistic at the strength limit states and subsequent economics that may be derived are permitted only where explicitly outlined herein. Some nonlinear behavioral effects are addressed in both the analysis and resistance sections. For example, long column behavior may be modeled via geometric nonlinear methods and may also be modeled using approximate formulae in Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8. Either method may be used, but the more refined formulations are recommended. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 4-1 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-2 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.2—DEFINITIONS Accepted Method of Analysis—A method of analysis that requires no further verification and that has become a regular part of structural engineering practice. Arc Span—Distance between centers of adjacent bearings, or other points of support, measured horizontally along the centerline of a horizontally curved member. Aspect Ratio—Ratio of the length to the width of a rectangle. Boundary Conditions—Structural restraint characteristics regarding the support for and/or the continuity between structural models. Bounding—Taking two or more extreme values of parameters to envelop the response with a view to obtaining a conservative design. Central Angle—The angle included between two points along the centerline of a curved bridge measured from the center of the curve as shown in Figure 4.6.1.2.3-1. Classical Deformation Method—A method of analysis in which the structure is subdivided into components whose stiffness can be independently calculated. Equilibrium and compatibility among the components is restored by determining the deformations at the interfaces. Classical Force Method—A method of analysis in which the structure is subdivided into statically determinate components. Compatibility among the components is restored by determining the interface forces. Closed-Box Section—A cross-section composed of two vertical or inclined webs which has at least one completely enclosed cell. A closed-section member is effective in resisting applied torsion by developing shear flow in the webs and flanges. Closed-Form Solution—One or more equations, including those based on convergent series, that permit calculation of force effects by the direct introduction of loads and structural parameters. Compatibility—The geometrical equality of movement at the interface of joined components. Component—A structural unit requiring separate design consideration; synonymous with member. Condensation— Relating the variables to be eliminated from the analysis to those being kept to reduce the number of equations to be solved. Core Width—The width of the superstructure of monolithic construction minus the deck overhangs. Cross-Section Distortion—Change in shape of the cross-section profile due to torsional loading. Curved Girder—An I-, closed-box, or tub girder that is curved in a horizontal plane. Damper—A device that transfers and reduces forces between superstructure elements and/or superstructure and substructure elements, while permitting thermal movements. The device provides damping by dissipating energy under seismic, braking, or other dynamic loads. Deck—A component, with or without wearing surface, directly supporting wheel loads. Deck System—A superstructure in which the deck is integral with its supporting components or in which the effects or deformation of supporting components on the behavior of the deck is significant. Deformation—A change in structural geometry due to force effects, including axial displacement, shear displacement, and rotations. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,` © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-3 Degree-of-Freedom—One of a number of translations or rotations required to define the movement of a node. The displaced shape of components and/or the entire structure may be defined by a number of degrees-of-freedom. Design—Proportioning and detailing the components and connections of a bridge to satisfy the requirements of these Specifications. Dynamic Degree-of-Freedom—A degree-of-freedom with which mass or mass effects have been associated. Elastic—A structural material behavior in which the ratio of stress to strain is constant, the material returns to its original unloaded state upon load removal. Element—A part of a component or member consisting of one material. End Zone—Region of structures where normal beam theory does not apply due to structural discontinuity and/or distribution of concentrated loads. Equilibrium—A state where the sum of forces and moments about any point in space is 0.0. Equivalent Beam—A single straight or curved beam resisting both flexural and torsional effects. Equivalent Strip—An artificial linear element, isolated from a deck for the purpose of analysis, in which extreme force effects calculated for a line of wheel loads, transverse or longitudinal, will approximate those actually taking place in the deck. Finite Difference Method—A method of analysis in which the governing differential equation is satisfied at discrete points on the structure. Finite Element Method—A method of analysis in which a structure is discretized into elements connected at nodes, the shape of the element displacement field is assumed, partial or complete compatibility is maintained among the element interfaces, and nodal displacements are determined by using energy variational principles or equilibrium methods. Finite Strip Method—A method of analysis in which the structure is discretized into parallel strips. The shape of the strip displacement field is assumed and partial compatibility is maintained among the element interfaces. Model displacement parameters are determined by using energy variational principles or equilibrium methods. First-Order Analysis—Analysis in which equilibrium conditions are formulated on the undeformed structure; that is, the effect of deflections is not considered in writing equations of equilibrium. Flange Lateral Bending—Bending of a flange about an axis perpendicular to the flange plane due to lateral loads applied to the flange and/or nonuniform torsion in the member. Flange Lateral Bending Stress—The normal stress caused by flange lateral bending. Folded Plate Method—A method of analysis in which the structure is subdivided into plate components, and both equilibrium and compatibility requirements are satisfied at the component interfaces. Footprint—The specified contact area between wheel and roadway surface. Force Effect—A deformation, stress, or stress resultant, i.e., axial force, shear force, flexural, or torsional moment, caused by applied loads, imposed deformations, or volumetric changes. Foundation—A supporting element that derives its resistance by transferring its load to the soil or rock supporting the bridge. Frame Action—Transverse continuity between the deck and the webs of cellular cross-section or between the deck and primary components in large bridges. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-4 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Frame Action for Wind—Transverse flexure of the beam web and that of framed stiffeners, if present, by which lateral wind load is partially or completely transmitted to the deck. Girder Radius—The radius of the circumferential centerline of a segment of a curved girder. Global Analysis—Analysis of a structure as a whole. Governing Position—The location and orientation of transient load to cause extreme force effects. Grillage Analogy Method—A method of analysis in which all or part of the superstructure is discretized into orthotropic components that represent the characteristics of the structure. Inelastic—Any structural behavior in which the ratio of stress and strain is not constant, and part of the deformation remains after load removal. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Lane Live Load—The combination of tandem axle and uniformly distributed loads or the combination of the design truck and design uniformly distributed load. Large Deflection Theory—Any method of analysis in which the effects of deformation upon force effects is taken into account. Lever Rule—The statical summation of moments about one point to calculate the reaction at a second point. Linear Response—Structural behavior in which deflections are directly proportional to loads. Local Analysis—An in-depth study of strains and stresses in or among components using force effects obtained from a more global analysis. Local Structural Stress—The stress at a welded detail including all stress raising effects of a structural detail but excluding all stress concentrations due to the local weld profile itself. Member—Same as Component. Method of Analysis—A mathematical process by which structural deformations, forces, and stresses are determined. Model—A mathematical or physical idealization of a structure or component used for analysis. Monolithic Construction—Single cell steel and/or concrete box bridges, solid or cellular cast-in-place concrete deck systems, and decks consisting of precast, solid, or cellular longitudinal elements effectively tied together by transverse post-tensioning. M/R Method—An approximate method for the analysis of curved box girders in which the curved girder is treated as an equivalent straight girder to calculate flexural effects and as a corresponding straight conjugate beam to calculate the concomitant St. Venant torsional moments due to curvature. Negative Moment—Moment producing tension at the top of a flexural element. Node—A point where finite elements or grid components meet; in conjunction with finite differences, a point where the governing differential equations are satisfied. Nonlinear Response—Structural behavior in which the deflections are not directly proportional to the loads due to stresses in the inelastic range, or deflections causing significant changes in force effects, or by a combination thereof. Nonuniform Torsion—An internal resisting torsion in thin-walled sections, also known as warping torsion, producing shear stress and normal stresses, and under which cross-sections do not remain plane. Members resist the externally applied torsion by warping torsion and St. Venant torsion. Each of these components of internal resisting torsion varies along the member length, although the externally applied concentrated torque may be uniform along the member between two adjacent points of torsional restraint. Warping torsion is dominant over St. Venant torsion in © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-5 members having open cross-sections, whereas St. Venant torsion is dominant over warping torsion in members having closed cross-sections. Open Section—A cross-section which has no enclosed cell. An open-section member resists torsion primarily by nonuniform torsion, which causes normal stresses at the flange tips. Orthotropic—Perpendicular to each other, having physical properties that differ in two or more orthogonal directions. Panel Point—The point where centerlines of members meet, usually in trusses, arches, cable-stayed, and suspension bridges. Pin Connection—A connection among members by a notionally frictionless pin at a point. Pinned End—A boundary condition permitting free rotation but not translation in the plane of action. Point of Contraflexure—The point where the sense of the flexural moment changes; synonymous with point of inflection. Positive Moment—Moment producing tension at the bottom of a flexural element. Primary Member—A member designed to carry the loads applied to the structure as determined from an analysis. Rating Vehicle—A sequence of axles used as a common basis for expressing bridge resistance. Refined Methods of Analysis— Methods of structural analysis that consider the entire superstructure as an integral unit and provide the required deflections and actions. Restrainers—A system of high-strength cables or rods that transfers forces between superstructure elements and/or superstructure and substructure elements under seismic or other dynamic loads after an initial slack is taken up, while permitting thermal movements. Rigidity—Force effect caused by a corresponding unit deformation per unit length of a component. Secondary Member—A member in which stress is not normally evaluated in the analysis. Second-Order Analysis—Analysis in which equilibrium conditions are formulated on the deformed structure; that is, in which the deflected position of the structure is used in writing the equations of equilibrium. Series or Harmonic Method—A method of analysis in which the load model is subdivided into suitable parts, allowing each part to correspond to one term of a convergent infinite series by which structural deformations are described. Shear Flow—Shear force per unit width acting parallel to the edge of a plate element. Shear Lag—Nonlinear distribution of normal stress across a component due to shear distortions. Shock Transmission Unit (STU)—A device that provides a temporary rigid link between superstructure elements and/or superstructure and substructure elements under seismic, braking, or other dynamic loads, while permitting thermal movements. Skew Angle—Angle between the centerline of a support and a line normal to the roadway centerline. Small Deflection Theory—A basis for methods of analysis where the effects of deformation upon force effects in the structure is neglected. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Spacing of Beams—The center-to-center distance between lines of support. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-6 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Spine Beam Model—An analytical model of a bridge in which the superstructure is represented by a single beam element or a series of straight, chorded beam elements located along the centerline of the bridge. Spread Beams—Beams not in physical contact, carrying a cast-in-place concrete deck. Stiffness—Force effect resulting from a unit deformation. Strain—Elongation per unit length. Stress Range—The algebraic difference between extreme stresses. St. Venant Torsion—That portion of the internal resisting torsion in a member producing only pure shear stresses on a cross-section; also referred to as pure torsion or uniform torsion. Submodel—A constituent part of the global structural model. Superimposed Deformation—Effect of settlement, creep, and change in temperature and/or moisture content. Superposition—The situation where the force effect due to one loading can be added to the force effect due to another loading. Use of superposition is only valid when the stress-strain relationship is linearly elastic and the small deflection theory is used. Tandem—Two closely spaced and mechanically interconnected axles of equal weight. Through-Thickness Stress—Bending stress in a web or box flange induced by distortion of the cross-section. Torsional Shear Stress—Shear stress induced by St. Venant torsion. Tub Section—An open-topped section which is composed of a bottom flange, two inclined or vertical webs, and top flanges. Uncracked Section—A section in which the concrete is assumed to be fully effective in tension and compression. V-Load Method—An approximate method for the analysis of curved I-girder bridges in which the curved girders are represented by equivalent straight girders and the effects of curvature are represented by vertical and lateral forces applied at cross-frame locations. Lateral flange bending at brace points due to curvature is estimated. Warping Stress—Normal stress induced in the cross-section by warping torsion and/or by distortion of the cross-section. Wheel Load—One-half of a specified design axle load. Yield Line—A plastic hinge line. Yield Line Method—A method of analysis in which a number of possible yield line patterns are examined in order to determine load-carrying capacity. 4.3—NOTATION A Ab Ac Ao As a = = = = = = B b = = area of a stringer, beam, or component (in.2) (4.6.2.2.1) cross-sectional area of barrier (in.2) (C4.6.2.6.1) cross-section area—transformed for steel beams (in.2) (C4.6.6) area enclosed by centerlines of elements (in.2) (C4.6.2.2.1) total area of stiffeners (in.2) (4.6.2.6.4) length of transition region for effective flange width of a concrete box beam (in.); longitudinal stiffener, spacing, or rib width in an orthotropic steel deck (in.) (4.6.2.6.2) (4.6.2.6.4) spacing of transverse beams (in.) (4.6.2.6.4) tire length (in.); width of a beam (in.); width of plate element (in.); flange width each side of the web (in.) (4.6.2.1.8) (4.6.2.2.1) (C4.6.2.2.1) (4.6.2.6.2) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- be = bm = bn bo bs = = = C Cm Csm c1 D = = = = = Dx Dy d de = = = = do E = = EB Ec ED Eg EMOD Espan e = = = = = = = eg fc f2b f2s G Ga Gb GD Gp g gm g1 H = = = = = = = = = = = = = H, H1, H2= h = I = = Ic Ig IM Ip Is J K = = = = = = Kg = 4-7 effective flange width corresponding to the particular position of the section of interest in the span as specified in Figure 4.6.2.6.2-1 (in.) (4.6.2.6.2) effective flange width for interior portions of a span as determined from Figure 4.6.2.6.2-2; a special case of be (in.) (4.6.2.6.2) effective flange width for normal forces acting at anchorage zones (in.) (4.6.2.6.2) width of web projected to midplane of deck (in.) (4.6.2.6.2) effective flange width at interior support or for cantilever arm as determined from Figure 4.6.2.6.2-2; a special case of be (in.) (4.6.2.6.2) continuity factor; stiffness parameter (4.6.2.1.8) (4.6.2.2.1) moment gradient coefficient (4.5.3.2.2b) the dimensionless elastic seismic response coefficient (C4.7.4.3.2b) parameter for skewed supports (4.6.2.2.2e) web depth of a horizontally curved girder (ft); Dx/Dy; width of distribution per lane (ft) (C4.6.1.2.4b) (4.6.2.1.8) (4.6.2.2.1) flexural rigidity in direction of main bars (kip- ft2/ft) (4.6.2.1.8) flexural rigidity perpendicular to the main bars (kip-ft2/ft) (4.6.2.1.8) depth of a beam or stringer (in.); depth of member (ft) (4.6.2.2.1) (C4.6.2.7.1) horizontal distance from the centerline of the exterior web of exterior beam at the deck level to the interior edge of curb or traffic barrier (ft) (4.6.2.2.1) depth of superstructure (in.) (4.6.2.6.2) modulus of elasticity (ksi); equivalent width (in.); equivalent distribution width perpendicular to span (in.) (4.5.3.2.2b) (4.6.2.3) (4.6.2.10.2) modulus of elasticity of beam material (ksi) (4.6.2.2.1) modulus of elasticity of column (ksi) (C4.6.2.5) modulus of elasticity of deck material (ksi) (4.6.2.2.1) modulus of elasticity of beam or other restraining member (ksi) (C4.6.2.5) cable modulus of elasticity, modified for nonlinear effects (ksi) (4.6.3.7) equivalent distribution length parallel to span (in.) (4.6.2.10.2) correction factor for distribution; eccentricity of a lane from the center of gravity of the pattern of girders (ft); rib spacing in orthotropic steel deck (in.) (4.6.2.2.1) (C4.6.2.2.2d) (4.6.2.6.4) distance between the centers of gravity of the beam and deck (in.) (4.6.2.2.1) factored stress, corrected to account for second-order effects (ksi) (4.5.3.2.2b) stress corresponding to M2b (ksi) (4.5.3.2.2b) stress corresponding to M2s (ksi) (4.5.3.2.2b) final force effect applied to a girder (kip or kip-ft); shear modulus (ksi) (4.6.2.2.4) (C4.6.3.3) ratio of stiffness of column to stiffness of members resisting column bending at “a” end (C4.6.2.5) ratio of stiffness of column to stiffness of members resisting column bending at “b” end (C4.6.2.5) force effect due to design loads (kip or kip-ft) (4.6.2.2.4) force effect due to overload truck (kip or kip-ft) (4.6.2.2.4) distribution factor; acceleration of gravity (ft/sec.2) (4.6.2.2.1) (C4.7.4.3.2) multiple lane live load distribution factor (4.6.2.2.4) single lane live load distribution factor (4.6.2.2.4) depth of fill from top of culvert to top of pavement (in.); average height of substructure supporting the seat under consideration (ft) (4.6.2.10.2) (4.7.4.4) horizontal component of cable force (kip) (4.6.3.7) depth of deck (in.) (4.6.2.1.3) moment of inertia (in.4) (4.5.3.2.2b) moment of inertia of column (in.4); inertia of cross-section—transformed for steel beams (in.4) (C4.6.2.5) (C4.6.6) moment of inertia of member acting to restrain column bending (in.4) (C4.6.2.5) dynamic load allowance (C4.7.2.1) polar moment of inertia (in.4) (4.6.2.2.1) inertia of equivalent strip (in.4) (4.6.2.1.5) St. Venant torsional inertia (in.4) (4.6.2.2.1) effective length factor for columns and arch ribs; constant for different types of construction; effective length factor for columns in the plane of bending (4.5.3.2.2b) (4.6.2.2.1) (4.6.2.5) longitudinal stiffness parameter (in.4) (4.6.2.2.1) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-8 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS k ks L = = = Las Lb Lc Lg LLDF LT L1 = = = = = = = L2 li ℓ ℓu = = = = M = Mc = Mlat MM Mn Mw M1b = = = = = M2b = M2s = N = Nb Nc NL n P PD Pe Pu Pw p pe = = = = = = = = = = = pe(x) = po R = = Rd r S = = = Sb SM s T = = = = factor used in calculation of distribution factor for multibeam bridges (4.6.2.2.1) strip stiffness factor (kip/in.) (4.6.2.1.5) span length of deck (ft); span length (ft); span length of beam (ft); length of bridge deck (ft) (4.6.2.1.3) (4.6.2.1.8) (4.6.2.2.1) (4.7.4.4) effective arc span of a horizontally curved girder (ft) (4.6.1.2.4b) spacing of brace points (ft) (C4.6.2.7.1) unbraced length of column (in.) (C4.6.2.5) unsupported length of beam or other restraining member (in.) (C4.6.2.5) factor for distribution of live load with depth of fill, 1.15 or 1.00, as specified in Article 3.6.1.2.6 (4.6.2.10.2) length of tire contact area parallel to span, as specified in Article 3.6.1.2.5 (in.) (4.6.2.10.2) modified span length taken to be equal to the lesser of the actual span or 60.0 (ft); distance between points of inflection of the transverse beam (in.) (4.6.2.3) (4.6.2.6.4) distances between points of inflection of the transverse beam (in.) (4.6.2.6.4) a notional span length (ft) (4.6.2.6.2) unbraced length of a horizontally curved girder (ft) (C4.6.1.2.4b) unsupported length of a compression member (in.); one-half of the length of the arch rib (ft) (4.5.3.2.2b) (4.5.3.2.2c) major-axis bending moment in a horizontally curved girder (kip-ft); moment due to live load in filled or partially filled grid deck (kip-in./ft) (C4.6.1.2.4b) (4.6.2.1.8) factored moment, corrected to account for second-order effects (kip-ft); moment required to restrain uplift caused by thermal effects (kip-in.) (4.5.3.2.2b) (C4.6.6) flange lateral bending moment due to curvature (kip-ft) (C4.6.1.2.4b) multimode elastic method (4.7.4.3.1) nominal flexural strength (4.7.4.5) maximum lateral moment in the flange due to the factored wind loading (kip-ft) (C4.6.2.7.1) smaller end moment on compression member due to gravity loads that result in no appreciable sidesway; positive if member is bent in single curvature, negative if bent in double curvature (kip-in.) (4.5.3.2.2b) moment on compression member due to factored gravity loads that result in no appreciable sidesway calculated by conventional first-order elastic frame analysis; always positive (kip-ft) (4.5.3.2.2b) moment on compression member due to factored lateral or gravity loads that result in sidesway, Δ, greater than ℓu /1500, calculated by conventional first-order elastic frame analysis; always positive (kip-ft) (4.5.3.2.2b) constant for determining the lateral flange bending moment in I-girder flanges due to curvature, taken as 10 or 12 in past practice; axial force (kip); minimum support length (in.) (C4.6.1.2.4b) (C4.6.6) (4.7.4.4) number of beams, stringers, or girders (4.6.2.2.1) number of cells in a concrete box girder (4.6.2.2.1) number of design lanes (4.6.2.2.1) modular ratio between beam and deck (4.6.2.2.1) axle load (kip) (4.6.2.1.3) design horizontal wind pressure (ksf) (C4.6.2.7.1) Euler buckling load (kip) (4.5.3.2.2b) factored axial load (kip) (4.5.3.2.2b) (4.7.4.5) lateral wind force applied to the brace point (kips) (C4.6.2.7.1) tire pressure (ksi) (4.6.2.1.8) equivalent uniform static seismic loading per unit length of bridge that is applied to represent the primary mode of vibration (kip/ft) (C4.7.4.3.2c) the intensity of the equivalent static seismic loading that is applied to represent the primary mode of vibration (kip/ft) (C4.7.4.3.2b) a uniform load arbitrarily set equal to 1.0 (kip/ft) (C4.7.4.3.2b) girder radius (ft); load distribution to exterior beam in terms of lanes; radius of curvature; R-factor for calculation of seismic design forces due to inelastic action (C4.6.1.2.4b) (C4.6.2.2.2d) (C4.6.6) (4.7.4.5) Rd-factor for calculation of seismic displacements due to inelastic action (4.7.4.5) reduction factor for longitudinal force effect in skewed bridges (4.6.2.3) spacing of supporting components (ft); spacing of beams or webs (ft); clear span (ft); skew of support measured from line normal to span (degrees) (4.6.2.1.3) (4.6.2.2.1) (4.6.2.10.2) (4.7.4.4) spacing of grid bars (in.) (4.6.2.1.3) single-mode elastic method (4.7.4.3.1) length of a side element (in.) (C4.6.2.2.1) period of fundamental mode of vibration (sec.) (4.7.4.5) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION = = = = = = = tg = to ts VLD = = = VLL VLU vs(x) vs,MAX W = = = = = We W1 = = w w(x) = = wp X Xext x Z = = = = = z α = = β γ Δ = = = Δe Δw δb δs εu ηi = = = = = = θ μ σE φ φK = = = = = temperature gradient (Δ°F) (C4.6.6) time history method (4.7.4.3.1) period of mth mode of vibration (sec.) (C4.7.4.3.2b) reference period used to define shape of seismic response spectrum (sec.) (4.7.4.5) uniform specified temperature (°F) (C4.6.6) temperature averaged across the cross-section (°F) (C4.6.6) thickness of plate-like element (in.); thickness of flange plate in orthotropic steel deck (in.) (C4.6.2.2.1) (4.6.2.6.4) depth of steel grid or corrugated steel plank including integral concrete overlay or structural concrete component, less a provision for grinding, grooving, or wear (in.) (4.6.2.2.1) depth of structural overlay (in.) (4.6.2.2.1) depth of concrete slab (in.) (4.6.2.2.1) maximum vertical shear at 3d or L/4 due to wheel loads distributed laterally as specified herein (kips) (4.6.2.2.2a) distributed live load vertical shear (kips) (4.6.2.2.2a) maximum vertical shear at 3d or L/4 due to undistributed wheel loads (kips) (4.6.2.2.2a) deformation corresponding to po (ft) (C4.7.4.3.2b) maximum value of vs(x) (ft) (C4.7.4.3.2c) edge-to-edge width of bridge (ft); factored wind force per unit length (kip/ft); total weight of cable (kip); total weight of bridge (kip) (4.6.2.2.1) (C4.6.2.7.1) (4.6.3.7) (C4.7.4.3.2c) half the web spacing, plus the total overhang (ft) (4.6.2.2.1) modified edge-to-edge width of bridge taken to be equal to the lesser of the actual width or 60.0 for multilane loading, or 30.0 for single-lane loading (ft) (4.6.2.3) width of clear roadway (ft); width of element in cross-section (in.) (4.6.2.2.2b) (C4.6.6) nominal, unfactored dead load of the bridge superstructure and tributary substructure (kip/ft) (C4.7.4.3.2) (4.7.4.3.2c) plank width (in.) (4.6.2.1.3) distance from load to point of support (ft) (4.6.2.1.3) horizontal distance from the center of gravity of the pattern of girders to the exterior girder (ft) (C4.6.2.2.2d) horizontal distance from the center of gravity of the pattern of girders to each girder (ft) (C4.6.2.2.2d) a factor taken as 1.20 where the lever rule was not utilized, and 1.0 where the lever rule was used for a single lane live load distribution factor (4.6.2.2.4) vertical distance from center of gravity of cross-section (in.) (C4.6.6) angle between cable and horizontal (degrees); coefficient of thermal expansion (in./in./°F); generalized flexibility (4.6.3.7) (C4.6.6) (C4.7.4.3.2b) generalized participation (C4.7.4.3.2b) load factor; generalized mass (C4.6.2.7.1) (C4.7.4.3.2b) displacement of point of contraflexure in column or pier relative to point of fixity for the foundation (in.) (4.7.4.5) displacement calculated from elastic seismic analysis (in.) (4.7.4.5) overhang width extension (in.) (C4.6.2.6.1) moment or stress magnifier for braced mode deflection (4.5.3.2.2b) moment or stress magnifier for unbraced mode deflection (4.5.3.2.2b) uniform axial strain due to axial thermal expansion (in./in.) (C4.6.6) load modifier relating to ductility, redundancy, and operational importance as specified in Article 1.3.2.1 (C4.2.6.7.1) skew angle (degrees) (4.6.2.2.1) Poisson’s ratio (4.6.2.2.1) internal stress due to thermal effects (ksi) (C4.6.6) rotation per unit length; flexural resistance factor (C4.6.6) (4.7.4.5) stiffness reduction factor = 0.75 for concrete members and 1.0 for steel and aluminum members (4.5.3.2.2b) 4.4—ACCEPTABLE METHODS OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS C4.4 Any method of analysis that satisfies the requirements of equilibrium and compatibility and Many computer programs are available for bridge analysis. Various methods of analysis, ranging from © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- TG TH Tm TS Tu TUG t 4-9 4-10 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS utilizes stress-strain relationships for the proposed materials may be used, including, but not limited to: simple formulae to detailed finite element procedures, are implemented in such programs. Many computer programs have specific engineering assumptions embedded in their code, which may or may not be applicable to each specific case. When using a computer program, the Designer should clearly understand the basic assumptions of the program and the methodology that is implemented. A computer program is only a tool, and the user is responsible for the generated results. Accordingly, all output should be verified to the extent possible. Computer programs should be verified against the results of: Classical force and displacement methods, • Finite difference method, • Finite element method, • Folded plate method, • Finite strip method, • Grillage analogy method, • Series or other harmonic methods, • Universally accepted closed-form solutions, • Methods based on the formation of plastic hinges, and • Other previously verified computer programs, or • Yield line method. • Physical testing. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • The Designer shall be responsible for the implementation of computer programs used to facilitate structural analysis and for the interpretation and use of results. The name, version, and release date of software used should be indicated in the contract documents. The purpose of identifying software is to establish code compliance and to provide a means of locating bridges designed with software that may later be found deficient. 4.5—MATHEMATICAL MODELING 4.5.1—General C4.5.1 Mathematical models shall include loads, geometry, and material behavior of the structure, and, where appropriate, response characteristics of the foundation. The choice of model shall be based on the limit states investigated, the force effect being quantified, and the accuracy required. Unless otherwise permitted, consideration of continuous composite barriers shall be limited to service and fatigue limit states and to structural evaluation. The stiffness of structurally discontinuous railings, curbs, elevated medians, and barriers shall not be considered in structural analysis. Service and fatigue limit states should be analyzed as fully elastic, as should strength limit states, except in case of certain continuous girders where inelastic analysis is specifically permitted, inelastic redistribution of negative bending moment and stability investigation. The extreme event limit states may require collapse investigation based entirely on inelastic modeling. Very flexible bridges, e.g., suspension and cablestayed bridges, should be analyzed using nonlinear elastic methods, such as the large deflection theory. The need for sophisticated modeling of foundations is a function of the sensitivity of the structure to foundation movements. In some cases, the foundation model may be as simple as unyielding supports. In other cases, an estimate of settlement may be acceptable. Where the structural response is particularly sensitive to the boundary conditions, such as in a fixed-end arch or in computing natural frequencies, rigorous modeling of the foundation should be made to account for the conditions present. In lieu of rigorous modeling, the boundary conditions may be varied to extreme bounds, such as fixed or free of restraint, and envelopes of force effects considered. Where lift-off restraints are provided in the contract documents, the construction stage at which the restraints are to be installed should be clearly indicated. The For the purpose of this section, an appropriate representation of the soil and/or rock that supports the bridge shall be included in the mathematical model of the foundation. In the case of seismic design, gross soil movement and liquefaction should also be considered. If lift-off is indicated at a bearing, the analysis shall recognize the vertical freedom of the girder at that bearing. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-11 analysis should recognize the vertical freedom of the girder consistent with the construction sequence shown in the contract documents. 4.5.2—Structural Material Behavior 4.5.2.1—Elastic Versus Inelastic Behavior For the purpose of analysis, structural materials shall be considered to behave linearly up to an elastic limit and inelastically thereafter. Actions at the extreme event limit state may be accommodated in both the inelastic and elastic ranges. Elastic material properties and characteristics shall be in accordance with the provisions of Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8. Changes in these values due to maturity of concrete and environmental effects should be included in the model, where appropriate. The stiffness properties of concrete and composite members shall be based upon cracked and/or uncracked sections consistent with the anticipated behavior. Stiffness characteristics of beam-slab-type bridges may be based on full participation of concrete decks. 4.5.2.3—Inelastic Behavior Sections of components that may undergo inelastic deformation shall be shown to be ductile or made ductile by confinement or other means. Where inelastic analysis is used, a preferred design failure mechanism and its attendant hinge locations shall be determined. It shall be ascertained in the analysis that shear, buckling, and bond failures in the structural components do not precede the formation of a flexural inelastic mechanism. Unintended overstrength of a component in which hinging is expected should be considered. Deterioration of geometrical integrity of the structure due to large deformations shall be taken into account. The inelastic model shall be based either upon the results of physical tests or upon a representation of loaddeformation behavior that is validated by tests. Where inelastic behavior is expected to be achieved by confinement, test specimens shall include the elements that provide such confinement. Where extreme force effects are anticipated to be repetitive, the tests shall reflect their cyclic nature. Except where noted, stresses and deformations shall be based on a linear distribution of strains in the crosssection of prismatic components. Shear deformation of deep components shall be considered. Limits on concrete strain, as specified in Section 5, shall not be exceeded. The inelastic behavior of compressive components shall be taken into account, wherever applicable. C4.5.2.2 Tests indicate that in the elastic range of structural behavior, cracking of concrete seems to have little effect on the global behavior of bridge structures. This effect can, therefore, be safely neglected by modeling the concrete as uncracked for the purposes of structural analysis (King et al., 1975; Yen et al., 1995). C4.5.2.3 Where technically possible, the preferred failure mechanism should be based on a response that has generally been observed to provide for large deformations as a means of warning of structural distress. The selected mechanism should be used to estimate the extreme force effect that can be applied adjacent to a hinge. Unintended overstrength of a component may result in an adverse formation of a plastic hinge at an undesirable location, forming a different mechanism. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 4.5.2.2—Elastic Behavior 4-12 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.5.3—Geometry 4.5.3.1—Small Deflection Theory C4.5.3.1 If the deformation of the structure does not result in a significant change in force effects due to an increase in the eccentricity of compressive or tensile forces, such secondary force effects may be ignored. Small deflection theory is usually adequate for the analysis of beam-type bridges. Bridges that resist loads primarily through a couple whose tensile and compressive forces remain in essentially fixed positions relative to each other while the bridge deflects, such as in trusses and tied arches, are generally insensitive to deformations. Columns and structures in which the flexural moments are increased or decreased by deflection tend to be sensitive to deflection considerations. Such structures include suspension bridges, very flexible cable-stayed bridges, and some arches other than tied arches and frames. In many cases, the degree of sensitivity can be assessed and evaluated by a single-step approximate method, such as the moment magnification factor method. In the remaining cases, a complete second-order analysis may be necessary. The past traditional boundary between small- and large-deflection theory becomes less distinct as bridges and bridge components become more flexible due to advances in material technology, the change from mandatory to optional deflection limits, and the trend toward more accurate, optimized design. The Engineer needs to consider these aspects in the choice of an analysis method. Small-deflection elastic behavior permits the use of the principle of superposition and efficient analytical solutions. These assumptions are typically used in bridge analysis for this reason. The behavior of the members assumed in these provisions is generally consistent with this type of analysis. Superposition does not apply for the analysis of construction processes that include changes in the stiffness of the structure. Moments from noncomposite and composite analyses may not be added for the purpose of computing stresses. The addition of stresses and deflections due to noncomposite and composite actions computed from separate analyses is appropriate. 4.5.3.2—Large Deflection Theory 4.5.3.2.1—General C4.5.3.2.1 If the deformation of the structure results in a significant change in force effects, the effects of deformation shall be considered in the equations of equilibrium. The effect of deformation and out-of-straightness of components shall be included in stability analyses and large deflection analyses. For slender concrete compressive components, those time- and stress-dependent material characteristics that cause significant changes in structural geometry shall be considered in the analysis. A properly formulated large deflection analysis is one that provides all the force effects necessary for the design. Further application of moment magnification factors is neither required nor appropriate. The presence of compressive axial forces amplifies both out-ofstraightness of a component and the deformation due to nontangential loads acting thereon, thereby increasing the eccentricity of the axial force with respect to the centerline of the component. The synergistic effect of this interaction is the apparent softening of the component, i.e., a loss of stiffness. This is commonly --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION The interaction effects of tensile and compressive axial forces in adjacent components should be considered in the analysis of frames and trusses. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Only factored loads shall be used and no superposition of force effects shall be applied in the nonlinear range. The order of load application in nonlinear analysis shall be consistent with that on the actual bridge. 4-13 referred to as a second-order effect. The converse is true for tension. As axial compressive stress becomes a higher percentage of the so called Euler buckling stress, this effect becomes increasingly more significant. The second-order effect arises from the translation of applied load creating increased eccentricity. It is considered as geometric nonlinearity and is typically addressed by iteratively solving the equilibrium equations or by using geometric stiffness terms in the elastic range (Przemieniecki, 1968). The analyst should be aware of the characteristics of the elements employed, the assumptions upon which they are based, and the numerical procedures used in the computer code. Discussions on the subject are given by White and Hajjar (1991) and Galambos (1998). Both references are related to metal structures, but the theory and applications are generally usable. Both contain numerous additional references that summarize the state-of-the-art in this area. Because large deflection analysis is inherently nonlinear, the loads are not proportional to the displacements, and superposition cannot be used. This includes force effects due to changes in time-dependent properties, such as creep and shrinkage of concrete. Therefore, the order of load application can be important and traditional approaches, such as influence functions, are not directly applicable. The loads should be applied in the order experienced by the structure, i.e., dead load stages followed by live load stages, etc. If the structure undergoes nonlinear deformation, the loads should be applied incrementally with consideration for the changes in stiffness after each increment. In conducting nonlinear analysis, it is prudent to perform a linear analysis for a baseline and to use the procedures employed on the problem at hand on a simple structure that can be analyzed by hand, such as a cantilever beam. This permits the analyst to observe behavior and develop insight into behavior that is not easily gained from more complex models. 4.5.3.2.2—Approximate Methods 4.5.3.2.2a—General Where permitted in Sections 5, 6, and 7, the effects of deflection on force effects on beam-columns and arches which meet the provisions of these Specifications may be approximated by the single-step adjustment method known as moment magnification. C4.5.3.2.2a The moment magnification procedure outlined herein is one of several variations of the approximate process and was selected as a compromise between accuracy and ease of use. It is believed to be conservative. An alternative procedure thought to be more accurate than the one specified herein may be found in AISC (1993). This alternative procedure will require supplementary calculations not commonly made in bridge design using modern computational methods. In some cases, the magnitude of movement implied by the moment magnification process cannot be physically attained. For example, the actual movement © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-14 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS of a pier may be limited to the distance between the end of longitudinal beams and the backwall of the abutment. In cases where movement is limited, the moment magnification factors of elements so limited may be reduced accordingly. 4.5.3.2.2b—Moment Magnification—Beam Columns C4.5.3.2.2b The factored moments or stresses may be increased to reflect effects of deformations as follows: M c = δb M 2b + δ s M 2s (4.5.3.2.2b-1) f c = δb f 2b + δ s f 2s (4.5.3.2.2b-2) in which: Cm δb = ≥ 1.0 P 1− u φ K Pe (4.5.3.2.2b-3) δs = 1 ΣPu 1− φ K ΣPe (4.5.3.2.2b-4) where: M2b = M2s = f2b f2s Pu φK = = = = Pe = moment on compression member due to factored gravity loads that result in no appreciable sidesway calculated by conventional first-order elastic frame analysis; always positive (kip-ft) moment on compression member due to factored lateral or gravity loads that result in sidesway, Δ, greater than ℓu/1500, calculated by conventional first-order elastic frame analysis; always positive (kip-ft) stress corresponding to M2b (ksi) stress corresponding to M2s (ksi) factored axial load (kip) stiffness reduction factor; 0.75 for concrete members and 1.0 for steel and aluminum members Euler buckling load (kip) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- For steel/concrete composite columns, the Euler buckling load, Pe, shall be determined as specified in Article 6.9.5.1. For all other cases, Pe shall be taken as: Pe = π2 EI (K u ) 2 (4.5.3.2.2b-5) where: E I = = modulus of elasticity (ksi) moment of inertia about consideration (in.4) axis under © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION K = ℓu = 4-15 effective length factor in the plane of bending as specified in Article 4.6.2.5. For calculation of δb, Pe shall be based on the K-factor for braced frames; for calculation of δs, Pe shall be based on the K-factor for unbraced frames unsupported length of a compression member (in.) For concrete compression members, the provisions of Article 5.7.4.3 also apply. For members braced against sidesway, δs shall be taken as 1.0 unless analysis indicates that a lower value may be used. For members not braced against sidesway, δb shall be determined as for a braced member and δs for an unbraced member. For members braced against sidesway and without transverse loads between supports, Cm may be taken as: Cm = 0.6 + 0.4 M 1b M 2b (4.5.3.2.2b-6) The previous limit Cm ≥ 0.4 has been shown to be unnecessary in AISC (1994), Chapter C, of commentary. where: smaller end moment larger end moment The ratio M1b/M2b is considered positive if the component is bent in single curvature and negative if it is bent in double curvature. For all other cases, Cm shall be taken as 1.0. In structures that are not braced against sidesway, the flexural members and foundation units framing into the compression member shall be designed for the sum of end moments of the compression member at the joint. Where compression members are subject to flexure about both principal axes, the moment about each axis shall be magnified by δ, determined from the corresponding conditions of restraint about that axis. Where a group of compression members on one level comprise a bent, or where they are connected integrally to the same superstructure, and collectively resist the sidesway of the structure, the value of δs shall be computed for the member group with ΣPu and ΣPe equal to the summations for all columns in the group. 4.5.3.2.2c—Moment Magnification—Arches Live load and impact moments from a small deflection analysis shall be increased by the moment as specified in magnification factor, δb, Article 4.5.3.2.2b, with the following definitions: ℓu = K = Cm = one-half of the length of the arch rib (ft) effective length factor specified Table 4.5.3.2.2c-1 1.0 in © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- M1b = M2b = 4-16 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table 4.5.3.2.2c-1—K Values for Effective Length of Arch Ribs Rise to Span Ratio 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.3 0.3–0.4 3-Hinged Arch 1.16 1.13 1.16 2-Hinged Arch 1.04 1.10 1.16 Fixed Arch 0.70 0.70 0.72 4.5.3.2.3—Refined Methods C4.5.3.2.3 Refined methods of analysis shall be based upon the concept of forces satisfying equilibrium in a deformed position. Flexural equilibrium in a deformed position may be iteratively satisfied by solving a set of simultaneous equations, or by evaluating a closed-form solution formulated using the displaced shape. 4.5.4—Modeling Boundary Conditions C4.5.4 Boundary conditions shall represent actual characteristics of support and continuity. Foundation conditions shall be modeled in such a manner as to represent the soil properties underlying the bridge, the soil-pile interaction, and the elastic properties of piles. If the accurate assessment of boundary conditions cannot be made, their effects may be bounded. 4.5.5—Equivalent Members C4.5.5 Nonprismatic components may be modeled by discretizing the components into a number of frame elements with stiffness properties representative of the actual structure at the location of the element. Components or groups of components of bridges with or without variable cross-sections may be modeled as a single equivalent component provided that it represents all the stiffness properties of the components or group of components. The equivalent stiffness properties may be obtained by closed-form solutions, numerical integration, submodel analysis, and series and parallel analogies. Standard frame elements in available analysis programs may be used. The number of elements required to model the nonprismatic variation is dependent on the type of behavior being modeled, e.g., static, dynamic, or stability analysis. Typically, eight elements per span will give sufficient accuracy for actions in a beam loaded statically with cross-sectional properties that vary smoothly. Fewer elements are required to model for deflection and frequency analyses. Alternatively, elements may be used that are based on the assumed tapers and cross-sections. Karabalis (1983) provides a comprehensive examination of this issue. Explicit forms of stiffness coefficients are given for linearly tapered rectangular, flanged, and box sections. Aristizabal (1987) presents similar equations in a simple format that can be readily implemented into stiffness-based computer programs. Significant bibliographies are given in Karabalis (1983) and Aristizabal (1987). --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-17 4.6—STATIC ANALYSIS 4.6.1—Influence of Plan Geometry 4.6.1.1—Plan Aspect Ratio If the span length of a superstructure with torsionally stiff closed cross-sections exceeds 2.5 times its width, the superstructure may be idealized as a single-spine beam. The following dimensional definitions shall be used to apply this criterion: • Width—the core width of a monolithic deck or the average distance between the outside faces of exterior webs. • Length for rectangular simply supported bridges— the distance between deck joints. • Length for continuous and/or skewed bridges—the length of the longest side of the rectangle that can be drawn within the plan view of the width of the smallest span, as defined herein. The length-to-width restriction specified above does not apply to cast-in-place multicell box girders concrete box girder bridges. C4.6.1.1 Where transverse distortion of a superstructure is small in comparison with longitudinal deformation, the former does not significantly affect load distribution, hence, an equivalent beam idealization is appropriate. The relative transverse distortion is a function of the ratio between structural width and height, the latter, in turn, depending on the length. Hence, the limits of such idealization are determined in terms of the width-toeffective length ratio. Simultaneous torsion, moment, shear, and reaction forces and the attendant stresses are to be superimposed as appropriate. The equivalent beam idealization does not alleviate the need to investigate warping effects in steel structures. In all equivalent beam idealizations, the eccentricity of loads should be taken with respect to the centerline of the equivalent beam. Asymmetrical sections need to consider the relative location of the shear center and center of gravity. 4.6.1.2—Structures Curved in Plan 4.6.1.2.1—General The moments, shears, and other force effects required to proportion the superstructure components shall be based on a rational analysis of the entire superstructure. Analysis of sections with no axis of symmetry should consider the relative locations of the center of gravity and the shear center. The substructure shall also be considered in the case of integral abutments, piers, or bents. The entire superstructure, including bearings, shall be considered as an integral structural unit. Boundary conditions shall represent the articulations provided by the bearings and/or integral connections used in the design. Analyses may be based on elastic smalldeflection theory, unless more rigorous approaches are deemed necessary by the Engineer. Analyses shall consider bearing orientation and restraint of bearings afforded by the substructure. These load effects shall be considered in designing bearings, cross-frames, diaphragms, bracing, and the deck. Distortion of the cross-section need not be considered in the structural analysis. Centrifugal force effects shall be considered in accordance with Article 3.6.3. C4.6.1.2.1 Since equilibrium of horizontally curved I-girders is developed by the transfer of load between the girders, the analysis must recognize the integrated behavior of all structural components. Equilibrium of curved box girders may be less dependent on the interaction between girders. Bracing members are considered primary members in curved bridges since they transmit forces necessary to provide equilibrium. The deck acts in flexure, vertical shear, and horizontal shear. Torsion increases the horizontal deck shear, particularly in curved box girders. The lateral restraint of the bearings may also cause horizontal shear in the deck. Small-deflection theory is adequate for the analysis of most curved-girder bridges. However, curved Igirders are prone to deflect laterally when the girders are insufficiently braced during erection. This behavior may not be well recognized by small-deflection theory. Classical methods of analysis usually are based on strength of materials assumptions that do not recognize cross-section deformation. Finite element analyses that model the actual cross-section shape of the I- or box girders can recognize cross-section distortion and its effect on structural behavior. Cross-section deformation of steel box girders may have a significant effect on torsional behavior, but this effect is limited by the provision of sufficient internal cross bracing. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-18 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.6.1.2.2—Single-Girder Torsionally Stiff Superstructures Except for concrete box girder bridges, a horizontally curved, torsionally stiff single-girder superstructure meeting the requirements of Article 4.6.1.1 may be analyzed for global force effects as a curved spine beam. The location of the centerline of such a beam shall be taken at the center of gravity of the cross-section, and the eccentricity of dead loads shall be established by volumetric consideration. C4.6.1.2.2 In order to apply the aspect ratio provisions of Article 4.6.1.1, as specified, the plan needs to be hypothetically straightened. Force effects should be calculated on the basis of the actual curved layout. With symmetrical cross-sections, the center of gravity of permanent loads falls outside the center of gravity. Shear center of the cross-section and the resulting eccentricity need to be investigated. C4.6.1.2.3 4.6.1.2.3—Concrete Box Girder Bridges Horizontally curved concrete box girders may be designed with straight segments, for central angles up to 12 degrees within one span, unless concerns about other force effects dictate otherwise. Horizontally curved nonsegmental concrete box girder bridge superstructures may be analyzed and designed for global force effects as single-spine beams with straight segments for central angles up to 34 degrees within one span as shown in Figure 4.6.1.2.3-1, unless concerns about local force effects dictate otherwise. The location of the centerline of such a beam shall be taken at the center of gravity of the cross-section and the eccentricity of dead loads shall be established by volumetric consideration. Where the substructure is integral with the superstructure, the substructure elements shall be included in the model and allowance made for prestress friction loss due to horizontal curvature or tendon deviation. Concrete box girders generally behave as a singlegirder multi-web torsionally stiff superstructure. A parameter study conducted by Song, Chai, and Hida (2003) indicated that the distribution factors from the LRFD formulae compared well with the distribution factors from grillage analyses when using straight segments on spans with central angles up to 34 degrees in one span. Nutt, Redfield, and Valentine (2008) studied the limits of applicability for various methods of analyzing horizontally curved concrete box girder bridges. The focus of this study was on local as well as global force effects and provided the basis for revisions in 2010. They identified three approaches for the analysis of concrete box girder bridges as follows: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 1. The first method allows bridges with a central angle within one span of less than 12 degrees to be analyzed as if they were straight because curvature has a minor effect on response. This is typically done with a plane frame analysis. 2. The second method involves a spine beam analysis which the superstructure is idealized as a series of straight beam chorded segments of limited central angle located along the bridge centerline. Where the substructure is integral with the superstructure, a space frame analysis is required. Whole-width design as described in Article 4.6.2.2.1 was found to yield conservative results when space frame analysis was used. It is acceptable to reduce the number of live load lanes applied to the wholewidth model to those that can fit on the bridge when global response such as torsion or transverse bending is being considered. 3. Bridges with high curvatures or unusual plan geometry require a third method of analysis that utilizes sophisticated three-dimensional computer models. Unusual plan geometry includes but is not limited to bridges with variable widths or with unconventional orientation of skewed supports. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-19 The range of applicability using approximate methods herein is expected to yield results within five percent of the most detailed type of analysis. Analysis of force effects in curved tendons is also addressed in Article 5.10.4.3. Centerline of Bridge Pier Pier Central Angle Abutment Abutment --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Center of Curve Figure 4.6.1.2.3-1—Definition of Central Angle Horizontally curved segmental concrete box girder superstructures meeting the requirements of Article 4.6.1.1, and whose central angle within one span is between 12 degrees and 34 degrees may be analyzed as a single-spine beam comprised of straight segments provided no segment has a central angle greater than 3.5 degrees as shown in Figure 4.6.1.2.3-2. For integral substructures, an appropriate three-dimensional model of the structure shall be used. Redistribution of forces due to the time-dependant properties of concrete shall be accounted for. ax °M 3.5 nt me St m ea tB gh rai Ele r nte Ce e urv C of Figure 4.6.1.2.3-2—Three-Dimensional Spine Model of Curved Concrete Box Girder Bridge © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-20 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS For both segmental and nonsegmental box girder bridges with central angles exceeding 34 degrees within any one span or for bridges with a maximum central angle in excess of 12 degrees with unusual plan geometry, the bridge shall be analyzed using 6 degrees of freedom in a proven three-dimensional analysis method. 4.6.1.2.4—Steel Multiple-Beam Superstructures 4.6.1.2.4a—General C4.6.1.2.4a An eccentricity of 2.5 percent of the length of the segment corresponds to a central angle subtended by a curved segment of about 12 degrees. This Article applies only to major-axis bending moment and does not apply to lateral flange bending, or torsion, which should always be examined with respect to curvature. Bridges with even slight curvature may develop large radial forces at the abutment bearings. Therefore, thermal analysis of all curved bridges is recommended. C4.6.1.2.4b 4.6.1.2.4b—I-Girders The effect of curvature on stability shall be considered for all curved I-girders. Where I-girder bridges meet the following four conditions, the effects of curvature may be ignored in the analysis for determining the major-axis bending moments and bending shears: • Girders are concentric; • Bearing lines are not skewed more than 10 degrees from radial; • The stiffnesses of the girders are similar; • For all spans, the arc span divided by the girder radius in feet is less than 0.06 radians where the arc span, Las, shall be taken as follows: For simple spans: Las = arc length of the girder (ft) For end spans of continuous members: Las = 0.9 times the arc length of the girder (ft) For interior spans of continuous members: Las = 0.8 times the arc length of the girder (ft) The requirement for similar stiffness among the girders is intended to avoid large and irregular changes in stiffness which could alter transverse distribution of load. Under such conditions, a refined analysis would be appropriate. Noncomposite dead load preferably is to be distributed uniformly to the girders since the crossframes provide restoring forces that prevent the girders from deflecting independently. Certain dead loads applied to the composite bridge may be distributed uniformly to the girders as provided in Article 4.6.2.2.1. However, heavier concentrated line loads such as parapets, sidewalks, barriers, or sound walls should not be distributed equally to the girders. Engineering judgment must be used in determining the distribution of these loads. Often the largest portion of the load on an overhang is assigned to the exterior girder, or to the exterior girder and the first interior girder. The exterior girder on the outside of the curve is often critical in curved girder bridges. The effect of curvature on the torsional behavior of a girder must be considered regardless of the amount of curvature since stability and strength of curved girders is different from that of straight girders (Hall and Yoo, 1996). In lieu of a refined analysis, Eq. C4.6.1.2.4b-1 may be appropriate for determining the lateral bending moment in I-girder flanges due to curvature (Richardson, Gordon, and Associates, 1976; United States Steel, 1984). M lat = M 2 NRD © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS (C4.6.1.2.4b-1) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Horizontally curved superstructures may be analyzed as grids or continuums in which the segments of the longitudinal beams are assumed to be straight between nodes. The actual eccentricity of the segment between the nodes shall not exceed 2.5 percent of the length of the segment. SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-21 An I-girder in a bridge satisfying these criteria may be analyzed as an individual straight girder with span length equal to the arc length. Lateral flange bending effects should then be determined from an appropriate approximation and considered in the design. Cross-frame or diaphragm members shall be designed in accordance with Articles 6.7.4 and 6.13 for forces computed by rational means. Cross-frame spacing shall be set to limit flange lateral bending in the girders. where: Mlat = M = ℓ = R = D = N = flange lateral bending moment (kip-ft) major-axis bending moment (kip-ft) unbraced length (ft) girder radius (ft) web depth (ft) a constant taken as 10 or 12 in past practice Although the depth to be used in computing the flange lateral moment from Eq. C4.6.1.2.4b-1 is theoretically equal to the depth, h, between the midthickness of the top and bottom flanges, for simplicity, the web depth, D, is conservatively used in Eq. C4.6.1.2.4b-1. The Engineer may substitute the depth, h, for D in Eq. C4.6.1.2.4b-1, if desired. Eq. C4.6.1.2.4b-1 assumes the presence of a cross-frame at the point under investigation, that the cross-frame spacing is relatively uniform, and that the major-axis bending moment, M, is constant between brace points. Therefore, at points not actually located at cross-frames, flange lateral moments from Eq. C4.6.1.2.4b-1 may not be strictly correct. The constant, N, in Eq. C4.6.1.2.4b-1 has been taken as either 10 or 12 in past practice and either value is considered acceptable depending on the level of conservatism that is desired. Other conditions that produce torsion, such as skew, should be dealt with by other analytical means which generally involve a refined analysis. C4.6.1.2.4c 4.6.1.2.4c—Closed Box and Tub Girders The effect of curvature on strength and stability shall be considered for all curved box girders. Where box girder bridges meet the following three conditions, the effect of curvature may be ignored in the analysis for determination of the major-axis bending moments and bending shears: • Girders are concentric, • Bearings are not skewed, and • For all spans, the arc span divided by the girder radius is less than 0.3 radians, and the girder depth is less than the width of the box at mid-depth where the arc span, Las, shall be taken as defined in Article 4.6.1.2.4b. Although box-shaped girders have not been examined as carefully as I-girders with regard to approximate methods, bending moments in closed girders are less affected by curvature than are I-girders (Tung and Fountain, 1970). However, in a box shape, torsion is much greater than in an open shape so that web shears are affected by torsion due to curvature, skew or loads applied away from the shear center of the box. Double bearings resist significant torque compared to a box-centered single bearing. If the box is haunched or tapered, the shallowest girder depth should be used in conjunction with the narrowest width of the box at middepth in determining whether the effects of curvature may be ignored in calculating the major axis bending moments and bending shears. A box girder in a bridge satisfying these criteria may be analyzed as an individual straight girder with span length equal to the arc length. Lateral flange bending effects should then be found from an appropriate approximation and considered in the design. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-22 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Cross-frame or diaphragm members shall be designed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 6.7.4 and 6.13 and lateral bracing members shall be designed in accordance with Articles 6.7.5 and 6.13 for forces computed by rational means. 4.6.2—Approximate Methods of Analysis 4.6.2.1—Decks 4.6.2.1.1—General C4.6.2.1.1 An approximate method of analysis in which the deck is subdivided into strips perpendicular to the supporting components shall be considered acceptable for decks other than: • fully filled and partially filled grids for which the provisions of Article 4.6.2.1.8 shall apply, and • top slabs of segmental concrete box girders for which the provisions of 4.6.2.9.4 shall apply. Where the strip method is used, the extreme positive moment in any deck panel between girders shall be taken to apply to all positive moment regions. Similarly, the extreme negative moment over any beam or girder shall be taken to apply to all negative moment regions. This model is analogous to past AASHTO Specifications. In determining the strip widths, the effects of flexure in the secondary direction and of torsion on the distribution of internal force effects are accounted for to obtain flexural force effects approximating those that would be provided by a more refined method of analysis. Depending on the type of deck, modeling and design in the secondary direction may utilize one of the following approximations: • Secondary strip designed in a manner like the primary strip, with all the limit states applicable; • Resistance requirements in the secondary direction determined as a percentage of that in the primary one as specified in Article 9.7.3.2 (i.e., the traditional approach for reinforced concrete slab in the previous editions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications); or • Minimum structural and/or geometry requirements specified for the secondary direction independent of actual force effects, as is the case for most wood decks. The approximate strip model for decks is based on rectangular layouts. Currently about two-thirds of all bridges nationwide are skewed. While skew generally tends to decrease extreme force effects, it produces negative moments at corners, torsional moments in the end zones, substantial redistribution of reaction forces, and a number of other structural phenomena that should be considered in the design. 4.6.2.1.2—Applicability The use of design aids for decks containing prefabricated elements may be permitted in lieu of analysis if the performance of the deck is documented and supported by sufficient technical evidence. The Engineer shall be responsible for the accuracy and implementation of any design aids used. For slab bridges and concrete slabs spanning more than 15.0 ft and which span primarily in the direction parallel to traffic, the provisions of Article 4.6.2.3 shall apply. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4.6.2.1.3—Width of Equivalent Interior Strips The width of the equivalent strip of a deck may be taken as specified in Table 4.6.2.1.3-1. Where decks span primarily in the direction parallel to traffic, strips supporting an axle load shall not be taken to be greater than 40.0 in. for open grids and not greater than 144 in. for all other decks where multilane loading is being investigated. For deck overhangs, where applicable, the provisions of Article 3.6.1.3.4 may be used in lieu of the strip width specified in Table 4.6.2.1.3-1 for deck overhangs. The equivalent strips for decks that span primarily in the transverse direction shall not be subject to width limits. The following notation shall apply to Table 4.6.2.1.3-1: S = h = L = P = Sb = +M = −M = X = 4-23 C4.6.2.1.3 Values provided for equivalent strip widths and strength requirements in the secondary direction are based on past experience. Practical experience and future research work may lead to refinement. To get the load per unit width of the equivalent strip, divide the total load on one design traffic lane by the calculated strip width. spacing of supporting components (ft) depth of deck (in.) span length of deck (ft) axle load (kip) spacing of grid bars (in.) positive moment negative moment distance from load to point of support (ft) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-24 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table 4.6.2.1.3-1—Equivalent Strips Type of Deck Concrete: • Cast-in-place Direction of Primary Strip Relative to Traffic Width of Primary Strip (in.) Overhang 45.0 + 10.0X Either Parallel or Perpendicular −M: 26.0 + 6.6S 48.0 + 3.0S +M: • Cast-in-place with stay-in-place concrete formwork Either Parallel or Perpendicular +M: −M: 26.0 + 6.6S 48.0 + 3.0S • Precast, post-tensioned Either Parallel or Perpendicular +M: −M: 26.0 + 6.6S 48.0 + 3.0S Steel: Main Bars 1.25P + 4.0Sb Main Bars Article 4.6.2.1.8 applies Main Bars Article 4.6.2.1.8 applies Parallel Perpendicular 2.0h + 30.0 2.0h + 40.0 Parallel Perpendicular 90.0 + 0.84L 4.0h + 30.0 Stress-laminated Parallel Perpendicular 0.8S + 108.0 10.0S + 24.0 Spike-laminated o Continuous decks or interconnected panels Parallel Perpendicular 2.0h + 30.0 4.0h + 40.0 Parallel Perpendicular 2.0h + 30.0 2.0h + 40.0 • Open grid • Filled or partially filled grid • Unfilled, composite grids Wood: • Prefabricated glulam o Noninterconnected o • --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • o Interconnected Noninterconnected panels Wood plank decks shall be designed for the wheel load of the design truck distributed over the tire contact area. For transverse planks, i.e., planks perpendicular to traffic direction: • If wp ≥ 10.0 in., the full plank width shall be assumed to carry the wheel load. • If wp < 10.0 in., the portion of the wheel load carried by a plank shall be determined as the ratio of wp and 10.0 in. Only the wheel load is specified for plank decks. Addition of lane load will cause a negligible increase in force effects; however, it may be added for uniformity of the Code. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-25 For longitudinal planks: • If wp ≥ 20.0 in., the full plank width shall be assumed to carry the wheel load. • If wp < 20.0 in., the portion of the wheel load carried by a plank shall be determined as the ratio of wp and 20.0 in. where: wp = plank width (in.) 4.6.2.1.4—Width of Equivalent Strips at Edges of Slabs 4.6.2.1.4a—General For the purpose of design, the notional edge beam shall be taken as a reduced deck strip width specified herein. Any additional integral local thickening or similar protrusion acting as a stiffener to the deck that is located within the reduced deck strip width can be assumed to act with the reduced deck strip width as the notional edge beam. 4.6.2.1.4b—Longitudinal Edges Edge beams shall be assumed to support one line of wheels and, where appropriate, a tributary portion of the design lane load. Where decks span primarily in the direction of traffic, the effective width of a strip, with or without an edge beam, may be taken as the sum of the distance between the edge of the deck and the inside face of the barrier, plus 12.0 in., plus one-quarter of the strip width, specified in either Article 4.6.2.1.3, Article 4.6.2.3, or Article 4.6.2.10, as appropriate, but not exceeding either one-half the full strip width or 72.0 in. 4.6.2.1.4c—Transverse Edges C4.6.2.1.4c Transverse edge beams shall be assumed to support one axle of the design truck in one or more design lanes, positioned to produce maximum load effects. Multiple presence factors and the dynamic load allowance shall apply. The effective width of a strip, with or without an edge beam, may be taken as the sum of the distance between the transverse edge of the deck and the centerline of the first line of support for the deck, usually taken as a girder web, plus one-half of the width of strip as specified in Article 4.6.2.1.3. The effective width shall not exceed the full strip width specified in Article 4.6.2.1.3. For decks covered by Table A4-1, the total moment acting on the edge beam, including the multiple presence factor and the dynamic load allowance, may be calculated by multiplying the moment per unit width, taken from Table A4-1, by the corresponding full strip width specified in Article 4.6.2.1.3. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-26 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.6.2.1.5—Distribution of Wheel Loads C4.6.2.1.5 ks = EI s S This Article attempts to clarify the application of the traditional AASHTO approach with respect to continuous decks. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- If the spacing of supporting components in the secondary direction exceeds 1.5 times the spacing in the primary direction, all of the wheel loads shall be considered to be applied to the primary strip, and the provisions of Article 9.7.3.2 may be applied to the secondary direction. If the spacing of supporting components in the secondary direction is less than 1.5 times the spacing in the primary direction, the deck shall be modeled as a system of intersecting strips. The width of the equivalent strips in both directions may be taken as specified in Table 4.6.2.1.3-1. Each wheel load shall be distributed between two intersecting strips. The distribution shall be determined as the ratio between the stiffness of the strip and the sum of stiffnesses of the intersecting strips. In the absence of more precise calculations, the strip stiffness, ks, may be estimated as: (4.6.2.1.5-1) 3 where: Is S = = moment of inertia of the equivalent strip (in.4) spacing of supporting components (in.) 4.6.2.1.6—Calculation of Force Effects The strips shall be treated as continuous beams or simply supported beams, as appropriate. Span length shall be taken as the center-to-center distance between the supporting components. For the purpose of determining force effects in the strip, the supporting components shall be assumed to be infinitely rigid. The wheel loads may be modeled as concentrated loads or as patch loads whose length along the span shall be the length of the tire contact area, as specified in Article 3.6.1.2.5, plus the depth of the deck. The strips should be analyzed by classical beam theory. The design section for negative moments and shear forces, where investigated, may be taken as follows: • For monolithic construction, closed steel boxes, closed concrete boxes, open concrete boxes without top flanges, and stemmed precast beams, i.e., Crosssections (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1, at the face of the supporting component, • For steel I-beams and steel tub girders, i.e., Cross-sections (a) and (c) from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1, one-quarter the flange width from the centerline of support, C4.6.2.1.6 This is a deviation from the traditional approach based on a continuity correction applied to results obtained for analysis of simply supported spans. In lieu of more precise calculations, the unfactored design live load moments for many practical concrete deck slabs can be found in Table A4-1. For short-spans, the force effects calculated using the footprint could be significantly lower, and more realistic, than force effects calculated using concentrated loads. Reduction in negative moment and shear replaces the effect of reduced span length in the current code. The design sections indicated may be applied to deck overhangs and to portions of decks between stringers or similar lines of support. Past practice has been to not check shear in typical decks. A design section for shear is provided for use in nontraditional situations. It is not the intent to investigate shear in every deck. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION • For precast I-shaped concrete beams and open concrete boxes with top flanges, i.e., Cross-sections (c) and (k) from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1, one-third the flange width, but not exceeding 15.0 in., from the centerline of support, • For wood beams, i.e., Cross-section (l) from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1, one-fourth the top beam width from centerline of beam. 4-27 For open box beams, each web shall be considered as a separate supporting component for the deck. The distance from the centerline of each web and the adjacent design sections for negative moment shall be determined based on the type of construction of the box and the shape of the top of the web using the requirements outlined above. C4.6.2.1.7 4.6.2.1.7—Cross-Sectional Frame Action Where decks are an integral part of box or cellular cross-sections, flexural and/or torsional stiffnesses of supporting components of the cross-section, i.e., the webs and bottom flange, are likely to cause significant force effects in the deck. Those components shall be included in the analysis of the deck. If the length of a frame segment is modeled as the width of an equivalent strip, provisions of Articles 4.6.2.1.3, 4.6.2.1.5, and 4.6.2.1.6 may be used. The model used is essentially a transverse segmental strip, in which flexural continuity provided by the webs and bottom flange is included. Such modeling is restricted to closed cross-sections only. In openframed structures, a degree of transverse frame action also exists, but it can be determined only by complex, refined analysis. In normal beam-slab superstructures, crosssectional frame action may safely be neglected. If the slab is supported by box beams or is integrated into a cellular cross-section, the effects of frame action could be considerable. Such action usually decreases positive moments, but may increase negative moments resulting in cracking of the deck. For larger structures, a threedimensional analysis may be appropriate. For smaller structures, the analysis could be restricted to a segment of the bridge whose length is the width of an equivalent strip. Extreme force effects may be calculated by combining the: • Longitudinal response of the superstructure approximated by classical beam theory, and • 4.6.2.1.8—Live Load Force Effects for Fully and Partially Filled Grids and for Unfilled Grid Decks Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slabs Moments in kip-in./in. of deck due to live load may be determined as: • Main bars perpendicular to traffic: For L ≤ 120 in. Transverse flexural response modeled as a crosssectional frame. C4.6.2.1.8 The moment equations are based on orthotropic plate theory considering vehicular live loads specified in Article 3.6. The equations take into account relevant factored load combinations including truck and tandem loads. The moment equations also account for dynamic load allowance, multiple presence factors, and load --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-28 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS M transverse = 1.28D 0.197 L0.459 C (4.6.2.1.8-1) For L > 120 in. M transverse = ( D 0.188 3.7 L1.35 − 956.3 ) L (C ) (4.6.2.1.8-2) • Main bars parallel to traffic: For L ≤ 120 in. M parallel = 0.73D 0.123 L0.64 C (4.6.2.1.8-3) For L > 120 in. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- ( D 0.138 3.1L1.429 − 1088.5 M parallel = L ) (C ) (4.6.2.1.8-4) positioning on the deck surface to produce the largest possible moment. Negative moment can be determined as maximum simple span positive moment times the continuity factor, C. The reduction factor of 1.5 in the last sentence of Article 4.6.2.1.8 accounts for smaller dynamic load allowance (15 percent vs. 33 percent), smaller load factor (0.75 vs. 1.75) and no multiple presence (1.0 vs. 1.2) when considering the Fatigue I limit state. Use of Eqs. 4.6.2.1.8-1 and 4.6.2.1.8-3 for all spans is appropriate as Eqs. 4.6.2.1.8-1 and 4.6.2.1.8-3 reflect an individual design truck on short-span lengths while Eqs. 4.6.2.1.8-2 and 4.6.2.1.8-4 reflect the influence of multiple design tandems that control moment envelope on longer span lengths. The approximation produces reasonable estimates of fatigue moments, however, improved estimates can be determined using fatigue truck patch loads in the infinite series formula provided by Higgins (2003). where: L = C = D = Dx = Dy = span length from center-to-center of supports (in.) continuity factor; 1.0 for simply supported and 0.8 for continuous spans Dx/Dy flexural rigidity of deck in main bar direction (kip-in.2/in.) flexural rigidity of deck perpendicular to main bar direction (kip-in.2/in.) For grid decks, Dx and Dy should be calculated as EIx and EIy where E is the modulus of elasticity and Ix and Iy are the moment of inertia per unit width of deck, considering the section as cracked and using the transformed area method for the main bar direction and perpendicular to main bar direction, respectively. Moments for fatigue assessment may be estimated for all span lengths by reducing Eq. 4.6.2.1.8-1 for main bars perpendicular to traffic or Eq. 4.6.2.1.8-3 for main bars parallel to traffic by a factor of 1.5. Deflection in units of in. due to vehicular live load may be determined as: • Main bars perpendicular to traffic: Δ transverse = • 0.0052 D 0.19 L3 Dx (4.6.2.1.8-5) Main bars parallel to traffic: Δ parallel = 0.0072 D 0.11 L3 Dx Actual Dx and Dy values can vary considerably depending on the specific deck design, and using assumed values based only on the general type of deck can lead to unconservative design moments. Flexural rigidity in each direction should be calculated analytically as EI considering the section as cracked and using the transformed area method. The deflection equations permit calculation of the midspan displacement for a deck under service load. The equations are based on orthotropic plate theory and consider both truck and tandem loads on a simply supported deck. Deflection may be reduced for decks continuous over three or more supports. A reduction factor of 0.8 is conservative. (4.6.2.1.8-6) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-29 4.6.2.1.9—Inelastic Analysis The inelastic finite element analysis or yield line analysis may be permitted by the Owner. 4.6.2.2—Beam-Slab Bridges C4.6.2.2.1 4.6.2.2.1—Application The provisions of this Article may be applied to straight girder bridges and horizontally curved concrete bridges, as well as horizontally curved steel girder bridges complying with the provisions of Article 4.6.1.2.4. The provisions of this Article may also be used to determine a starting point for some methods of analysis to determine force effects in curved girders of any degree of curvature in plan. Except as specified in Article 4.6.2.2.5, the provisions of this Article shall be taken to apply to bridges being analyzed for: • A single lane of loading, or • Multiple lanes of live load yielding approximately the same force effect per lane. If one lane is loaded with a special vehicle or evaluation permit vehicle, the design force effect per girder resulting from the mixed traffic may be determined as specified in Article 4.6.2.2.5. For beam spacing exceeding the range of applicability as specified in tables in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3, the live load on each beam shall be the reaction of the loaded lanes based on the lever rule unless specified otherwise herein. The provisions of Article 3.6.1.1.2 specify that multiple presence factors shall not be used with the approximate load assignment methods other than statical moment or lever arm methods because these factors are already incorporated in the distribution factors. Bridges not meeting the requirements of this Article shall be analyzed as specified in Article 4.6.3. The distribution of live load, specified in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3, may be used for girders, beams, and stringers, other than multiple steel box beams with concrete decks that meet the following conditions and any other conditions identified in tables of distribution factors as specified herein: • Width of deck is constant; • Unless otherwise specified, the number of beams is not less than four; The V-load method is one example of a method of curved bridge analysis which starts with straight girder distribution factors (United States Steel, 1984). The lever rule involves summing moments about one support to find the reaction at another support by assuming that the supported component is hinged at interior supports. When using the lever rule on a three-girder bridge, the notional model should be taken as shown in Figure C4.6.2.2.1-1. Moments should be taken about the assumed, or notional, hinge in the deck over the middle girder to find the reaction on the exterior girder. Figure C4.6.2.2.1-1—Notional Model for Applying Lever Rule to Three-Girder Bridges Provisions in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3 that do not appear in earlier editions of the Standard Specifications come primarily from Zokaie et al. (1991). Correction factors for continuity have been deleted for two reasons: • Correction factors dealing with five percent adjustments were thought to imply misleading levels of accuracy in an approximate method, and • Analyses of many continuous beam-slab-type bridges indicate that the distribution coefficients for negative moments exceed those obtained for positive moments by approximately ten percent. On the other hand, it has been observed that stresses at or near an internal bearing are reduced due to the fanning of the reaction force. This reduction is about the same magnitude as the increase in distribution factors, hence the two tend to cancel each other out, and thus are omitted from these Specifications. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-30 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Beams are parallel and have approximately the same stiffness; • Unless otherwise specified, the roadway part of the overhang, de, does not exceed 3.0 ft; • Curvature in plan is less than the limit specified in Article 4.6.1.2.4, or where distribution factors are required in order to implement an acceptable approximate or refined analysis method satisfying the requirements of Article 4.4 for bridges of any degree of curvature in plan; and • --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • Cross-section is consistent with one of the crosssections shown in Table 4.6.2.2.1-1. Where moderate deviations from a constant deck width or parallel beams exist, the distribution factor may either be varied at selected locations along the span or else a single distribution factor may be used in conjunction with a suitable value for beam spacing. Cast-in-place multicell concrete box girder bridge types may be designed as whole-width structures. Such cross-sections shall be designed for the live load distribution factors in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3 for interior girders, multiplied by the number of girders, i.e., webs. Additional requirements for multiple steel box girders with concrete decks shall be as specified in Article 4.6.2.2.2b. Where bridges meet the conditions specified herein, permanent loads of and on the deck may be distributed uniformly among the beams and/or stringers. Live load distribution factors, specified herein, may be used for permit and rating vehicles whose overall width is comparable to the width of the design truck. The following notation shall apply to tables in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3: A b = = area of stringer, beam or girder (in.2) width of beam (in.) In Strength Load Combination II, applying a distribution factor procedure to a loading involving a heavy permit load can be overly conservative unless laneby-lane distribution factors are available. Use of a refined method of analysis will circumvent this situation. A rational approach may be used to extend the provisions of this Article to bridges with splayed girders. The distribution factor for live load at any point along the span may be calculated by setting the girder spacing in the equations of this Article equal to half the sum of the center-to-center distance between the girder under consideration and the two girders to either side. This will result in a variable distribution factor along the length of the girder. While the variable distribution factor is theoretically correct, it is not compatible with existing line girder computer programs that only allow constant distribution factor. Further simplifications may be used to allow the use of such computer programs. One such simplification involves running the computer program a number of times equal to the number of spans in the bridge. For each run, the girder spacing is set equal to the maximum girder spacing in one span and the results from this run are applied to this span. This approach is guaranteed to result in conservative design. In the past, some jurisdictions applied the latter approach, but used the girder spacing at the 2/3 or 3/4 points of the span; which will also be an acceptable approximation. Most of the equations for distribution factors were derived for constant deck width and parallel beams. Past designs with moderate exceptions to these two assumptions have performed well when the S/D distribution factors were used. While the distribution factors specified herein are more representative of actual bridge behavior, common sense indicates that some exceptions are still possible, especially if the parameter S is chosen with prudent judgment, or if the factors are appropriately varied at selected locations along the span. Whole-width design is appropriate for torsionallystiff cross-sections where load-sharing between girders is extremely high and torsional loads are hard to estimate. Prestressing force should be evenly distributed between girders. Cell width-to-height ratios should be approximately 2:1. In lieu of more refined information, the St. Venant torsional inertia, J, may be determined as: • For thin-walled open beam: J = • 1 3  bt 3 For stocky open sections, e.g., prestressed I-beams, T-beams, etc., and solid sections: J= A4 40.0 I p © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS (C4.6.2.2.1-1) (C4.6.2.2.1-2) SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION C D d de = = = = e g Ip J K Kg L Nb Nc NL = = = = = = = = = = S tg = = to ts W We θ μ = = = = = = stiffness parameter width of distribution per lane (ft) depth of beam or stringer (in.) horizontal distance from the centerline of the exterior web of exterior beam at deck level to the interior edge of curb or traffic barrier (ft) correction factor distribution factor polar moment of inertia (in.4) St. Venant’s torsional inertia (in.4) constant for different types of construction longitudinal stiffness parameter (in.4) span of beam (ft) number of beams, stringers or girders number of cells in a concrete box girder number of design lanes as specified in Article 3.6.1.1.1 spacing of beams or webs (ft) depth of steel grid or corrugated steel plank including integral concrete overlay or structural concrete component, less a provision for grinding, grooving, or wear (in.) depth of structural overlay (in.) depth of concrete slab (in.) edge-to-edge width of bridge (ft) half the web spacing, plus the total overhang (ft) skew angle (degrees) Poisson’s ratio Unless otherwise stated, the stiffness parameters for area, moments of inertia and torsional stiffness used herein and in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3 shall be taken as those of the cross-section to which traffic will be applied, i.e., usually the composite section. 4-31 • For closed thin-walled shapes: J= 4 Ao 2 s  t where: b t A Ip Ao s = = = = = = width of plate element (in.) thickness of plate-like element (in.) area of cross-section (in.2) polar moment of inertia (in.4) area enclosed by centerlines of elements (in.2) length of a side element (in.) Eq. C4.6.2.2.1-2 has been shown to substantially underestimate the torsional stiffness of some concrete I-beams and a more accurate, but more complex, approximation can be found in Eby et al. (1973). The transverse post-tensioning shown for some cross-sections herein is intended to make the units act together. A minimum 0.25 ksi prestress is recommended. For beams with variable moment of inertia, Kg may be based on average properties. For bridge types “f,” “g,” “h,” “i,” and “j,” longitudinal joints between precast units of the crosssection are shown in Table 4.6.2.2.1-1. This type of construction acts as a monolithic unit if sufficiently interconnected. In Article 5.14.4.3.3f, a fully interconnected joint is identified as a flexural shear joint. This type of interconnection is enhanced by either transverse post-tensioning of an intensity specified above or by a reinforced structural overlay, which is also specified in Article 5.14.4.3.3f, or both. The use of transverse mild steel rods secured by nuts or similar unstressed dowels should not be considered sufficient to achieve full transverse flexural continuity unless demonstrated by testing or experience. Generally, post-tensioning is thought to be more effective than a structural overlay if the intensity specified above is achieved. In some cases, the lower limit of deck slab thickness, ts, shown in the range of applicability column in tables in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3 is less than 7.0 in. The research used to develop the equations in those tables reflects the range of slab thickness shown. Article 9.7.1.1 indicates that concrete decks less than 7.0 in. in thickness should not be used unless approved by the Owner. Lesser values shown in tables in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3 are not intended to override Article 9.7.1.1. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS (C4.6.2.2.1-3) AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The longitudinal stiffness parameter, Kg, shall be taken as: K g = n ( I + Aeg 2 ) (4.6.2.2.1-1) in which: n= EB ED (4.6.2.2.1-2) where: EB = modulus of elasticity of beam material (ksi) ED = modulus of elasticity of deck material (ksi) I = moment of inertia of beam (in.4) eg = distance between the centers of gravity of the basic beam and deck (in.) The load distribution factor equations for bridge type “d”, cast-in-place multicell concrete box girders, were derived by first positioning the vehicle longitudinally, and then transversely, using an I-section of the box. While it would be more appropriate to develop an algorithm to find the peak of an influence surface, using the present factor for the interior girders multiplied by the number of girders is conservative in most cases. Table C4.6.2.2.1-1 describes how the term L (length) may be determined for use in the live load distribution factor equations given in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 4-32 The parameters A and I in Eq. 4.6.2.2.1-1 shall be taken as those of the noncomposite beam. The bridge types indicated in tables in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3, with reference to Table 4.6.2.2.1-1, may be taken as representative of the type of bridge to which each approximate equation applies. Table C4.6.2.2.1-1— L for Use in Live Load Distribution Factor Equations Force Effect Positive Moment Negative Moment—Near interior supports of continuous spans from point of contraflexure to point of contraflexure under a uniform load on all spans Negative Moment—Other than near interior supports of continuous spans Shear Exterior Reaction Interior Reaction of Continuous Span L (ft) The length of the span for which moment is being calculated The average length of the two adjacent spans The length of the span for which moment is being calculated The length of the span for which shear is being calculated The length of the exterior span The average length of the two adjacent spans Except as permitted by Article 2.5.2.7.1, regardless of the method of analysis used, i.e., approximate or refined, exterior girders of multibeam bridges shall not have less resistance than an interior beam. In the rare occasion when the continuous span arrangement is such that an interior span does not have any positive uniform load moment (i.e., no uniform load points of contraflexure), the region of negative moment near the interior supports would be increased to the centerline of the span, and the L used in determining the live load distribution factors would be the average of the two adjacent spans. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-33 Table 4.6.2.2.1-1—Common Deck Superstructures Covered in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Supporting Components Steel Beam Type Of Deck Cast-in-place concrete slab, precast concrete slab, steel grid, glued/spiked panels, stressed wood Closed Steel or Precast Concrete Boxes Cast-in-place concrete slab Open Steel or Precast Concrete Boxes Cast-in-place concrete slab, precast concrete deck slab Cast-in-Place Concrete Multicell Box Monolithic concrete Cast-in-Place Concrete Tee Beam Monolithic concrete Precast Solid, Voided or Cellular Concrete Boxes with Shear Keys Cast-in-place concrete overlay Precast Solid, Voided, or Cellular Concrete Box with Shear Keys and with or without Transverse PostTensioning Integral concrete Precast Concrete Channel Sections with Shear Keys Cast-in-place concrete overlay Typical Cross-Section Continued on next page © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-34 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 (continued)—Common Deck Superstructures Covered in Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3 Type Of Deck Integral concrete Typical Cross-Section Precast Concrete Tee Section with Shear Keys and with or without Transverse Post-Tensioning Integral concrete Precast Concrete I or Bulb-Tee Sections Cast-in-place concrete, precast concrete Wood Beams Cast-in-place concrete or plank, glued/spiked panels or stressed wood --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Supporting Components Precast Concrete Double Tee Section with Shear Keys and with or without Transverse PostTensioning For cast-in-place concrete multicell box shown as cross-section Type “d” in Table 4.6.2.2.1-1, the distribution factors in Article 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3 shall be taken to apply to a notional shape consisting of a web, overhangs of an exterior web, and the associated half flanges between a web under consideration and the next adjacent web or webs. With the owner’s concurrence, the simplifications provided in Table 4.6.2.2.1-2 may be used: Table 4.6.2.2.1-2—Constant Values for Articles 4.6.2.2.2 and 4.6.2.2.3 Equation Parameters Simplified Value k 1.09 0.1 4.6.2.2.2b-1 0.25 4.6.2.2.2e-1 1.03 1.07 1.15 — 0.3 4.6.2.2.3c-1 0.97 0.93 0.85 — 4.6.2.2.2b-1, 4.6.2.2.3a-1 — — — d  0.54   + 0.16 b  12.0 Lts3     Kg  I J e 1.05 a 1.02  Kg   3  12.0 Lts   Kg     12.0 Lts3  Table Reference © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS f,g,i,j — SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-35 4.6.2.2.2—Distribution Factor Method for Moment and Shear 4.6.2.2.2a—Interior Beams with Wood Decks The live load flexural moment and shear for interior beams with transverse wood decks may be determined by applying the lane fraction specified in Table 4.6.2.2.2a-1 and Eq. 4.6.2.2.2a-1. When investigation of shear parallel to the grain in wood components is required, the distributed live load shear shall be determined by the following expression: VLL = 0.50 ( 0.60VLU ) + VLD  (4.6.2.2.2a-1) where: VLL = VLU = VLD = distributed live load vertical shear (kips) maximum vertical shear at 3d or L/4 due to undistributed wheel loads (kips) maximum vertical shear at 3d or L/4 due to wheel loads distributed laterally as specified herein (kips) For undistributed wheel loads, one line of wheels is assumed to be carried by one bending member. Type of Deck Plank Stressed Laminated Spike Laminated Glued Laminated Panels on Glued Laminated Stringers Glue Laminated Panels on Steel Stringers Applicable CrossSection from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 a, l a, l a, l a, l a, l 4.6.2.2.2b—Interior Beams with Concrete Decks One Design Lane Loaded S/6.7 S/9.2 S/8.3 S/10.0 S/8.8 Two or More Design Lanes Loaded S/7.5 S/9.0 S/8.5 S/10.0 S/9.0 C4.6.2.2.2b The live load flexural moment for interior beams with concrete decks may be determined by applying the lane fraction specified in Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1. For the concrete beams, other than box beams, used in multibeam decks with shear keys: • Deep, rigid end diaphragms shall be provided to ensure proper load distribution; and • If the stem spacing of stemmed beams is less than 4.0 ft or more than 10.0 ft, a refined analysis complying with Article 4.6.3 shall be used. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Range of Applicability S ≤ 5.0 S ≤ 6.0 S ≤ 6.0 S ≤ 6.0 S ≤ 6.0 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Table 4.6.2.2.2a-1—Distribution of Live Load for Moment and Shear in Interior Beams with Wood Decks AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS For multiple steel box girders with a concrete deck in bridges satisfying the requirements of Article 6.11.2.3, the live load flexural moment may be determined using the appropriate distribution factor specified in Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1. Where the spacing of the box girders varies along the length of the bridge, the distribution factor may either be varied at selected locations along the span or else a single distribution factor may be used in conjunction with a suitable value of NL. In either case, the value of NL shall be determined as specified in Article 3.6.1.1.1, using the width, w, taken at the section under consideration. The results of analytical and model studies of simple span multiple box section bridges, reported in Johnston and Mattock (1967), showed that folded plate theory could be used to analyze the behavior of bridges of this type. The folded plate theory was used to obtain the maximum load per girder, produced by various critical combinations of loading on 31 bridges having various spans, numbers of box girders, and numbers of traffic lanes. Multiple presence factors, specified in Table 3.6.1.1.2-1, are not applied because the multiple factors in past editions of the Standard Specifications were considered in the development of the equation in Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1 for multiple steel box girders. The lateral load distribution obtained for simple spans is also considered applicable to continuous structures. The bridges considered in the development of the equations had interior end diaphragms only, i.e., no interior diaphragms within the spans, and no exterior diaphragms anywhere between boxes. If interior or exterior diaphragms are provided within the span, the transverse load distribution characteristics of the bridge will be improved to some degree. This improvement can be evaluated, if desired, using the analysis methods identified in Article 4.4. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 4-36 SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-37 Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1—Distribution of Live Loads for Moment in Interior Beams l Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, Partially Filled Grid, or Unfilled Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, Tand Double T-Sections a, e, k and also i, j if sufficiently connected to act as a unit Cast-in-Place Concrete Multicell Box d Distribution Factors See Table 4.6.2.2.2a-1 One Design Lane Loaded: S/12.0 Two or More Design Lanes Loaded: S/10.0 One Design Lane Loaded: 0.4 0.3   S  S  0.06 +      3  14 L 12.0 Lt      s  Two or More Design Lanes Loaded: 0.6 Kg S ≤ 6.0 0.1 0.1 0.2  S   S   Kg  0.075 +      3   9.5   L   12.0 Lts  use lesser of the values obtained from the equation above with Nb = 3 or the lever rule One Design Lane Loaded: 0.45 0.35 S  1   1    1.75 +    3.6  L   N c   Two or More Design Lanes Loaded: 0.3 Concrete Deck on Concrete Spread Box Beams b, c Concrete Beams used in Multibeam Decks f  13   S   1        N c   5.8   L  One Design Lane Loaded: 0.35 g if sufficiently connected to act as a unit Range of Applicability 0.25 0.25  S   Sd     2   3.0   12.0 L  Two or More Design Lanes Loaded: 0.6 0.125  S   Sd     2   6.3   12.0 L  Use Lever Rule One Design Lane Loaded: 0.5 0.25  b  I k     33.3L   J  3.5 ≤ S ≤ 16.0 4.5 ≤ ts ≤ 12.0 20 ≤ L ≤ 240 Nb ≥ 4 10,000 ≤ Kg ≤ 7,000,000 Nb = 3 7.0 ≤ S ≤ 13.0 60 ≤ L ≤ 240 Nc ≥ 3 If Nc > 8 use Nc = 8 6.0 ≤ S ≤ 18.0 20 ≤ L ≤ 140 18 ≤ d ≤ 65 Nb ≥ 3 S > 18.0 35 ≤ b ≤ 60 20 ≤ L ≤ 120 5 ≤ Nb ≤ 20 where: k = 2.5( N b ) −0.2 ≥ 1.5 Two or More Design Lanes Loaded: 0.6 0.2 0.06  b   b  I k       305   12.0 L   J  continued on next page © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Type of Superstructure Wood Deck on Wood or Steel Beams Concrete Deck on Wood Beams Applicable CrossSection from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 a, l 4-38 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1 (continued)—Distribution of Live Loads for Moment in Interior Beams Type of Superstructure Applicable CrossSection from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 h Distribution Factors Regardless of Number of Loaded Lanes: S/D where: C = K (W / L) ≤ K D = 11.5 − N L + 1.4 N L (1 − 0.2C ) g, i, j if connected only enough to prevent relative vertical displacement at the interface when C ≤ 5 D = 11.5 − N L when C > 5 K= a Concrete Deck on Multiple Steel Box Girders b, c NL ≤ 6 J for preliminary design, the following values of K may be used: K 0.7 0.8 1.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 One Design Lane Loaded: S/7.5 If tg< 4.0 S/10.0 If tg≥ 4.0 Two or More Design Lanes Loaded: S/8.0 If tg< 4.0 S/10.0 If tg≥ 4.0 Regardless of Number of Loaded Lanes: N 0.425 0.05 + 0.85 L + Nb NL 4.6.2.2.2c—Interior Beams with Corrugated Steel Decks --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The live load flexural moment for interior beams with corrugated steel plank deck may be determined by applying the lane fraction, g, specified in Table 4.6.2.2.2c-1. Table 4.6.2.2.2c-1—Distribution of Live Load for Moment in Interior Beams with Corrugated Steel Plank Decks One Design Lane Loaded Two or More Design Lanes Loaded S/9.2 S/9.0 Range of Applicability S ≤ 5.5 tg ≥ 2.0 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Skew ≤ 45° (1 + μ ) I Beam Type Nonvoided rectangular beams Rectangular beams with circular voids: Box section beams Channel beams T-beam Double T-beam Open Steel Grid Deck on Steel Beams 2 Range of Applicability S ≤ 6.0 S ≤ 10.5 0.5 ≤ NL ≤ 1.5 Nb SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-39 C4.6.2.2.2d 4.6.2.2.2d—Exterior Beams The live load flexural moment for exterior beams may be determined by applying the lane fraction, g, specified in Table 4.6.2.2.2d-1. The distance, de, shall be taken as positive if the exterior web is inboard of the interior face of the traffic railing and negative if it is outboard of the curb or traffic barrier. In beam-slab bridge cross-sections with diaphragms or cross-frames, the distribution factor for the exterior beam shall not be taken to be less than that which would be obtained by assuming that the cross-section deflects and rotates as a rigid cross-section. The provisions of Article 3.6.1.1.2 shall apply. This additional investigation is required because the distribution factor for girders in a multigirder crosssection, Types “a,” “e,” and “k” in Table 4.6.2.2.1-1, was determined without consideration of diaphragm or cross-frames. The recommended procedure is an interim provision until research provides a better solution. The procedure outlined in this section is the same as the conventional approximation for loads on piles. NL R= NL + Nb X ext e Nb x (C4.6.2.2.2d-1) 2 where: R = NL = e = x = Xext = Nb = reaction on exterior beam in terms of lanes number of loaded lanes under consideration eccentricity of a design truck or a design lane load from the center of gravity of the pattern of girders (ft) horizontal distance from the center of gravity of the pattern of girders to each girder (ft) horizontal distance from the center of gravity of the pattern of girders to the exterior girder (ft) number of beams or girders --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-40 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table 4.6.2.2.2d-1—Distribution of Live Loads for Moment in Exterior Longitudinal Beams Type of Superstructure Wood Deck on Wood or Steel Beams Concrete Deck on Wood Beams Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, Partially Filled Grid, or Unfilled Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double TSections Applicable CrossSection from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 a, l One Design Lane Loaded Lever Rule Two or More Design Lanes Loaded Lever Rule Range of Applicability N/A l Lever Rule Lever Rule N/A a, e, k and also i, j if sufficiently connected to act as a unit Lever Rule Cast-in-Place Concrete Multicell Box d Concrete Deck on Concrete Spread Box Beams b, c Concrete Box Beams Used in Multibeam Decks f, g Concrete Beams Other than Box Beams Used in Multibeam Decks h i, j if connected only enough to prevent relative vertical displacement at the interface a g = e ginterior d e = 0.77 + e 9.1 use lesser of the values obtained from the equation above with Nb = 3 or the lever rule We W g = g = e 14 14 or the provisions for a whole-width design specified in Article 4.6.2.2.1 b, c 4.6.2.2.2e—Skewed Bridges When the line supports are skewed and the difference between skew angles of two adjacent lines of supports does not exceed 10 degrees, the bending moment in the beams may be reduced in accordance with Table 4.6.2.2.2e-1. We ≤ S 0 ≤ de ≤ 4.5 6.0 < S ≤ 18.0 Use Lever Rule S > 18.0 g = e ginterior d e = 1.04 + e ≥ 1.0 25 de ≤ 2.0 Lever Rule Lever Rule N/A Lever Rule Lever Rule N/A g = e ginterior de ≥ 1.0 30 As specified in Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1 C4.6.2.2.2e Accepted reduction factors are not currently available for cases not covered in Table 4.6.2.2.2e-1. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Nb = 3 g = e ginterior de e = 0.97 + 28.5 Lever Rule e = 1.125 + Open Steel Grid Deck on Steel Beams Concrete Deck on Multiple Steel Box Girders −1.0 ≤ de ≤ 5.5 SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-41 Table 4.6.2.2.2e-1—Reduction of Load Distribution Factors for Moment in Longitudinal Beams on Skewed Supports Type of Superstructure Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, Partially Filled Grid, or Unfilled Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T- Sections Concrete Deck on Concrete Spread Box Beams, Cast-inPlace Multicell Box Concrete Box Beams and Double TSections used in Multibeam Decks Applicable CrossSection from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 a, e, k and also i, j if sufficiently connected to act as a unit Any Number of Design Lanes Loaded 1 − c1 ( tan θ ) 1.5  Kg  c1 = 0.25  3   12.0 Lts  0.25 S   L If θ < 30° then c1 = 0.0 o o If θ > 60 use θ = 60 1.05 − 0.25 tan θ ≤ 1.0 b, c, d, f, g o 0.5 Range of Applicability o o 30 ≤ θ ≤ 60 3.5 ≤ S ≤ 16.0 20 ≤ L ≤ 240 Nb ≥ 4 o o 0 ≤ θ ≤ 60 o If θ > 60 use θ = 60 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 4.6.2.2.2f—Flexural Moments and Shear in Transverse Floorbeams If the deck is supported directly by transverse floorbeams, the floorbeams may be designed for loads determined in accordance with Table 4.6.2.2.2f-1. The fractions provided in Table 4.6.2.2.2f-1 shall be used in conjunction with the 32.0-kip design axle load alone. For spacings of floorbeams outside the given ranges of applicability, all of the design live loads shall be considered, and the lever rule may be used. Table 4.6.2.2.2f-1—Distribution of Live Load for Transverse Beams for Moment and Shear Type of Deck Plank Laminated Wood Deck Concrete Steel Grid and Unfilled Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab Steel Grid and Unfilled Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab Steel Bridge Corrugated Plank Fraction of Wheel Load to Each Floorbeam S 4 S 5 S 6 S 4.5 S 6 S 5.5 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Range of Applicability N/A S ≤ 5.0 S ≤ 6.0 tg ≤ 4.0 S ≤ 5.0 tg > 4.0 S ≤ 6.0 tg ≥ 2.0 4-42 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.6.2.2.3—Distribution Factor Method for Shear 4.6.2.2.3a—Interior Beams --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The live load shear for interior beams may be determined by applying the lane fractions specified in Table 4.6.2.2.3a-1. For interior beam types not listed in Table 4.6.2.2.3a-1, lateral distribution of the wheel or axle adjacent to the end of span shall be that produced by use of the lever rule. For concrete box beams used in multibeam decks, if the values of I or J do not comply with the limitations in Table 4.6.2.2.3a-1, the distribution factor for shear may be taken as that for moment. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-43 Type of Superstructure Wood Deck on Wood or Steel Beams Concrete Deck on Wood Beams Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, Partially Filled Grid, or Unfilled Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T-and Double T-Sections Cast-in-Place Concrete Multicell Box Applicable Cross-Section from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 a, l One Design Lane Loaded Two or More Design Lanes Loaded See Table 4.6.2.2.2a-1 Range of Applicability l Lever Rule Lever Rule N/A a, e, k and also i, j if sufficiently connected to act as a unit 0.36 + S 25.0 0.2 + Concrete Deck on Concrete Spread Box Beams b, c 3.5 ≤ S ≤ 16.0 2.0 20 ≤ L ≤ 240 4.5 ≤ ts ≤ 12.0 Nb ≥ 4 Lever Rule d S  S  −  12  35  Lever Rule 0.6  S   d       9.5   12.0 L  0.6 S   d       10   12.0 L  0.1 0.1 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Table 4.6.2.2.3a-1—Distribution of Live Load for Shear in Interior Beams Nb = 3 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.1  S   d       7.3   12.0 L   S   d       7.4   12.0 L  6.0 ≤ S ≤ 13.0 20 ≤ L ≤ 240 35 ≤ d ≤ 110 Nc ≥ 3 6.0 ≤ S ≤ 18.0 20 ≤ L ≤ 140 18 ≤ d ≤ 65 Nb ≥ 3 Lever Rule Concrete Box Beams Used in Multibeam Decks f, g  b     130 L  0.15 I   J Lever Rule 0.05 0.4 0.1  b   b  I        156   12.0 L   J  b ≥ 1.0 48 S > 18.0 0.05  b     48  35 ≤ b ≤ 60 20 ≤ L ≤ 120 5 ≤ N b ≤ 20 25, 000 ≤ J ≤ 610, 000 40, 000 ≤ I ≤ 610, 000 Concrete Beams Other Than Box Beams Used in Multibeam Decks Open Steel Grid Deck on Steel Beams Concrete Deck on Multiple Steel Box Beams h i, j if connected only enough to prevent relative vertical displacement at the interface a b, c Lever Rule Lever Rule N/A Lever Rule Lever Rule N/A As specified in Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-44 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.6.2.2.3b—Exterior Beams The live load shear for exterior beams shall be determined by applying the lane fractions specified in Table 4.6.2.2.3b-1. For cases not addressed in Table 4.6.2.2.3a-1 and Table 4.6.2.2.3b-1, the live load distribution to exterior beams shall be determined by using the lever rule. The parameter de shall be taken as positive if the exterior web is inboard of the curb or traffic barrier and negative if it is outboard. The additional provisions for exterior beams in beam-slab bridges with cross-frames or diaphragms, specified in Articles 4.6.2.2.2d, shall apply. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-45 Table 4.6.2.2.3b-1—Distribution of Live Load for Shear in Exterior Beams Type of Superstructure Wood Deck on Wood or Steel Beams Concrete Deck on Wood Beams Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, Partially Filled Grid, or Unfilled Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete TBeams, T- and Double TBeams Cast-in-Place Concrete Multicell Box Applicable CrossSection from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 a, l One Design Lane Loaded Lever Rule Two or More Design Lanes Loaded Lever Rule Range of Applicability N/A l Lever Rule Lever Rule N/A a, e, k and also i, j if sufficiently connected to act as a unit Lever Rule g = e ginterior d e = 0.6 + e 10 −1.0 ≤ d e ≤ 5.5 Lever Rule Nb = 3 g = e ginterior d e = 0.64 + e 12.5 −2.0 ≤ d e ≤ 5.0 d Lever Rule or the provisions for a whole-width design specified in Article 4.6.2.2.1 Concrete Deck on Concrete Spread Box Beams Concrete Box Beams Used in Multibeam Decks b, c f, g Lever Rule g = e g interior e = 1.25 + de ≥ 1.0 20 g = e ginterior d e = 0.8 + e 10 0 ≤ d e ≤ 4.5 Lever Rule S > 18.0 b    d e + 12 − 2.0  e = 1+   40     Concrete Beams Other Than Box Beams Used in Multibeam Decks Open Steel Grid Deck on Steel Beams Concrete Deck on Multiple Steel Box Beams h i, j if connected only enough to prevent relative vertical displacement at the interface a b, c Lever Rule Lever Rule 0.5 ≥ 1.0 Lever Rule Lever Rule N/A N/A As specified in Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS d e ≤ 2.0 35 ≤ b ≤ 60  48  g = e ginterior    b  48 ≤ 1.0 b 4-46 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.6.2.2.3c—Skewed Bridges C4.6.2.2.3c Shear in the exterior beam at the obtuse corner of the bridge shall be adjusted when the line of support is skewed. The value of the correction factor shall be obtained from Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1. It is applied to the lane fraction specified in Table 4.6.2.2.3a-1 for interior beams and in Table 4.6.2.2.3b-1 for exterior beams. This factor should not be applied in addition to modeling skewed supports. In determining the end shear in multibeam bridges, the skew correction at the obtuse corner shall be applied to all the beams. Verifiable correction factors are not available for cases not covered in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1. The equal treatment of all beams in a multibeam bridge is conservative regarding positive reaction and shear. However, it is not necessarily conservative regarding uplift in the case of large skew and short exterior spans of continuous beams. A supplementary investigation of uplift should be considered using the correction factor from Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1, i.e., the terms other than 1.0, taken as negative for the exterior beam at the acute corner. Chapter 4 Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1—Correction Factors for Load Distribution Factors for Support Shear of the Obtuse Corner Type of Superstructure Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, Partially Filled Grid, or Unfilled Grid Deck Composite with Reinforced Concrete Slab on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete TBeams, T- and Double T-Section Applicable Cross-Section from Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 a, e, k and also i, j if sufficiently connected to act as a unit Correction Factor 0.3  12.0 Lts 3  1.0 + 0.20  tan θ  K g    Range of Applicability 0° ≤ θ ≤ 60° 3.5 ≤ S ≤ 16.0 20 ≤ L ≤ 240 Nb ≥ 4 d 12.0 L   1.0 +  0.25 +  tan θ 70d   0° < θ ≤ 60° 6.0 < S ≤ 13.0 20 ≤ L ≤ 240 35 ≤ d ≤ 110 Nc ≥ 3 Concrete Deck on Spread Concrete Box Beams b, c Ld 1.0 + 12.0 tan θ 6S 0° < θ ≤ 60° 6.0 ≤ S ≤ 11.5 20 ≤ L ≤ 140 18 ≤ d ≤ 65 Nb ≥ 3 Concrete Box Beams Used in Multibeam Decks f, g 12.0 L tan θ 90d 0° < θ ≤ 60° 20 ≤ L ≤ 120 17 ≤ d ≤ 60 Cast-in-Place Concrete Multicell Box 1.0 + 35 ≤ b ≤ 60 5 ≤ N b ≤ 20 4.6.2.2.4—Curved Steel Bridges Approximate analysis methods may be used for analysis of curved steel bridges. The Engineer shall ascertain that the approximate analysis method used is appropriate by confirming that the method satisfies the requirements stated in Article 4.4. In curved systems, consideration should be given to placing parapets, sidewalks, barriers and other heavy line loads at their actual location on the bridge. Wearing surface and other distributed loads may be assumed uniformly distributed to each girder in the cross-section. C4.6.2.2.4 The V-load method (United States Steel, 1984) has been a widely used approximate method for analyzing horizontally curved steel I-girder bridges. The method assumes that the internal torsional load on the bridge— resulting solely from the curvature—is resisted by selfequilibrating sets of shears between adjacent girders. The V-load method does not directly account for sources of torque other than curvature and the method does not account for the horizontal shear stiffness of the concrete deck. The method is only valid for loads such as normal highway loadings. For exceptional loadings, a more refined analysis is required. The method assumes a linear --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-47 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- distribution of girder shears across the bridge section; thus, the girders at a given cross-section should have approximately the same vertical stiffness. The V-load method is also not directly applicable to structures with reverse curvature or to a closed-framed system with horizontal lateral bracing near, or in the plane of one or both flanges. The V-load method does not directly account for girder twist; thus, lateral deflections, which become important on bridges with large spans and/or sharp skews and vertical deflections, may be significantly underestimated. In certain situations, the V-load method may not detect uplift at end bearings. The method is best suited for preliminary design, but may also be suitable for final design of structures with radial supports or supports skewed less than approximately 10 degrees. The M/R method provides a means to account for the effect of curvature in curved box girder bridges. The method and suggested limitations on its use are discussed by Tung and Fountain (1970). Vertical reactions at interior supports on the concave side of continuous-span bridges may be significantly underestimated by both the V-load and M/R methods. Live load distribution factors for use with the V-load and M/R methods may be determined using the appropriate provisions of Article 4.6.2.2. Strict rules and limitations on the applicability of both of these approximate methods do not exist. The Engineer must determine when approximate methods of analysis are appropriate. 4.6.2.2.5—Special Loads with Other Traffic Except as specified herein, the provisions of this Article may be applied where the approximate methods of analysis for the analysis of beam-slab bridges specified in Article 4.6.2.2 and slab-type bridges specified in Article 4.6.2.3 are used. The provisions of this Article shall not be applied where either: • the lever rule has been specified for both single lane and multiple lane loadings, or • the special requirement for exterior girders of beamslab bridge cross-sections with diaphragms specified in Article 4.6.2.2.2d has been utilized for simplified analysis. Force effects resulting from heavy vehicles in one lane with routine traffic in adjacent lanes, such as might be considered with Load Combination Strength II in Table 3.4.1-1 may be determined as: g  g   G = Gp  1  + GD  gm − 1  Z Z    (4.6.2.2.4-1) C4.6.2.2.5 Because the number of loaded lanes used to determine the multiple lane live load distribution factor, gm, is not known, the multiple lane multiple presence factor, m, is implicitly set equal to 1.0 in this equation, which assumes only two lanes are loaded, resulting in a conservative final force effect over using the multiple presence factors for three or more lanes loaded. The factor Z is used to distinguish between situations where the single lane live load distribution factor was determined from a specified algebraic equation and situations where the lever rule was specified for the determination of the single lane live load distribution factor. In the situation where an algebraic equation was specified, the multiple presence factor of 1.20 for a single lane loaded has been included in the algebraic equation and must be removed by using Z = 1.20 in Eq. 4.6.2.2.4-1 so that the distribution factor can be utilized in Eq. 4.6.2.2.4-1 to determine the force effect resulting from a multiple lane loading. This formula was developed from a similar formula presented without investigation by Modjeski and Masters, Inc. (1994) in a report to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in 1994, as was examined in Zokaie (1998). © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-48 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS where: G = Gp g1 GD gm Z = = = = = final force effect applied to a girder (kip or kip-ft) force effect due to overload truck (kip or kip-ft) single lane live load distribution factor force effect due to design loads (kip or kip-ft) multiple lane live load distribution factor a factor taken as 1.20 where the lever rule was not utilized, and 1.0 where the lever rule was used for a single lane live load distribution factor 4.6.2.3—Equivalent Strip Widths for Slab-Type Bridges C4.6.2.3 This Article shall be applied to the types of crosssections shown schematically in Table 4.6.2.3-1. For the purpose of this Article, cast-in-place voided slab bridges may be considered as slab bridges. The equivalent width of longitudinal strips per lane for both shear and moment with one lane, i.e., two lines of wheels, loaded may be determined as: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- (4.6.2.3-1) E = 10.0 + 5.0 L1W1 In Eq. 4.6.2.3-1, the strip width has been divided by 1.20 to account for the multiple presence effect. The equivalent width of longitudinal strips per lane for both shear and moment with more than one lane loaded may be determined as: E = 84.0 + 1.44 L1W1 ≤ 12.0W NL (4.6.2.3-2) where: E = L1 = W1 = W = NL = equivalent width (in.) modified span length taken equal to the lesser of the actual span or 60.0 (ft) modified edge-to-edge width of bridge taken to be equal to the lesser of the actual width or 60.0 for multilane loading, or 30.0 for single-lane loading (ft) physical edge-to-edge width of bridge (ft) number of design lanes as specified in Article 3.6.1.1.1 For skewed bridges, the longitudinal force effects may be reduced by the factor r: r = 1.05 − 0.25tanθ ≤ 1.00 (4.6.2.3-3) where: θ = skew angle (degrees) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-49 Table 4.6.2.3-1—Typical Schematic Cross-Section Supporting Components Cast-in-Place Concrete Slab or Voided Slab Type of Deck Monolithic Stressed Wood Deck Integral Wood Glued/Spiked Wood Panels with Spreader Beam Integral Wood Typical Cross-Section 4.6.2.4—Truss and Arch Bridges The lever rule may be used for the distribution of gravity loads in trusses and arches when analyzed as planar structures. If a space analysis is used, either the lever rule or direct loading through the deck or deck system may be used. Where loads, other than the self-weight of the members and wind loads there on, are transmitted to the truss at the panel points, the truss may be analyzed as a pin-connected assembly. Physical column lengths shall be multiplied by an effective length factor, K, to compensate for rotational and translational boundary conditions other than pinned ends. In the absence of a more refined analysis, where lateral stability is provided by diagonal bracing or other suitable means, the effective length factor in the braced plane, K, for the compression members in triangulated trusses, trusses, and frames may be taken as: • For bolted or welded end connections at both ends: K = 0.750 • For pinned connections at both ends: K = 0.875 C4.6.2.5 Equations for the compressive resistance of columns and moment magnification factors for beamcolumns include a factor, K, which is used to modify the length according to the restraint at the ends of the column against rotation and translation. K is the ratio of the effective length of an idealized pin-end column to the actual length of a column with various other end conditions. KL represents the length between inflection points of a buckled column influenced by the restraint against rotation and translation of column ends. Theoretical values of K, as provided by the Structural Stability Research Council, are given in Table C4.6.2.5-1 for some idealized column end conditions. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 4.6.2.5—Effective Length Factor, K 4-50 • AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS For single angles, regardless of end connection: K = 1.0 Vierendeel trusses shall be treated as unbraced frames. Table C4.6.2.5-1—Effective Length Factors, K (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.65 0.80 1.0 1.2 2.1 2.0 Buckled shape of column is shown by dashed line Theoretical K value Design value of K when ideal conditions are approximated Rotation fixed Rotation free Rotation fixed Rotation free End condition code Translation fixed Translation fixed Translation free Translation free Because actual column end conditions seldom comply fully with idealized restraint conditions against rotation and translation, the design values suggested by the Structural Stability Research Council are higher than the idealized values. Lateral stability of columns in continuous frames, unbraced by attachment to shear walls, diagonal bracing, or adjacent structures, depends on the flexural stiffness of the rigidly connected beams. Therefore, the effective length factor, K, is a function of the total flexural restraint provided by the beams at the ends of the column. If the stiffness of the beams is small in relation to that of the column, the value of K could exceed 2.0. Single angles are loaded through one leg and are subject to eccentricity and twist, which is often not recognized. K is set equal to 1.0 for these members to more closely match the strength provided in the Guide for Design of Steel Transmission Towers (ASCE Manual No. 52, 1971). Assuming that only elastic action occurs and that all columns buckle simultaneously, it can be shown that (Chen and Liu, 1991; ASCE Task Committee on Effective Length, 1997): For braced frames: 2 Ga Gb  π  Ga + Gb   + 4 K 2   π   K 1 −    π   tan  K       π  2tan    2K  = 1 + π K --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS (C4.6.2.5-1) LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-51 For unbraced frames: 2  π  Ga Gb   − 36  K  = 6 (Ga + Gb ) π K  π  tan    K  (C4.6.2.5-2) where subscripts a and b refer to the two ends of the column under consideration in which: E I  Σ c c  L G=  c   Eg I g  Σ  Lg    (C4.6.2.5-3) where: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Σ = Ec Ic Lc Eg = = = = Ig = Lg = K = summation of the properties of components rigidly connected to an end of the column in the plane of flexure modulus of elasticity of column (ksi) moment of inertia of column (in.4) unbraced length of column (in.) modulus of elasticity of beam or other restraining member (ksi) moment of inertia of beam or other restraining member (in.4) unsupported length of beam or other restraining member (in.) effective length factor for the column under consideration Figures C4.6.2.5-1 and C4.6.2.5-2 are graphical representations of the relationship among K, Ga, and Gb for Eqs. C4.6.2.5-1 and C4.6.2.5-2, respectively. The figures can be used to obtain values of K directly. Eqs. C4.6.2.5-1, C4.6.2.5-2, and the alignment charts in Figures C4.6.2.5-1 and C4.6.2.5-2 are based on assumptions of idealized conditions. The development of the chart and formula can be found in textbooks such as Salmon and Johnson (1990) and Chen and Lui (1991). When actual conditions differ significantly from these idealized assumptions, unrealistic designs may result. Galambos (1988), Yura (1971), Disque (1973), Duan and Chen (1988), and AISC (1993) may be used to evaluate end conditions more accurately. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 4-52 Figure C4.6.2.5-1—Alignment Chart for Determining Effective Length Factor, K, for Braced Frames Figure C4.6.2.5-2—Alignment Chart for Determining Effective Length Factor, K, for Unbraced Frames © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-53 The following applies to Figures C4.6.2.5-1 and C4.6.2.5-2: the use of • For column ends supported by but not rigidly connected to a footing or foundation, G is theoretically equal to infinity, but unless actually designed as a true frictionless pin, may be taken equal to 10 for practical design. If the column end is rigidly attached to a properly designed footing, G may be taken equal to 1.0. Smaller values may be taken if justified by analysis. • In computing effective length factors for members with monolithic connections, it is important to properly evaluate the degree of fixity in the foundation using engineering judgment. In absence of a more refined analysis, the following values can be used: Condition Footing anchored on rock 1.5 Footing not anchored on rock Footing on soil Footing on multiple rows of end bearing piles G 3.0 5.0 1.0 In lieu of the alignment charts, the following alternative K-factor equations (Duan, King, and Chen, 1993) may be used. For braced frames: K =1− 1 1 1 − − 5 + 9Ga 5 + 9Gb 10 + Ga Gb (C4.6.2.5-4) For unbraced frames: • For K < 2 K =4− 1 1 + 0.2Ga − 1 1 + 0.2Gb − 1 1 + 0.01Ga Gb (C4.6.2.5-5) For K ≥ 2 K= 2πa 0.9 + 0.81 + 4ab (C4.6.2.5-6) in which: a= Ga Gb +3 Ga + Gb (C4.6.2.5-7) b= 36 +6 Ga + Gb (C4.6.2.5-8) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • 4-54 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Eq. C4.6.2.5-5 is used first. If the value of K calculated by Eq. C4.6.2.5-5 is greater than 2, Eq. C4.6.2.5-6 is used. The values for K calculated using Eqs. C4.6.2.5-5 and C4.6.2.5-6 are a good fit with results from the alignment chart Eqs. C4.6.2.5-1, C4.6.2.5-2, C4.6.2.5-3, and allow an Engineer to perform a direct noniterative solution for K. 4.6.2.6—Effective Flange Width Unless specified otherwise in this Article or in Articles 4.6.2.6.2, 4.6.2.6.3, or 4.6.2.6.5, the effective flange width of a concrete deck slab in composite or monolithic construction may be taken as the tributary width perpendicular to the axis of the member for determining cross-section stiffnesses for analysis and for determining flexural resistances. The effective flange width of orthotropic steel decks shall be as specified in Article 4.6.2.6.4. For the calculation of live load deflections, where required, the provisions of Article 2.5.2.6.2 shall apply. Where a structurally continuous concrete barrier is present and is included in the structural analysis as permitted in Article 4.5.1, the deck slab overhang width used for the analysis as well as for checking the composite girder resistance may be extended by: Δw = Ab 2t s (4.6.2.6.1-1) where: Ab = ts = cross-sectional area of the barrier (in.2) thickness of deck slab (in.) The slab effective flange width in composite girder and/or stringer systems or in the chords of composite deck trusses may be taken as one-half the distance to the adjacent stringer or girder on each side of the component, or one-half the distance to the adjacent stringer or girder plus the full overhang width. Otherwise, the slab effective flange width should be determined by a refined analysis when: • the composite or monolithic member cross-section is subjected to significant combined axial force and bending, with the exception that forces induced by restraint of thermal expansion may be determined in beam-slab systems using the slab tributary width, • the largest skew angle θ in the bridge system is greater than 75 degrees, where θ is the angle of a bearing line measured relative to a normal to the centerline of a longitudinal component, • the slab spans longitudinally between transverse floorbeams, or Longitudinal stresses are distributed across the deck of composite and monolithic flexural members by inplane shear stresses. Due to the corresponding shear deformations, plane sections do not remain plane and the longitudinal stresses across the deck are not uniform. This phenomenon is referred to as shear lag. The effective flange width is the width of the deck over which the assumed uniformly distributed longitudinal stresses result approximately in the same deck force and member moments calculated from elementary beam theory assuming plane sections remain plane, as are produced by the nonuniform stress distribution. The provisions of this Article apply to all longitudinal flexural members composite or monolithic with a deck slab, including girders and stringers. They are based on finite element studies of various bridge types and configurations, corroborated by experimental tests, and sensitivity analysis of various candidate regression equations (Chen et al., 2005). Chen et al. (2005) found that bridges with larger L/S (ratio of span length to girder spacing) consistently exhibited an effective width be equal to the tributary width b. Nonskewed bridges with L/S = 3.1, the smallest value of L/S considered in the Chen et al. (2005) study, exhibited be = b in the maximum positive bending regions and approximately be = 0.9b in the maximum negative bending regions under service limit state conditions. However, they exhibited be = b in these regions in all cases at the strength limit state. Bridges with large skew angles often exhibited be < b in both the maximum positive and negative moment regions, particularly in cases with small L/S. However, when various potential provisions were assessed using the Rating Factor (RF) as a measure of impact, the influence of using full width (be = b) was found to be minimal. Therefore, the use of the tributary width is justified in all cases within the limits specified in this Article. The Chen et al. (2005) study demonstrated that there is no significant relationship between the slab effective width and the slab thickness, as implied by previous Specifications. These provisions are considered applicable for skew angles less than or equal to 75 degrees, L/S greater than or equal to 2.0 and overhang widths less than or equal to 0.5S. In unusual cases where these limits are violated, a refined analysis should be used to determine the slab effective width. Furthermore, these provisions are © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- C4.6.2.6.1 4.6.2.6.1—General SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION the slab is designed for two-way action. 4.6.2.6.2—Segmental Concrete Box Beams and Single-Cell, Cast-in-Place Box Beams The effective flange width may be assumed equal to the physical flange width if: • b ≤ 0.1 li • b ≤ 0.3 do Otherwise, the effective width of outstanding flanges may be taken as specified in Figures 4.6.2.6.2-1 through 4.6.2.6.2-4, where: do = b = depth of superstructure (in.) physical flange width on each side of the web, e.g., b1, b2, and b3, as shown in Figure 4.6.2.6.2-3 (in.) considered applicable for slab-beam bridges with unequal skew angles of the bearing lines, splayed girders, horizontally curved girders, cantilever spans, and various unequal span lengths of continuous spans, although these parameters have not been investigated extensively in studies to date. These recommendations are based on the fact that the participation of the slab in these broader parametric cases is fundamentally similar to the participation of the slab in the specific parametric cases that have been studied. The use of one-half the distance to the adjacent stringer or girder in calculating the effective width of the main girders in composite girder and/or stringer systems or the truss chords in composite deck trusses is a conservative assumption for the main structural components, since typically a larger width of the slab can be expected to participate with the main girders or truss chords. However, this tributary width assumption may lead to an underestimation of the shear connector requirements and a lack of consideration of axial forces and bending moments in the composite stringers or girders due to the global effects. To utilize a larger slab width for the main girders or truss chords, a refined analysis should be considered. The specific cases in which a refined analysis is recommended are so listed because they are significantly beyond the conventional application of the concept of a slab effective width. These cases include tied arches where the deck slab is designed to contribute to the resistance of the tie girders and cable stayed bridges with a composite deck slab. Chen et al. (2005) provides a few case study results for simplified lower-bound slab effective widths in composite deck systems of cable stayed bridges with certain specific characteristics. C4.6.2.6.2 One possible alternative to the procedure specified in this Article is contained in Clause 3-10.2 of the 1991 Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, which provides an equation for determining the effective flange width for use in calculating flexural resistances and stresses. Superposition of local two-way slab flexural stresses due to wheel loads and the primary longitudinal flexural stresses is not normally required. The effective flange widths bm and bs are determined as the product of the coefficient in Figure 4.6.2.6.2-2 and the physical distance b, as indicated in Figure 4.6.2.6.2-3. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • 4-55 4-56 be AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS = bm = bs = a = ℓi = effective flange width corresponding to the particular position of the section of interest in the span as specified in Figure 4.6.2.6.2-1 (in.) effective flange width for interior portions of a span as determined from Figure 4.6.2.6.2-2; a special case of be (in.) effective flange width at interior support or for cantilever arm as determined from Figure 4.6.2.6.2-2; a special case of be (in.) portion of span subject to a transition in effective flange width taken as the lesser of the physical flange width on each side of the web shown in Figure 4.6.2.6.2-3 or one quarter of the span length (in.) a notional span length specified in Figure 4.6.2.6.2-1 for the purpose of determining effective flange widths using Figure 4.6.2.6.2-2 • In any event, the effective flange width shall not be taken as greater than the physical width. • The effects of unsymmetrical loading on the effective flange width may be disregarded. • The value of bs shall be determined using the greater of the effective span lengths adjacent to the support. • If bm is less than bs in a span, the pattern of the effective width within the span may be determined by the connecting line of the effective widths bs at adjoining support points. For the superposition of local and global force effects, the distribution of stresses due to the global force effects may be assumed to have a straight line pattern in accordance with Figure 4.6.2.6.2-3c. The linear stress distribution should be determined from the constant stress distribution using the conditions that the flange force remains unchanged and that the maximum width of the linear stress distribution on each side of a web is 2.0 times the effective flange width. The section properties for normal forces may be based on the pattern according to Figure 4.6.2.6.2-4 or determined by more rigorous analysis. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The following interpretations apply: If the linear stress distributions intersect a free edge or each other before reaching the maximum width, the linear stress distribution is a trapezoid; otherwise, it is a triangle. This is shown in Figure 4.6.2.6.2-3c. Figure 4.6.2.6.2-4 is intended only for calculation of resistance due to anchorage of post-tensioning tendons and other concentrated forces and may be disregarded in the general analysis to determine force effects. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION System 4-57 Pattern of bm/b Single-Span Girder ℓi = 1.0ℓ Continuous Girder End Span ℓi = 0.8ℓ Interior Span ℓi = 0.6ℓ Cantilever Arm ℓi = 1.5ℓ Figure 4.6.2.6.2-1—Pattern of Effective Flange Width, be, bm, and bs Figure 4.6.2.6.2-2—Values of the Effective Flange Width Coefficients for bm and bs for the Given Values of b/ℓi --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-58 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Figure 4.6.2.6.2-3—Cross-Sections and Corresponding Effective Flange Widths, be, for Flexure and Shear --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-59 Figure 4.6.2.6.2-4—Effective Flange Widths, bn, for Normal Forces 4.6.2.6.3—Cast-in-Place Multicell Superstructures The effective width for cast-in-place multiweb cellular superstructures may be taken to be as specified in Article 4.6.2.6.1, with each web taken to be a beam, or it may be taken to be the full width of the deck slab. In the latter case, the effects of shear lag in the end zones shall be investigated. 4.6.2.6.4—Orthotropic Steel Decks The effective width need not be determined when using refined analysis as specified in Article 4.6.3.2.4. For simplified analysis, the effective width of the deck, including the deck plate and ribs, acting as the top flange of a longitudinal superstructure component or a transverse beam may be taken as: • L/B ≥ 5: fully effective • 1 L/B < 5: bod = L 5 where: L = B = bod = span length of the orthotropic girder or transverse beam (in.) spacing between orthotropic girder web plates or transverse beams (in.) effective width of orthotropic deck (in.) C4.6.2.6.4 Consideration of effective width of the deck plate can be avoided by application of refined analysis methods. The procedures in Design Manual for Orthotropic Steel Plate Deck Bridges (AISC, 1963) may be used as an acceptable means of simplified analysis; however, it has been demonstrated that using this procedure can result in rib effective widths exceeding the rib spacing, which may be unconservative. Tests (Dowling et al., 1977) have shown that for most practical cases, shear lag can be ignored in calculating the ultimate compressive strength of stiffened or unstiffened girder flanges (Lamas and Dowling, 1980; Burgan and Dowling, 1985; Jetteur et al., 1984; and Hindi, 1991). Thus, a flange may normally be considered to be loaded uniformly across its width. It necessary to consider the flange effectiveness in greater detail only in the case of flanges with particularly large aspect ratios (L/B < 5) or particularly slender edge panels or stiffeners (Burgan and Dowling, 1985 and Hindi, 1991) is it necessary to consider the flange effectiveness in greater detail. Consideration of inelastic behavior can increase the effective width as compared to elastic analysis. At --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition 4-60 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS for strength limit states for positive and negative flexure. For service and fatigue limit states in regions of high shear, the effective deck width can be determined by refined analysis or other accepted approximate methods. 4.6.2.6.5—Transverse Floorbeams and Integral Bent Caps C4.6.2.6.5 The provisions for the effective flange width for transverse floorbeams and integral bent caps are based on past successful practice, specified by Article 8.10.1.4 of the 2002 AASHTO Standard Specifications. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- For transverse floorbeams and for integral bent caps designed with a composite concrete deck slab, the effective flange width overhanging each side of the transverse floorbeam or bent cap web shall not exceed six times the least slab thickness or one-tenth of the span length. For cantilevered transverse floorbeams or integral bent caps, the span length shall be taken as two times the length of the cantilever span. ultimate loading, the region of the flange plate above the web can yield and spread the plasticity (and distribute stress) outward if the plate maintains local stability. Results from studies by Chen et al. (2005) on composite steel girders, which included several tub-girder bridges, indicate that the full slab width may be considered effective in both positive and negative moment regions. Thus, orthotropic plates acting as flanges are considered fully effective for strength limit state evaluations from positive and negative flexure when the L/B ratio is at least 5. For the case of L/B < 5, only a width of one-fifth of the effective span should be considered effective. For service and fatigue limit states in regions of high shear, a special investigation into shear lag should be done. [This space is intentionally left blank. —ed.] © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-61 [This page is intentionally left blank. —ed.] --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition 4-62 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.6.2.7—Lateral Wind Load Distribution in Multibeam Bridges 4.6.2.7.1—I-Sections C4.6.2.7.1 In bridges with composite decks, noncomposite decks with concrete haunches, and other decks that can provide horizontal diaphragm action, wind load on the upper half of the outside beam, the deck, vehicles, barriers, and appurtenances shall be assumed to be directly transmitted to the deck, acting as a lateral diaphragm carrying this load to supports. Wind load on the lower half of the outside beam shall be assumed to be applied laterally to the lower flange. For bridges with decks that cannot provide horizontal diaphragm action, the lever rule shall apply for distribution of the wind load to the top and bottom flanges. Bottom and top flanges subjected to lateral wind load shall be assumed to carry that load to adjacent brace points by flexural action. Such brace points occur at wind bracing nodes or at cross-frames and diaphragm locations. The lateral forces applied at brace points by the flanges shall be transmitted to the supports by one of the following load paths: • Truss action of horizontal wind bracing in the plane of the flange; • Frame action of the cross-frames or diaphragms transmitting the forces into the deck or the wind bracing in the plane of the other flange, and then by diaphragm action of the deck, or truss action of the wind bracing, to the supports; • Lateral bending of the flange subjected to the lateral forces and all other flanges in the same plane, transmitting the forces to the ends of the span, for example, where the deck cannot provide horizontal diaphragm action, and there is no wind bracing in the plane of either flange. Precast concrete plank decks and timber decks are not solid diaphragms and should not be assumed to provide horizontal diaphragm action unless evidence is available to show otherwise. Unless a more refined analysis is made, the wind force, wind moment, horizontal force to be transmitted by diaphragms and cross-frames, and horizontal force to be transmitted by lateral bracing may be calculated as indicated below. This procedure is presented for beam bridges but may be adapted for other types of bridges. The wind force, W, may be applied to the flanges of exterior members. For composite members and noncomposite members with cast-in-place concrete or orthotropic steel decks, W need not be applied to the top flange. W = ηi γPD d 2 (C4.6.2.7.1-1) where: W = factored wind force per unit length applied to the flange (kip/ft) design horizontal wind pressure specified in Article 3.8.1 (ksf) depth of the member (ft) load factor specified in Table 3.4.1-1 for the particular group loading combination load modifier relating to ductility, redundancy, and operational importance as specified in Article 1.3.2.1 PD = d γ = = ηi = For the first two load paths, the maximum wind moment on the loaded flange may be determined as: Mw = WLb 2 10 (C4.6.2.7.1-2) where: Mw = maximum lateral moment in the flange due to the factored wind loading (kip-ft) factored wind force per unit length applied to the flange (kip/ft) spacing of brace points (ft) W = Lb = For the third load path, the maximum wind moment on the loaded flange may be computed as: Mw = WLb 2 WL2 + 10 8 Nb (C4.6.2.7.1-3) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- where: Mw = total lateral moment in the flange due to the factored wind loading (kip-ft) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-63 W = Lb = Nb = L = factored wind force per unit length applied to the flange (kip/ft) spacing of cross-frames or diaphragms (ft) number of longitudinal members span length (ft) Eq. C4.6.2.7.1-3 is based on the assumption that cross-frames and diaphragms act as struts in distributing the wind force on the exterior flange to adjacent flanges. If there are no cross-frames or diaphragms, the first term should be taken as 0.0, and Nb should be taken as 1.0. The horizontal wind force applied to each brace point may be calculated as: (C4.6.2.7.1-4) where: Pw = W = Lb = 4.6.2.7.2—Box Sections lateral wind force applied to the brace point (kips) wind force per unit length from Eq. C4.6.2.7.1-1 (kip/ft) spacing of diaphragms or cross-frames (ft) Lateral bracing systems required to support both flanges due to transfer of wind loading through diaphragms or cross-frames shall be designed for a horizontal force of 2Pw at each brace point. One quarter of the wind force on a box section shall be applied to the bottom flange of the exterior box beam. The section assumed to resist the wind force shall consist of the bottom flange and a part of the web as determined in Sections 5 and 6. The other three quarters of the wind force on a box section, plus the wind force on vehicles, barriers, and appurtenances, shall be assumed to be transmitted to the supports by diaphragm action of the deck. Interbox lateral bracing shall be provided if the section assumed to resist the wind force is not adequate. 4.6.2.7.3—Construction The need for temporary wind bracing during construction shall be investigated for I- and box-section bridges. 4.6.2.8—Seismic Lateral Load Distribution 4.6.2.8.1—Applicability These provisions shall apply to diaphragms, crossframes, and lateral bracing, which are part of the seismic lateral force resisting system in common slab-on-girder bridges in Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4. The provisions of Article 3.10.9.2 shall apply to Seismic Zone 1. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Pw = WLb 4-64 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.6.2.8.2—Design Criteria The Engineer shall demonstrate that a clear, straightforward load path to the substructure exists and that all components and connections are capable of resisting the imposed load effects consistent with the chosen load path. The flow of forces in the assumed load path must be accommodated through all affected components and details including, but not limited to, flanges and webs of main beams or girders, cross-frames, connections, slabto-girder interfaces, and all components of the bearing assembly from top flange interface through the confinement of anchor bolts or similar devices in the substructure. The analysis and design of end diaphragms and cross-frames shall consider horizontal supports at an appropriate number of bearings. Slenderness and connection requirements of bracing members that are part of the lateral force resisting system shall comply with applicable provisions specified for main member design. Members of diaphragms and cross-frames identified by the Designer as part of the load path carrying seismic forces from the superstructure to the bearings shall be designed and detailed to remain elastic, based on the applicable gross area criteria, under all design earthquakes, regardless of the type of bearings used. The applicable provisions for the design of main members shall apply. 4.6.2.8.3—Load Distribution A viable load path shall be established to transmit lateral loads to the foundation based on the stiffness characteristics of the deck, diaphragms, cross-frames, and lateral bracing. Unless a more refined analysis is made, an approximate load path shall be assumed as noted below. • In bridges with: o A concrete deck that can provide horizontal diaphragm action, or o A horizontal bracing system in the plane of the top flange, the lateral loads applied to the deck shall be assumed to be transmitted directly to the bearings through end diaphragms or cross-frames. The development and analysis of the load path through the deck or through the top lateral bracing, if present, shall utilize assumed structural actions analogous to those used for the analysis of wind loadings. C4.6.2.8.2 Diaphragms, cross-frames, lateral bracing, bearings, and substructure elements are part of a seismic load resisting system in which the lateral loads and performance of each element are affected by the strength and stiffness characteristics of the other elements. Past earthquakes have shown that when one of these elements responded in a ductile manner or allowed some movement, damage was limited. In the strategy taken herein, it is assumed that ductile plastic hinging in substructure is the primary source of energy dissipation. Alternative design strategies may be considered if approved by the Owner. C4.6.2.8.3 A continuous path is necessary for the transmission of the superstructure inertia forces to the foundation. Concrete decks have significant rigidity in their horizontal plane, and in short to medium slab-on-girder spans, their response approaches a rigid body motion. Therefore, the lateral loading of the intermediate diaphragms and cross-frames is minimal. Bearings do not usually resist load simultaneously, and damage to only some of the bearings at one end of a span is not uncommon. When this occurs, high load concentrations can result at the location of the other bearings, which should be taken into account in the design of the end cross-frames or diaphragms. Also, a significant change in the load distribution among end cross-frame members may occur. Although studies of cyclic load behavior of bracing systems have shown that with adequate details, bracing systems can allow for ductile behavior, these design provisions require elastic behavior in end diaphragms (Astaneh-Asl and Goel, 1984; Astaneh-Asl et al., 1985; Haroun and Sheperd, 1986; Goel and El-Tayem, 1986). --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION • In bridges that have: o Decks that cannot provide horizontal diaphragm action and o No lateral bracing in the plane of the top flange, the lateral loads applied to the deck shall be distributed through the intermediate diaphragms and cross-frames to the bottom lateral bracing or the bottom flange, and then to the bearings, and through the end diaphragms and cross-frames, in proportion to their relative rigidity and the respective tributary mass of the deck. • 4-65 Because the end diaphragm is required to remain elastic as part of the identified load path, stressing of intermediate cross-frames need not be considered. If a bottom lateral bracing system is not present, and the bottom flange is not adequate to carry the imposed force effects, the first procedure shall be used, and the deck shall be designed and detailed to provide the necessary horizontal diaphragm action. 4.6.2.9—Analysis of Segmental Concrete Bridges 4.6.2.9.1—General Elastic analysis and beam theory may be used to determine design moments, shears, and deflections. The effects of creep, shrinkage, and temperature differentials shall be considered as well as the effects of shear lag. Shear lag shall be considered in accordance with the provisions of Article 4.6.2.9.3. For spans in excess of 250 ft, results of elastic analyses should be evaluated with consideration of possible variations in the modulus of elasticity of the concrete, variations in the concrete creep and shrinkage properties, and the impact of variations in the construction schedule on these and other design parameters. 4.6.2.9.2—Strut-and-Tie Models Strut-and-tie models may be used for analysis in areas of load or geometrical discontinuity. C4.6.2.9.1 Analysis of concrete segmental bridges requires consideration of variation of design parameters with time as well as a specific construction schedule and method of erection. This, in turn, requires the use of a computer program developed to trace the timedependent response of segmentally erected, prestressed concrete bridges through construction and under service loads. Among the many programs developed for this purpose, several are in the public domain and may be purchased for a nominal amount, e.g., (Ketchum, 1986; Shushkewich, 1986; Danon and Gamble, 1977). C4.6.2.9.2 See references for background on transverse analysis of concrete box girder bridges. 4.6.2.9.3—Effective Flange Width --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Effective flange width for service load stress calculations may be determined by the provisions of Article 4.6.2.6.2. The section properties for normal forces may be based on Figure 4.6.2.6.2-4 or determined by more rigorous analysis. Bending, shear, and normal forces may be evaluated by using the corresponding factored resistances. The capacity of a cross-section at the strength limit state may be determined by considering the full compression flange width effect. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-66 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.6.2.9.4—Transverse Analysis The transverse design of box girder segments for flexure shall consider the segment as a rigid box frame. Flanges shall be analyzed as variable depth sections, considering the fillets between the flanges and webs. Wheel loads shall be positioned to provide maximum moments, and elastic analysis shall be used to determine the effective longitudinal distribution of wheel loads for each load location. Consideration shall be given to the increase in web shear and other effects on the cross-section resulting from eccentric loading or unsymmetrical structure geometry. The provisions of Articles 4.6.2.1 and 4.6.3.2, influence surfaces such as those by Homberg (1968) and Pucher (1964), or other elastic analysis procedures may be used to evaluate live load plus impact moment effects in the top flange of the box section. Transverse elastic and creep shortening due to prestressing and shrinkage shall be considered in the transverse analysis. The effect of secondary moments due to prestressing shall be included in stress calculations at the service limit state and construction evaluation. At the strength limit state, the secondary force effects induced by prestressing, with a load factor of 1.0, shall be added algebraically to the force effects due to factored dead and live loads and other applicable loads. 4.6.2.9.5—Longitudinal Analysis 4.6.2.9.5a—General Longitudinal analysis of segmental concrete bridges shall consider a specific construction method and construction schedule as well as the time-related effects of concrete creep, shrinkage, and prestress losses. The effect of secondary moments due to prestressing shall be included in stress calculations at the service limit state. At the strength limit state, the secondary force effects induced by prestressing, with a load factor of 1.0, shall be added algebraically to other applicable factored loads. 4.6.2.9.5b—Erection Analysis Analysis of the structure during any construction stage shall consider the construction load combinations, stresses, and stability considerations specified in Article 5.14.2.3. 4.6.2.9.5c—Analysis of the Final Structural System The provisions of Article 5.14.2.2.3 shall apply. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-67 4.6.2.10—Equivalent Strip Widths for Box Culverts 4.6.2.10.1—General C4.6.2.10.1 This Article shall be applied to box culverts with depths of fill less than 2.0 ft. 4.6.2.10.2—Case 1: Traffic Travels Parallel to Span When traffic travels primarily parallel to the span, culverts shall be analyzed for a single loaded lane with the single lane multiple presence factor. The axle load shall be distributed to the top slab for determining moment, thrust, and shear as follows: Perpendicular to the span: E = 96 + 1.44 S Parallel to the span: (4.6.2.10.2-1) Espan = LT + LLDF ( H ) (4.6.2.10.2-2) Design for depths of fill of 2.0 ft or greater are covered in Article 3.6.1.2.6. C4.6.2.10.2 Culverts are designed under the provisions of Section 12. Box culverts are normally analyzed as twodimensional frames. Equivalent strip widths are used to simplify the analysis of the three-dimensional response to live loads. Eqs. 4.6.2.10.2-1 and 4.6.2.10.2-2 are based on research (McGrath et al., 2004) that investigated the forces in box culverts with spans up to 24.0 ft. The distribution widths are based on distribution of shear forces. Distribution widths for positive and negative moments are wider; however, using the narrower width in combination with a single lane multiple presence factor provides designs adequate for multiple loaded lanes for all force effects. Although past practice has been to ignore the distribution of live load with depth of fill, consideration of this effect, as presented in Eq. 4.6.2.10.2-2, produces a more accurate model of the changes in design forces with increasing depth of fill. The increased load length parallel to the span, as allowed by Eq. 4.6.2.10.2-2, may be conservatively neglected in design. E = S Espan = = LT = LLDF = H = equivalent distribution width perpendicular to span (in.) clear span (ft) equivalent distribution length parallel to span (in.) length of tire contact area parallel to span, as specified in Article 3.6.1.2.5 (in.) factor for distribution of live load with depth of fill, 1.15 or 1.00, as specified in Article 3.6.1.2.6 depth of fill from top of culvert to top of pavement (in.) 4.6.2.10.3—Case 2: Traffic Travels Perpendicular to Span When traffic travels perpendicular to the span, live load shall be distributed to the top slab using the equations specified in Article 4.6.2.1 for concrete decks with primary strips perpendicular to the direction of traffic. C4.6.2.10.3 Culverts with traffic traveling perpendicular to the span can have two or more trucks on the same design strip at the same time. This must be considered, with the appropriate multiple presence factor, in analysis of the culvert structural response. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- where: 4-68 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.6.2.10.4—Precast Box Culverts For precast box culverts with top slabs having spanto-thickness ratios (s/t) of 18 or less and segment lengths greater than or equal to 4 ft in length, shear transfer across the joint need not be provided. For precast box culverts not satisfying the requirements noted above, the design shall incorporate one of the following: • Provide the culvert with a means of shear transfer between the adjacent sections. Shear transfer may be provided by pavement, soil fill, or a physical connection between adjacent sections. • Design the section ends as edge beams in accordance with the provisions of Article 4.6.2.1.4b using the distribution width computed from Eq. 4.6.2.10.2-1. The distribution width shall not exceed the length between two adjacent joints. C4.6.2.10.4 Precast box culverts manufactured in accordance with AASHTO M 273 are often installed with joints that do not provide a means of direct shear transfer across the joints of adjacent sections under service load conditions. This practice is based on research (James, 1984; Frederick, et al., 1988) which indicated significant shear transfer may not be necessary under service loading. The response of the sections tested was typified by small deflections and strains indicating that cracking did not occur under service wheel loads with no earth cover and that the demand on the section was lower than predicted by the design, which was based conservatively on a cracked section. While there are no known service issues with installation of standard box sections without means of shear transfer across joints, analysis (McGrath et al., 2004) shows that stresses are substantially higher when a box culvert is subjected to a live load at a free edge than when loaded away from a free edge. However, research performed on precast box culverts that were loaded at the edge of the section (Abolmaali and Garg, 2007) has shown that no means of load transfer across the joint is required when the live load is distributed per Articles 4.6.2.10.2 and 4.6.2.10.3 and the top slab of the box culvert is designed in accordance with Article 5.8.3. The tested boxes were shown to have significantly more shear strength than predicted by Article 5.8.3. For box culverts outside of the normal ASTM/AASHTO dimensional requirements, some fill or pavement will likely provide sufficient shear transfer to distribute live load to adjacent box sections without shear keys to avoid higher stresses due to edge loading. Otherwise, for box culverts outside of ASTM/AASHTO dimensional requirements with zero depth of cover, and no pavement, soil, or other means of shear transfer such as shear keys, designers should design the culvert section for the specified reduced distribution widths lacking a more rigorous design method. 4.6.3—Refined Methods of Analysis 4.6.3.1—General C4.6.3.1 Refined methods, listed in Article 4.4, may be used for the analysis of bridges. In such analyses, consideration shall be given to aspect ratios of elements, positioning and number of nodes, and other features of topology that may affect the accuracy of the analytical solution. The number of possible locations for positioning the design vehicular live load will be large when determining the extreme force effect in an element using a refined method of analysis. The following are variable: • The location of the design lanes when the available deck width contains a fraction of a design lane width, • Which of the design lanes are actually used, --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION A structurally continuous railing, barrier, or median, acting compositely with the supporting components, may be considered to be structurally active at service and fatigue limit states. When a refined method of analysis is used, a table of live load distribution coefficients for extreme force effects in each span shall be provided in the contract documents to aid in permit issuance and rating of the bridge. 4-69 • The longitudinal location of the design vehicular live load in each lane, • The longitudinal axle spacing of the design vehicular live load, • The transverse location of the design vehicular live load in each lane. This provision reflects the experimentally observed response of bridges. This source of stiffness has traditionally been neglected but exists and may be included, provided that full composite behavior is assured. These live load distribution coefficients should be provided for each combination of component and lane. 4.6.3.2—Decks 4.6.3.2.1—General Unless otherwise specified, flexural and torsional deformation of the deck shall be considered in the analysis but vertical shear deformation may be neglected. Locations of flexural discontinuity through which shear may be transmitted should be modeled as hinges. In the analysis of decks that may crack and/or separate along element boundaries when loaded, Poisson’s ratio may be neglected. The wheel loads shall be modeled as patch loads distributed over an area, as specified in Article 3.6.1.2.5, taken at the contact surface. This area may be extended by the thickness of the wearing surface, integral or nonintegral, on all four sides. When such extension is utilized, the thickness of the wearing surface shall be reduced for any possible wear at the time of interest. Other extended patch areas may be utilized with the permission of the Owner provided that such extended area is consistent with the assumptions in, and application of, a particular refined method of analysis. 4.6.3.2.2—Isotropic Plate Model For the purpose of this section, bridge decks that are solid, have uniform or close to uniform depth, and whose stiffness is close to equal in every in-plane direction shall be considered isotropic. C4.6.3.2.1 In many solid decks, the wheel load-carrying contribution of torsion is comparable to that of flexure. Large torsional moments exist in the end zones of skewed girder bridges due to differential deflection. In most deck types, shear stresses are rather low, and their contribution to vertical deflection is not significant. Inplane shear deformations, which gave rise to the concept of effective width for composite bridge decks, should not be neglected. C4.6.3.2.2 Analysis is rather insensitive to small deviations in constant depth, such as those due to superelevation, crown, and haunches. In slightly cracked concrete slabs, even a large difference in the reinforcement ratio will not cause significant changes in load distribution. The torsional stiffness of the deck may be estimated using Eq. C4.6.2.2.1-1 with b equal to 1.0. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition 4-70 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.6.3.2.3—Orthotropic Plate Model In orthotropic plate modeling, the flexural rigidity of the elements may be uniformly distributed along the cross-section of the deck. Where the torsional stiffness of the deck is not contributed solely by a solid plate of uniform thickness, the torsional rigidity should be established by physical testing, three-dimensional analysis, or generally accepted and verified approximations. C4.6.3.2.3 The accuracy of the orthotropic plate analysis is sharply reduced for systems consisting of a small number of elements subjected to concentrated loads. 4.6.3.2.4—Refined Orthotropic Deck Model • Linear elastic material behavior, • Small deflection theory, • Plane sections remain plane, • Neglect residual stresses, and • Neglect imperfections and weld geometry. Further guidance on evaluating local structural stresses using finite element modeling is provided in Manual for Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Orthotropic Steel Bridges (FHWA, 2012). --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Refined analysis of orthotropic deck structures subjected to direct wheel loads should be accomplished using a detailed three-dimensional shell or solid finite element structural model. The structural model should include all components and connections and consider local structural stress at fatigue prone details as shown in Table 6.6.1.2.3-1. Structural modeling techniques that utilize the following simplifying assumptions may be applied: C4.6.3.2.4 Meshing shall be sufficiently detailed to calculate local stresses at weld toes and to resolve the wheel patch pressure loading with reasonable accuracy. 4.6.3.3—Beam-Slab Bridges C4.6.3.3.1 4.6.3.3.1—General The aspect ratio of finite elements and grid panels should not exceed 5.0. Abrupt changes in size and/or shape of finite elements and grid panels should be avoided. Nodal loads shall be statically equivalent to the actual loads being applied. More restrictive limits for aspect ratio may be specified for the software used. In the absence of other information, the following guidelines may be used at the discretion of the Engineer: • A minimum of five, and preferably nine, nodes per beam span should be used. • For finite element analyses involving plate and beam elements, it is preferable to maintain the relative vertical distances between various elements. If this is not possible, longitudinal and transverse elements may be positioned at the midthickness of the plate-bending elements, provided that the eccentricities are included in the equivalent properties of those sections that are composite. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-71 For grid analysis or finite element and finite difference analyses of live load, the slab shall be assumed to be effective for stiffness in both positive and negative flexure. In a filled or partially filled grid system, composite section properties should be used. • In finite element analysis, an element should have membrane capability with discretization sufficient to properly account for shear lag. The force effects so computed should be applied to the appropriate composite or noncomposite section for computing resistance. • For longitudinal composite members in grid analyses, stiffness should be computed by assuming a width of the slab to be effective, but it need not be less than that specified in Article 4.6.2.6. • For K-frame and X-frame diaphragms, equivalent beam flexure and shear stiffnesses should be computed. For bridges with widely spaced diaphragms, it may be desirable to use notional transverse beam members to model the deck. The number of such beams is to some extent discretionary. The significance of shear lag in the transverse beam-slab width as it relates to lateral load distribution can be evaluated qualitatively by varying the stiffness of the beam-slab elements within reasonable limits and observing the results. Such a sensitivity study often shows that this effect is not significant. • Live load force effects in diaphragms should be calculated by the grid or finite element analysis. The easiest way to establish extreme force effects is by using influence surfaces analogous to those developed for the main longitudinal members. • The St. Venant torsional inertia may be determined using the equation in Article C4.6.2.2.1. Transformation of concrete and steel to a common material should be on the basis of shear modulus, G, which can be taken as G = 0.5E/(1+μ). It is recommended that the St. Venant rigidity of composite sections utilize only one-half of the effective width of the flexural section, as described above, before transformation. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • 4.6.3.3.2—Curved Steel Bridges Refined analysis methods should be used for the analysis of curved steel bridges unless the Engineer ascertains that approximate analysis methods are appropriate according to the provisions of Article 4.6.2.2.4. C4.6.3.3.2 Refined analysis methods, identified in Article 4.4, are generally computer-based. The finite strip and finite element methods have been the most common. The finite strip method is less rigorous than the finite element method and has fallen into disuse with the advent of more powerful computers. Finite element programs may provide grid analyses using a series of © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-72 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- beam elements connected in a plane. Refinements of the grid model may include offset elements. Frequently, the torsional warping degree of freedom is not available in beam elements. The finite element method may be applied to a three-dimensional model of the superstructure. A variety of elements may be used in this type of model. The three-dimensional model may be made capable of recognizing warping torsion by modeling each girder cross-section with a series of elements. The stiffness of supports, including lateral restraint such as integral abutments or integral piers, should be recognized in the analysis. Since bearing restraint is offset from the neutral axis of the girders, large lateral forces at the bearings often occur and may create significant bending in the girders, which may lead to lower girder moments than would be computed if the restraints were not present. The Engineer should ascertain that any such benefit recognized in the design will be present throughout the useful life of the bridge. Loads may be applied directly to the structural model, or applied to influence lines or influence surfaces. Only where small-deflection elastic solutions are used are influence surfaces or influence lines appropriate. The Engineer should ascertain that dead loads are applied as accurately as possible. 4.6.3.4—Cellular and Box Bridges A refined analysis of cellular bridges may be made by any of the analytic methods specified in Article 4.4, except the yield line method, which accounts for the two dimensions seen in plan view and for the modeling of boundary conditions. Models intended to quantify torsional warping and/or transverse frame action should be fully three-dimensional. For single box cross-sections, the superstructure may be analyzed as a spine beam for both flexural and torsional effects. A steel box should not be considered to be torsionally rigid unless internal bracing is provided to maintain the box cross-section. The transverse position of bearings shall be modeled. 4.6.3.5—Truss Bridges C4.6.3.5 A refined plane frame or space frame analysis shall include consideration for the following: • Composite action with the deck or deck system; • Continuity among the components; • Force effects due to self-weight of components, change in geometry due to deformation, and axial offset at panel points; and • In-plane and out-of-plane buckling of components including original out-of-straightness, continuity among the components and the effect axial forces present in those components. Load applied to deck or floorbeams instead of to truss joints will yield results that more completely quantify out-of-plane actions. Experience has shown that dead load force effects calculated using either plane frame or space frame analysis in a truss with properly cambered primary and secondary members and detailed to minimize eccentricity at joints, will be quite close to those calculated by the conventional approximations. In many cases, a complete three-dimensional frame analysis may be the only way to accurately calculate forces in secondary members, particularly live load force effects. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-73 Out-of-plane buckling of the upper chords of pony truss bridges shall be investigated. If the truss derives its lateral stability from transverse frames, of which the floorbeams are a part, the deformation of the floorbeams due to vehicular loading shall be considered. 4.6.3.6—Arch Bridges C4.6.3.6 The provisions of Article 4.6.3.5 shall apply where applicable. The effect of the extension of cable hangers shall be considered in the analysis of an arch tie. Where not controlled through proper detailing, rib shortening should be investigated. The use of large deflection analysis of arches of longer spans should be considered in lieu of the moment magnification correction as specified in Article 4.5.3.2.2c. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- When the distribution of stresses between the top and bottom chords of trussed arches is dependent on the manner of erection, the manner of erection shall be indicated in the contract documents. 4.6.3.7—Cable-Stayed Bridges Rib shortening and arch design and construction are discussed by Nettleton (1977). Any single-step correction factor cannot be expected to accurately model deflection effects over a wide range of stiffnesses. If a hinge is provided at the crown of the rib in addition to hinges at the abutment, the arch becomes statically determinate, and stresses due to change of temperature and rib shortening are essentially eliminated. Arches may be analyzed, designed, and constructed as hinged under dead load or portions of dead load and as fixed at some hinged locations for the remaining design loads. In trussed arches, considerable latitude is available in design for distribution of stresses between the top and bottom chords dependent on the manner of erection. In such cases, the manner of erection should be indicated in the contract documents. C4.6.3.7 The distribution of force effects to the components of a cable-stayed bridge may be determined by either spatial or planar structural analysis if justified by consideration of tower geometry, number of planes of stays, and the torsional stiffness of the deck superstructure. Cable-stayed bridges shall be investigated for nonlinear effects that may result from: • The change in cable sag at all limit states, • Deformation of deck superstructure and towers at all limit states, and • Material nonlinearity at the extreme event limit states. Nonlinear effects on cable-stayed bridges are treated in several texts, e.g., (Podolny and Scalzi, 1986; Troitsky, 1977), and a report by the ASCE Committee on Cable Suspended Bridges (ASCE, 1991), from which the particular forms of Eqs. 4.6.3.7-1 and 4.6.3.7-2 were taken. Cable sag may be investigated using an equivalent member modeled as a chord with modified modulus of elasticity given by Eq. 4.6.3.7-1 for instantaneous stiffness and Eq. 4.6.3.7-2, applied iteratively, for changing cable loads. EMOD  EAW 2(cos α ) 5  = E 1 +  12 H 3   −1 (4.6.3.7-1) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-74 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS EMOD  ( H 1 + H 2 ) EAW 2 ( cos α )5   = E 1 + 24 H 12 H 2 2   −1 (4.6.3.7-2) where: E W A α H, H1, H2 = = = = modulus of elasticity of the cable (ksi) total weight of cable (kip) cross-sectional area of cable (in.2) angle between cable and horizontal (degrees) = horizontal component of cable force (kip) The change in force effects due to deflection may be investigated using any method that satisfies the provisions of Article 4.5.3.2.1 and accounts for the change in orientation of the ends of cable stays. Cable-stayed bridges shall be investigated for the loss of any one cable stay. 4.6.3.8—Suspension Bridges Force effects in suspension bridges shall be analyzed by the large deflection theory for vertical loads. The effects of wind loads shall be analyzed, with consideration of the tension stiffening of the cables. The torsional rigidity of the deck may be neglected in assigning forces to cables, suspenders, and components of stiffening trusses. C4.6.3.8 In the past, short suspension bridges have been analyzed by conventional small deflection theories. Correction factor methods have been used on short- to moderate-span bridges to account for the effect of deflection, which is especially significant for calculating deck system moments. Any contemporary suspension bridge would have a span such that the large deflection theory should be used. Suitable computer programs are commercially available. Therefore, there is little rationale to use anything other than the large deflection solution. For the same economic reasons, the span would probably be long enough that the influence of the torsional rigidity of the deck, combined with the relatively small effect of live load compared to dead load, will make the simple sum-of-moments technique suitable to assign loads to the cables and suspenders and usually even to the deck system, e.g., a stiffening truss. 4.6.4—Redistribution of Negative Moments in Continuous Beam Bridges 4.6.4.1—General The Owner may permit the redistribution of force effects in multispan, multibeam, or girder superstructures. Inelastic behavior shall be restricted to the flexure of beams or girders, and inelastic behavior due to shear and/or uncontrolled buckling shall not be permitted. Redistribution of loads shall not be considered in the transverse direction. The reduction of negative moments over the internal supports due to the redistribution shall be accompanied by a commensurate increase in the positive moments in the spans. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-75 4.6.4.2—Refined Method The negative moments over the support, as established by linear elastic analysis, may be decreased by a redistribution process considering the moment-rotation characteristics of the cross-section or by a recognized mechanism method. The moment-rotation relationship shall be established using material characteristics, as specified herein, and/or verified by physical testing. 4.6.4.3—Approximate Procedure In lieu of the analysis described in Article 4.6.4.2, simplified redistribution procedures for concrete and steel beams, as specified in Sections 5 and 6, respectively, may be used. 4.6.5—Stability The investigation of stability shall utilize the large deflection theory. 4.6.6—Analysis for Temperature Gradient C4.6.6 Where determination of force effects due to vertical temperature gradient is required, the analysis should consider axial extension, flexural deformation, and internal stresses. Gradients shall be as specified in Article 3.12.3. The response of a structure to a temperature gradient can be divided into three effects as follows: • AXIAL EXPANSION—This is due to the uniform component of the temperature distribution that should be considered simultaneously with the uniform temperature specified in Article 3.12.2. It may be calculated as: TUG = 1   TG dw dz Ac (C4.6.6-1) The corresponding uniform axial strain is: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- εu = α (TUG + Tu ) • (C4.6.6-2) FLEXURAL DEFORMATION—Because plane sections remain plane, a curvature is imposed on the superstructure to accommodate the linearly variable component of the temperature gradient. The rotation per unit length corresponding to this curvature may be determined as: φ= α Ic   TG z dw dz = 1 R (C4.6.6-3) If the structure is externally unrestrained, i.e., simply supported or cantilevered, no external force effects are developed due to this superimposed deformation. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-76 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The axial strain and curvature may be used in both flexibility and stiffness formulations. In the former, εu may be used in place of P/AE, and φ may be used in place of M/EI in traditional displacement calculations. In the latter, the fixed-end force effects for a prismatic frame element may be determined as: N = EAc εu (C4.6.6-4) M = EI c φ (C4.6.6-5) An expanded discussion with examples may be found in Ghali and Neville (1989). Strains induced by other effects, such as shrinkage and creep, may be treated in a similar manner. • INTERNAL STRESS—Using the sign convention that compression is positive, internal stresses in addition to those corresponding to the restrained axial expansion and/or rotation may be calculated as: σ E = E [ αTG − αTUG − φz ] (C4.6.6-6) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- where: TG = TUG = Tu = Ac = Ic = α E R w z = = = = = temperature gradient (Δ°F) temperature averaged across the cross-section (°F) uniform specified temperature (°F) cross-section area—transformed for steel beams (in.2) inertia of cross-section—transformed for steel beams (in.4) coefficient of thermal expansion (in./in./°F) modulus of elasticity (ksi) radius of curvature (ft) width of element in cross-section (in.) vertical distance from center of gravity of cross-section (in.) For example, the flexural deformation part of the gradient flexes a prismatic superstructure into a segment of a circle in the vertical plane. For a two-span structure with span length, L, in ft, the unrestrained beam would lift off from the central support by Δ = 6 L2/R in in. Forcing the beam down to eliminate Δ would develop a moment whose value at the pier would be: Mc = 3 EI c φ 2 (C4.6.6-7) Therefore, the moment is a function of the beam rigidity and imposed flexure. As rigidity approaches 0.0 at the strength limit state, Mc tends to disappear. This behavior also indicates the need for ductility to ensure structural integrity as rigidity decreases. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-77 4.7—DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 4.7.1—Basic Requirements of Structural Dynamics 4.7.1.1—General For analysis of the dynamic behavior of bridges, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural components shall be modeled. The minimum number of degrees-of-freedom included in the analysis shall be based upon the number of natural frequencies to be obtained and the reliability of the assumed mode shapes. The model shall be compatible with the accuracy of the solution method. Dynamic models shall include relevant aspects of the structure and the excitation. The relevant aspects of the structure may include the: • Distribution of mass, • Distribution of stiffness, and • Damping characteristics. The relevant aspects of excitation may include the: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- • Frequency of the forcing function, • Duration of application, and • Direction of application. 4.7.1.2—Distribution of Masses The modeling of mass shall be made with consideration of the degree of discretization in the model and the anticipated motions. C4.7.1.1 Typically, analysis for vehicle- and wind-induced vibrations is not to be considered in bridge design. Although a vehicle crossing a bridge is not a static situation, the bridge is analyzed by statically placing the vehicle at various locations along the bridge and applying a dynamic load allowance, as specified in Article 3.6.2, to account for the dynamic responses caused by the moving vehicle. However, in flexible bridges and long slender components of bridges that may be excited by bridge movement, dynamic force effects may exceed the allowance for impact given in Article 3.6.2. In most observed bridge vibration problems, the natural structural damping has been very low. Flexible continuous bridges may be especially susceptible to vibrations. These cases may require analysis for moving live load. If the number of degrees-of-freedom in the model exceeds the number of dynamic degrees-of-freedom used, a standard condensation procedure may be employed. Condensation procedures may be used to reduce the number of degrees-of-freedom prior to the dynamic analysis. Accuracy of the higher modes can be compromised with condensation. Thus if higher modes are required, such procedures should be used with caution. The number of frequencies and mode shapes necessary to complete a dynamic analysis should be estimated in advance or determined as an early step in a multistep approach. Having determined that number, the model should be developed to have a larger number of applicable degrees-of-freedom. Sufficient degrees-of-freedom should be included to represent the mode shapes relevant to the response sought. One rule-of-thumb is that there should be twice as many degrees-of-freedom as required frequencies. The number of degrees-of-freedom and the associated masses should be selected in a manner that approximates the actual distributive nature of mass. The number of required frequencies also depends on the frequency content of the forcing function. C4.7.1.2 The distribution of stiffness and mass should be modeled in a dynamic analysis. The discretization of the model should account for geometric and material variation in stiffness and mass. The selection of the consistent or lump mass formulation is a function of the system and the response sought and is difficult to generalize. For distributive mass systems modeled with polynomial shape functions in which the mass is associated with distributive © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-78 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS stiffness, such as a beam, a consistent mass formulation is recommended (Paz, 1985). In lieu of a consistent formulation, lumped masses may be associated at the translational degrees-of-freedom, a manner that approximates the distributive nature of the mass (Clough and Penzian, 1975). For systems with distributive mass associated with larger stiffness, such as in-plane stiffness of a bridge deck, the mass may be properly modeled as lumped. The rotational inertia effects should be included where significant. 4.7.1.3—Stiffness C4.7.1.3 The bridge shall be modeled to be consistent with the degrees-of-freedom chosen to represent the natural modes and frequencies of vibration. The stiffness of the elements of the model shall be defined to be consistent with the bridge being modeled. 4.7.1.4—Damping In seismic analysis, nonlinear effects which decrease stiffness, such as inelastic deformation and cracking, should be considered. Reinforced concrete columns and walls in Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4 should be analyzed using cracked section properties. For this purpose, a moment of inertia equal to one-half that of the uncracked section may be used. C4.7.1.4 Equivalent viscous damping may be used to represent energy dissipation. Damping may be neglected in the calculation of natural frequencies and associated nodal displacements. The effects of damping should be considered where a transient response is sought. Suitable damping values may be obtained from field measurement of induced free vibration or by forced vibration tests. In lieu of measurements, the following values may be used for the equivalent viscous damping ratio: • Concrete construction: two percent • Welded and bolted steel construction: one percent • Timber: 4.7.1.5—Natural Frequencies For the purpose of Article 4.7.2, and unless otherwise specified by the Owner, elastic undamped natural modes and frequencies of vibration shall be used. For the purpose of Articles 4.7.4 and 4.7.5, all relevant damped modes and frequencies shall be considered. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS five percent SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-79 4.7.2—Elastic Dynamic Responses When an analysis for dynamic interaction between a bridge and the live load is required, the Owner shall specify and/or approve surface roughness, speed, and dynamic characteristics of the vehicles to be employed for the analysis. Impact shall be derived as a ratio of the extreme dynamic force effect to the corresponding static force effect. In no case shall the dynamic load allowance used in design be less than 50 percent of the dynamic load allowance specified in Table 3.6.2.1-1, except that no reduction shall be allowed for deck joints. C4.7.2.1 The limitation on the dynamic load allowance reflects the fact that deck surface roughness is a major factor in vehicle/bridge interaction and that it is difficult to estimate long-term deck deterioration effects thereof at the design stage. The proper application of the provision for reducing the dynamic load allowance is: IM CALC ≥ 0.5IM Table 3-6 (C4.7.2.1-1) not: IM  IM    ≥ 0.5 1 + 1 + 100   100  CALC   (C4.7.2.1-2) 4.7.2.2—Wind-Induced Vibration 4.7.2.2.1—Wind Velocities For critical or essential structures, which may be expected to be sensitive to wind effects, the location and magnitude of extreme pressure and suction values shall be established by simulated wind tunnel tests. 4.7.2.2.2—Dynamic Effects Wind-sensitive structures shall be analyzed for dynamic effects, such as buffeting by turbulent or gusting winds, and unstable wind-structure interaction, such as galloping and flutter. Slender or torsionally flexible structures shall be analyzed for lateral buckling, excessive thrust, and divergence. 4.7.2.2.3—Design Considerations Oscillatory deformations under wind that may lead to excessive stress levels, structural fatigue, and user inconvenience or discomfort shall be avoided. Bridge decks, cable stays, and hanger cables shall be protected against excessive vortex and wind-rain-induced oscillations. Where practical, the employment of dampers shall be considered to control excessive dynamic responses. Where dampers or shape modification are not practical, the structural system shall be changed to achieve such control. C4.7.2.2.3 Additional information on design for wind may be found in AASHTO (1985); Scanlan (1975); Simiu and Scanlan (1978); Basu and Chi (1981a); Basu and Chi (1981b); ASCE (1961); and ASCE (1991). © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 4.7.2.1—Vehicle-Induced Vibration 4-80 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.7.3—Inelastic Dynamic Responses 4.7.3.1—General • Elastic and inelastic deformation of the object that may collide with the structure, • Inelastic deformation of the structure and its attachments, • Permanent displacement of the masses of the structure and its attachments, and • Inelastic deformation of special-purpose mechanical energy dissipators. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- During a major earthquake or ship collision, energy may be dissipated by one or more of the following mechanisms: 4.7.3.2—Plastic Hinges and Yield Lines For the purpose of analysis, energy absorbed by inelastic deformation in a structural component may be assumed to be concentrated in plastic hinges and yield lines. The location of these sections may be established by successive approximation to obtain a lower bound solution for the energy absorbed. For these sections, moment-rotation hysteresis curves may be determined by using verified analytic material models. 4.7.4—Analysis for Earthquake Loads 4.7.4.1—General Minimum analysis requirements for seismic effects shall be as specified in Table 4.7.4.3.1-1. For the modal methods of analysis, specified in Articles 4.7.4.3.2 and 4.7.4.3.3, the design response spectrum specified in Figure 3.10.4.1-1 and Eqs. 3.10.4.2-1, 3.10.4.2-3, and 3.10.4.2.4 shall be used. Bridges in Seismic Zone 1 need not be analyzed for seismic loads, regardless of their operational classification and geometry. However, the minimum requirements, as specified in Articles 4.7.4.4 and 3.10.9, shall apply. 4.7.4.2—Single-Span Bridges Seismic analysis is not required for single-span bridges, regardless of seismic zone. Connections between the bridge superstructure and the abutments shall be designed for the minimum force requirements as specified in Article 3.10.9. Minimum support length requirements shall be satisfied at each abutment as specified in Article 4.7.4.4. C4.7.4.2 A single-span bridge is comprised of a superstructure unit supported by two abutments with no intermediate piers. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-81 4.7.4.3—Multispan Bridges 4.7.4.3.1—Selection of Method C4.7.4.3.1 For multispan structures, the minimum analysis requirements shall be as specified in Table 4.7.4.3.1-1 in which: * = no seismic analysis required UL = uniform load elastic method SM = single-mode elastic method MM = multimode elastic method TH = time history method The selection of the method of analysis depends on seismic zone, regularity, and operational classification of the bridge. Regularity is a function of the number of spans and the distribution of weight and stiffness. Regular bridges have less than seven spans; no abrupt or unusual changes in weight, stiffness, or geometry; and no large changes in these parameters from span to span or support-to-support, abutments excluded. A more rigorous analysis procedure may be used in lieu of the recommended minimum. Table 4.7.4.3.1-1—Minimum Analysis Requirements for Seismic Effects Seismic Zone 1 2 3 4 Single-Span Bridges No seismic analysis required Other Bridges regular irregular * * SM/UL SM SM/UL MM SM/UL MM Multispan Bridges Essential Bridges regular irregular * * SM/UL MM MM MM MM MM Critical Bridges regular irregular * * MM MM MM TH TH TH Except as specified below, bridges satisfying the requirements of Table 4.7.4.3.1-2 may be taken as “regular” bridges. Bridges not satisfying the requirements of Table 4.7.4.3.1-2 shall be taken as “irregular” bridges. Table 4.7.4.3.1-2—Regular Bridge Requirements Parameter Number of Spans Maximum subtended angle for a curved bridge Maximum span length ratio from span to span Maximum bent/pier stiffness ratio from span to span, excluding abutments 2 90° 3 — 3 90° 2 4 Value 4 90° 2 4 Curved bridges comprised of multiple simple-spans shall be considered to be “irregular” if the subtended angle in plan is greater than 20 degrees. Such bridges shall be analyzed by either the multimode elastic method or the time-history method. A curved continuous-girder bridge may be analyzed as if it were straight, provided all of the following requirements are satisfied: • The bridge is “regular” as defined in Table 4.7.4.3.1-2, except that for a two-span bridge the maximum span length ratio from span to span must not exceed 2; --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 5 90° 1.5 3 6 90° 1.5 2 4-82 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS • The subtended angle in plan is not greater than 90 degrees; and • The span lengths of the equivalent straight bridge are equal to the arc lengths of the curved bridge. If these requirements are not satisfied, then curved continuous-girder bridges must be analyzed using the actual curved geometry. 4.7.4.3.2—Single-Mode Methods of Analysis 4.7.4.3.2a—General Either of the two single-mode methods of analysis specified herein may be used where appropriate. C4.7.4.3.2b 4.7.4.3.2b—Single-Mode Spectral Method The single-mode spectral analysis method described in the following steps may be used for both transverse and longitudinal earthquake motions. Examples illustrating its application are given in AASHTO (1983) and ATC (1981). • Calculate the static displacements vs(x) due to an assumed uniform loading po as shown in Figure C4.7.4.3.2b-1: --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The single-mode method of spectral analysis shall be based on the fundamental mode of vibration in either the longitudinal or transverse direction. For regular bridges, the fundamental modes of vibration in the horizontal plane coincide with the longitudinal and transverse axes of the bridge structure. This mode shape may be found by applying a uniform horizontal load to the structure and calculating the corresponding deformed shape. The natural period may be calculated by equating the maximum potential and kinetic energies associated with the fundamental mode shape. The amplitude of the displaced shape may be found from the elastic seismic response coefficient, Csm, specified in Article 3.10.4.2, and the corresponding spectral displacement. This amplitude shall be used to determine force effects. Figure C4.7.4.3.2b-1—Bridge Deck Subjected to Assumed Transverse and Longitudinal Loading • Calculate factors α, β, and γ as: α =  vs ( x ) dx (C4.7.4.3.2b-1) β =  w ( x ) vs ( x ) dx (C4.7.4.3.2b-2) γ =  w ( x ) vs 2 ( x ) dx (C4.7.4.3.2b-3) © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-83 where: po = vs(x) w(x) = = a uniform load arbitrarily set equal to 1.0 (kip/ft) deformation corresponding to po (ft) nominal, unfactored dead load of the bridge superstructure and tributary substructure (kip/ft) The computed factors, α, β, and γ have units of (ft2), (kip-ft), and (kip-ft2), respectively. • Calculate the period of the bridge as: Tm = 2π γ po g α (C4.7.4.3.2b-4) where: acceleration of gravity (ft/sec.2) g = • Using Tm and Eqs. 3.10.4.2-1, 3.10.4.2-4, or 3.10.4.2-5, calculate Csm. • Calculate the equivalent static earthquake loading pe(x) as: pe ( x ) = βCsm w( x)vs ( x) γ (C4.7.4.3.2b-5) where: Csm = pe(x) = • the dimensionless elastic seismic response coefficient given by Eqs. 3.10.4.2-1, 3.10.4.2-4, or 3.10.4.2-5 the intensity of the equivalent static seismic loading applied to represent the primary mode of vibration (kip/ft) Apply loading pe(x) to the structure, and determine the resulting member force effects. C4.7.4.3.2c 4.7.4.3.2c—Uniform Load Method The uniform load method shall be based on the fundamental mode of vibration in either the longitudinal or transverse direction of the base structure. The period of this mode of vibration shall be taken as that of an equivalent single mass-spring oscillator. The stiffness of this equivalent spring shall be calculated using the maximum displacement that occurs when an arbitrary uniform lateral load is applied to the bridge. The elastic seismic response coefficient, Csm, specified in Article 3.10.4.2 shall be used to calculate the equivalent uniform seismic load from which seismic force effects are found. The uniform load method, described in the following steps, may be used for both transverse and longitudinal earthquake motions. It is essentially an equivalent static method of analysis that uses a uniform lateral load to approximate the effect of seismic loads. The method is suitable for regular bridges that respond principally in their fundamental mode of vibration. Whereas all displacements and most member forces are calculated with good accuracy, the method is known to overestimate the transverse shears at the abutments by up to 100 percent. If such conservatism is undesirable, then the single-mode spectral analysis method specified in Article 4.7.4.3.2b is recommended. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-84 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS • Calculate the static displacements vs(x) due to an assumed uniform load po, as shown in Figure C4.7.4.3.2b-1. The uniform loading po is applied over the length of the bridge; it has units of force per unit length and may be arbitrarily set equal to 1.0. The static displacement vs(x) has units of length. • Calculate the bridge lateral stiffness, K, and total weight, W, from the following expressions: po L vs,MAX (C4.7.4.3.2c-1) W =  w( x)dx (C4.7.4.3.2c-2) K= where: L vs,MAX w(x) = = = total length of the bridge (ft) maximum value of vs(x) (ft) nominal, unfactored dead load of the bridge superstructure and tributary substructure (kip/ft) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- The weight should take into account structural elements and other relevant loads including, but not limited to, pier caps, abutments, columns, and footings. Other loads, such as live loads, may be included. Generally, the inertia effects of live loads are not included in the analysis; however, the probability of a large live load being on the bridge during an earthquake should be considered when designing bridges with high live-to-dead load ratios that are located in metropolitan areas where traffic congestion is likely to occur. • Calculate the period of the bridge, Tm, using the expression: Tm = 2π W gK (C4.7.4.3.2c-3) where: acceleration of gravity (ft/sec.2) g = • Calculate the equivalent static earthquake loading pe from the expression: pe = CsmW L (C4.7.4.3.2c-4) where: Csm = the dimensionless elastic seismic response coefficient given by Eqs. 3.10.4.2-1, 3.10.4.2-4, or 3.10.4.2-5 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-85 pe = • Calculate the displacements and member forces for use in design either by applying pe to the structure and performing a second static analysis or by scaling the results of the first step above by the ratio pe /po. 4.7.4.3.3—Multimode Spectral Method The multimode spectral analysis method shall be used for bridges in which coupling occurs in more than one of the three coordinate directions within each mode of vibration. As a minimum, linear dynamic analysis using a three-dimensional model shall be used to represent the structure. The number of modes included in the analysis should be at least three times the number of spans in the model. The design seismic response spectrum as specified in Article 3.10.4 shall be used for each mode. The member forces and displacements may be estimated by combining the respective response quantities (moment, force, displacement, or relative displacement) from the individual modes by the Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) method. C4.7.4.3.3 Member forces and displacements obtained using the CQC combination method are generally adequate for most bridge systems (Wilson et al., 1981). If the CQC method is not readily available, alternative methods include the square root of the sum of the squares method (SRSS), but this method is best suited for combining responses from well-separated modes. For closely spaced modes, the absolute sum of the modal responses should be used. 4.7.4.3.4—Time-History Method C4.7.4.3.4 4.7.4.3.4a—General Any step-by-step time-history method of analysis used for either elastic or inelastic analysis shall satisfy the requirements of Article 4.7. The sensitivity of the numerical solution to the size of the time step used for the analysis shall be determined. A sensitivity study shall also be carried out to investigate the effects of variations in assumed material hysteretic properties. The time histories of input acceleration used to describe the earthquake loads shall be selected in accordance with Article 4.7.4.3.4b. C4.7.4.3.4a Rigorous methods of analysis are required for critical structures, which are defined in Article 3.10.3, and/or those that are geometrically complex or close to active earthquake faults. Time history methods of analysis are recommended for this purpose, provided care is taken with both the modeling of the structure and the selection of the input time histories of ground acceleration. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- C4.7.4.3.4b 4.7.4.3.4b—Acceleration Time Histories Developed time histories shall have characteristics that are representative of the seismic environment of the site and the local site conditions. Response-spectrum-compatible time histories shall be used as developed from representative recorded motions. Analytical techniques used for spectrum matching shall be demonstrated to be capable of equivalent uniform static seismic loading per unit length of bridge applied to represent the primary mode of vibration (kip/ft) Characteristics of the seismic environment to be considered in selecting time histories include: • Tectonic environment (e.g., subduction zone; shallow crustal faults), • Earthquake magnitude, © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS achieving seismologically realistic time series that are similar to the time series of the initial time histories selected for spectrum matching. Where recorded time histories are used, they shall be scaled to the approximate level of the design response spectrum in the period range of significance. Each time history shall be modified to be response-spectrumcompatible using the time-domain procedure. At least three response-spectrum-compatible time histories shall be used for each component of motion in representing the design earthquake (ground motions having seven percent probability of exceedance in 75 yr). All three orthogonal components (x, y, and z) of design motion shall be input simultaneously when conducting a nonlinear time-history analysis. The design actions shall be taken as the maximum response calculated for the three ground motions in each principal direction. If a minimum of seven time histories are used for each component of motion, the design actions may be taken as the mean response calculated for each principal direction. For near-field sites (D < 6 mi), the recorded horizontal components of motion that are selected should represent a near-field condition and should be transformed into principal components before making them response-spectrum-compatible. The major principal component should then be used to represent motion in the fault-normal direction and the minor principal component should be used to represent motion in the fault-parallel direction. • Type of faulting (e.g., strike-slip; reverse; normal), • Seismic-source-to-site distance, • Local site conditions, and • Design or expected ground-motion characteristics (e.g., design response spectrum, duration of strong shaking, and special ground motion characteristics such as near-fault characteristics) Dominant earthquake magnitudes and distances, which contribute principally to the probabilistic design response spectra at a site, as determined from national ground motion maps, can be obtained from deaggregation information on the USGS website: http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov. It is desirable to select time histories that have been recorded under conditions similar to the seismic conditions at the site listed above, but compromises are usually required because of the multiple attributes of the seismic environment and the limited data bank of recorded time histories. Selection of time histories having similar earthquake magnitudes and distances, within reasonable ranges, are especially important parameters because they have a strong influence on response spectral content, response spectral shape, duration of strong shaking, and near-source ground-motion characteristics. It is desirable that selected recorded motions be somewhat similar in overall ground motion level and spectral shape to the design spectrum to avoid using very large scaling factors with recorded motions and very large changes in spectral content in the spectrum-matching approach. If the site is located within 6 mi of an active fault, then intermediate-to-long-period ground-motion pulses that are characteristic of near-source time histories should be included if these types of ground motion characteristics could significantly influence structural response. Similarly, the high short-period spectral content of nearsource vertical ground motions should be considered. Ground motion modeling methods of strong motion seismology are being increasingly used to supplement the recorded ground motion database. These methods are especially useful for seismic settings for which relatively few actual strong motion recordings are available, such as in the central and eastern United States. Through analytical simulation of the earthquake rupture and wave propagation process, these methods can produce seismologically reasonable time series. Response spectrum matching approaches include methods in which time series adjustments are made in the time domain (Lilhanand and Tseng, 1988; Abrahamson, 1992) and those in which the adjustments are made in the frequency domain (Gasparini and Vanmarcke, 1976; Silva and Lee, 1987; Bolt and Gregor, 1993). Both of these approaches can be used to modify existing time histories to achieve a close match to the design response spectrum while maintaining fairly © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 4-86 SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-87 well the basic time domain character of the recorded or simulated time histories. To minimize changes to the time domain characteristics, it is desirable that the overall shape of the spectrum of the recorded time history not be greatly different from the shape of the design response spectrum and that the time history initially be scaled so that its spectrum is at the approximate level of the design spectrum before spectrum matching. Where three-component sets of time histories are developed by simple scaling rather than spectrum matching, it is difficult to achieve a comparable aggregate match to the design spectra for each component of motion when using a single scaling factor for each time history set. It is desirable, however, to use a single scaling factor to preserve the relationship between the components. Approaches for dealing with this scaling issue include: • use of a higher scaling factor to meet the minimum aggregate match requirement for one component while exceeding it for the other two, • use of a scaling factor to meet the aggregate match for the most critical component with the match somewhat deficient for other components, and • Compromising on the scaling by using different factors as required for different components of a time-history set. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- While the second approach is acceptable, it requires careful examination and interpretation of the results and possibly dual analyses for application of the higher horizontal component in each principal horizontal direction. The requirements for the number of time histories to be used in nonlinear inelastic dynamic analysis and for the interpretation of the results take into account the dependence of response on the time domain character of the time histories (duration, pulse shape, pulse sequencing) in addition to their response spectral content. Additional guidance on developing acceleration time histories for dynamic analysis may be found in publications by the Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board Adhoc Committee (CSABAC) on Soil-FoundationStructure Interaction (1999) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2000). CSABAC (1999) also provides detailed guidance on modeling the spatial variation of ground motion between bridge piers and the conduct of seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction (SFSI) analyses. Both spatial variations of ground motion and SFSI may significantly affect bridge response. Spatial variations include differences between seismic wave arrival times at bridge piers (wave passage effect), ground motion incoherence due to seismic wave scattering, and differential site response due to different soil profiles at different bridge piers. For long bridges, © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-88 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS all forms of spatial variations may be important. For short bridges, limited information appears to indicate that wave passage effects and incoherence are, in general, relatively unimportant in comparison to effects of differential site response (Shinozuka et al., 1999; Martin, 1998). Somerville et al. (1999) provide guidance on the characteristics of pulses of ground motion that occur in time histories in the near-fault region. 4.7.4.4—Minimum Support Length Requirements C4.7.4.4 Support lengths at expansion bearings without restrainers, STUs, or dampers shall either accommodate the greater of the maximum displacement calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 4.7.4.3, except for bridges in Zone 1, or a percentage of the empirical support length, N, specified by Eq. 4.7.4.4-1. Otherwise, longitudinal restrainers complying with Article 3.10.9.5 shall be provided. Bearings restrained for longitudinal movement shall be designed in compliance with Article 3.10.9. The percentages of N, applicable to each seismic zone, shall be as specified in Table 4.7.4.4-1. The empirical support length shall be taken as: N = ( 8 + 0.02 L + 0.08 H ) (1 + 0.000125S 2 ) Support lengths are equal to the length of the overlap between the girder and the seat as shown in Figure C4.7.4.4-1. To satisfy the minimum values for N in this Article, the overall seat width will be larger than N by an amount equal to movements due to prestress shortening, creep, shrinkage, and thermal expansion/contraction. The minimum value for N given in Eq. 4.7.4.4-1 includes an arbitrary allowance for cover concrete at the end of the girder and face of the seat. If above average cover is used at these locations, N should be increased accordingly. (4.7.4.4-1) where: N = L = H = minimum support length measured normal to the centerline of bearing (in.) length of the bridge deck to the adjacent expansion joint, or to the end of the bridge deck; for hinges within a span, L shall be the sum of the distances to either side of the hinge; for single-span bridges, L equals the length of the bridge deck (ft) for abutments, average height of columns supporting the bridge deck from the abutment to the next expansion joint (ft) for columns and/or piers, column, or pier height (ft) Figure C4.7.4.4-1—Support Length, N for hinges within a span, average height of the adjacent two columns or piers (ft) 0.0 for single-span bridges (ft) S = skew of support measured from line normal to span (degrees) --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-89 Table 4.7.4.4-1—Percentage N by Zone and Acceleration Coefficient AS, Specified in Eq. 3.10.4.2-2 Acceleration Coefficient, AS <0.05 ≥0.05 All Applicable All Applicable All Applicable Zone 1 1 2 3 4 Percent, N ≥75 100 150 150 150 4.7.4.5 P-∆ Requirements C4.7.4.5 The displacement of any column or pier in the longitudinal or transverse direction shall satisfy: ΔPu < 0.25φM n (4.7.4.5-1) in which: Δ = Rd Δ e • (4.7.4.5-2) If T < 1.25Ts , then: 1  1.25Ts 1  Rd = 1 −  + R  R T • (4.7.4.5-3) If T ≥ 1.25Ts , then: Rd = 1 (4.7.4.5-4) where: Δ = Δe = T = TS = R = Pu = φ = Mn = displacement of the point of contraflexure in the column or pier relative to the point of fixity for the foundation (ft) displacement calculated from elastic seismic analysis (in.) period of fundamental mode of vibration (sec.) corner period specified in Article 3.10.4.2 (sec.) R-factor specified in Article 3.10.7 axial load on column or pier (kip) flexural resistance factor for column specified in Article 5.10.11.4.1b nominal flexural strength of column or pier calculated at the axial load on the column or pier (kip-ft) Bridges subject to earthquake ground motion may be susceptible to instability due to P-Δ effects. Inadequate strength can result in ratcheting of structural displacements to larger and larger values causing excessive ductility demand on plastic hinges in the columns, large residual deformations, and possibly collapse. The maximum value for Δ given in this Article is intended to limit the displacements such that P-Δ effects will not significantly affect the response of the bridge during an earthquake. P-Δ effects lead to a loss in strength once yielding occurs in the columns of a bridge. In severe cases, this can result in the force-displacement relationship having a negative slope once yield is fully developed. The value for Δ given by Eq. 4.7.4.5-1 is such that this reduction in strength is limited to 25 percent of the yield strength of the pier or bent. An explicit P-Δ check was not required in the previous edition of these Specifications but has been introduced herein because two conservative provisions have been relaxed in this revised edition. These are: • The shape of the response spectrum (Figure 3.10.4.1-1) has been changed from being proportional to 1/T2/3 to 1/T. The reason for the 1/T2/3 provision in the previous edition was to give conservative estimates of force and displacement in bridges with longer periods (>1.0 secs) which, in an indirect way, provided for such effects as P-Δ. With the change of the spectrum to being proportional to 1/T, an explicit check for P-Δ is now required. • The flexural resistance factor, φ, for seismic design of columns with high axial loads has been increased from a minimum value of 0.5 to 0.9 (Article 5.10.11.4.1b). Use of a low resistance factor led to additional strength being provided in heavily loaded columns that could be used to offset reductions due to P-Δ, in the previous edition. The increased value for φ now permitted in Section 5 is a second reason for requiring an explicit check for P-Δ. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-90 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4.7.5—Analysis for Collision Loads Where permitted by the provisions of Section 3, dynamic analysis for ship collision may be replaced by an equivalent static elastic analysis. Where an inelastic analysis is specified, the effect of other loads that may also be present shall be considered. 4.7.6—Analysis of Blast Effects C4.7.6 As a minimum, bridge components analyzed for blast forces should be designed for the dynamic effects resulting from the blast pressure on the structure. The results of an equivalent static analysis shall not be used for this purpose. Localized spall and breach damage should be accounted for when designing bridge components for blast forces. Data available at the time these provisions were developed (winter 2010) are not sufficient to develop expressions for estimating the extent of spall/breach in concrete columns; however, spall and breach damage can be estimated for other types of components using guidelines found in Department of Defense (2008a). The highly impulsive nature of blast loads warrants the consideration of inertial effects during the analysis of a structural component. Past research has demonstrated that, in general, an equivalent static analysis is not acceptable for the design of any structural member subjected to blast loads (Department of Defense, 2008a; Department of Defense, 2002; Bounds, 1998; ASCE, 1997). Information on designing structures to resist blast loads may be found in AASHTO’s Bridge Security Guidelines (2011), ASCE (1997), Department of Defense (2008a), Conrath, et al. (1999), Biggs (1964), and Bounds (1998). 4.8—ANALYSIS BY PHYSICAL MODELS 4.8.1—Scale Model Testing To establish and/or to verify structural behavior, the Owner may require the testing of scale models of structures and/or parts thereof. The dimensional and material properties of the structure, as well as its boundary conditions and loads, shall be modeled as accurately as possible. For dynamic analysis, inertial scaling, load/excitation, and damping functions shall be applied as appropriate. For strength limit state tests, factored dead load shall be simulated. The instrumentation shall not significantly influence the response of the model. 4.8.2—Bridge Testing C4.8.2 Existing bridges may be instrumented and results obtained under various conditions of traffic and/or environmental loads or load tested with special purpose vehicles to establish force effects and/or the loadcarrying capacity of the bridge. These measured force effects may be used to project fatigue life, to serve as a basis for similar designs, to establish permissible weight limits, to aid in issuing permits, or to establish a basis of prioritizing rehabilitation or retrofit. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-91 4.9—REFERENCES AASHTO. 1983. Guide Specification for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2000. Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design, Second Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Archived. AASHTO. 2009. Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaries, and Traffic Signals, Fifth Edition, LTS-5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2010. Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design, Third Edition, GSID-3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO. 2011. Bridge Security Guidelines, First Edition, BSG-1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Abrahamson, N. A. 1992. “Non-stationary Spectral Matching Program,” Seismological Research Letters. Vol. 63, No.1. Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA, p.3. ACI Committee 435. 1986. State-of-Art Report on Temperature-Induced Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Members. SP-86-1. ACI 435.7R-85. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. ACI. 2002. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, ACI 318-02 and ACI 318R-02. American Concrete Institute, Farmington, Hill, MI. AISC. 1993. “Load and Resistance Factor Design.” Specification for Structural Steel Buildings and Commentary, 2nd Edition. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. AISC. 1999. LRFD Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings, Third Edition. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. Allen, T. M. 2005. Development of Geotechnical Resistance Factors and Downdrag Load Factors for LRFD Foundation Strength Limit State Design, FHWA-NHI-05-052. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Aristizabal, J. D. 1987. “Tapered Beam and Column Elements in Unbraced Frame Structures.” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, January 1987, pp. 35–49. ASCE. 1961. “Wind Forces on Structures.” Transactions of the ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 126, No. 3269. ASCE. 1971. “Guide for Design of Transmission Towers.” Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, No. 52, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 1–47. ASCE Committee on Cable-Suspended Bridges. 1991. Guidelines for Design of Cable-Stayed Bridges. Committee on Cable-Suspended Bridges, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. ASCE Task Committee on Effective Length. 1997. Effective Length and Notional Load Approaches for Assessing Frame Stability: Implementation for American Steel Design. Task Committee on Effective Length, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. Astaneh-Asl, A., and S. C. Goel. 1984. “Cyclic In-Plane Buckling of Double Angle Bracing.” Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 110, No. 9, September 1984, pp. 2036–2055. Astaneh-Asl, A., S. C. Goel, and R. D. Hanson. 1985. “Cyclic Out-of-Plane Buckling of Double Angle Bracing.” Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 111, No. 5, May 1985, pp. 1135–1153. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-92 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ATC. 1981. Seismic Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges. ATC-6. Applied Technology Council, Berkeley, CA. Basu, S., and M. Chi. 1981a. Analytic Study for Fatigue of Highway Bridge Cables, FHWA-RD-81-090. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Basu, S., and M. Chi. 1981b. Design Manual for Bridge Structural Members under Wind-Induced Excitation, FHWA-TS-81-206. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Biggs, J. M. 1964. Introduction to Structural Dynamics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY. Bolt, B. A., and N. J. Gregor. 1993. Synthesized Strong Ground Motions for the Seismic Condition Assessment of the Eastern Portion of the San Francisco Bay Bridge, Report UCB/EERC-93.12. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. BridgeTech, Inc. 2007. Simplified Live Load Distribution Factor Equations, NCHRP Report 592. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Burgan, B. A. and P. J. Dowling. 1985. The Collapse Behavior of Box Girder Compression Flanges—Numerical Modeling of Experimental Results, CESLIC Report BG 83. Imperial College, University of London, UK. Chen, S. S., A. J. Aref, I.-S. Ahn, M. Chiewanichakorn, J. A. Carpenter, A. Nottis, and I. Kalpakidis. 2005. Effective Slab Width for Composite Steel Bridge Members, NCHRP Report 543. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Chen, W. F., and E. M. Lui. 1991. Stability Design of Steel Frames. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Clough, R. W., and J. Penzian. 1975. Dynamics of Structures. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. CSABAC. 1999. Seismic Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction, final report. Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board Ad Hoc Committee on Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction (CSABAC), California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. Danon, J. R. and W. L. Gamble. 1977. “Time-Dependent Deformations and Losses in Concrete Bridges Built by the Cantilever Method.” Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series. University of Illinois at Urbana– Champaign, Department of Civil Engineering, No. 437, January 1977, p. 169. Davis, R., J. Kozak, and C. Scheffey. 1965. Structural Behavior of a Box Girder Bridge. State of California Highway Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, Bridge Department, in cooperation with U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, and the University of California, Berkeley, CA, May 1965. Disque, R. O. 1973. “Inelastic K-Factor in Design.” AISC Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, Vol. 10, 2nd Qtr., p. 33. Dowling, P. J., J. E. Harding, and P. A. Frieze, eds. 1977. Steel Plated Structures. In Proc., Imperial College, Crosby Lockwood, London, UK. Duan, L. and W. F. Chen. 1988. “Effective Length Factor for Columns in Braced Frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 114, No. 10, October, 1988, pp. 2357–2370. Duan, L., and W. F. Chen. 1989. “Effective Length Factor for Columns in Unbraced Frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 115, No. 1, January 1989, pp. 149–165. Duan, L., W. S. King, and W. F. Chen. 1993. “K-factor Equation to Alignment Charts for Column Design.” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 3, May–June, 1993, pp. 242–248. Eby, C. C., J. M. Kulicki, C. N. Kostem, and M. A. Zellin. 1973. The Evaluation of St. Venant Torsional Constants for Prestressed Concrete I-Beams. Fritz Laboratory Report No. 400.12. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-93 FHWA. 2012. Manual for Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Orthotropic Steel Deck Bridges. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Frederick, G. R., C. V. Ardis, K. M. Tarhini, and B. Koo. 1988. “Investigation of the Structural Adequacy of C 850 Box Culverts,” Transportation Research Record 1191, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Galambos, T. V., ed. 1998. Guide to Stability Design for Metal Structures, 5th Edition. Structural Stability Research Council. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Gasparini, D., and E. H Vanmarcke. 1976. SIMQKE: A Program for Artificial Motion Generation. Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Ghali, A., and A. M. Neville. 1989. Structural Analysis: A Unified Classical and Matrix Approach, 3rd Edition. Chapman Hall, New York, NY. Goel, S. C., and A. A. El-Tayem. 1986. “Cyclic Load Behavior of Angle X-Bracing.” Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 112, No. 11, November 1986, pp. 2528–2539. Hall, D. H., and C. H. Yoo. 1996. I-Girder Curvature Study. Interim Report, NCHRP Project 12-38 submitted to NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 1–72 (or see Appendix A of NCHRP Report 424: Improved Design Specifications for Horizontally Curved Steel Highway Bridges, pp. 49–74). Haroun, N. M., and R. Sheperd. 1986. “Inelastic Behavior of X-Bracing in Plane Frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 112, No. 4, April 1986, pp. 764–780. Higgins, C. 2003. “LRFD Orthotropic Plate Model for Determining Live Load Moments in Concrete Filled Grid Bridge Decks.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, January/February 2003, pp. 20–28. Highway Engineering Division. 1991. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code. Highway Engineering Division, Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Toronto, Canada. Hindi, W. A. 1991. “Behavior and Design of Stiffened Compression Flanges of Steel Box Girder Bridges.” Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guilford, UK. Homberg, H. 1968. Fahrbahnplatten mit Verandlicher Dicke. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. James, R. W. 1984. “Behavior of ASTM C 850 Concrete Box Culverts Without Shear Connectors,” Transportation Research Record 1001, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Jetteur, P. et al. 1984. “Interaction of Shear Lag with Plate Buckling in Longitudinally Stiffened Compression Flanges,” Acta Technica CSAV. Akademie Ved Ceske Republiky, Czech Republic, No. 3, p. 376. Johnston, S. B., and A. H. Mattock. 1967. Lateral Distribution of Load in Composite Box Girder Bridges. Highway Research Record No. 167, Highway Research Board, Washington, DC. Karabalis, D. L. 1983. “Static, Dynamic and Stability Analysis of Structures Composed of Tapered Beams.” Computers and Structures, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 731–748. Ketchum, M. S. 1986. “Short Cuts for Calculating Deflections.” Structural Engineering Practice: Analysis, Design, Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 83–91. King, Csagoly P. F., and J. W. Fisher. 1975. Field Testing of the Aquasabon River Bridge. Ontario, Canada. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Guyan, R. J. 1965. “Reduction of Stiffness and Mass Matrices.” AIAA Journal, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, Vol. 3, No. 2, February 1965, p. 380. LRFDUS-6-E1: June 2012 Errata to LRFD Design, Sixth Edition 4-94 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Lamas, A. R. G. and P. J. Dowling. 1980. “Effect of Shear Lag on the Inelastic Buckling Behavior of Thin-Walled Structures.” In Thin-Walled Structures, J. Rhodes & A.C. Walker, eds., Granada, London, p. 100. Liu, H. 1991. Wind Engineering: A Handbook for Structural Engineers. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Manual for Design, Construction and Maintenance of Orthotropic Steel Bridges. In development. McGrath, T. J., A. A. Liepins, J. L. Beaver, and B. P. Strohman. 2004. Live Load Distribution Widths for Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts. A Study for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Waltham, MA. Modjeski and Masters, Inc. 1994. Report to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Harrisburg, PA. Moffatt, K. R., and P. J. Dowling. 1975. “Shear Lag in Steel Box Girder Bridges.” The Structural Engineer, October 1975, pp. 439–447. Moffatt, K. R., and P. J. Dowling. 1976. “Discussion.” The Structural Engineer, August 1976, pp. 285–297. Nassif, H., A.-A. Talat, and S. El-Tawil. 2006. “Effective Flange Width Criteria for Composite Steel Girder Bridges,” Annual Meeting CD-ROM, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Nettleton, D. A. 1977. Arch Bridges. Bridge Division, Office of Engineering, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Nutt, Redfield and Valentine in association with David Evans and Associates and Zocon Consulting Engineers. 2008. Development of Design Specifications and Commentary for Horizontally Curved Concrete Box-Girder Bridges, NCHRP Report 620. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paikowsky, S. G., with contributions from B. Birgisson, M. McVay, T. Nguyen, C. Kuo, G. Baecher, B. Ayyab, K. Stenersen, K. O’Malley, L. Chernauskas, and M. O’Neill. 2004. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations, NCHRP (Final) Report 507. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paz, M. 1984. “Dynamic Condensation.” AIAA Journal, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, Vol. 22, No. 5, May 1984, pp. 724–727. Paz, M. 1985. Structural Dynamics, 2nd Edition. Van Nosstrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Peck, R. B., W. E. Hanson, and T. H. Thornburn. 1974. Foundation Engineering, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Podolny, W., and J. B. Scalzi. 1986. Construction and Design of Cable-Stayed Bridges, 2nd Edition. WileyInterscience, New York, NY. Przemieniecki, J. S. 1968. Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. Pucher, A. 1964. Influence Surfaces of Elastic Plates, 4th Edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. Puckett, J. A. and M. Jablin. 2009. “AASHTO T-05 Report.” Correspondence, March 2009. Richardson, Gordon and Associates (presently HDR, Pittsburgh office). 1976. “Curved Girder Workshop Lecture Notes.” Prepared under Contract No. DOT-FH-11-8815. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Four-day workshop presented in Albany, Denver, and Portland, September–October 1976, pp. 31–38. Salmon, C. G., and J. E. Johnson. 1990. Steel Structures: Design and Behavior, Emphasizing Load, and Resistance Factor Design, 3rd Edition. Harper and Row, New York, NY. Scanlan, R. H. 1975. Recent Methods in the Application of Test Results to the Wind Design of Long Suspended-Span Bridges, FHWA-RD-75-115. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-95 Shinozuka, M., V. Saxena, and G. Deodatis. 1999. Effect of Spatial Variation of Ground Motion on Highway Structures, Draft Final Report for MCEER Highway Project. Submitted to Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. Shushkewich, K. W. 1986. “Time-Dependent Analysis of Segmental Bridges.” Computers and Structures, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 95–118. Silva, W., and K. Lee. 1987. “State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United State: Report 24,” WES RASCAL Code for Synthesizing Earthquake Ground Motions, Miscellaneous Paper 5-73-1. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Simiu, E. 1973. “Logarithmic Profiles and Design Wind Speeds.” Journal of the Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 99, No. EM5, October 1973, pp. 1073–1083. Simiu, E. 1976. “Equivalent Static Wind Loads for Tall Building Design.” Journal of the Structures Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 102, No. ST4, April 1976, pp. 719–737. Simiu, E., and R. H. Scanlan. 1978. Wind Effects on Structures. Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY. Song, S. T., Y. H. Chai, and S. E. Hida. 2001. Live Load Distribution in Multi-Cell Box-Girder Bridges and its Comparisons with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, UCD-STR-01-1, University of California, Davis, CA, July 2001. Song, S. T., Y. H. Chai, and S. E. Hida. 2003. “Live Load Distribution Factors for Concrete Box-Girder Bridges.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 273–280. Tobias, D. H., R. E. Anderson, S. Y. Kayyat, Z. B. Uzman, and K. L. Riechers. 2004. “Simplified AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design Girder Live Load Distribution in Illinois,” Journal of Bridge Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, Vol. 9, No. 6, November/December 2004, pp. 606–613. Troitsky, M. S. 1977. Cable-Stayed Bridges. Crosby Lockwood Staples, London, England, p. 385. Tung, D. H. H., and R. S. Fountain. 1970. “Approximate Torsional Analysis of Curved Box Girders by the M/R-Method.” Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 65–74. United States Steel. 1984. “V-Load Analysis.” Available from the National Steel Bridge Alliance, Chicago, IL, pp. 1–56. USACE. 2003. Time History Dynamic Analysis of Concrete Hydraulic Structures, USACE Engineering Circular EC1110-2-6051. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, White, D. W., and J. F. Hajjar. 1991. “Application of Second-Order Elastic Analysis in LRFD: Research to Practice.” AISC Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 133–148. Wilson, E. L., A. Der Kiureghian, and E. P. Bayo. 1981. “A Replacement for the SRSS Method in Seismic Analysis.” International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 9, pp. 187–194. Wolchuk, R. 1963. Design Manual for Orthotropic Steel Plate Deck Bridges. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. Wolchuk, R. 1990. “Steel-Plate-Deck Bridges.” In Structural Engineering Handbook, 3rd Edition. E. H. Gaylord and C. N. Gaylord, eds. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 19-1–19-28. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Smith, Jr., C. V. 1976. “On Inelastic Column Buckling.” AISC Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, Vol. 13, 3rd Qtr., pp. 86–88. 4-96 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Wright, R. N., and S. R. Abdel-Samad. 1968. “BEF Analogy for Analysis of Box Girders.” Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 94, No. ST7, pp. 1719–1743. Yura, J. A. 1971. “The Effective Length of Columns in Unbraced Frames.” AISC Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, Vol. 8, No. 2., April 1971, pp. 37–42. Yen, B. T., T. Huang, and D. V. VanHorn. 1995. Field Testing of a Steel Bridge and a Prestressed Concrete Bridge, Research Project No. 86-05, Final Report, Vol. II, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Office of Research and Special Studies, Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 519.2, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. Zokaie, T. 1998, 1999, 2000. Private Correspondence. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Zokaie, T., T. A. Osterkamp, and R. A. Imbsen. 1991. Distribution of Wheel Loads on Highway Bridges, NCHRP Report 12-2611. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-97 APPENDIX A4—DECK SLAB DESIGN TABLE Table A4-1 may be used in determining the design moments for different girder arrangements. The following assumptions and limitations were used in developing this table and should be considered when using the listed values for design: • The moments are calculated using the equivalent strip method as applied to concrete slabs supported on parallel girders. • Multiple presence factors and the dynamic load allowance are included in the tabulated values. • See Article 4.6.2.1.6 for the distance between the center of the girders to the location of the design sections for negative moments in the deck. Interpolation between the listed values may be used for distances other than those listed in Table A4-1. • The moments are applicable for decks supported on at least three girders and having a width of not less than 14.0 ft between the centerlines of the exterior girders. • The moments represent the upper bound for the moments in the interior regions of the slab and, for any specific girder spacing, were taken as the maximum value calculated, assuming different number of girders in the bridge cross-section. For each combination of girder spacing and number of girders, the following two cases of overhang width were considered: (a) Minimum total overhang width of 21.0 in. measured from the center of the exterior girder, and (b) Maximum total overhang width equal to the smaller of 0.625 times the girder spacing and 6.0 ft. A railing system width of 21.0 in. was used to determine the clear overhang width. For other widths of railing systems, the difference in the moments in the interior regions of the deck is expected to be within the acceptable limits for practical design. • The moments do not apply to the deck overhangs and the adjacent regions of the deck that need to be designed taking into account the provisions of Article A13.4.1. • It was found that the effect of two 25k axles of the tandem, placed at 4.0 ft from each other, produced maximum effects under each of the tires approximately equal to the effect of the 32k truck axle. The tandem produces a larger total moment, but this moment is spread over a larger width. It was concluded that repeating calculations with a different strip width for the tandem would not result in a significant difference. --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 4-98 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Table A4-1—Maximum Live Load Moments per Unit Width, kip-ft/ft Negative Moment –0” –3” –6” –9” –0” –3” –6” –9” –0” –3” –6” –9” –0” –3” –6” –9” –0” –3” –6” –9” –0” –3” –6” –9” –0” –3” –6” –9” –0” –3” –6” –9” –0” –3” –6” –9” –0” –3” –6” –9” –0” –3” –6” –9” –0” Distance from CL of Girder to Design Section for Negative Moment 0.0 in. 2.68 2.73 3.00 3.38 3.74 4.06 4.36 4.63 4.88 5.10 5.31 5.50 5.98 6.13 6.26 6.38 6.48 6.58 6.66 6.74 6.81 6.87 7.15 7.51 7.85 8.19 8.52 8.83 9.14 9.44 9.72 10.01 10.28 10.55 10.81 11.06 11.31 11.55 11.79 12.02 12.24 12.46 12.67 12.88 13.09 3 in. 2.07 2.25 2.58 2.90 3.20 3.47 3.73 3.97 4.19 4.39 4.57 4.74 5.17 5.31 5.43 5.54 5.65 5.74 5.82 5.90 5.97 6.03 6.31 6.65 6.99 7.32 7.64 7.95 8.26 8.55 8.84 9.12 9.40 9.67 9.93 10.18 10.43 10.67 10.91 11.14 11.37 11.59 11.81 12.02 12.23 6 in. 1.74 1.95 2.19 2.43 2.66 2.89 3.11 3.31 3.50 3.68 3.84 3.99 4.36 4.49 4.61 4.71 4.81 4.90 4.98 5.06 5.13 5.19 5.46 5.80 6.13 6.45 6.77 7.08 7.38 7.67 7.96 8.24 8.51 8.78 9.04 9.30 9.55 9.80 10.03 10.27 10.50 10.72 10.94 11.16 11.37 9 in. 1.60 1.74 1.90 2.07 2.24 2.41 2.58 2.73 2.88 3.02 3.15 3.27 3.56 3.68 3.78 3.88 3.98 4.06 4.14 4.22 4.28 4.40 4.66 4.94 5.26 5.58 5.89 6.20 6.50 6.79 7.07 7.36 7.63 7.90 8.16 8.42 8.67 8.92 9.16 9.40 9.63 9.85 10.08 10.30 10.51 12 in. 1.50 1.57 1.65 1.74 1.83 1.95 2.07 2.19 2.31 2.42 2.53 2.64 2.84 2.96 3.15 3.30 3.43 3.53 3.61 3.67 3.71 3.82 4.04 4.21 4.41 4.71 5.02 5.32 5.62 5.91 6.19 6.47 6.74 7.02 7.28 7.54 7.79 8.04 8.28 8.52 8.76 8.99 9.21 9.44 9.65 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 18 in. 1.34 1.33 1.32 1.29 1.26 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.39 1.45 1.50 1.58 1.63 1.65 1.88 2.21 2.49 2.74 2.96 3.15 3.31 3.47 3.68 3.89 4.09 4.29 4.48 4.68 4.86 5.04 5.22 5.40 5.56 5.75 5.97 6.18 6.38 6.59 6.79 6.99 7.18 7.38 7.57 7.76 7.94 24 in. 1.25 1.20 1.18 1.20 1.12 0.98 0.99 1.02 1.07 1.13 1.20 1.28 1.37 1.51 1.72 1.94 2.16 2.37 2.58 2.79 3.00 3.20 3.39 3.58 3.77 3.96 4.15 4.34 4.52 4.70 4.87 5.05 5.21 5.38 5.54 5.70 5.86 6.01 6.16 6.30 6.45 6.58 6.72 6.86 7.02 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- S 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 6’ 6’ 6’ 6’ 7’ 7’ 7’ 7’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 9’ 9’ 9’ 9’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 13’ 13’ 13’ 13’ 14’ 14’ 14’ 14’ 15’ Positive Moment 4.68 4.66 4.63 4.64 4.65 4.67 4.71 4.77 4.83 4.91 5.00 5.10 5.21 5.32 5.44 5.56 5.69 5.83 5.99 6.14 6.29 6.44 6.59 6.74 6.89 7.03 7.17 7.32 7.46 7.60 7.74 7.88 8.01 8.15 8.28 8.41 8.54 8.66 8.78 8.90 9.02 9.14 9.25 9.36 9.47 SECTION 5: CONCRETE STRUCTURES TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 5.1—SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2—DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3—NOTATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 5-5 5.4—MATERIAL PROPERTIES .............................................................................................................................. 5-12 5.4.1—General ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-12 5.4.2—Normal Weight and Structural Lightweight Concrete ............................................................................. 5-13 5.4.2.1—Compressive Strength .................................................................................................................... 5-13 5.4.2.2—Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ................................................................................................. 5-15 5.4.2.3—Shrinkage and Creep ...................................................................................................................... 5-15 5.4.2.3.1—General ................................................................................................................................ 5-15 5.4.2.3.2—Creep ................................................................................................................................... 5-15 5.4.2.3.3—Shrinkage ............................................................................................................................. 5-17 5.4.2.4—Modulus of Elasticity ..................................................................................................................... 5-18 5.4.2.5—Poisson’s Ratio .............................................................................................................................. 5-18 5.4.2.6—Modulus of Rupture ....................................................................................................................... 5-18 5.4.2.7—Tensile Strength ............................................................................................................................. 5-19 5.4.3—Reinforcing Steel ..................................................................................................................................... 5-19 5.4.3.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 5-19 5.4.3.2—Modulus of Elasticity ..................................................................................................................... 5-20 5.4.3.3—Special Applications ...................................................................................................................... 5-20 5.4.4—Prestressing Steel ..................................................................................................................................... 5-20 5.4.4.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 5-20 5.4.4.2—Modulus of Elasticity ..................................................................................................................... 5-21 5.4.5—Post-Tensioning Anchorages and Couplers ............................................................................................. 5-21 5.4.6—Ducts ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-22 5.4.6.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 5-22 5.4.6.2—Size of Ducts .................................................................................................................................. 5-22 5.4.6.3—Ducts at Deviation Saddles ............................................................................................................ 5-23 5.5—LIMIT STATES ................................................................................................................................................. 5-23 5.5.1—General ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-23 5.5.2—Service Limit State................................................................................................................................... 5-23 5.5.3—Fatigue Limit State................................................................................................................................... 5-23 5.5.3.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 5-23 5.5.3.2—Reinforcing Bars ............................................................................................................................ 5-24 5.5.3.3—Prestressing Tendons ..................................................................................................................... 5-25 5.5.3.4—Welded or Mechanical Splices of Reinforcement.......................................................................... 5-25 5.5.4—Strength Limit State ................................................................................................................................. 5-26 5.5.4.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 5-26 5.5.4.2—Resistance Factors ......................................................................................................................... 5-26 5.5.4.2.1—Conventional Construction .................................................................................................. 5-26 5.5.4.2.2—Segmental Construction ....................................................................................................... 5-28 5-i --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`` © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 5-ii AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 5.5.4.2.3—Special Requirements for Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4 ........................................................... 5-28 5.5.4.3—Stability .......................................................................................................................................... 5-29 5.5.5—Extreme Event Limit State ....................................................................................................................... 5-29 5.6—DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 5-29 5.6.1—General ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-29 5.6.2—Effects of Imposed Deformation .............................................................................................................. 5-29 5.6.3—Strut-and-Tie Model ................................................................................................................................. 5-29 5.6.3.1—General ........................................................................................................................................... 5-29 5.6.3.2—Structural Modeling ....................................................................................................................... 5-30 5.6.3.3—Proportioning of Compressive Struts ............................................................................................. 5-31 5.6.3.3.1—Strength of Unreinforced Strut............................................................................................. 5-31 5.6.3.3.2—Effective Cross-Sectional Area of Strut ............................................................................... 5-32 5.6.3.3.3—Limiting Compressive Stress in Strut .................................................................................. 5-33 5.6.3.3.4—Reinforced Strut ................................................................................................................... 5-33 5.6.3.4—Proportioning of Tension Ties ....................................................................................................... 5-33 5.6.3.4.1—Strength of Tie ..................................................................................................................... 5-33 5.6.3.4.2—Anchorage of Tie ................................................................................................................. 5-34 5.6.3.5—Proportioning of Node Regions ..................................................................................................... 5-34 5.6.3.6—Crack Control Reinforcement ........................................................................................................ 5-34 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 5.7—DESIGN FOR FLEXURAL AND AXIAL FORCE EFFECTS ........................................................................ 5-35 5.7.1—Assumptions for Service and Fatigue Limit States .................................................................................. 5-35 5.7.2—Assumptions for Strength and Extreme Event Limit States ..................................................................... 5-36 5.7.2.1—General ........................................................................................................................................... 5-36 5.7.2.2—Rectangular Stress Distribution...................................................................................................... 5-38 5.7.3—Flexural Members .................................................................................................................................... 5-39 5.7.3.1—Stress in Prestressing Steel at Nominal Flexural Resistance .......................................................... 5-39 5.7.3.1.1—Components with Bonded Tendons ..................................................................................... 5-39 5.7.3.1.2—Components with Unbonded Tendons ................................................................................. 5-40 5.7.3.1.3—Components with Both Bonded and Unbonded Tendons .................................................... 5-40 5.7.3.1.3a—Detailed Analysis ........................................................................................................ 5-40 5.7.3.1.3b—Simplified Analysis .................................................................................................... 5-41 5.7.3.2—Flexural Resistance ........................................................................................................................ 5-41 5.7.3.2.1—Factored Flexural Resistance ............................................................................................... 5-41 5.7.3.2.2—Flanged Sections .................................................................................................................. 5-41 5.7.3.2.3—Rectangular Sections............................................................................................................ 5-42 5.7.3.2.4—Other Cross-Sections ........................................................................................................... 5-43 5.7.3.2.5—Strain Compatibility Approach ............................................................................................ 5-43 5.7.3.3—Limits for Reinforcement ............................................................................................................... 5-43 5.7.3.3.1—Maximum Reinforcement .................................................................................................... 5-43 5.7.3.3.2 Minimum Reinforcement ....................................................................................................... 5-43 5.7.3.4—Control of Cracking by Distribution of Reinforcement ................................................................. 5-45 5.7.3.5—Moment Redistribution .................................................................................................................. 5-47 5.7.3.6—Deformations.................................................................................................................................. 5-47 5.7.3.6.1—General ................................................................................................................................. 5-47 5.7.3.6.2—Deflection and Camber ........................................................................................................ 5-47 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS TABLE OF CONTENTS 5-iii 5.7.3.6.3—Axial Deformation ............................................................................................................... 5-48 5.7.4—Compression Members ............................................................................................................................ 5-48 5.7.4.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 5-48 5.7.4.2—Limits for Reinforcement............................................................................................................... 5-49 5.7.4.3—Approximate Evaluation of Slenderness Effects ........................................................................... 5-50 5.7.4.4—Factored Axial Resistance ............................................................................................................. 5-51 5.7.4.5—Biaxial Flexure .............................................................................................................................. 5-52 5.7.4.6—Spirals and Ties ............................................................................................................................. 5-53 5.7.4.7—Hollow Rectangular Compression Members ................................................................................. 5-53 5.7.4.7.1—Wall Slenderness Ratio ........................................................................................................ 5-53 5.7.4.7.2—Limitations on the Use of the Rectangular Stress Block Method ........................................ 5-54 5.7.4.7.2a—General ....................................................................................................................... 5-54 5.7.4.7.2b—Refined Method for Adjusting Maximum Usable Strain Limit .................................. 5-54 5.7.4.7.2c—Approximate Method for Adjusting Factored Resistance ........................................... 5-55 5.7.5—Bearing ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-55 5.7.6—Tension Members .................................................................................................................................... 5-56 5.7.6.1—Factored Tension Resistance ......................................................................................................... 5-56 5.7.6.2—Resistance to Combinations of Tension and Flexure ..................................................................... 5-56 --`,```,`,``,`,```,,`,,`````,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- 5.8—SHEAR AND TORSION................................................................................................................................... 5-56 5.8.1—Design Procedures ................................................................................................................................... 5-56 5.8.1.1—Flexural Regions ............................................................................................................................ 5-56 5.8.1.2—Regions Near Discontinuities ........................................................................................................ 5-57 5.8.1.3—Interface Regions ........................................................................................................................... 5-57 5.8.1.4—Slabs and Footings ......................................................................................................................... 5-57 5.8.1.5—Webs of Curved Post-Tensioned Box Girder Bridges ................................................................... 5-57 5.8.2—General Requirements.............................................................................................................................. 5-57 5.8.2.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 5-57 5.8.2.2—Modifications for Lightweight Concrete ....................................................................................... 5-59 5.8.2.3—Transfer and Development Lengths ............................................................................................... 5-60 5.8.2.4—Regions Requiring Transverse Reinforcement .............................................................................. 5-60 5.8.2.5—Minimum Transverse Reinforcement ............................................................................................ 5-60 5.8.2.6—Types of Transverse Reinforcement .............................................................................................. 5-61 5.8.2.7—Maximum Spacing of Transverse Reinforcement ......................................................................... 5-62 5.8.2.8—Design and Detailing Requirements .............................................................................................. 5-62 5.8.2.9—Shear Stress on Concrete ............................................................................................................... 5-63 5.8.3—Sectional Design Model ........................................................................................................................... 5-64 5.8.3.1—General .......................................................................................................................................... 5-64 5.8.3.2—Sections Near Supports .................................................................................................................. 5-65 5.8.3.3—Nominal Shear Resistance ............................................................................................................. 5-67 5.8.3.4—Procedures for Determining Shear Resistance ............................................................................... 5-68 5.8.3.4.1—Simplified Procedure for Nonprestressed Sections.............................................................. 5-69 5.8.3.4.2—General Procedure ............................................................................................................... 5-69 5.8.3.4.3—Simplified Procedure for Prestressed and Nonprestressed Sections ................................... 5-73 5.8.3.5—Longitudinal Reinforcement .......................................................................................................... 5-75 5.8.3.6—Sections Subjected to Combined Shear and Torsion ..................................................................... 5-77 © 2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Licensee=Dept of Transportation/5950087001 Resale, 09/07/2012 16:59:20 MDT All rights reserved. Duplication Not is aforviolation of applicable law. Copyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Provided by IHS under license with AASHTO No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS 5-iv AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 5.9—PRESTRESSING ............................................................................................................................................... 5-90 5.9.1—General Design Considerations ................................................................................................................ 5-90 5.9.1.1—General ........................................................................................................................................... 5-90 5.9.1.2—Specified Concrete Strengths ......................................................................................................... 5-91 5.9.1.3—Buckling ......................................................................................................................................... 5-91 5.9.1.4—Section Properties .......................................................................................................................... 5-91 5.9.1.5—Crack Control ................................................................................................................................. 5-91 5.9.1.6—Tendons with Angle Points or Curves............................................................................................ 5-91 5.9.2—Stresses Due to Imposed Deformation ..................................................................................................... 5-92 5.9.3—Stress Limitations for Prestressing Tendons ............................................................................................ 5-92 5.9.4—Stress Limits for Concrete ........................................................................................................................ 5-93 5.9.4.1—For Temporary Stresses before Losses—Fully Prestressed Components ...................................... 5-93 5.9.4.1.1—Compression Stresses........................................................................................................... 5-93 5.9.4.1.2—Tension Stresses ................................................................................................................... 5-93 5.9.4.2—For Stresses at Service Limit State after Losses—Fully Prestressed Components ........................ 5-95 5.9.4.2.1—Compression Stresses........................................................................................................... 5-95 5.9.4.2.2—Tension Stresses ................................................................................................................... 5-97 5.9.5—Loss of Prestress....................................................................................................................................... 5-98 5.9.5.1—Total Loss of Prestress ................................................................................................................... 5-98 5.9.5.2—Instantaneous Losses ...................................................................................................................... 5-98 5.9.5.2.1—Anchorage Set ...................................................................................................................... 5-98 5.9.5.2.2—Friction ................................................................................................................................. 5-99 5.9.5.2.2a—Pretensioned Construction .......................................................................................... 5-99 5.9.5.2.2b—Post-Tensioned Construction ........................................