Evolution of the AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications A Story in Two Parts

John M. Kulicki, Ph.D., Chairman/CEO Modjeski and Masters, Inc.

Part 1 The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

OHBDC Especially 1983 Edition

Spring 1986 Gang of Four

Name James E. Roberts H. Henrie Henson Paul F. Csagoly Charles S. Gloyd 1986 Affiliation Caltrans CODOH FLDOT WashDOT

NCHRP 20-7/31 Development of Comprehensive Bridge Specs and Comm.

Task 1 - Review of other specifications for coverage and philosophy of safety. Task 2 - Review AASHTO documents for possible inclusion into specification. Task 3 - Assess the feasibility of a probability-based specification. Task 4 - Prepare an outline for a revised AASHTO specification.

May 1987 HSCOBS - A Turning Point

Findings of NCHRP Project 20-7/31 presented. Seven options for consideration. Funding requested to initiate an NCHRP project to develop a new, modern bridge design specification. NCHP Project 12-33 - Development of Comprehensive Specification and Commentary. Modjeski and Masters, Inc. began work in July, 1988.

Getting Organized
Editorial Team Frank Sears Paul Csagoly Dennis Mertz John Kulicki Code Coordinating Committee Task Forces Essentially by Section and Calibration 56 Members Only 1 defector in 5 years Not always peace in the valley!

Development Objectives
Technically state-of-the-art specification. Comprehensive as possible. Readable and easy to use. Keep specification-type wording do not develop a textbook. Encourage a multi-disciplinary approach to bridge design.

Constraints
Do not allow for further deterioration. Do not explicitly allow future increase in truck weights. No requirement to make bridges uniformly heavier or lighter.

Major Changes
A new philosophy of safety - LRFD The identification of four limit states The relationship of the chosen reliability level, the load and resistance factors, and load models through the process of calibration
new load factors new resistance factors

Allowable Stress Design

Q i R E / FS
where: Qi = RE = FS = a load elastic resistance factor of safety

Load Factor Design

i Qi R
where: i = Qi = R = = a load factor a load resistance a strength reduction factor

Load and Resistance Factor Design

in which: i = D R I 0.95 for loads for max = 1/(I D R) 1.0 for loads for min where: i = load factor: a statistically based multiplier on force effects = resistance factor: a statistically based multiplier applied to nominal resistance

i i Qi Rn = Rr

i D R I Qi

LRFD (Continued)
= = = = = load modifier a factor relating to ductility a factor relating to redundancy a factor relating to importance nominal force effect: a deformation stress, or stress resultant nominal resistance factored resistance: Rn

Rn = Rr =

LRFD - Basic Design Concept

Some Algebra
(R -Q) = +
2 R 2 Q

=
R= Q+

R - Q
2 + Q 2 R

+ = R=
2 R 2 Q

i xi = 2 2 Q + R + Q

i xi

Reliability Calcs Done for M and V Simulated Bridges Based on Real Ones
25 non-composite steel girder bridge simulations with spans of 30,60,90,120,and 200 ft, and spacings of 4,6,8,10,and 12 ft. Composite steel girder bridges having the same parameters identified above. P/C I-beam bridges with the same parameters identified above. R/C T-beam bridges with spans of 30,60,90,and 120 ft, with spacing as above.

Reliability of Std Spec vs. LRFD 175 Data Points

2006 Monte Carlo Reanalysis of 1993 Beta

4 0r 5 data points each

2006 Monte Carlo Reanalysis of 1993 Beta

2006 Monte Carlo Analysis of Beta for New Bridge Data Base
Bridge Database: Beta Factors Using Monte Carlo Analysis
4.5 4.0 3.5

Beta Factor

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121

124 Bridges

Full Set of 124 Database Bridges

2006 Monte Carlo Analysis

Monte Carlo Analysis: Beta vs Span Length
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 50 100
Computed Beta Factor

CIP Boxes

150

200

250

300

350

Span Length (FT)

2006 Monte Carlo Analysis

Monte Carlo Analysis: D/L Ratio vs. Beta
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Dead to Live Load Ratio (Unfactored) Computed Beta Factor

Major Changes
Revised calculation of load distribution
S g = 0.075 + 2900
0.6

S L

0.2

Kg 3 Lt s

0.1

Circa 1990

Distribution Factors Revisited (2005) On-Going Work NCHRP 12-62

y = 1.8817x + 0.0388 2 R = 0.4005

Moment in the Interior Girder, 1 Lane Loaded, Location 104.00

1.4

A A S H T OS ta n d a rd D is trib u tio nF a c to r

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Rigorous Distribution Factor

y = 0.9729x + 0.1378 R2 = 0.3521

Moment in the Interior Girder, 1 Lane Loaded, Location 104.00

1.4

1.2

LRFD Distribution Factor

0.8

0.6

0.4

Courtesy of Prof. Jay Puckett

0.2

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Rigorous Distribution Factor

Major Changes (Continued)

Combine plain, reinforced and prestressed concrete. Modified compression field/strut and tie. Limit state-based provisions for foundation design. Expanded coverage on hydraulics and scour. The introduction of the isotropic deck design. Expanded coverage on bridge rails. Inclusion of large portions of the AASHTO/FHWA Specification for ship collision.

Major Changes (Continued)

Changes to the earthquake provisions to eliminate the seismic performance category concept by making the method of analysis a function of the importance of the structure. Guidance on the design of segmental concrete bridges from Guide Spec. The development of a parallel commentary. New Live Load Model HL93 Continuation of a long story

1912 Article Published in Transactions of ASCE, Henry B. Seaman

It would thus seem that 80 lb/sf would be a maximum load, if indeed it should not be much less, for long spans.

Bridge Engineering, Published in 1916, J.A. Waddell

Waddell discusses the source of distributed load used in the design of bridges: Some people have the idea that a herd of cattle will weigh more per square foot than a crowd of people, but such is not the case, as the actual limit for the former is about 60 lb/ft2.

L.R. Manville and R.W. Gastmeyer, Engineering News, September 1914

The customary loading assumed for the design of highway bridges in the past has been a certain uniform live load alone, possibly a typical heavy wagon or road-roller, or a uniform live load with a concentration. But these older types of loading are inadequate for purposes of design to take care of modern conditions; they should be replaced by some types of typical motor trucks.

L.R. Manville and R.W. Gastmeyer, Engineering News, September 1914

4-Ton 10-Ton 12-Ton 14-Ton 17-Ton 20-Ton 3k 4k 6k 4k 14k 12k 8' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 5k 16k 18k 24k 20k 28k 5' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6'

1923 AREA Specification

10-Ton 15-Ton 20-Ton 4k 6k 8k 14' 16k 24k 32k 5.5
'

VERY CLOSE!!

1923 AREA Specification

8k 32k 14' 19' 8k 32k 14' 19' 8k 32k 14' 15' 800 lb per ft

20-Ton

20-Ton

20-Ton

1924 AREA Specification

8k 15' 800 lb per ft 32k 14' 8k 19' 32k 14' 8k 19' 32k 14' 15' 800 lb per ft

20-Ton

20-Ton

20-Ton

Shoemakers Truck Train and Equivalent Load (Bold Added)-1923

The 7.5-ton [capacity] truck, which weighs about 15 tons when loaded to capacity and which can be overloaded to weigh about 20 tons, is the heaviest commonly used. A large part of traffic, however, is carried in trucks of 5 tons capacity or less. It would not appear to be necessary, therefore, to provide for a succession of 20-ton loads.

Shoemakers Truck Train and Equivalent Load - 1923

6k 24k 14' 30' 15-Ton 6k 24k 14' 30' 15-Ton 8k 32k 14' 30' 20-Ton 6k 24k 14' 30' 15-Ton 6k 24k 14' 15-Ton

28,000 lb 600 lb/ft

1928-1929 Conference Specification

6k 24k 14' 15-Ton 30' 6k 24k 14' 30' 15-Ton 8k 32k 14' 30' 20-Ton 6k 24k 14' 30' 15-Ton 6k 24k 14' 15-Ton

18,000 lb for Moment 26,000 lb for Shear

640 lb/ft

By 1929 lane load becomes what we have today

1941 AASHTO----HS20 (Almost)

8k 14 ' 32k 14 '
32k

H20 - S16
640 lb/ft

32,000 lb for Moment 40,000 lb for Shear

1941-1944 Rebellion & Chaos!!

Much disagreement over HS Loading An Analysis of Highway Loads Based on the Special Loadometer Study of 1942 by Dr. A.A. Jakkulka Recommended HS20 Truck Because it was the more common stress producing truck on the road

1941-1944 Rebellion & Chaos!!

At the December 1944 Bridge Committee Group Meeting, a progress report on a truck loading study conducted at Texas A and M College was presented. The minutes of the meeting state that: the discussion that followed .soon developed into a free for all over them good old fighting words what design loading should be used. After the meeting got down to normalcy again, Mr. Paxon presented

1944 Agreement
No HS Lane Load---use H20 Lane Load Variable axle spacing adopted more closely approximates the tractor tailors now in use HS20-S16-44..44 added to reduce confusion from so many changes

Live Load Continued to be Debated

Early 1950s Discussion to remove the lane load as too heavy and wasteful for continuous spans Throughout 50s there are discussions about increasing the design truck 1958 Decision to do nothing until after AASHO Road Tests are completed.

Live Load Continued to be Debated

Late 60s H40, HS25 and HS30 discussed 1969 SCOBS states unanimous opposition to increasing weight of design truck wasteful obsolescence of existing bridges 1978 HS25 proposed again 1979 HS25 again commentary need for heavier design load seems unavoidable HS25 best present solution 5% cost penalty Motion soundly defeated

Exclusion Loads Based on TRB Special Report 225, 1990

EXCL/HS20 Truck or Lane or 2 110 kN Axles @ 1.2 m

Selected Notional Design Load

HL-93

EXCL/HL 93 Circa 1992

NCHRP 12-33 Project Schedule

First Draft - 1990 general coverage Second Draft - 1991 workable Third Draft - 1992 pretty close Two sets of trial designs - 1991 and 1992 Fourth Draft - 1993 ADOPTED!! 12,000 comments Reviewed by hundreds Printed and available - 1994

Implementation Starts Slowly

Lack of software. Early lack of training but several thousand have taken NHI courses with more to come. Perceived difficulties Load distribution Shear in concrete Foundations Load cases seemed numerous but that may be because they are all stated Continual changes more later Similar story with EUROCode plus national issues just getting there now!!.

Implementation (Continued)
Down size, right size, capsize. To SI or not to SI? Thats the question. But things are moving, especially compared to other major changes. Federal deadline: 2007. By 2007:
5,000 LRFD bridges More than half of states doing part or all LRFD

First LRFD Major Bridge Opened 1997

Upgrades and Changes to 1990 Technology

1996 foundation data reinserted. New wall provisions ongoing upgrade. 2002 upgraded to ASBI LFRD Segmental Guide Specs. MCF shear in concrete simplified and clarified several times major update in 2002. Load distribution application limits expanded several time in 1990s due to requests to liberalize. More commentary added.

Upgrades and Changes

2004 major change in steel girder design in anticipation of 2005 seamless integration of curved steel bridges ending three decade quest

Curved Girder Leaders

Dr. Bill Wright Dr. Don White Mr. Mike Grubb Dr. Dennis Mertz Mr. Ed Wasserman

Upgrades and Changes (Continued)

2005 P/C loses updated 2006 complete replacement of Section 10 Foundation Design 2006 more concrete shear options 2007 - big year Streamline MCF for concrete shear design 1,000 year EQ maps and collateral changes Seismic Guide Spec - displacement based Pile construction update 2008 - Coastal bridge Guide Spec

HSCOBS Asserts Ownership

LRFD Oversight Committee Circa 2002
The mission is to promote LRFD as the national standard for bridge design and develop a strategic plan to successfully implement LRFD by 2007 for all new bridge designs. to develop a strategic plan to identify and prioritize educational and training needs.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Future as Seen in 1993 Continued Development

Quantifying Redundancy. Expanded database of loads, etc. Refinement of foundation provisions. Simplification of load distribution. Improvements in reliability procedures. Joint probability procedures LL with EQ? Ship and scour? EQ and scour? Ice and wind? Etc.

 Deformation, cracking, service stress limits. What quantitative criteria can be established? What is the structural penalty for violating a non-strength limit state? How often can the limit state be exceeded in the design life? What is an appropriate reliability index? What is the appropriate loading in terms of magnitude, configuration, and placement? How does this relate to multiple presence factors? Should permit loads and illegal loads be considered? Will SHRP 2 and NCHRP 12-83 do it??

Calibration of Service Limit State

 Does current design address the real culprits? Where are owners spending maintenance $$? Do we know the impact of changes?

Other Limit States??

Will FHWA LTBPP Tell Us??

Rehabilitation
Applying new standards to existing bridges has always been a challenge. Are other limit states or load combinations or reliability targets appropriate for rehab? Do we need and Application Manual for rehab?

Bridge Security
Per 2003 BRC recommendations, T1 formed several years ago Much research ongoing ASCE Committee on Bridge Security formed James Ray, Chair First fledgling steps towards specification NCHRP 12-72

Quantification of Redundancy
2005 T-5 commits to work with results of:
NCHRP 406 redundancy of super NCHRP 458 redundancy of sub Goals:
Multiplier table for routine girder bridges. Process for evaluating more complex bridges for a reliability index in damaged state.

 2005 T-5 also commits to continued review of: FHWA Synthesis Report on Extreme Loading Combinations by Nowak, Knott and Dumas, August, 1996 NCHRP 489 extreme events, 1999 2005 T-5 presentation by Sue Hida on CALTrans in-house study of joint probability of scour and EQ-----non-issue. Focus shifting to all hazard approach MCEER Concurrent and Cascading events.

Joint Probability of Occurrence

Fatigue and Fracture

Should new load histograms be obtained?
Traffic changes after 1970s oil embargo Increases in legal loads CBs, etc. Load bandwidth increase

Having said that still seeing little load induced damage Have we given up on F and F Spec changes for HPS?

Perfection is Still an Illusive Goal

But Improvement is Possible and Demanded by Society

Summary
The object was to switch to a more robust, more expandable, more adaptable platform---------like Windows vs. DOS. As with the switch to Windows, there were some transitional learning curves and headaches----but many developers can see benefits, users can see the logic. It is unrealistic to expect the LRFD Specs to become static-----researches will always have new ideas, nature will continue to teach us lessons. But LRFD was intended to adapt and grow!

Net Effect So Far

04 06

09 94

Accessory For 5th Edition???

Thank You
And A Special Thank You To All Who Helped Over The Last Two Decades!!

But Some Must Be Mentioned

NCHRP Ian Friedland, Scott Sabol, Dave Beal SCOBS Bob Cassano, Clellon Loveall, Jim Siebels, Dave Pope, Mal Kerley Panel Jim Roberts, Chairman AASHTO Kelley Rehm, Ken Kobetsky Modjeski and Masters Dennis Mertz, Wagdy Wassef, Diane Long