Anda di halaman 1dari 88

AASHTO-LRFD Bridge

Design
Riyadh Hindi, PhD, PEng

Evolution of Design Methodologies

Background of LRFD Specifications

Calibration

Major Changes

Evolution of Design Methodologies


1. Service Load Design (SLD)
(aka Allowable Stress Design, ASD;
or Working Stress Design, WSD)
Dead, live, & other loads assumed of
equal importance (stresses summed up)
Assumes linear elastic concrete stressstrain
fc 0.40 fc
fy 24 ksi (Grade 60)

Evolution of Design Methodologies


2. LFD Methodology
Strength Design Method
(Load Factor Design, LFD)
Nonlinear concrete stress-strain
(equivalent rectangular stress block for
ease of use)
Tension steel yields before concrete
crushes ductile behavior
Live load more variable than dead load
Arbitrary load factors

1.3[1.0D + (5/3)(L+I)]

Evolution of Design Methodologies


3. LRFD Methodology
Load and Resistance Factor Design
Recognizes variability of loads and
resistances
Consistent Reliability Index, , at
Strength Limit State
Calibrated load and resistance factors
1.25D + 1.75(L+I)

AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications

Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,


17th Edition, 2002
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
- Investigation begun in 1986
- Development begun in 1988
- 1st Edition, 1994
- 2nd Edition, 1998
- 3rd Edition, 2004
- 4th Edition, 2007
- 5th Edition, 2010
- Originally US and SI units. Now US units only

AASHTO Ballots on the LRFD


Specifications
May 1993
To adopt the final draft of the NCHRP
12-33 document as the 1993 LRFD
Specifications for Highway Bridge Design
and in 1995 consider phasing out the current
Standard Specifications.
May 1999
After the 1999 meeting, discontinue
maintenance of the Standard Specifications
(except to correct errors), and maintain the
LRFD Specifications.

AASHTO Recommendation
LRFD Implementation Plan (2000)

All new bridges on which States initiate


preliminary engineering after October 1,
2007, shall be designed by the LRFD
Specifications
States unable to meet these dates will
provide justification and a schedule for
completing the transition to LRFD.
For modifications to existing structures,
States would have the option of using
LRFD Specifications or the specifications
which were used for the original design.

Objective of the LRFD


Develop a comprehensive and consistent
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
specification that is calibrated to obtain
uniform reliability (a measure of safety) at the
strength limit state for all materials.
The specification also addresses the
following limit states in the design process:
Service Limit State
Fatigue and Fracture Limit State
Strength Limit State
Extreme Event Limit State

Calibration

Selection of a set of s and s


to approximate a target level of
reliability in an LRFD-format
specification.

Calibration Consists of Up to Three


Steps:

Reliability-based calibration
Calibration or comparison to past
practice
Liberal doses of engineering
judgment

LRFD Calibration

Only the strength limit states of the LRFD


Specifications are calibrated based upon
the theory of structural reliability wherein
statistical load and resistance data are
required.
The other limit states are based upon the
design criteria of the Standard
Specifications and/or related state-of-theart information.

Calibration to Past Practice

The strength limit states of the LRFD


Specifications are calibrated to yield
reliability comparable to past practice.
The other limit states are calibrated to
yield member proportions comparable to
past practice.

Statistical Data

Variability in Loads
Traffic: Cars, Trucks (Different Number
of Axles), etc.

Variability in Resistances
Concrete Compressive Strength
Reinforcing Steel Yield Strength
Cross-Section Geometry
Location of Reinforcement

LRFD Calibration
Rmean
f(R,Q)
Qmean
Qn

Rn

Qn Rn

R,Q

Reliability Index
The target Reliability Index is a
unique quantity.
Many different sets of s and s can
be selected to achieve the target
Reliability Index .

LRFD Calibration
Rmean
f(R,Q)
Qmean
Qn

Rn
Qn
Rn

R,Q

LRFD Calibration
Rmean
f(R,Q)
Qmean
Qn

Rn

Qn
Rn

R,Q

LRFD Calibration

(R-Q)mean
Graphical
definition
of
reliability
index

R-Q

LRFD Calibration
Reliability Indices
5
4
3
2

LFD Range

1
0

30

60

LRFD Range

90
120
Span Length , ft

200

10

Major Changes

Parallel Commentary

Unified Concrete Provisions

Shear Design
- Modified Compression Field Theory
- Strut-and-Tie Model
- Interface (Horizontal) Shear

Partial Prestressing

Unified Design Provisions for Reinforced


and Prestressed Concrete

Emphasize common features


Eliminate duplication
Unify design procedures
Promote the notion of structural
concrete
Introduce partially prestressed
concrete

11

Other Major Changes

Limit States

Distribution Factors

Load Factors and Combinations

Vehicular Live Loads

Dynamic Load Allowance (IM)

Vessel Collision

LRFD Notation and Units


Std Specs
fs

LRFD Specs
f pu

*
fsu

f ps

fse

f pe

2 fc ( psi )

0.0632 fc ( KSI )

3 fc ( psi )
6 fc ( psi )
7.5 fc ( psi )

0.0948 fc ( KSI )
0.190 fc ( KSI )
0.24 fc ( KSI )

12

Basis of LRFD Methodology


iiQi Rn

(1.3.2.1-1)

For loads where max. value of i is used:


i D R I 0.95
For loads where min. value of i is used:
i 1 D R I ) 1.00

i = load modifier

Load Modifier, i
LRFD 1.3.3-.5

D = ductility factor
= 1.05 for non-ductile components
= 0.95 for ductile components

R = redundancy factor
= 1.05 for nonredundant members
= 0.95 exceptional levels of redundancy

I = operational importance factor


= 1.05 for critical/essential bridges
= 0.95 for less important bridges

13

Ductility Factor, D
LRFD C1.3.3

This factor is related to structural behavior,


not material behavior.
Inelastic behavior
Warning of failure
Therefore, properly designed reinforced
concrete components are considered ductile,
even though plain concrete is a brittle
material.

Ductility Factor, D

14

Resistance Factors,
LRFD 5.5.4.2
Tension-controlled sections RC

0.90

Tension-controlled sections P/S

1.00

Compression-controlled sections

0.75

Shear and torsion normal weight conc.

0.90

Shear and torsion lightweight conc.

0.70

Bearing

0.70

What LRFD is NOT?

New limit states


New, more complex live-load
distribution factors
New unified-concrete shear design
using modified compression-field
theory
Strut-and-tie model for concrete
Many other state-of-the-art additions

15

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design


Specifications - Chapters
1. Introduction
2. General Design and Location Features
3. Loads and Load Factors
4. Structural Analysis and Evaluation
5. Concrete Structures
6. Steel Structures
7. Aluminum Structures

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design


Specifications - Chapters
8. Wood Structures
9. Decks and Deck Systems
10. Foundations
11. Abutments, Piers, and Walls
12. Buried Structures and Tunnel Liners
13. Railings
14. Joints and Bearings

16

Concluding Remarks

Improvement over ASD and LFD


Uniform reliability index for the
strength limit states
Provides a framework for future
improvements
Incorporates state-of-the-art design
procedures

Preliminary
Design
2010 Bridge
Professors Workshop

17

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
1. What is Preliminary Design?
2. Selection Criteria and AASHTO
Specifications
3. Types of Concrete Bridges
a) Standard Sections
b) Girder Selection Aids

Preliminary Design

Definition
Design Considerations
Safety
Economy
Durability
Aesthetics

18

All Existing U.S. Bridges 2003 NBI Data


60.0%

58.0%

50.0%
40.0%
31.2%

30.0%
20.0%
8.4%

10.0%

1.5%

0.5%

150-199

200-249

0.4%

0.0%
<50

50-99

100-149

>=250

Maximum Span (ft)

Total Built = 475,000 Bridges

Bridges Built, 2003 NBI Data


60%

P/S

Percent Built

50%

40%

30%

Steel

20%

RC

10%

0%
1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Year Built

19

AASHTO Bridge Design


Specifications

Standard Specifications No Longer Apply

LRFD Specifications Govern Since October


2007

State Practices

40

Concrete Bridge Types

Slab Bridges

I-Girder Bridges

Box-Girder Bridges

U-Beam Bridges

Segmental Bridges

Spliced-Girder Bridges

Arch Bridges

Cable-Stayed Bridges

20

Preliminary Design

41

CIP Reinforced Short Span Bridges


Slab Bridges
T-Beam Bridges
Precast, Prestressed
Standard AASHTO/PCI Girders
I-Girders and Bulb-Tees
Box Girders
Standard Regional Girders

Bridge Selection Guide

42

WSDOT
Span Range (ft)
0

90

180

270

360

450

540

630

Pipe
Concrete Culvert
Plate Arch
RC Slab
RC Tee Beam
RC Box Girder
PT Conc Box Girder
Segmental PT Box Girder
PS Conc Slab
PS Conc Deck Bulb Tee
PS Conc Girder
Steel Rolled Girder
Steel Plate Girder
Steel Box Girder
Steel Truss
Timber
Glulam Timber
Cable Stay Bridge
Suspension Bridge
Floating Bridge
Arch Bridge
Moveable Span Bridge
Tunnel

21

Slab Bridges

43

Simple, easy to construct


Well-suited for spans up to about 50 ft
Cast-in-place or precast. Reinforced or prestressed
Can be made continuous with abutments and piers to
mobilize the frame action

I-Girder Bridges

44

Walnut Lane Bridge, Philadelphia, PA

Most popular bridge type


For spans up to about 160 ft.
Common sizes: AASHTO/PCI Type I-VI (28 to 72)
and Bulb-Ts (54, 63, and 72)

22

Properties, Dimensions and Maximum 45


Spans
for AASHTO-PCI I-Girders

Properties, Dimensions and Maximum 46


Spans
for AASHTO-PCI I-Girders

23

47
Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans
for
PCI Bulb Tee Girders

48

Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans for


PCI Bulb Tee Girders

24

Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans


for
49
New England Bulb Tee Girders

50
Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans
for
New England Bulb Tee Girders

25

Design Charts for I-Girders

2.51

Illinois DOT

Box Girder Bridges

52

FHWA Showcase Bridge, Cambridge, OH 115-6 Span

Second-most popular after the I-girder bridges


Common sizes: AASHTO/PCI Type BI-BIV (27 to 42)
Span Range: 60 ft 105 ft.
Use of side-by-side boxes without a wearing course
offers speedy construction

26

53 for
Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans
AASHTO-PCI Box Girders

Properties, Dimensions and Maximum Spans


54 for
AASHTO-PCI Box Girders

27

55

U-Beam Bridges

56

U-Beams

28

Segmental Bridges

57

Sagadahoc Bridge, Bath-Woolwich, ME, Span 420

Economical, durable, aesthetically pleasing


Span-by-span or balanced cantilever construction
Post-tensioned or/and Cable-stayed
Typical segment type: Concrete box
Cast-in-place or precast
Perfectly suited for gradual and sharply curved alignments

58

Hanging Lake Viaduct

I-70 in Glenwood, Colorado


Segmental precast concrete bridge
Balanced Cantilever construction

29

Spliced Girder Bridges 59

Shelby Creek Bridge, KY, Span 250 ft.

Innovative technique for very long spans


Long-segment precast prestressed girders spliced
Spans of more than 300 ft have been achieved

S 274th Green River Bridge


60
Kent, Washington

30

S 274th Green River Bridge


61
Kent, Washington

Arch Bridges

The first segmental precast


concrete arch bridge in the
U.S.: The Natchez Trace
Parkway, Franklin, Tennessee.
Dual Spans of 582 ft. and 462 ft

62

Most efficient shape


for supporting gravity
loading
Cast-in-place or
precast
The longest existing
concrete arch bridge:
Wanxian Bridge,
China. Span = 1378
ft.

31

Cable-Stayed Bridges

63

Structurally efficient use of materials.


Concrete in compression and steel stays in tension.
Economical and aesthetically pleasing.
Most popular type for signature bridges.
The longest concrete cable-stayed bridge in the U.S.:
Dames Point, Jacksonville, Fl. Main Span = 1300 ft

64

Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge

Located in Boston, MA over Charles River


Part of the Central Artery Project

32

3.65

Loads and Load Distribution

3.66

Overview of Presentation

Calibration (Load and Resistance


Factors)
New Load Model
Refined Load Distribution

33

LRFD Limit States

3.67

The LRFD Specifications require examination of


several load combinations corresponding to the
following limit states:
STRENGTH LIMIT STATE
strength and stability
SERVICE LIMIT STATE
stress, deformation, and cracking
FATIGUE & FRACTURE LIMIT STATE
stress range
EXTREME EVENT LIMIT STATE
earthquakes, ice load, and vehicle and vessel
collision

3.68

3.4.1 Load and Load Designation


STRENGTH I :

normal vehicular use without wind

STRENGTH II :

owner design / permit vehicles


without wind

STRENGTH III :

bridge exposed to wind exceeding


55 mph

STRENGTH IV :

very high dead-to-live load ratios

STRENGTH V :

normal vehicular use with 55 mph


wind

34

3.4.1 Load and Load Designation

3.69

SERVICE I : normal operational use of the bridge with


a 55 mph wind and nominal loads. Also
control cracking of reinforced concrete
structures.
SERVICE II : control yielding of steel structures and slip
of connections
SERVICE III : control cracking of prestressed concrete
superstructures
SERVICE IV : control cracking of prestressed concrete
substructures
FATIGUE :

repetitive vehicular live load and dynamic


responses under a single truck

1.3.2 Limit States


iiQi Rn = Rr

3.70

Eq. (1.3.2.1-1)

where:
i = Load Modifier
= D R I 0.95, where a max. value of i is used
=

DR I
used
i =
=
Qi =
Rn =
Rr =
=

< 1.00, where a min. value of i is

Load factor
Resistance factor
Nominal force effect
Nominal resistance
Factored resistance
R

Load modifier factors:


D = Ductility
R = Redundancy
I = Operational importance

35

3.71

3.3.2 Load and Load Designation


DD =
DC =

downdrag
dead load of structural
components and
nonstructural
attachments
DW = dead load of wearing
surfaces and utilities
EH = horizontal earth pressure
EL = accumulated locked-in
force effects resulting
from the construction
process, including the
secondary forces from
post-tensioning
ES = earth surcharge load
EV = earth fill vertical pressure
BR = vehicular braking force
CE = vehicular centrifugal force
CR = creep

CT =
CV =
EQ =
FR =
IC =
IM =
LL =
LS =
PL =
SE =
SH =
TG =
TU =
WA=
WL=
WS=

vehicular collision force


vessel collision force
earthquake
friction
ice load
vehicular dynamic load
allowance
vehicular live load
live load surcharge
pedestrian live load
settlement
shrinkage
temperature gradient
uniform temperature
water load and stream
pressure
wind on live load
wind load on structure

3.72

Table 3.4.1-1 Load Combinations and Load Factors

36

3.73

Load Combination for Prestressed Concrete


Strength Limit State
Increased vehicular live load
Reduced load factors
Result: Design effects are similar to Std Specs
Service Limit State
Increased vehicular live load
Same stress limits
Result: Design effects are significantly more
restrictive than designs using Std Specs
Service III added to address this difference by
reducing live load effects

3.74

Table 3.4.1-2 Load Factors for Permanent Loads, p

37

3.75

3.6.1.2.1 Design Vehicular Live Loads


Total Vehicular LL
(HL-93)
Design Truck
OR
Design Truck

Design
Tandem

Design Lane Load

Design Tandem
PLUS
Design Lane Load

3.76

3.6.2.1 Dynamic Load Allowance (Impact)


The dynamic load allowance in Table 1 is an
increment to be applied to the static wheel load to
account for wheel load impact from moving vehicles.

Sources of dynamic effects on bridges


Hammering at surface discontinuities
Dynamic response of bridge as a whole

38

3.77
3.6.2.1 Dynamic Load Allowance (Impact)
For design of most bridge components for all limit
states except fatigue
The LRFD Specifications simply require a
constant magnification (IM) of 33% to be applied
to the design truck or design tandem only
The magnification (IM) is not applied to the
design lane load
This simple approach is based on a study that
found the most influential factor affecting
dynamic impact is roadway surface roughness
Commentary has more background

5.5.4.2 Resistance Factors

3.78

Std Specs

LRFD
5.5.4.2

Flex RC

0.90

0.90

Flex PS

1.00

1.00

Shear RC

0.85

0.90

Shear PS

0.90

0.90

Compression

0.70 / 0.75

0.75

Bearing

0.70

0.70

39

Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 Common Superstructures

4.6.2.2.1 Simplified Distribution Factors


To use the simplified distribution factors the
following conditions must be met
Width of deck is constant
Number of beams, Nb 4
Beams are parallel and of the same stiffness
The roadway part of the overhang, de 3.0 ft
Curvature is less than 4
Section appears in Table 4.6.2.2.1-1

40

3.81

Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1 Distribution of Live Loads Per Lane


for Moment in Interior Beams

Notes: 1) Units are in LANES and not WHEELS!


2) Limits of applicability are from parametric study
3) No multiple presence factor applied (tabulated equations)
4) May be different for positive and negative flexure locations
5) Use more conservative of 1 or 2 lanes loaded
6) Note that minimum no. of girders, Nb, is 3

3.82

Distribution Factors for I-Beams - Moment


The live load distribution factor for moment
for interior beams with 2 or more lanes loaded

Nb 4
10,000 Kg 7,000,000

41

Longitudinal Stiffness Parameter

3.83

This term gives an indication of the


relative stiffness between the beam
(longitudinal) and deck (transverse)
For preliminary design, this term may be taken
as 1.10

> 1, the inverse of ratio (n) for section properties


since it is transforming beam to deck

3.84

Distribution Factors for I-Beams - Shear


The live load distribution factor for shear for
interior beams with 2 or more lanes loaded

42

3.85

Distribution Factors for I-Beams Moment with Skew


Bending moments in interior and exterior
beams on skewed supports may be reduced
using the following multiplier

3.86

Distribution Factors for I-Beams Shear with Skew


Shear in exterior beams at the obtuse corner
of the bridge may be reduced using the
following multiplier

This formula is valid for < 60

43

4.6.2.2 Lever Rule

3.87

3.88

4.6.3 Refined Methods of Analysis

Nine methods are listed in Article 4.4 including


Finite element method
Finite difference method
Grillage analogy method
Yield line method

44

89

Flexure & Shear Design

Learning Objectives

90

Unified Design Provisions for Flexure


and Axial Load
Modified Compression Field Theory
(MCFT) for Shear Design

45

91
Flexural Design Provisions in AASHTO

AASHTO Standard
Section 8 Reinforced Concrete
Section 9 Prestressed Concrete
AASHTO LRFD
Section 5 Concrete Structures
Reinforced concrete
Prestressed concrete
Partially prestressed concrete (New in
LRFD)

AASHTO Standard

92

Maximum reinforcement
Reinforced Concrete
max = 0.75 bal
Prestressed Concrete
(pf*su/fc) 0.36 1

(8.16.3.1)
(9.18.1)

46

93

Unified Design Provisions for Reinforced and


Prestressed Concrete Flexural and
Compression Members
LRFD 5.7
Beams Ductile behavior
Columns Non-ductile behavior

Factors selected based on behavior

Unified Design Provisions


Key Concept

94

Strength reduction factor, ,


depends on
maximum net tensile strain, t ,
at nominal resistance, Mn

47

5.2 - Definitions

95

Net Tensile Strain - The tensile strain at


nominal resistance exclusive of strains
due to effective prestress, creep,
shrinkage, and temperature.

5.2 - Definitions

96

Extreme Tension Steel The


reinforcement (prestressed or
nonprestressed) that is farthest from
the extreme compression fiber.

48

97

5.2 - Definitions
0.003

dt

t
Beam

Strain

Column

t = Net tensile strain


dt = Depth to extreme tension steel

98

5.2 - Definitions
t = Extreme tension steel strain

at nominal resistance, due to applied loads


0.003

a = 1c

Mn
Pn

49

5.2 - Definitions

99

Compression-Controlled Strain Limit


The net tensile strain (t ) at balanced
strain conditions. See Article 5.7.2.1.

100

5.7.2.1 Balanced Strain Condition

0.003

fy /Es (or 0.002)

50

5.2 - Definitions

101

Compression-Controlled Section A
cross section in which the net tensile
strain (t ) in the extreme tension steel
at nominal resistance is less than or
equal to the compression-controlled
strain limit.
[Usually 0.002]

5.2 - Definitions

102

Tension-Controlled Section A cross


section in which the net tensile strain
(t ) in the extreme tension steel at
nominal resistance is greater than or
equal to 0.005.

51

103

5.5.4.2 Resistance Factors


dt

1
c

0.583 0.25

1.00

P/S

0.90

0.75

R.C.
dt

0.65 0.15

Compression- Transition
Tension Controlled
Controlled
t = 0.005
t = 0.002
Net Tensile Strain

Effect of Variation in

104

Design flexural members as tension-controlled


sections. Adding reinforcement beyond this
limit reduces , because of reduced ductility,
resulting in no gain in design strength
It is better to add sufficient compression
reinforcement to raise the neutral axis and
make the section tension-controlled

52

Effect of Variation in

105

Mn
bd2

= As/bd

106
10.3.3-4 Strain Conditions

c = 0.003

t 0.002
CompressionControlled
c 0.6 dt

0.003

0.002 < t < 0.005


Transition
0.375 dt < c < 0.6 dt

0.003

t 0.005
TensionControlled
c 0.375 dt

53

Ductility Comparison 107


Standard vs. LRFD Specs.

Example R.C. Beam


0.003

12

dt = 13.5

16
3#8

a = 1c

108

C
T

Given: fc = 4 ksi; fy = 60 ksi


Assume steel yields
T = Asfy = 3(0.79)60 = 142.2 kips
a = T/(0.85 fcb) = 3.49 in.
c = a/1 = 4.1 in.
Mn = T [dt-(a/2)] = 1672 in.-k = 139.3 ft-k
c/dt = 4.1/13.5 = 0.304 < 0.375 or
t = 0.003 [(dt-c)/c] = 0.0069 in./in. Tension-controlled
Mr = Mn = 0.90 (139.3) = 125.4 ft-k

54

5.8 Shear and Torsion

109

5.8.1.1 Flexural Regions Sectional


Design Method Modified
Compression Field Theory (MCFT)
5.8.1.2 Regions Near Discontinuities
Strut-and-Tie (5.6.3)

110
5.8.3.3 Nominal Shear Resistance

Vn Vc Vs Vp
Vn 0.25fcbv d v Vp
where:
Vc = concrete contribution
'
Vc = 0.0316 fc bv d v ( fc in ksi)

fc' bv d v (fc' in psi)

Vs = stirrup contribution
Av fy
d v cot
=
s
Vp = vertical component of the prestressing force

55

Modified Compression Field Theory111(1986)

Source: Collins Mitchell, 1991

Reinforced Concrete = 112


Cracked Concrete + Reinforcement

Panel Loaded in shear

56

Stresses between Cracks

113

Calculated average stress

Tension Stiffening

114

57

Stress Transfer at a Crack

115

Local stresses at crack

Aggregate Interlock

116

Detail at crack

Vci limited by:


- Width of crack, w
- Size of aggregate, a

58

Average Stress Strain Relationships


117 for
Concrete in Tension

118
Diagonal Cracks Diagonal Compression

59

Average Stress-Strain Relationship


119for
Concrete in Compression

where

f2 f2 max [ 2 (

) ( '2 )2 ]
'
c
c

f2 max
1

1 .0
'
fc
0.8 170 1

Modified Compression
Field Theory

Based on three principles:


Equilibrium
Compatibility
Stress-Strain Relationship

60

1.121

STRUCTURAL CONCRETE

Concrete

Reinforcement

Reinforced Concrete

Prestressed Concrete

Characteristics of Concrete

1.122

Basic Concept
Strong in Compression
Weak in Tension

61

1.123
Typical Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete

1.124
Behavior of Plain Concrete Members

62

Typical Stress-Strain Curve for 1.125


Mild Reinforcing Steel

1.126
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Members

63

Typical LoadDeflection Behavior 1.127


of
Unreinforced and Reinforced Concrete Beams

1.128
Prestressed Concrete: General Principles

64

1.129

Methods of Prestressing Concrete Members


Pretensioning:

Post-tensioning

Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Members


1.130

65

1.131
Typical Load Deflection Behavior of Unreinforced,
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams

Stress-Strain Curves for


1.132
Prestressing Strand and Mild Reinforcement

66

Concepts of Prestressing

1.133

Maintain gross section properties for improved


stiffness
Transform concrete from a material that cracks
into an elastic uncracked material
Balance applied loads
Combination of concrete with very high strength
reinforcement
Provide active force to close cracks due to
overloads

Load Balancing

1.134

67

1.135
Need for High Strength Steel to Achieve Prestress

Partial Prestressing

1.136

Partially prestressed members are allowed to crack


at service loads
Reduces Required prestress force
Reduces excess section strength
Generally requires addition of mild
reinforcement
Stiffness is reduced deflections and fatigue
should be investigated
Recognized in LRFD Specs
- No specific guidance for design
- Partial prestress ratio, PPR, defined in LRFD
5.5.4.2.1
PPR

Aps fpy
Aps fpy As fy

68

1.137

Design of Reinforced Concrete Members

Strength Limit State Flexure

Strength Limit State Shear

Fatigue Limit State Flexure

Service Limit State


- Crack Control
- Deformations Optional
Extreme Events

1.138
Design of Prestressed Concrete Members

Service Limit State Flexure


- determine magnitude and location of P/S force
- stress limits
- stages of construction
- almost always governs

Strength Limit State Flexure

Strength Limit State Shear

Fatigue Limit State Flexure

Service Limit State Deformations


- optional
Extreme Events

69

Deck Design

139

Refined Methods (4.6.3.2)


Approximate Methods
Empirical Method (9.7.2)
Strip Method (4.6.2.1.1., App. A4
+ Section 5)
Overhang Design (9.7.1.5)

Deck Design

140

70

Problem Definition
Live Load:

141

HL-93

Deck Concrete
fc =
4 ksi
wc =
150 pcf
Nonprestressed Reinforcement
fy =
60 ksi
29,000 ksi
Es =
Dimensions
Thickness =
Cover
=
=

8.0 in.
(9.7.1.1 & 13.7.3.1.2)
2.5 in. (Top)
(5.12.3)
1.0 in. (Bottom) (5.12.3)

Future Wearing Surface Allowance: FWS = 30 psf

142

9.7.2 Empirical Method

Based on extensive research


Load resistance mechanism
Internal arching action

FEM verification

Factor of safety 8.0

No analysis required

Isotropic reinforcement

Not applicable to overhang design

71

143

9.7.2.4 Empirical Method Design Conditions

Diaphragms at lines of support

Concrete and/or steel girders

Cast-in-place composite deck

Uniform depth

Effective length-to-depth ratio


6 to 18
Effective length

13.5 ft., maximum

(9.7.2.3)

144

9.7.2.4 Empirical Method Design Conditions

Core depth 4.0 in., minimum

Slab thickness 7.0 in., minimum

Minimum overhang-to-depth ratio

3, if barrier is composite

fc - 4 ksi, minimum

Deck is composite

72

145

9.7.2.5 Empirical Method Reinforcement

Bottom Layer, each way:


0.27 in.2 / ft.
(#5 bars @ 13.5 in. spacing As,provd = 0.276 in.2 / ft.)
Top Layer, each way: 0.18 in.2 / ft.
(#4 bars @ 13 in. spacing As,provd = 0.185 in.2 / ft.)

Grade 60 steel

Outermost bars in direction of effective length

Maximum spacing 18 in. o.c.

Reinforcement doubled in end zone if skew exceeds 25

146

9.7.2.5 Empirical Method Final Design

73

4.6.2.1.1 Strip Method

147

Continuous beam loaded with truck axle loads


Equivalent strip widths interior, exterior, and
overhang (Table 4.6.2.1.3-1)
DL moments on a per foot width basis
LL moments:
Moving load analysis
Truck axles moved laterally
Multiple presence factors
Dynamic load allowance
Total moment divided strip width
LRFD Table A4.1-1 (used in this design example)

Strip Method

Overhang design (9.7.1.5)

Limit states

148

Service: crack control


Fatigue: need not be checked
Strength: factored moments
Extreme event: vehicular collision

74

149

Strip Method DL Moments


M

C = 10 or 12
Self weight = 8(150)/12
= 100 psf = 0.1 ksf

MDL

w2
C

0.1 x 9 2
0.81 kip ft . / ft .
10

Future wearing surface = 30 psf = 0.3 ksf

MFWS

0.03 x 9 2
0.24 kip ft . / ft .
10

150

Strip Method LL Moments

Table A4-1

Span = 9 ft.

Critical section for negative moment


(4.6.2.1.6)
(1/3) bf = 14 in. (governs) 15 in.
Use 12 in. (conservative)
pos
M LLI
6.29 kip - ft . / ft .
neg
M LLI
3.71kip - ft . / ft .

75

151

Strip Method Service LS Moments

Service Limit State:


Negative Interior Moment:

Mneg = -(0.81+0.24+3.71) = -4.76 kip-ft. / ft.

Positive Moment:

Mpos = (0.81+0.24+6.29) = 7.34 kip-ft. / ft.

152

Strip Method Strength LS Moments

Strength Limit State


Negative Interior Moment:

Mneg,str = -(1.25x0.81 + 1.5x0.24 + 1.75x3.71)


= -7.87 kip-ft. / ft.

Positive Moment:

Mpos,str = 1.25x0.81 + 1.5x0.24 + 1.75x6.29


= 12.38 kip-ft. / ft.

76

Strip Method Flexure Design153


Mneg,str = -7.87 kip-ft. / ft.

Try No. 5 at 10 in. o.c.

As = (12/10)(0.31 in.2/bar)
= 0.372 in.2 / ft.

M n
a

As f y
a
d
b
2

(0.372)(60)
0.547 in.
(0.85)(4)(12)

As f y
0.85 fc' b
c

a
0.547

0.65 in.
0.85
0.85

Check Tension/Compression controlled section

d t c

5.19 0.65
* 0.003
* 0.003 0.021 0.005
c
0.65
Therefore , tension - controlled section
t

0.9 for flexure

154

Strip Method Flexure Design


M n

M n

As f y
a
d
2
b

( 0.90 )( 0.372 )( 60 )
0.547
) 8.23 kip - ft./ft.
( 5.19
( 12 )
2

Mn = 8.23 kip-ft. / ft. > Mneg,str = 7.87 kip-ft. / ft.

O.K.

77

155

Strip Method Crack Control

Maximum spacing of tension reinforcement


LRFD Article 5.7.3.4 applies if fMneg > 0.8fr

0.8 f r 0.8 * 0.24 fc' 0.8 * 0.24 4 0.38 ksi


f M neg

4.76 * 12
0.45 ksi 0.38 ksi
12 * 8 2

Therefore, Article 5.7.3.4 applies

156

Strip Method Crack Control

Maximum spacing of tension reinforcement


s

700 e
2d c
s fs

where ,

e 0.75 for Class 2 exposure

dc = cover extreme tension fiber to center of extreme reinf.


= 2.5 (clear cover) + 0.625 (diameter of No. 5 bar)/2
= 2.81 in.
s 1

dc
2.81
1
1.77
0 .7 ( h - d c )
0.7 ( 8 - 2.81 )

fs = Stress in reinf. based on cracked section analysis

78

157

Strip Method Crack Control


Calculate fs

1kd
3 s

c
kd s

fc
C

ds

Neutral
Axis
jds = (1 - k)ds
3

Elevation

Section

fs

Strain

Stress

T
Resultant
Forces

Figure 3: Reinforced concrete rectangular beam section at service load

158

Strip Method Crack Control


fs =

M
As jd s

where:
M = -4.76 kip-ft./ft.
As = No. 5 at 10 o.c. = 0.31/10*12 = 0.372 in.2/ ft.
ds = 8 2.5 0.625/2 = 5.19 in.

n = modular ratio = Es / Ec = 29,000 / 3,830 = 7.57. Use 8 6 OK


(LRFD 5.7.1) E 33 ,000 w 1.5 f ' ( 33 ,000 )( 0.150 )1.5 4.0 3 ,830 ksi
c

k
3

As
bd

0.372
0.00597
( 12 )( 5.19 )

j 1-

k 2 n n - n
2

k ( 2 )( 0.00597 )( 8 ) ( 0.00597 )( 8 ) - ( 0.00597 )( 8 ) 0.265

j 1 0.265 / 3 0.912 f s

( 4.76 * 12 )
32.4 ksi
( 0.372 )( 0.912 )( 5.19 )

79

159

Strip Method Crack Control


s

700 e
s fs

2d c =

700 * 0.75
1.77 * 32.4

2 * 2.81 = 3.53 in.

Provided No. 5 at 10 in. o.c. > 3.53 in. o.c. N.G.


Reduce spacing to 7 in. o.c.
Revised maximum spacing = 7.2 in.

O.K.

Therefore, for negative interior moments:


Provide #5 @ 7 in. o.c. (As prov'd = 0.53 in.2 / ft.)
Mneg provd = 11.5 kip-ft./ft.
Similar calculations for Mpositive suggest
No. 5 at 8 in. o.c. are adequate (As, provd = 0.465 in2/ft.)
Mpos provd = 13.3 kip-ft./ft.

160
Strip Method Distribution Reinforcement
(LRFD 9.7.3.2)

At bottom
In secondary direction
Percent of reinforcement for Mpositive
220
S
220
8 .5

67%, where S 108 - 6 102 in. 8.5 ft.


75 % 67 % ,

67% Governs

As = 0.67(0.47 in.2 / ft.) = 0.31 in.2 / ft.


Provide #5 @ 12 in. o.c. (As prov'd = 0.310 in.2 / ft.)

80

161
Strip Method Shrinkage & Temp. Reinf.
As

1.3 bh
2 ( b h )f y

0.11 As 0.60

Eq . 5.10.8 1
Eq . 5.10.8 2

42 6 = 510 in

8 in

Method 1 : Consider full width of deck :


1.3 * 510 * 8
0.085 , therefore As 0.11
As
2 * ( 510 8 ) * 60

Method 2 : Consider unit width of deck 12 in

12 in

Area 12 * 8 96in 2

8 in

Drying perimeter 2 * (12 0) 24 in


1.3 * 96
As
0.087, therefore As 0.11
24 * 60

Maximum spacing: 3*8=24 in or 18 in (governs)


Provide No. 4 @ 18 in. o.c. (As prov'd = 0.27 in2 / ft.)

Strip Method Minimum


Reinforcement

Mr lesser of 1.2 Mcr or 1.33 Mu

162

(LRFD 5.7.3.3.2)

M cr f r Sc

f r 0.37 fc 0.37 4 0.74 ksi


M cr 0.74 * (

12 * 8 2
) 94.7 kip - in. 7.9 kip - ft./ft.
6

1.2 M cr 1.2 * 7.9 9.5 kip - ft/ft

(governs)

1.33M neg,str 1.33 * 7.87 10.47 kip - ft/ft


1.33M pos,str 1.33 * 12.38 16.47 kip - ft/ft

Mpos provd = 13.3 kip-ft/ft and Mneg provd = 11.5 kip-ft/ft


> 9.5 kip-ft/ft

OK

81

Empirical vs. Traditional

163

Total reinforcement per square foot of deck:


Empirical method:
2[0.276 + 0.185] = 0.922 in.2 / ft. (- 41%)
Traditional method:
0.53 + 0.465 + 0.310 + 0.27

= 1.575 in.2 / ft. (+ 71%)

Overhang Design

164

Design Case 1: DL and trans. & long. Vehicle impact forces


Load & Resistance Factors = 1.0. extreme event limit state

Design Case 2: DL & vert. vehicle impact forces


Load & Resistance Factors = 1.0. extreme event limit state
Typically does not govern for concrete barriers

Design Case 3: Strength I Limit State


1.25DC + 1.5 DW + 1.75 (LL+IM)

82

Vehicle Impact Forces

165

Extreme Event Test Vehicle TL4


(LRFD 13.7.2)
Design Forces and Designations
Ft Transverse Force

54 KIP

FL Longitudinal Force

18 KIP

Fv Vertical Force Down

18 KIP

Lt and LL

3.5 FT

Lv

18 FT

He min (Height of impact above deck)

32 IN

H Minimum Height of Barrier

32 IN

Safety Barrier

166
Strength of Barrier: ILDOT F-Shape Concrete Barrier

83

Strength of Barrier Yield Line Case


167 1

Strength of Barrier Yield Line Case


168 2

84

Distribution of Mc and T

169

At the inside of barrier


M over Lc
T over Lc+2H (Case 1)

T over Lc+ H (Case 2)

Strength of Barrier

170

Yield Line Case 1 :


L
L 8H M b Mw
Lc t t
13.7 ft
Mc
2
2
2

2
Rw 1
L
2
c Lt

ML
8M b 8Mw c c 134.4 kip

Yield Line Case 2 :


2

M Mw
L
L
Lc t t H b
2
2


Mc

2
Rw 2
2Lc Lt

6.3 ft

ML
M b Mw c c 61.6 kip, controls

Rw for barrier = 61.6 kip

61.6 kip > Ft = 54 kip OK

85

Flexural Design of Deck

171

At the inside face of the barrier:

MDC = (8/12)*(0.150)*(1.5)2 / 2 = 0.06 kip-ft. / ft.


Mbarrier = (0.450)*(1.5)2 / 2 = 0.34 kip-ft. / ft.
Mc = 13.9 kip-ft. / ft. (Flexural strength of barrier about hor. axis)
Design forces for deck (at inside face of barrier):
M = MDC + Mbarrier + Mc
= 0.06
+ 0.34
+ 13.9
= 14.30 kip-ft. / ft.

P = T1 (yield line case 1) = 6.94 kip / ft., at centroid of deck

P
h d
M

Reinforcement at Top of Deck172


T+P

P
h

M
Strains

Stresses

C
Forces

a
h
a

h a

M n C d P d T1 d P
2
2
2

2 2

As = 0.185 in.2 / ft. (Empirical design No. 4 @ 13 o.c.)


T1 = T + P
T1 = T + P = 0.185x60 = 11.1 kip / ft.
C = 11.1 - 6.94 = 4.16 kip / ft.
a = 4.16/(0.85x12x4) = 0.10 in.
c = a/0.85 = 0.10/0.85 = 0.12 in.
de = 8 2.5 0.5/2 = 5.25 in.

86

Reinforcement at Top of Deck173


T+P

P
h

M
Strains

Stresses

Forces

0.10

8 0.10
M n 11.1 5.25
6.94
30.3 kip in. / ft . 2.53 kip ft . / ft .
2
2

Mn = 2.53 < M = 14.30 kip-ft. / ft. NG


Provide additional No. 7 at 13 in. o.c.
alternating with No. 4 at 13 o.c.
As = (0.20+0.60)/13*(12) = 0.74 in.2 / ft.
T = 0.74x60 = 44.4 kip / ft.

0.92

8 0.92
M n 44.4 5.06
6.94
179.7 kip in. / ft . 15.0 kip ft . / ft .
2
2

Mn = 15.0 > M = 14.30 kip-ft. / ft. OK

174

Away from barrier:


Dispersion at 30 to 45 deg

87

175

Thank You
Questions?

88

Anda mungkin juga menyukai