THE DEVELOPMENT OF AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE

DESIGN SPECIFICATION AS N EXAMPLE OF

PROBABILISTIC-BASED SPECIFICATIONS
State University of New York at Buffalo
November 7 2011 November 7, 2011
Presented By
Wagdy G. Wassef, P.E., Ph.D.
Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
A Brief Historyy
1931 First printed version of AASHO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges and Incidental Specifications for Highway Bridges and Incidental
Structures
1970s AASHO becomes AASHTO (1990s AREA becomes (
AREMA)
Early 1970s AASHTO adopts LFD
L t 1970 OMTC t t k li it t t b d Late 1970s OMTC starts work on limit-states based
OHBDC
1986 AASHTO explores need to change 1986 AASHTO explores need to change
Design Code Objectives Design Code Objectives
Technically state-of-the-art specification.
Comprehensive as possible 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. g
Major Changes Major Changes
A new philosophy of safety - LRFD
The identification of four limit states The identification of four limit states
The relationship of the chosen reliability level, the
load and resistance factors, and load models
th h th f lib ti through the process of calibration
new load factors
new resistance factors
LRFD - Basic Design Concept LRFD - Basic Design Concept
Some Algebra
Q R
o o o
2
Q
2
R Q) - (R
+ =
o o
|
2
Q
2
R
+
Q - R
=
x

1
= R = + + Q = R
i
i
2
Q
2
R

|

o o
| E
|

|
2 2
i
i
+ + Q
x

=
E
|
o o
|
2
Q
2
R
+ + Q
Load and Resistance Factor Design Load and Resistance Factor Design

i

i
Q
i
| R
n
= R
r i i i
|
n r
in which:
q
i
= q
D
q
R
q
I
> 0.95 for loads for max
1/( ) s 1 0 f l d f i = 1/(q
I
q
D
q
R
) s 1.0 for loads for min
where:

i
= load factor: a statistically based multiplier on
i
y p
force effects
| = resistance factor: a statistically based
multiplier applied to nominal resistance multiplier applied to nominal resistance
LRFD (Continued) LRFD (Continued)
q
i
= load modifier
q
D
= a factor relating to ductility q
D
a factor relating to ductility
q
R
= a factor relating to
redundancy
f t l ti t q
I
= a factor relating to
importance
Q
i
= nominal force effect: a
deformation stress, or stress
resultant
R = nominal resistance R
n
nominal resistance
R
r
= factored resistance: |R
n
Reliability Calcs Done for M and V e ab ty Ca cs o e o a d
Simulated Bridges Based on Real Ones
25 non composite steel girder bridge simulations 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 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 120 ft, with spacing as above.
Reliability of Std Spec vs. LRFD y p
175 Data Points
Major Changes j g
Revised calculation of load distribution
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
Lt
K

L
S

2900
S
+ 0.075 = g
3
g
0.1
0.2 0.6
|
.

\
. \ . \ Lt
L 2900
3
s
Circa
1990 1990
Major Changes (Continued) Major Changes (Continued)
Combine plain, reinforced and prestressed concrete.
Modified compression field/strut and tie 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 g p
Specification for ship collision.
Major Changes (Continued) Major Changes (Continued)
Changes to the earthquake provisions to eliminate
the seismic performance category concept by 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. p p y
New Live Load Model HL93
Continuation of a long story
1923 AREA Specification
4k
6k
16k
24k
10-Ton
15-Ton
8k
14'
32k
5.5'
20-Ton
VERY CLOSE!!
1928-1929 Conference Specification
6k
14'
24k
30'
6k
14'
24k
30'
8k
14'
32k
30'
6k
14'
24k
30'
6k
14'
24k
15-Ton 15-Ton 20-Ton 15-Ton 15-Ton
640 lb/ft
18,000 lb for Moment
26,000 lb for Shear
640 lb/ft
1944 HS 20 Design Truck Added
Live Load Continued to be Debated
Late 60s H40, HS25 and HS30 discussed
1969 SCOBS states unanimous opposition to 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 g
HS25 best present solution
5% cost penalty
Motion soundly defeated Motion soundly defeated
E l i L d B d TRB Exclusion Loads Based on TRB
Special Report 225, 1990
EXCL/HS20 Truck or Lane or 2 25
kips Axles @ 4 ft (110 kN @ 1.2 m)
Selected Notional Design Load Selected Notional Design Load
HL-93
EXCL/HL 93 Circa 1992 EXCL/HL 93 Circa 1992
NCHRP 12-33 Project Schedule NCHRP 12-33 Project Schedule
First Draft - 1990 general coverage First Draft 1990 general coverage
Second Draft - 1991 workable
Third Draft - 1992 pretty close p y
Fourth Draft - 1993 ADOPTED!!
12,000 comments
Reviewed by hundreds
Printed and available - 1994
Upgrades and Changes to 1990
T h l Technology
1996 foundation data reinserted 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. times major update in 2002.
Load distribution application limits expanded several
time in 1990s due to requests to liberalize.
More commentary added More commentary added.
Upgrades and Changes Upgrades and Changes
2004 major change in steel girder design in
anticipation of anticipation of
2005 seamless integration of curved steel bridges
ending three decade quest
Upgrades and Changes (Continued) Upgrades and Changes (Continued)
2005 P/C loses updated
2006 complete replacement of Section 10
Foundation Design
2006 more concrete shear options 2006 more concrete shear options
2007 big year
Streamline MCF for concrete shear design
1 000 year EQ maps and collateral changes 1,000 year EQ maps and collateral changes
Seismic Guide Spec - displacement based
Pile construction update
2008 - Coastal bridge Guide Spec
Where Do We Go From Here?
Where Do We Go From Here? Where Do We Go From Here?
The original AASHTO LRFD live load
t d b d l d t study was based on load measurements
made in the 1970s in Ontario. How this
l t t t d l d ? relates to todays loads?
Where Do We Go From Here? Where Do We Go From Here?
The specifications was calibrated for the
t th li it t t h th d fi iti f strength limit state where the definition of
failure is relatively simple: if the factored
l d d th f t d i t loads exceed the factored resistance,
failure, i.e. severe distress or collapse, will
t k l take place.
What about service limit state and what is
failure under service limit states?
Where Do We Go From Here? Where Do We Go From Here?
Two Current Projects of Special Note:
SHRP R19 B - Bridge for Service Life
Beyond 100 Years: Service Limit State
Design (SLS)
NCHRP 12-83, Calibration of Service Limit ,
State for Concrete
R19B Research Team R19B Research Team
Modjeski and Masters, Inc.: John Kulicki, Ph.D., P.E.
Wagdy Wassef, Ph.D., P.E.
University of Delaware: Dennis Mertz, Ph.D., P.E.
University of Nebraska: Andy Nowak, Ph.D.
NCS Consultants: Naresh Samtani, Ph.D., P.E.
NCHRP 12-83 Research Team
Same except that NCS Consultants are replaced with
Rutgers University: Hani Nasif, Ph.D., P.E.
Current General SLSs Current General SLS s
Live load deflections
Bearings-movements and service forces
Settlement of foundations and walls
Current Steel SLSs Current Steel SLS s
Permanent deformations in compact steel
t components
Fatigue of structural steel, steel
reinforcement and concrete (through its
own limit state)
Slip of slip-critical bolted connections
Current Concrete SLSs Current Concrete SLS s
Load induced Load induced
Stresses in prestressed concrete under
service loads service loads
Crack control reinforcement
Non Load induced Non-Load induced
Shrinkage and temperature reinforcement
S litti i f t Splitting reinforcement
Desired Attributes Desired Attributes
I SLS i f l? C it b Is an SLS meaningful? Can it be
calibrated?
Does it really relate to service---or
something else?
Can (should) aging and deterioration be
incorporated? p
Can it reflect interventions?
General Topics General Topics
Special challenges for SLS development Special challenges for SLS development
Survey of owners
U f WIM d t Use of WIM data
Calibration process
General Topics (contd) General Topics (cont d)
Improvements to current SLS Improvements to current SLS
Crack control in reinforced concrete
Tension in P/S beams Tension in P/S beams
Load induced fatigue in steel and concrete
Use of Weigh In Motion Data Use of Weigh-In-Motion Data
Current Status Current Status
Vetted WIM data Vetted WIM data
SLS Live Load live load model
Finite Life fatigue load model Finite Life fatigue load model
Infinite Life fatigue load model
Preliminary Betas for Service III (Tension in Preliminary Betas for Service III (Tension in
P/s beams)
Work on deflections Work on deflections
Work on compiling info on joints and
bearings bearings
Service and Fatigue LL has been a
challenge
Truck WIM was obtained from the FHWA
and NCHRP Project 12-76
T t l b f d b t 60 illi Total number of records about 60 million
about 35 million used
Initial Filtering Criteria For Non-Fatigue
SLS (FHWA Unless Noted)
Excluded Vehicles Excluded Vehicles
Individual axle weight > 70kips -
GVW< 10 GVW < 10
7 >Total length >200 ft
First axle spacing <5 ft p g
Individual axle spacing < 3.4ft
10 > Speed > 100 mph
GVW +/- the sum of the axle weights by more than 7%.
FHWA Classes 3 14
Additional Filtering Additional Filtering
Filter #1 Questionable Records
1 - Truck length > 120 ft g
2 sum of axle spacing > length of truck.
3 - any axle < 2 Kips
4 - GVW+/- sum of the axle weights by more than 10% 4 GVW +/ sum of the axle weights by more than 10%
5 - GVW < 12 Kips
Filter #2 Presumed Permit Trucks Filter #2 Presumed Permit Trucks
6 - Total # of axles < 3 AND GVW >50 kips
7 - Steering axle > 35 k
8 individual axle weight > 45 kips
Filter #3 Traditional Fatigue Population
9 - Vehicles with GVW <20 Kips
Filtering By Limit State Filtering By Limit State
Vehicles Passing Filters #1 & #2 will be
d f lib ti f ll li it t t used for calibration of all limit states
except for Fatigue, the limit state for permit
hi l d ibl St th II vehicles and possibly Strength II.
Vehicles filtered by Filter #2 will be
considered Permit vehicles and will be
reviewed and may be filtered further.
Vehicles passing all three filters will be
used for the fatigue limit state g
WIM Data - FHWA
14 sites
Representing 1 year
4
5
Representing 1 year
of traffic at most sites
The maximum
2
3
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
Arizona(SPS-1)
Arizona(SPS-2)
Arkansas(SPS-2)
recorded GVW is 220
kips
Mean values range
1
0
1
d

N
o
r
m
a
l

V
a
Colorado(SPS-2)
Illinois(SPS-6)
Indiana(SPS-6)
Kansas(SPS-2)
Louisiana(SPS-1)
Maine(SPS-5)
Mean values range
from 20 to 65 kips
-3
-2
-1
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
Minnesota(SPS-5)
New Mexico(SPS-1)
NewMexico(SPS-5)
Tennessee(SPS-6)
Virginia(SPS-1)
Wisconsin(SPS-1)
0 50 100 150 200 250
-5
-4
GVW[kips]
Wisconsin(SPS 1)
Delaware(SPS-1)
Maryland(SPS-5)
Ontario
GVW [kips]
Analysis of the WIM Data y
Live load effect maximum moment and Live load effect maximum moment and
shear
Simple spans with span lengths of 30 60 Simple spans with span lengths of 30, 60,
90, 120 and 200 ft
T k i t h Trucks causing moments or shears
< 0.15 (HL93) were removed
Removal of the Heavy Vehicles for SLS y
6
New York 8382 Span 90ft

Filter trucks causing moments
h th 1 35(HL93
4
or shears more than 1.35(HL93
live load effect) were removed
Number of trucks before filtering
2
m
a
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
Number of trucks before filtering
1,551,454
Number of trucks after filtering
1 550 914
-2
0
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

N
o
r
m
1,550,914
Number of removed trucks 540
Percent of removed trucks
-4
S
No Trucks Removed
Percent of removed trucks
0.03%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-6
Truck Moment / HL93 Moment
0.03% Trucks Removed
Multiple Presence Cases p
Simultaneous
f t k occurrence of trucks
on the bridge:
Filt b d ti
T1
T1
Filter based on time
of a record and a
speed of the truck
HeadwayDistance max200ft HeadwayDistance max200ft
p
Distance from the
first axle of first truck
T2
T2
to the first axle of the
second truck
maximum 200 ft
Twocasesofthesimultaneous
occurrence
maximum 200 ft
occurrence
Correlation Criteria
Both trucks have the same number of Both trucks have the same number of
axles
GVW of the trucks is within +/- 5%
All corresponding spacings between
axles are within +/- 10%
Adjacent Lanes - Florida j
140
Florida I10 Time
100
120
c
y
Florida I10 Time
record accuracy 1
second
60
80
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
Number of Trucks :
1,654,004
20
40
Number of Fully
Correlated Trucks:
2 518
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
Gross Vehicle Weight - Trucks in Adjacent Lanes
2,518
Max GVW = 102 kips
Adjacent Lanes Florida
2 518 f 1 654 000 2,518 of 1,654,000
4
5
2
3
a
b
l
e
0
1
N
o
r
m
a
l

V
a
r
i
a
3
-2
-1
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

0 50 100 150 200 250
-5
-4
-3

Florida I10 - 1259 Correlated Trucks - Side by Side
Florida I10 - All Trucks
0 50 100 150 200 250
Gross Vehicle Weight
One Lane Florida
4 190 f 1 654 000 4,190 of 1,654,000
5
2
3
4
l
e
0
1
N
o
r
m
a
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
-2
-1
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

N
5
-4
-3
Florida I10 - 4190 Correlated Trucks In One Lane
Florida I10 - All Trucks
0 50 100 150 200 250
-5
Gross Vehicle Weight
Conclusions for Multiple Presence p
Vehicles representing the extreme Vehicles representing the extreme
tails of the CDFs need not be
id d t i lt l i considered to occur simultaneously in
multiple lanes.
For the SLS only a single lane live For the SLS, only a single-lane live-
load model need be considered.
Statistics of Non-fatigue SLS Live Load Statistics of Non fatigue SLS Live Load
Based on 95% limit: Based on 95% limit:
ADTT = I,000, Project Bias on HL 93 = 1.4
ADTT = 5,000, Project Bias on HL 93 = 1.45 ADTT 5,000, Project Bias on HL 93 1.45
COV = 12%
Based on 100 years: Based on 100 years:
Project Bias varies with time interval which will
be reflected in calibrated load factor be reflected in calibrated load factor
Not strongly influenced by span length
Typical Results For SLS Live Load Model Typical Results For SLS Live Load Model
Span60ft
1 20
1.40
1.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
B
i
a
s
ADTT250
ADTT1000
0.40
0.60
ADTT2500
ADTT5000
ADTT10000
0.00
0.20
1 10 100 1000 10000 100years
Days Days
Conclusion For Non-fatigue SLS Conclusion For Non fatigue SLS
Not necessary to envelop all trucks SLS Not necessary to envelop all trucks SLS
expected to be exceeded occasionally
Some states with less weight Some states with less weight
enforcement may have to have additional
considerations (site/region specific live considerations (site/region specific live
load)
HL 93 d t bl ti l ti l SLS HL-93 adaptable as national notional SLS
live load model
Non-Fatigue SLS LL Model Non Fatigue SLS LL Model
Mean Bias and project LL model at mean Mean, Bias and project LL model at mean
plus 1.5 standard deviations tabulated with
and without DLA for parameters: and without DLA for parameters:
5 ADTTs = 250, 1,000, 2500, 5000 and 10,000
10 Time periods = 1 day, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 10 Time periods 1 day, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2
months, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, 50 years, 75 years
and 100 years
6 S 30 ft 60ft 90ft 120ft 200 ft & 300ft 6 Spans = 30 ft, 60ft, 90ft,120ft, 200 ft & 300ft
With and w/o DLA
Fatigue SLS LL Model
Live Load For Fatigue II (finite fatigue life)
4
6
NCHRP Data - Indiana

e oad o at gue ( te at gue e)
0
2
4
N
o
r
m
a
l

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
-4
-2
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

N
Station - 9511
Station - 9512
Station - 9532
Station - 9534
Station - 9552
Ontario
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-6
GVW [kips]
Ontario
Miners law yields one effective moment per span Miner s law yields one effective moment per span
Rainflow counting yields cycles per truck
Variety of spans and locations yields Mean, bias and COV
Examples Using FHWA WIM Data Examples Using FHWA WIM Data
( )
3
3
*
n
M p m =

( )
3
1
eq i i
i
M p m
=
=

M [kip-ft] for 3 sites M
eff
[kip-ft] for 3 sites
30 ft (-184)* 60 ft (-360)* 90 ft (-530)* 120 ft (-762)* 200 ft (-1342)*
83 204 269 408 845 83 204 269 408 845
90 -215 -300 -452 -896
86 -217 -291 -439 -916 86 -217 -291 -439 -916
* Values in parentheses= current AASHTO fatigue moment
15 sites processed so far 15 sites processed so far
Example Using FHWA WIM Data 3
sites
/ Fat Trk
eq
M M
Fatigue II Load Factors for 3 sites
30 ft 60 ft 90 ft 120 ft 200 ft
0.45 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.63
0.48 0.60 0.57 0.59 0.67
0.47 0.60 0.55 0.58 0.68
So far looks good now add cycles per So far looks good, now add cycles per
Passage and compare to current
Cycles Per Passage y g
4.00
Arizona(SPS1)
3.00
3.50
Arizona(SPS2)
Arkansas(SPS2)
Colorado(SPS2)
D l (SPS 1)
C
y
2.00
2.50
Delaware(SPS1)
Illinois(SPS6)
Kansas(SPS2)
Louisiana (SPS1)
y
c
l
e
33% damage increase
Current
0 50
1.00
1.50
ContinuousBridges
Louisiana(SPS 1)
Maine(SPS5)
Maryland(SPS5)
Virginia(SPS1)
e
s
Current
0.00
0.50
30 80 130 180
Span length
g
MiddleSupport
Wisconsin(SPS1)
Spanlength
Rainflow Cycles - n
rc
Rainflow Cycles n
rc
Continuous Spans ContinuousSpans
30 ft 60 ft 90 ft 120 ft 200 ft
3.13 3.03 3.38 3.02 2.36
3.09 2.85 3.00 2.76 2.38
3.30 3.30 3.52 3.04 2.44
Damage Factor Compared to Current Damage Factor Compared to Current
( )
3
/
rc
Fat Trk
eq
n
M M
Current =0.75
( )
eq
AASHTO
n
Current 0.75
30 ft 60 ft 90 ft 120 ft 200 ft
0.52 0.71 0.66 0.68 0.73
0.57 0.74 0.71 .73 0.78
0 55 0 78 0 73 0 73 0 80 0.55 0.78 0.73 0.73 0.80
High = 0.87 or 116% of current High 0.87 or 116% of current
MM Independent Check of UNL MM Independent Check of UNL
UNL running all filtered trucks at a site using UNL running all filtered trucks at a site using
the time stamps
Traffic simulation Traffic simulation
Not individual trucks one at a time
Test axle train evaluated by UNL and MM Test axle train evaluated by UNL and MM
8 hypothetical trucks
49 axles 9 a es
963 ft
843,000 lbs
MM Independent Check of UNL MM Independent Check of UNL
MM Cobbled together existing pieces: g g p
Variation of program MM used in early 1990s truck
study that resulted in HL93 Loading modified to
calculate moment time histories calculate moment time histories
Used rainflow counting algorithm based on ASTM E
1049 85 previously developed to process p y p p
instrumentation data for repair of in-service bridge to
calculate cycles per truck; and
Miners La to calc late Meq Miners Law to calculate Meq.
MM Independent Check of UNL MM Independent Check of UNL
Results:
O l f i ti t d Only a few issues negotiated
Final results damage factors same for simple span,
very close for Neg moment at pier of continuous. y g p
Sometimes intermediate results varied seemed to
depend maximum magnitude of small cycles (noise)
th t i d lik d t thi that was ignored---like data smoothing
Common sense check MM found that
i l t i l l d f t f equivalent single cycle damage factor for
the 8 truck train could be used as a
i h k k d ll comparison check worked well.
Does This Increase Make Sense?
2 000 000
2,500,000
a
t
i
o
n
s
1,500,000
2,000,000
k

C
o
m
b
i
n
a
500 000
1,000,000
e
r

o
f

T
r
u
c
k
0
500,000
6
5
7
0
7
5
8
0
8
5
9
0
9
1
9
2
9
3
9
4
9
5
9
6
9
7
9
8
9
9
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
N
u
m
b
e
1
9
6
1
9
7
1
9
7
1
9
8
1
9
8
1
9
9
1
9
9
1
9
9
1
9
9
1
9
9
1
9
9
1
9
9
1
9
9
1
9
9
1
9
9
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
Year
Does This Increase Make Sense? Does This Increase Make Sense?
120.0%
140.0%
e
19921997
19922002
40 0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
n
t

C
h
a
n
g
e
20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
P
e
r
c
e
TruckWeight
Does This Increase Make Sense?
Current Status of LL Studies Current Status of LL Studies
Fatigue II Being calibrated now Concrete
and steel
Fatigue I model being finalized g g
Other SLS
Design model will be HL93 factored per calibration Design model will be HL93 factored per calibration
LL was handed off to NCHRP 12-83 team for concrete
SLS calibration - working
SHRP team is following with deflections and foundations
Concrete-Related Limit States Concrete Related Limit States
LRFD
Description Proposed SLS
article
Description ProposedSLS
5.7.3.4
Control of cracking by
distribution of reinforcement
Service IA:
Crack control of R/C /
9.7.2.5
Reinforcement requirements
for concrete deck designed
using empirical method
Service IB:
Crack control of R/C concrete deck
designed using empirical method using empirical method designed using empirical method
5 9 4 2
Stresses check at service III
li it t t ft l f ll
ServiceIIIA:Decompression
ServiceIIIB:Uncrackedsection(max
t il t ) 5.9.4.2 limit state after lossesfully
prestressed components
tensilestress)
ServiceIIIC:Crackedsection
(specifiedcrackwidth)
Reliability Indices of Existing P/S Conc Reliability Indices of Existing P/S Conc.
Bridges
Service III Limit State
Reliability Indices of Existing P/S Conc.
B id Bridges
3
4
5
d
e
x
3
4
5
d
e
x
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
R
e
l
i
a
l
b
i
t
y

I
n
d
ave=0
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
R
e
l
i
a
l
b
i
t
y

I
n
d
ave=0.2
Decompression Max.AllowableTension
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Span Length (ft.)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Span Length (ft.)
4
5
2
Reliabilityindex ofexistingbridges
AssumingADTT5000
2
-1
0
1
2
3
R
e
l
i
a
l
b
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x ave=2
Max.AllowableCrackWidth
(0.016in.,1year returnperiod)
-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Span Length (ft.)
Reliability Indices of Existing P/S Conc.
B id Bridges
Reliabilityindex(returnPeriod1year)
ADTT
Decompression
Maximum
AllowableTensile
Stress
Maximum
AllowableCrack
Width S ess d
1000 0.2 0.4 2.35
2500 0.1 0.3 2.20
5000 0 0 0 2 2 00 5000 0.0 0.2 2.00
10000 0.15 0.1 1.88
ProposedTarget
0 0 * 0 2 2 0
Beta
0.0 0.2 2.0
In any one year period the limit state will be exceeded in:
500 of 1000 bridges for reliability index of 0.0 g y
23 of 1000 bridges for reliability index of 2.0
Reliability Indices of Bridges Designed to
C t S ifi ti Current Specifications
2
3
4
d
e
x
2
3
4
d
e
x
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
R
e
l
i
a
l
b
i
t
y

I
n
d
ave=0.15
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
R
e
l
i
a
l
b
i
t
y

I
n
d
ave=0.06
Decompression Max.AllowableTension
Span Length (ft.)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Span Length (ft.)
3
4
ave=1.9
Sameexisting bridgesexceptNo.of
strandsdeterminedusingcurrent
specifications
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
R
e
l
i
a
l
b
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
Max.AllowableCrackWidth
(0.016in.,1year returnperiod)
ReliabilityIndex
AssumingADTT5000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Span Length (ft.)
Reliability Indices of Bridges Designed to
C t S ifi ti Current Specifications
PerformanceLevel
ADTT
Decompression
Maximum
AllowableTensile
Stress
Maximum
AllowableCrack
Width S ess d
1000 0.05 0.26 2.20
2500 0.05 0.11 2.06
5000 0 15 0 06 1 90 5000 0.15 0.06 1.90
10000 0.35 0.21 1.80
In any one year period the limit state will be exceeded in: In any one year period the limit state will be exceeded in:
660 of 1000 bridges for reliability index of -0.15
29 of 1000 bridges for reliability index of 1.90
Parametric Study of Reliability Index Parametric Study of Reliability Index
Three cases were considered: Three cases were considered:
Bridges designed with various spacing,
span lengths and section types span lengths, and section types
Bridges designed with different span
l th d ti t b t i d lengths and section types but same girder
spacing
Bridges designed with different span
lengths and girder spacing but same
section types.
Parametric Study of Reliability Index Parametric Study of Reliability Index
4.0
5.0
I
n
d
e
x
30
4.0
5.0
I
n
d
e
x
1.0
2.0
3.0
R
e
l
i
a
l
b
i
t
y

I
1.0
2.0
3.0
R
e
l
i
a
l
b
i
t
y

Existing Bridges Redesigned Bridges
0.0
30.0 60.0 80.0 100 120 140
Span Length (ft.)
0.0
30.0 60.0 80.0 100 120 140
Span Length (ft.)
g g g g
Various girder spacing, section types, and
span lengths span lengths.
ADTT = 5000
M ll d k idth Max allowed crack width
Conclusions Related to SLS for Concrete
St t Structures
Different limit states may require different Different limit states may require different
target reliability index to maintain current
performance performance
Bluewater Bridge #2 g
First LRFD Major Bridge
Opened 1997 Opened 1997