Two-Span LRFD Design

Example

Karl Barth and Jennifer Righman

West Virginia University
Objective

The primary focus of this example

is to demonstrate the use of
Appendix A and Appendix B
for a two-span continuous structure
Appendix A Overview
 Accounts for the ability of compact and
non-compact sections to resist moments
greater than My
 Economy gained by Appendix A provisions
increases with decreasing web
slenderness
 Effects of St. Venant torsion are
incorporated
Appendix B Overview
 Traditional AASHTO specifications have
permitted up to 10% of the maximum pier
section bending moment to be
redistributed to positive bending regions
 Appendix B provisions explicitly compute
the level of redistribution based on an
effective plastic moment concept for
sections meeting prescribed geometric
criteria
Design Information
Design Information

Framing Plan
Design Notes
 2004 AASHTO LRFD Specifications, 3rd
Edition
 Structural steel: ASTM A709, Grade 50W
 Normal weight concrete (145 pcf) with
fc’=4 ksi
 Fyr = 60 ksi for reinforcing steel
 Operational importance, redundancy, and
ductility factors = 1.0
Design Loads – DC1
 DC1 loads are equally distributed to all
girders
 Slab =0.983 k/ft
 Haunch (average wt/length) =0.017 k/ft
 Overhang taper =0.019 k/ft
 Girder (average wt/length, varies) =0.200 k/ft
 Cross-frames and misc. steel =0.015 k/ft
 Stay-in-place forms =0.101 k/ft
 S =1.335 k/ft
Design Loads – DC2 and DW
 DC2
 Barrier weight = 520 lb/ft
 Weight/girder = (0.520)x(2)/(4) = 0.260 k/ft

 DW
 Future wearing surface = 25 psf
 DW = (0.025 ksf)x(34 ft)/4 = 0.213 k/ft
Design Loads – WS and WL
 WS
 Wind forces are calculated assuming bridge
is located 30’ above water in open country
 Wind on upper half of girder, deck, and
barrier assumed to be resisted by diaphragm
action of the deck
 WS = 0.081 k/ft (on bottom flange)
 WL
 Assumed to be transmitted by diaphragm
action
 WL is neglected
Design Loads – Live Load
 Controlling case of:
 Truck + Lane
 Tandem + Lane
 0.9 (Double Truck + Lane) (in negative bending)

 Impact factors used for all vehicular live

loads (excluding lane load)
 I=1.15 for fatigue limit state
 I=1.33 for all other limit states
Design Loads – Live Load
 Live load effects are approximated
using distribution factors
 Interior girder
 AASHTO empirical equations are used

 Exterior girder
 AASHTO empirical equation correction factor
 Lever rule
 Special analysis
 Interior Girder Distribution Factors
 Moment
 Varies with girder dimensions due to Kg term
 
K g  n I  A eg2  400,000 to 700,000

 One design lane

0.1 0.1
 S   S   K g   (702025) 
0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3

  10   10 
0.06       3 
 0.06       
3 
 0.523
 14   L   12.0 L t s   14   90   (12.0) (90) (8) 

 Two or more design lanes

0.1 0.1
 S   S   K g   (702025) 
0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2

  10   10 
0.075       3 
 0.075       
3 
 0.756
 9.5   L   12.0 L t s   9.5   90   (12.0) (90) (8) 
Interior Girder Distribution Factors
 Shear
 One design lane
S 10.0
0.36   0.36   0.760
25.0 25.0

 Two or more design lanes (CONTROLS)

2. 0 2.0
S S 10  10 
0.2     0 .2     0.952
12  35  12  35 
Exterior Girder Distribution Factors
 AASHTO exterior girder correction factor
g  e ginterior
 Moment
de 2
e  0.77   0.77   0.990  1.0
9.1 9.1
 Shear
de 2
e  0.6   0.6   0.800  1.0
10 10
 Empirical formulas for exterior girder will not control
Exterior Girder Distribution Factor
 Lever Rule – One Design Lane

  10  6  
DF   0.5  0.5    MPF
  10  
DF  0.7  1.2  0.84
 Exterior Girder Distribution Factor
 Special Analysis
xEXT  e
NL
DF  
NL

NB x
NB
2

 One design lane

1 (15)(12) 
DF  MPF      1.2  0.732
2 
 4 2(15  5 ) 
2

 Two or more design lanes

 2 (15)(12  0)  Controls for
DF  MPF    2 
  1.0  0.860
 4 2(15  5 ) 
2 Moment
Distribution Factors for Fatigue
 Based on one design lane
 No multiple presence factor applied

 Maximum one lane distribution factor

results from the lever rule, i.e.,
EXTERIOR GIRDER CONTROLS

 DF = 0.70
 Unfactored Design Moments
2000

1500

1000

500
Moment, kip-ft

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-500

-1000
DC1
-1500 DC2
DW
-2000
LL+IM
-2500
Distance Along Span, x/L
Limit States
 All applicable limits states for steel
structures were considered
 Strength
 Strength I controls in this example
 Strength I = 1.25DC + 1.5DW + 1.75(LL+I)
 Strength III = 1.25DC + 1.5DW + 1.4WS
 Strength IV = 1.5(DC + DW)
 Strength V = 1.25DC + 1.5DW + 1.35(LL+I) + 0.4WS
 Service
 Service II = 1.0(DC + DW) + 1.3(LL+I)
 Fatigue = 0.75(LL+I)
6.10 Provisions Addressed
 Cross section proportion limits
 Constructibility
 Serviceability
 Fatigue
 Strength
Appendix A Design

12 x 3/4 16 X 1-1/4 12 x 3/4

63’ 54’ 63’

12xx7/16
36 3/4 16
36 x
x 1-1/4
1/2 36 12 x 3/4
X 7/16

16
36 xx 1-1/2
7/16 1636 x 1/2
x 2-1/2 1636
x 1-1/2
x 7/16

16 x 2-1/2
16 x 1-1/2 16 x 1-1/2

63’ 54’ 63’

Cross Section Proportion Limits
D D 36
  150   82  150
tw t w 7 16 

bf bf 12
  12.0   8  12.0
2t f 2t f 20.75 

D D 36
 bf  b f  12   6
6 6 6

 t f  1.1t w t f  0.75  1.1(0.5)  0.55

 0 .1 
Iy c
 10 0.1 
1 123 412
3

 0.21  10
Iy t 1 121.5163
Constructibility
 For discretely braced compression flanges
fbu  fl  f RhFy c  1.01.050  50 ksi
1
fbu  fl  f Fnc  varies, 49.8 ksi
3
 Fnc may be computed using Appendix A which
accounts for increased torsional resistance

 For discretely braced tension flanges and

continuously braced flanges
fbu  fl  f RhFy f  1.01.050  50 ksi
Constructibility - Loads
 Vertical DC1 loads
are determined
considering deck
casting sequence

 Lateral flange
bending stresses
are induced by the
overhang form
brackets
 Construction dead
and live loads
considered
Constructibility Check
 Stresses in compression flange of positive
bending section control the allowable
cross-frame spacing
 Strength I
fbu  fl  1.2521.47  19.97  46.8 ksi  50 ksi

 Strength IV
fbu  fl  1.521.47  14.13  46.3 ksi  50 ksi
 Service Limit State
 For top flange

ff  0.95RhFy  0.951.050  47.5 ksi

 For bottom flange

ff   0.95RhFy  0.951.0 50   47.5 ksi
fl
2

 Bottom flange in positive bending (controls)

fl  692 135  111 1.31615
ff       12   33.1 ksi  47.5 ksi
0
2  843 1131 1219  2
Fatigue Limit State
 Fatigue requirements significantly impact the
design of the positive bending region
 Bolted stiffener to flange connections employed
at locations of maximum stress range, i.e.,
cross-frames at midspan
 Bolted connections / Category B details
Fmax  6.36 ksi  8.0 ksi
 Welded connections / Category C’ details
Fmax  5.92 ksi  6.0 ksi
Fatigue Limit State (cont.)
 Use of bolted cross-frame connections requires
that net section fracture requirements are
satisfied  An 
ft  0.84 Fu  Fy t
A 
 g
 Assuming one 7/8” diameter bolt hole is used:
A n  16(1.5)  (7  1 )(1.5)  22.5 in2
8 8
A g  16(1.5)  24.0 in2

 22.5 
ft  0.84 65  51 ft  Fy t  50
 24.0 
ft  44.6  50  OK
Positive Flexural Capacity
 If Dp  0.1Dt, then Mn  Mp
Dp  7.709 in.  0.1Dt  0.1(8  2  36  1.5)  4.75 in.

 Otherwise
 D    7.709  
Mn  Mp 1.07  0.7 p   60911.07  0.7    5825 kips  in.
 Dt    47.5  

 Unless certain geometric conditions are satisfied

Mn  1.3R hMy  1.31.0 4667  6067 kips  in

1
 Mu  fl S xt  4026 kips  ft  f Mn  5825 kip  ft
3

 Ductility check: Dp  7.709 in.  0.42Dt  0.4247.5  19.95 in.

Negative Flexural Capacity Appendix A

 Fy f  50 ksi  70 ksi

2Dc 215.32 E 29000

   61.28  5.7  5.7  137.3
tw 0.5 Fy c 50

 Therefore, Appendix A is applicable.

Web Plastification Factors
 Check if web is compact - NO
E
2Dcp 2(10.48) Fy c
  41.92   pw Dcp   2
 37.80
tw 0 .5   Mp  
 0.54   0.1
 R M  
  h y 

 Noncompact web plastification factors are used

Web Plastification Factors (cont.)
2Dc
 w   61.28
tw
 Dc 
  pw Dc    pw Dcp     37.8 15.32   55.28
D   10.48 
 cp 
E
  rw  5.7  137.3
Fy c

  RhMy c   w  pw D   Mp Mp
 Rpc 
 1  1   c 
  Rpc  1.04
   
Mp  rw  pw Dc   My c My c

  RhMy t   w  pw D   Mp Mp
 Rpt  1  1   c   Rpt  1.64
    
Mp  rw  pw Dc   My t My t
Compression Flange Local Buckling
Resistance
 Check if flange is compact - YES

bf c 16 E 29000
f    3.20  0.38  0.38  9.15
2t f c 22.5 Fy c 50

 Mnc FLB   RpcMy c  1.04 6168 

Mnc FLB   6415 kips  ft

Lateral Torsional Buckling Resistance
bf c
 rt   4.437
 1 Dc t w 
121  
 3 b f ct f c 

E 29000
 Lp  rt  4.437  107.8  Lb  180
Fy c 50

2
E J  Fy r S xch 
 Lr  1.95rt 1  1  6.76   575.8
Fy r S xch E J 

 Lp  Lb  Lr  Noncompact unbraced length

Lateral Torsional Buckling Resistance
 S xt 
 Fy r  min 0.7Fy c, RhFy t , Fy w 
 S xc 
  916  
 min 0.7(50)  35 ksi, 1.0 50    30.95 ksi, 50 ksi 
  1480  

  Fy rS xc  Lb  Lp 
 Mnc LTB  
 Cb 1  1   RpcMy c  RpcMy c
  
  RpcMy c  Lr  Lp 
Mnc LTB   6415 kips  ft

 Mnc  minMnc FLB , Mnc LTB   

Mnc  6415 kips  ft.
Negative Flexural Capacity Summary

1
 Mu  fl S xc  f Mnc
3

5992 kips  ft.  6415 kips  ft.

 Mu  f RptMy t

5992 kips  ft.  1.01.633815  6218 kips  ft.

Appendix A Performance Ratios
Positive Bending Region

Constructibility Top Flange 0.94

(Strength I) Bottom Flange 0.30
Constructibility Top Flange 0.93
(Strength IV) Bottom Flange 0.36
Top Flange 0.47
Service Limit State
Bottom Flange 0.70
Fatigue and Fracture Limit Bolted Conn. 0.80
State Welded Conn. 0.98
Strength Limit State Flexure 0.69
(Strength I) Shear 0.83
Appendix A Performance Ratios
Negative Bending Region

Constructibility Top Flange 0.46

(Strength I) Bottom Flange 0.34
Constructibility Top Flange 0.55
(Strength IV) Bottom Flange 0.39
Top Flange 0.57
Service Limit State
Bottom Flange 0.69
Fatigue and Fracture Limit Bolted Conn. NA
State Welded Conn. 0.58
Strength Limit State Flexure 0.96
(Strength I) Shear 0.78
Appendix B Design
 Moment redistribution procedures are
used to create a more economical
design

63’ 54’ 63’

12 x 3/4 16 x 1 12 x 3/4

36 x 7/16 36 x 1/2 36 x 7/16

16 x 1-1/2 16 x 2 16 x 1-1/2
Appendix B Requirements
 Appendix B is valid for girders meeting
certain geometric and material limits
 Web Proportions
D 36
   72  150
t w 0.5

2Dc E
  64.2  6.8  163.8
tw Fy c


Dcp  14.48  0.75D  27
Appendix B Requirements (cont.)
 Compression flange proportions
bf c E
  4.0  0.38  9.15
2t f c Fy c
D
 b f c  16   8.47
4.25

 Lateral Bracing
  M1  rtE

Lb  180  0.1  0.06   191
  M2  Fy c
Appendix B Requirements (cont.)
 Shear
 V  v Vcr

 Section Transitions
 No section transitions are permitted within the
first cross-frame spacing on each side of the pier

 Bearing Stiffeners
 Bearing stiffeners are required to meet
projecting width, bearing resistance, and axial
resistance requirements
Redistribution Moment
 Amount of moment redistributed to positive
bending region is a function of the effective
plastic moment, Mpe
 Higher Mpe values are permitted for girders
with either:
 Transverse stiffeners placed at D/2 or less on each
side of the pier
2Dcp E
 “Ultra-compact” webs such that t  2. 3
w yc F

 Alternative Mpe equations are given for

strength and service limit states
Redistribution Moment (cont.)
 b f c Fy c D b f c Fy c D 
 Mpe  2.63  2.3  0.35  0.39 Mn  Mn
 tfc E bf c t f c E b f c 

 Mpe  4951 kip  ft

 Redistribution moment at pier:

Mrd  Me  Mpe  0.2 Me

 Mrd  Me  f Mpe  5704  4951  753 kips  ft.  13%Me

 Redistribution moment
varies linearly at other Pier 1 Pier 2

locations along the span Mrd1 Mrd2

Redistribution Moments (Strength I)

6000

4000

2000
Moment, kips-ft.

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-2000
M+
M+ + Mrd
-4000
M-
M- + Mrd
-6000
Length along span, x/L
Appendix B Design Checks
 Positive bending capacity
 Evaluated for positive bending moment plus
redistribution moment (at strength and service
limit states)
 Negative bending capacity within one lateral
brace spacing on each side of the pier
 Not evaluated
 Negative bending capacity at other locations
 Evaluated for negative bending moment minus
redistribution moment
 Otherwise, same as before
Appendix B Performance Ratios
Positive Bending Region

Constructibility Top Flange 0.94

(Strength I) Bottom Flange 0.30
Constructibility Top Flange 0.93
(Strength IV) Bottom Flange 0.36
Top Flange 0.47
Service Limit State
Bottom Flange 0.70
Fatigue and Fracture Limit Bolted Conn. 0.80
State Welded Conn. 0.99
Strength Limit State Flexure 0.75
(Strength I) Shear 0.83
 Appendix B Performance Ratios
Negative Bending Region

Constructibility Top Flange 0.55

(Strength I) Bottom Flange 0.42
Constructibility Top Flange 0.66
(Strength IV) Bottom Flange 0.48
Top Flange 0.62
Service Limit State
Bottom Flange 0.79
Fatigue Limit State Welded Conn. 0.55
Strength Limit State Flexure* 0.48
(Strength I) Shear 0.78

* Design of negative bending region controlled by 20% limit

 Appendix A / Appendix B
Design Comparisons
 Positive moment region same in both designs
(controlled by fatigue)
 Cross-frame spacing the same
(controlled by constructibility)
 Appendix B negative moment region 18%
lighter
 Appendix B girder 6% lighter overall
63’ 54’ 63’ 63’ 54’ 63’

12 x 3/4 16 x 1-1/4 12 x 3/4 12 x 3/4 16 x 1 12 x 3/4

36 x 7/16 36 x 1/2 36 x 7/16 36 x 7/16 36 x 1/2 36 x 7/16

16 x 2-1/2 16 x 2
16 x 1-1/2 16 x 1-1/2 16 x 1-1/2 16 x 1-1/2

APPENDIX A DESIGN APPENDIX B DESIGN

Concluding Comments
 Fatigue requirements significantly impact the
design of the positive moment region due to the
relatively high distribution factor for the exterior
girder
 Constructibility and Appendix B requirements led to
the use of a 15 ft cross-frame spacing throughout
 Use of Appendix A leads to increasing economy
with decreasing web slenderness (that is a section
with a noncompact web at the upper limit will gain
very little from Appendix A)
 Appendix B provides even greater economy