International Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Management

ISSN 2320 – 3439, Vol. 02, No. 02, March 2013, pp. 37 - 40

Implementation of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications for Bridge Superstructure Design
ADIL RAFIQ1, AKHTER NAEEM KHAN2 , KHAN SHAHZADA2, SYED SHAHAN ALI SHAH3,
SYED AZMAT ALI SHAH3, ZAIGHAM ALI4
1
Assistant District Monitoring Officer, Monitoring Department KPK, Peshawar Pakistan
2
Faculty member, University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar Pakistan
3
Faculty member, Iqra National University, Peshawar Pakistan
4
Faculty member, Gandhara Institute of Science & Technology, Peshawar Pakistan
Email: [email protected]

Abstract: This research paper presents the procedure of redesign of an existing bridge. Hayatabad Medical
complex (HMC) bridge Peshawar Pakistan was early designed in 1970’s according to the old bridge code of
Pakistan 1967. In this project the bridge was redesigned according to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design
specification 2005. Only superstructure was considered in the design. Using HL-93 Vehicle loading, influence
lines were developed and distribution factors were calculated. Then these Influence lines functions were used to
calculate the shear force and bending moment of the above stated bridge. After the design, recommendation
were given to Peshawar development Authority.

Keywords: AASHTO, LRFD bridge design specification, HL-93 Vehicle loading, influence lines, Distribution factors

Introduction:
The provisions of AASHTO LRFD bridge design
Specifications are intended for the design, evaluation,
and rehabilitation bridges. These Specifications
employ the Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) methodology using factors developing from
current statistical knowledge of loads and structural
performance. 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. Construction
specifications consistent with these design
specifications are the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Construction Specifications(3).
The bridge studied in this project was located at the
entry of phase 4, Hayatabad Peshawar Pakistan. There
were two roadways each having a three span bridge
over the Nullah, one for entrance and one for exit.
Some of the girders in the bridge at the exit roadway
were found cracked. These Cracks didn’t reflect any Traffic Flow
serious damage for normal traffic. But we can also from phase 4
expect extreme conditions of traffic because the
bridge is located in the place through which heavily
loaded traffic goes to Afghanistan.
This bridge was constructed somewhere in Location of
1970’s. Methods of design were based on the codes of Cracks
that time. After the new AASHTO LRFD bridge Figure 1: Influence line functions
design specification 2005 it was thought to recheck Distribution factor – Case study:
the design of bridge using th above stated The distribution factors found out for the girders are
specifications. as follows(1),
Methodology: Girder width, b = 18in = 1.5ft
The influence functions: Girder Spacing, S = 72in = 6ft
Each of our girder was 42ft long, The influence Span Length, L = 504in = 42ft
functions for our girders are given in figure 1, Deck Thickness, ts = 8in = 0.667ft
Deck Modulus of Elasticity,
Ec = 3600ksi = 518400ksf

IJAEM 020203 Copyright @ 2013 SRC. All rights reserved.

 ADIL RAFIQ, AKHTER NAEEM KHAN , KHAN SHAHZADA, SYED SHAHAN ALI SHAH,
SYED AZMAT ALI SHAH, ZAIGHAM ALI

Girder Modulus of Elasticity, Ec = 3600ksi = Live Load Moments & Shear:

518400ksf Applying the formulas we get the The width of equivalent transverse strips
following summary of distribution factors tabulated in over which the wheel loads can be considered
table 1. distriuted longitudinally in CIP concrete decks is
given as:
Table 1: Summary of distribution factors Overhang. 1140 + 0.833X
Positive Moment. 660 + 0.55S
Negative Moment. 1220 + 0.25S
Where, (X = 0) is the distance b/w wheel load &
centre line of the support.
Interior Exterior (S= 72in) is the spacing of the T-beam.
No. of Design Lanes
Lane Single Multi Single Multi NL = INT(24ft/12ft) = 2
loaded For analysis Loads are placed at various positions
shown in figure 2, 3 and 4.
16kips 16kips
6'
0.46965 0.60457 0.6 0.60457
Moment 3'-6" 6' 6' 6' 6'
Load Placem ent for R 200 - Single Lane L oaded

Shear 0.59684 0.6717 0.6 0.40302

Figure 2: Load placement for R200

16kips 16kips
6'
204 301.4
Analysis and design – 3'-6" 6' 6' 6' 6'
Deck Slab
Load Placement for M204 - Single Lane Loaded
Deck thickness
We assumed, hs = 8in 16kips 16kips 16kips 16kips
Weights of Components Slab 8in thick 6' 6'
ws = (0.15/123)*8 = 0.0006944ksi 204 301.4 404 501.4
Future Wearing Surface 3in thick 3'-6" 6' 6' 6' 6'
3
wDW =(0.141/12 )*3 = 0.0002448ksi Load Placement for M204 - Single Lane Loaded
Cantilever Overhang Attatchments 9in thick wo =
(0.14/123)*9 = 0.0007292ksi Figure 3: Load placement for M204
Dead Load Moments and Shear:
R200 = w (Net Area w/o cantilever) S
M200 = w (Net Area w/o cantilever) S2
Deck Slab 16kips 16kips
6'
R200 =0.01964k/in, M200 =0k in/in, M204
205 305
=0.27792k in/in, 3'-6" 6' 6' 6' 6'
M300 =-0.38556k in/in Load Placem ent for M 300 - Single Lane L oaded
Future Wearing Surface
R200 =0.024154k/in M200 =0k in/in Figure 4: Load placement for M 300
M204 =0.097967k in/in
M300 =-0.1359k in/in
Cantilever Overhang Slab Tire load P = 16kips
R200 =0.03997k/in Maximum Positive Live Load Moment
M200 =-0.6125k in/in Transverse strip width =1650mm = 66in
M204 =-0.30135k in/in Single loaded lane
M300 =0.165375k in/in R200 =0.12541k/in
M204 =3.61309k in/in
Two loaded lane
Cantilever Overhang Attachments R200 =0.12963k/in
R200 = 0.041969 k/in M 204 =3.73667k in/in

M200 = -0.64313 k in/in Maximum Negative Live Load Moment

M204 = -0.31642 k in/in Transverse strip width =1670mm=66.8in M300 =-
M300 = 0.173644 k in/in 3.60293k in/in
Maximum Live Load Reaction at Exterior Girder

International Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Management

ISSN 2320 – 3439, Vol. 02, No. 02, March 2013, pp. 37 - 40
 Implementation of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications for Bridge Superstructure Design

Transverse strip width

=0.42105k/in
=1140mm45.6in R200
M LL + IM = mg [(M Tr orM Ta )(1.33) + M LN ]
Girder:

V LL + IM = mg [(V Tr orV Ta )(1 . 33 ) + V LN ]

Develop Typical Section
Standards of AASHTO LRFD:
According to AASHTO LRFD , for #14 bar,
bmin = 2(cover for main steel ) Max Positive Moments @ 105
= 2")+3(db=1.75")+2(1.5* (db=1.75")) Design Truck =5632.8(k.in)
= 14.5" Design Tandem =5700(k.in)
hmin = 0.065 x L =0.065 x 42ft = 2.73ft Design Lane =1693.44(k.in) Interior
Dimensions we observed: Girder
total depth H = 44in = 3.667ft MLL+IM =5607.06(k.in)
Deck Slab Thickness hs = 8in = 0.667ft Exterior Girder
Web Width bw = 18in = 1.5ft MLL+IM =5607.06(k.in)
Beam Stem Height = 36in = 3ft Max Shear @ 100
Cover for bars = 3in Design Truck =55.62(kips)
Effective Depth d= 41in = 3.4167ft Design Tandem =47.62kips)
Dead Load Calculation: Design Lane =13.44(kips)
Interior Girder: Interior Girder
VLL+IM =58.71644kips)

M105 19793.86 V100 136.7048 M105 V100

= k/in = kips = 17158.59 k in = 167.5339 kips

(bi)eff = 1
2
(effective span = 42 ft ) =
Exterior Girder
VLL+IM =35.22986(kips)
114in From strength limit state, we get,

(bi)eff = 12 t s + bw = 126in From strength limit state, we get,

(bi)eff =Average spacing of adjacent beams = 72in
governs Skin Reinforcements
DC Slab Strip = 0.05k/in – Interior & Exterior Girder:
DC Girder Stem = 0.05625k/in Since the depth of the girder is 36in so according ACI
DW Future Wearing Surface = .017625k/in we will provide skin reinforcements (2).
By adding we get, d =39.875in
DC = 0.10625k/in Maximum area of skin required by ACI :
DW= 0.017625k/in Main Fluxure Reinforcements = 7.938414in2 (we take
the area of interior girder)
Exterior Girder: Askin, max = As /2 = 3.969207 in2
(be)eff= Rang upto which Skin Reinforcement is provided

(effective )
span = 42 ft + (bi )eff
d/2 =19.9375in
1 For #6 bars
8 Ab =0.44in2
= 99in ssk = 6in
b w + (b i )eff = 93in
1 Askin = 6 x 0.44 in2 = 2.64 in2 < Askin,max =
(be)eff = 6 t s + 3.97in2, O.K
2
we can use this reinforcement for both internal and
(be)eff =Width of overhang + (bi)eff = 78in governs
external girders.
DC Deck Slab = 0.01964k/in
DC Overhang Slab = 0.039970486k/in Diaphragm:
DC Overhang Attachments’= 04196901k/in Dimensions:
total depth H = 37in
DC Girder Stem = 0.05625k/in
Deck Slab Thickness hs = 8in
DW Future Wearing Surface
Web Width bw = 12in
= 0.024153594k/in
Beam Stem Height hw = 29in
By adding we get,
Effective Depth d = 34.5in
DC = 0.157829497k/in
Span length S = 6ft
DW = 0.024153594k/in
By using the same beff equations as for internal
Live Load Calculation:
girders, we get,
The distributed live load moments and shears will be,
beff = 108in
18in governs

International Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Management

ISSN 2320 – 3439, Vol. 02, No. 02, March 2013, pp. 37 - 40
 ADIL RAFIQ, AKHTER NAEEM KHAN , KHAN SHAHZADA, SYED SHAHAN ALI SHAH,
SYED AZMAT ALI SHAH, ZAIGHAM ALI

n/a No. of Bars = As/Ab = 1.676962025

Load Calculation: = 2 bars
Dead Loads: Shear Design:
DC Slab Strip = 0.0125 k/in The maximum shear at a support is,
V200 = 45.50850609kips
DC Daiphram Stem = 0.030208333 k/in While the shear which Diaphragm can bear is,
DW FWS = 0.00440625 k/in ΦVc = 47.13058625 kips
Since, ΦVc > V200
So there is no need to calculate stirrup spacing, but it
DC = 0.042708333 k/in
would be a good approach to provide #3 Stirrups @
DW = 0.00440625 k/in 9in c/c distance.
Live Loads:
Conclusions & Recommendations
Tire load P =16kips
V100 =19.2kips Our transport system is such that there is no proper
M104 =2.50176k in check and balance for the heavy loaded vehicles by
the authorities. The vehicles that pass through this
M200 =-3.34272k in (calculated through same method asbridge
done before)
were supposed to be checked for the loads it
By using the table of influense function for deck was designed which was an unjust behavior.
analysis we get the following summary of moments From all this situation we concluded that first of all
and shear, some alternative route must be provided for the heavy
traffic. The authority must check the trolleys, loaded
Applying limit state, we get, with big container for loads and must stop the heavy
+ive loaded traffic exceeding its strength limit.
(M104) = 28.27054401 k in
The cracks must be repaired, if not possible than it has
(M200)-ive = 38.93760147 k in to be replaced by new girders, designed for heavy
loading such as HS 20, HL 93, Class A, and Class
V100 = 43.99514897 Kips
AA. Prestressed girders would be good practice for
V200 = 45.50850609 Kips carrying such loads, but it may cost more.
Flexure Design: We have designed these girders for new loadings and
prepared fresh details of the structure, as the details
were missing from the record. The detailed structural
drawings are provided at the end of this thesis.

Referrences
[1] Design of Highway Bridges, Based on
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications,(R.M. Barker – J.A. Puckett)
[2] Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges
– AASHTO
[3] https://bookstore.transportation.org/collectio
n_detail.aspx?id=112

Figure 5: Diaphram reinforcement

Applying the previous formulas, we can find,

Asmax = 8.5284in2 Asmin = 1.3248in2

Assume a = hf = 8in
For (M104)+ive =28.27054401k in
As =0.017164872in2 < Asmin = 1.3248in2
For (M200)-ive =38.93760147k in
As =0.02322276in2 < Asmin = 1.3248in2
So we can use Asmin for both positive and negative
moments,
Use #8 bars,
db =1in Ab =0.79in2

International Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Management

ISSN 2320 – 3439, Vol. 02, No. 02, March 2013, pp. 37 - 40