SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 SCOPE OF THE SPECIFICATIONS .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3.1 General....................................................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3.2 Limit States ................................................................................................................................................ 1-3
1.3.2.1 General ............................................................................................................................................ 1-3
1.3.2.2 Service Limit State........................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.2.3 Fatigue and Fracture Limit State ...................................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.2.4 Strength Limit State ......................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.2.5 Extreme Event Limit States ............................................................................................................. 1-5
1.3.3 Ductility ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.3.4 Redundancy ............................................................................................................................................... 1-6
1.3.5 Operational Importance ............................................................................................................................. 1-7
1.4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 1-7

1-i

© 2020 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
1-ii AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, NINTH EDITION, 2020

This page intentionally left blank.

© 2020 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION
Commentary is opposite the text it annotates.
1.1—SCOPE OF THE SPECIFICATIONS C1.1

The provisions of these Specifications are intended for The term “notional” is often used in these
the design, evaluation, and rehabilitation of both fixed and Specifications to indicate an idealization of a physical
movable highway bridges. Mechanical, electrical, and phenomenon, as in “notional load” or “notional
special vehicular and pedestrian safety aspects of movable resistance.” Use of this term strengthens the separation of
bridges, however, are not covered. Provisions are not an engineer's “notion” or perception of the physical world
included for bridges used solely for railway, rail-transit, or in the context of design from the physical reality itself.
public utilities. For bridges not fully covered herein, the The term “shall” denotes a requirement for
provisions of these Specifications may be applied, and compliance with these Specifications.
augmented with additional design criteria where required. The term “should” indicates a strong preference for a
These Specifications are not intended to supplant given criterion.
proper training or the exercise of judgment by the The term “may” indicates a criterion that is usable, but
Designer, and state only the minimum requirements other local and suitably documented, verified, and
necessary to provide for public safety. The Owner or the approved criteria may also be used in a manner consistent
Designer may require the sophistication of design or the with the LRFD approach to bridge design.
quality of materials and construction to be higher than the
minimum requirements.
The concepts of safety through redundancy and
ductility and of protection against scour and collision are
emphasized.
The design provisions of these Specifications employ
the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
methodology. The factors have been developed from the
theory of reliability based on current statistical knowledge
of loads and structural performance.
Methods of analysis other than those included in
previous Specifications and the modeling techniques
inherent in them are included, and their use is encouraged.
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.
The commentary is not intended to provide a complete
historical background concerning the development of these
or previous Specifications, nor is it intended to provide a
detailed summary of the studies and research data
reviewed in formulating the provisions of the
Specifications. However, references to some of the
research data are provided for those who wish to study the
background material in depth.
The commentary directs attention to other documents
that provide suggestions for carrying out the requirements
and intent of these Specifications. However, those
documents and this commentary are not intended to be a
part of these Specifications.
Construction specifications consistent with these
design specifications are the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Construction Specifications. Unless otherwise specified,
the Materials Specifications referenced herein are the
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing.

© 2020 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
1-2 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, NINTH EDITION, 2020

1.2 DEFINITIONS

Bridge Any structure having an opening not less than 20.0 ft that forms part of a highway or that is located over or under
a highway.

Collapse A major change in the geometry of the bridge rendering it unfit for use.

Component Either a discrete element of the bridge or a combination of elements requiring individual design
consideration.

Design Proportioning and detailing the components and connections of a bridge.

Design Life Period of time on which the statistical derivation of transient loads is based, which is 75 years for these
Specifications.

Ductility Property of a component or connection that allows inelastic response.

Engineer Person responsible for the design of the bridge and/or review of design-related field submittals such as erection
plans.

Evaluation Determination of load-carrying capacity of an existing bridge.

Extreme Event Limit States Limit states relating to events such as earthquakes, ice load, and vehicle and vessel collision,
with return periods in excess of the design life of the bridge.

Factored Load The nominal loads multiplied by the appropriate load factors specified for the load combination
under consideration.

Factored Resistance The nominal resistance multiplied by a resistance factor.

Fixed Bridge A bridge with a fixed vehicular or navigational clearance.

Force Effect A deformation, stress, or stress resultant (i.e., axial force, shear force, or torsional or flexural moment)
caused by applied loads, imposed deformations, or volumetric changes.

Limit State A condition beyond which the bridge or component ceases to satisfy the provisions for which it was designed.

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) A reliability-based design methodology in which force effects caused by
factored loads are not permitted to exceed the factored resistance of the components.

Load Factor A statistically-based multiplier applied to force effects accounting primarily for the variability of loads, the
lack of accuracy in analysis, and the probability of simultaneous occurrence of different loads, but also related to the
statistics of the resistance through the calibration process.

Load Modifier A factor accounting for ductility, redundancy, and the operational classification of the bridge.

Model An idealization of a structure for the purpose of analysis.

Movable Bridge A bridge with a variable vehicular or navigational clearance.

Multiple-Load-Path Structure A structure capable of supporting the specified loads following loss of a main load-
carrying component or connection.

Nominal Resistance Resistance of a component or connection to force effects, as indicated by the dimensions specified in
the contract documents and by permissible stresses, deformations, or specified strength of materials.

Owner Person or agency having jurisdiction over the bridge.

© 2020 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-3

Regular Service Condition excluding the presence of special permit vehicles, wind exceeding 55 mph, and extreme
events, including scour.

Rehabilitation A process in which the resistance of the bridge is either restored or increased.

Resistance Factor A statistically-based multiplier applied to nominal resistance accounting primarily for variability of
material properties, structural dimensions and workmanship, and uncertainty in the prediction of resistance, but also
related to the statistics of the loads through the calibration process.

Service Life The period of time that the bridge is expected to be in operation.

Service Limit States Limit states relating to stress, deformation, and cracking under regular operating conditions.

Strength Limit States Limit states relating to strength and stability during the design life.

1.3 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

1.3.1 General C1.3.1

Bridges shall be designed for specified limit states to The limit states specified herein are intended to
achieve the objectives of constructibility, safety, and provide for a buildable, serviceable bridge, capable of
serviceability, with due regard to issues of inspectability, safely carrying design loads for a specified lifetime.
economy, and aesthetics, as specified in Article 2.5.
Regardless of the type of analysis used, Eq. 1.3.2.1-1 The resistance of components and connections is
shall be satisfied for all specified force effects and determined, in many cases, on the basis of inelastic
combinations thereof. behavior, although the force effects are determined by
using elastic analysis. This inconsistency is common to
most current bridge specifications as a result of incomplete
knowledge of inelastic structural action.

1.3.2 Limit States

1.3.2.1 General C1.3.2.1

Each component and connection shall satisfy Eq. 1.3.2.1-1 is the basis of LRFD methodology.
Eq. 1.3.2.1-1 for each limit state, unless otherwise Assigning resistance factor = 1.0 to all nonstrength
specified. For service and extreme event limit states, limit states is a default, and may be overridden by
resistance factors shall be taken as 1.0, except for bolts, for provisions in other Sections.
which the provisions of Article 6.5.5 shall apply, and for Ductility, redundancy, and operational classification
concrete columns in Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4, for which are considered in the load modifier . Whereas the first
the provisions of Articles 5.11.3 and 5.11.4.1.2 shall apply. two directly relate to physical strength, the last
All limit states shall be considered of equal importance. concerns the consequences of the bridge being out of
service. The grouping of these aspects on the load side
i i Qi Rn Rr (1.3.2.1-1) of Eq. 1.3.2.1-1 is, therefore, arbitrary. However, it
constitutes a first effort at codification. In the absence
in which: of more precise information, each effect, except that for
fatigue and fracture, is estimated as ±5 percent,
i is appropriate: accumulated geometrically. This is a clearly subjective
approach, and a rearrangement of Eq. 1.3.2.1-1 may be
0.95 (1.3.2.1-2)
i D R I
attained with time. Such a rearrangement might account
for improved quantification of ductility, redundancy, and
i is appropriate:
operational classification, and their interactions with
1 system reliability in such an equation.
i 1.0 (1.3.2.1-3)
D R I

© 2020 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
1-4 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, NINTH EDITION, 2020

where: girder
can be estimated by observing its effect on the minimum
i = load factor: a statistically based multiplier applied culated in a database of girder-type bridges.
to force effects Cellular structures and foundations were not a part of the
database; only individual member reliability was
= resistance factor: a statistically based multiplier considered. For discussion purposes, the girder bridge data
applied to nominal resistance, as specified in used in the calibration of these Specifications was
Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 modified by multiplying the total factored loads by
= 0.95, 1.0, 1.05, and 1.10. The resulting minimum
i = load modifier: a factor relating to ductility,
redundancy, and operational classification
of construction were determined to be approximately 3.0,
D = a factor relating to ductility, as specified in 3.5, 3.8, and 4.0, respectively. In other words, using
Article 1.3.3 > 1.0 relates to a

R = a factor relating to redundancy, as specified in values can be obtained by considering the percent of
Article 1.3.4 random normal data less than or equal to the mean value

I = a factor relating to operational classification, as deviation of the data.

specified in Article 1.3.5 the percent of values less than or equal to the mean value
Qi = force effect 99.993 percent, and 99.997 percent, respectively.
Rn = nominal resistance The Strength I Limit State in the AASHTO LRFD
Design Specifications has been calibrated for a target
Rr = factored resistance: Rn reliability index of 3.5 with a corresponding probability of
exceedance of 2.0E-04 during the 75-year design life of the
bridge. This 75-year reliability is equivalent to an annual
probability of exceedance of 2.7E-06 with a corresponding
annual target reliability index of 4.6. Similar calibration
efforts for the Service Limit States are underway. Return
periods for extreme events are often based on annual
probability of exceedance, and caution must be used when
comparing reliability indices of various limit states.

1.3.2.2 Service Limit State C1.3.2.2

The service limit state shall be taken as restrictions on The service limit state provides certain experience-
stress, deformation, and crack width under regular service related provisions that cannot always be derived solely
conditions. from strength or statistical considerations.

1.3.2.3 Fatigue and Fracture Limit State C1.3.2.3

The fatigue limit state shall be taken as restrictions on The fatigue limit state is intended to limit crack
stress range as a result of a single design truck occurring at growth under repetitive loads to prevent fracture during the
the number of expected stress range cycles. design life of the bridge.
The fracture limit state shall be taken as a set of
material toughness requirements of the AASHTO Materials
Specifications.

1.3.2.4 Strength Limit State C1.3.2.4

Strength limit state shall be taken to ensure that The strength limit state considers stability or yielding
strength and stability, both local and global, are provided of each structural element. If the resistance of any element,
to resist the specified statistically significant load including splices and connections, is exceeded, it is
combinations that a bridge is expected to experience in its assumed that the bridge resistance has been exceeded. In
design life. fact, there is significant elastic reserve capacity in almost
all multigider bridges beyond such a load level. The live
load cannot be positioned to maximize the force effects on

© 2020 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-5

all parts of the cross-section simultaneously. Thus, the

flexural resistance of the bridge cross-section typically
exceeds the resistance required for the total live load that
can be applied in the number of lanes available. Extensive
distress and structural damage may occur under strength
limit state, but overall structural integrity is expected to be
maintained.

1.3.2.5 Extreme Event Limit States C1.3.2.5

The extreme event limit state shall be taken to ensure Extreme event limit states are considered to be unique
the structural survival of a bridge during a major occurrences that may have severe operational impact and
earthquake or flood, or when collided with by a vessel, whose return period may be significantly greater than the
vehicle, or ice floe, possibly under scoured conditions. design life of the bridge.
The Owner may choose to require that the extreme
event limit state provide restricted or immediate
serviceability in special cases of operational importance of
the bridge or transportation corridor.

1.3.3 Ductility C1.3.3

The structural system of a bridge shall be proportioned The response of structural components or connections
and detailed to ensure the development of significant and beyond the elastic limit can be characterized by either
visible inelastic deformations at the strength and extreme brittle or ductile behavior. Brittle behavior is undesirable
event limit states before failure. because it implies the sudden loss of load-carrying
Energy-dissipating devices may be substituted for capacity immediately when the elastic limit is exceeded.
conventional ductile earthquake resisting systems and the Ductile behavior is characterized by significant inelastic
associated methodology addressed in these Specifications deformations before any loss of load-carrying capacity
or in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic occurs. Ductile behavior provides warning of structural
Bridge Design. failure by large inelastic deformations. Under repeated
For the strength limit state: seismic loading, large reversed cycles of inelastic
deformation dissipate energy and have a beneficial effect
D 1.05 for nonductile components and connections on structural survival.
If, by means of confinement or other measures, a
= 1.00 for conventional designs and details structural component or connection made of brittle
complying with these Specifications materials can sustain inelastic deformations without
significant loss of load-carrying capacity, this component
0.95 for components and connections for which can be considered ductile. Such ductile performance shall
additional ductility-enhancing measures have be verified by testing.
been specified beyond those required by these In order to achieve adequate inelastic behavior, the
Specifications system should have a sufficient number of ductile members
and either:
For all other limit states:
joints and connections that are also ductile and can
D = 1.00 provide energy dissipation without loss of capacity; or
joints and connections that have sufficient excess
strength so as to assure that the inelastic response
occurs at the locations designed to provide ductile,
energy absorbing response.

© 2020 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
1-6 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, NINTH EDITION, 2020

u
=
y

1.3.4 Redundancy C1.3.4

The Manual for Bridge Evaluation

© 2020 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1 7

1.3.5 Operational Importance C1.3.5

1.4 REFERENCES

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications

AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design

The Manual for Bridge Evaluation

Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing

Engineering Journal

Annual Probability of Failure

Reliability of Structures

© 2020 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.