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: SyedShahaan@live.com
Abstract: This research paper presents the procedure of redesign of an existing bridge. Hayatabad Medical
complex (HMC) bridge Peshawar Pakistan was early designed in 1970s 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 didnt reflect any
serious damage for normal traffic. But we can also
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
1970s. Methods of design were based on the codes of
that time. After the new AASHTO LRFD bridge
design specification 2005 it was thought to recheck
the design of bridge using th above stated
specifications.
Methodology:
The influence functions:
Each of our girder was 42ft long, The influence
functions for our girders are given in figure 1,

Traffic Flow
from phase 4

Location of
Cracks

Figure 1: Influence line functions

Distribution factor Case study:
The distribution factors found out for the girders are
as follows(1),
Girder width,
b = 18in
= 1.5ft
Girder Spacing, S = 72in = 6ft
Span Length, L = 504in = 42ft
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 =
518400ksf Applying the formulas we get the
following summary of distribution factors tabulated in
table 1.
Table 1: Summary of distribution factors

Interior
Lane
loaded

Exterior

Single

Multi

Single

Multi

0.46965

0.60457

0.6

0.60457

Live Load Moments & Shear:

The width of equivalent transverse strips
over which the wheel loads can be considered
distriuted longitudinally in CIP concrete decks is
given as:
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.
(S= 72in) is the spacing of the T-beam.
No. of Design Lanes
NL = INT(24ft/12ft) = 2
For analysis Loads are placed at various positions
shown in figure 2, 3 and 4.
16kips

16kips

Moment

Shear

6'
3'-6"

0.59684

0.6717

0.6

6'
6'
6'
6'
Load Placem ent for R 200 - Single Lane L oaded

0.40302
Figure
16kips

2: Load placement for R200

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
16kips
16kips
16kips
16kips
We assumed, hs = 8in
6'
6'
Weights of Components Slab 8in thick
ws = (0.15/123)*8 = 0.0006944ksi
301.4
204
501.4
404
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 =
Figure 3: Load placement for M204
(0.14/123)*9 = 0.0007292ksi
Dead Load Moments and Shear:
R200 = w (Net Area w/o cantilever) S
M200 = w (Net Area w/o cantilever) S2
16kips
16kips
Deck Slab
6'
R200
=0.01964k/in,
M200
=0k in/in, M204
305
205
=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
Figure 4: Load placement for M 300
R200 =0.024154k/in
M200 =0k in/in
M204 =0.097967k in/in
M300 =-0.1359k in/in
Tire load P = 16kips
Cantilever Overhang Slab
Maximum
Positive
Live Load Moment
R200 =0.03997k/in
Transverse
strip
width
=1650mm = 66in
M200 =-0.6125k in/in
Single loaded lane
M204 =-0.30135k in/in
R200 =0.12541k/in
M300 =0.165375k in/in
M204 =3.61309k in/in
Two loaded lane
R200 =0.12963k/in
Cantilever Overhang Attachments
M
204 =3.73667k in/in
R200 = 0.041969 k/in
Maximum
Negative Live Load Moment
M200 = -0.64313 k in/in
Transverse
strip width =1670mm=66.8in M300 =M204 = -0.31642 k in/in
3.60293k in/in
M300 = 0.173644 k 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
=1140mm45.6in R200
=0.42105k/in
Girder:
Develop Typical Section
Standards of AASHTO LRFD:
According to AASHTO LRFD , for #14 bar,
bmin = 2(cover for main steel )
= 2")+3(db=1.75")+2(1.5* (db=1.75"))
= 14.5"
hmin = 0.065 x L =0.065 x 42ft = 2.73ft
Dimensions we observed:
total depth H = 44in = 3.667ft
Deck Slab Thickness hs = 8in = 0.667ft
Web Width bw = 18in = 1.5ft
Beam Stem Height = 36in = 3ft
Cover for bars = 3in
Effective Depth d= 41in = 3.4167ft
Dead Load Calculation:
Interior Girder:

M105
=

19793.86
k/in

(bi)eff =

(effective

V100
=

136.7048
kips

span = 42 ft

114in
(bi)eff = 12 t s

+ bw

(effective
+

Max Positive Moments @ 105

Design Truck =5632.8(k.in)
Design Tandem =5700(k.in)
Design Lane =1693.44(k.in)
Girder
MLL+IM =5607.06(k.in)
Exterior Girder
MLL+IM =5607.06(k.in)
Max Shear @ 100
Design Truck =55.62(kips)
Design Tandem =47.62kips)
Design Lane =13.44(kips)
Interior Girder
VLL+IM =58.71644kips)

Interior

167.5339

kips

From strength limit state, we get,

72in

span = 42 ft + (bi )eff

= 99in
(be)eff = 6 t s

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

M105
V100
=
17158.59
k in
=
Exterior Girder
=
VLL+IM =35.22986(kips)
From strength limit state, we get,

= 126in

(bi)eff =Average spacing of adjacent beams =

governs
DC Slab Strip = 0.05k/in
DC Girder Stem = 0.05625k/in
DW Future Wearing Surface = .017625k/in
By adding we get,
DC = 0.10625k/in
DW= 0.017625k/in
Exterior Girder:
(be)eff=

M LL + IM = mg [(M Tr orM Ta )(1.33) + M LN ]

1
b w + (b i )eff = 93in
2

(be)eff =Width of overhang + (bi)eff = 78in governs

DC Deck Slab = 0.01964k/in
DC Overhang Slab = 0.039970486k/in
DC Overhang Attachments= 04196901k/in
DC Girder Stem = 0.05625k/in
DW Future Wearing Surface
= 0.024153594k/in
By adding we get,
DC = 0.157829497k/in
DW = 0.024153594k/in
Live Load Calculation:
The distributed live load moments and shears will be,

Skin Reinforcements
Interior & Exterior Girder:
Since the depth of the girder is 36in so according ACI
we will provide skin reinforcements (2).
d =39.875in
Maximum area of skin required by ACI :
Main Fluxure Reinforcements = 7.938414in2 (we take
the area of interior girder)
Askin, max = As /2 = 3.969207 in2
Rang upto which Skin Reinforcement is provided
d/2 =19.9375in
For #6 bars
Ab =0.44in2
ssk = 6in
Askin = 6 x 0.44 in2 = 2.64 in2 < Askin,max =
3.97in2, O.K
we can use this reinforcement for both internal and
external girders.
Diaphragm:
Dimensions:
total depth H = 37in
Deck Slab Thickness hs = 8in
Web Width bw = 12in
Beam Stem Height hw = 29in
Effective Depth d = 34.5in
Span length S = 6ft
By using the same beff equations as for internal
girders, we get,
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
Load Calculation:
Dead Loads:
DC Slab Strip =

0.0125

k/in

DC Daiphram Stem =

0.030208333

k/in

DW FWS =

0.00440625

k/in

DC =

0.042708333

k/in

DW =
Live Loads:

0.00440625

k/in

Tire load P =16kips

No. of Bars = As/Ab = 1.676962025

= 2 bars
Shear Design:
The maximum shear at a support is,
V200 = 45.50850609kips
While the shear which Diaphragm can bear is,
Vc = 47.13058625 kips
Since, Vc > V200
So there is no need to calculate stirrup spacing, but it
would be a good approach to provide #3 Stirrups @
9in c/c distance.
Conclusions & Recommendations

V100 =19.2kips

Our transport system is such that there is no proper

check
and balance for the heavy loaded vehicles by
M104 =2.50176k in
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
loaded traffic exceeding its strength limit.
+ive
(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