Comparison of Standard Load and Load and Resistance Factor Bridge Design Specications for Buried Concrete Structures

Larry J. Miller and Stephan A. Durham

For the past 30 years, it has been common practice to use AASHTO standard design specications for underground precast concrete structures. Today, the bridge engineering profession is making the transition from the standard AASHTO load factor design bridge specications to the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) specications. The FHWA has mandated that all culverts, retaining walls, and other standard structures designed after October 2010 be designed according to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specications for a project to receive federal funding. This paper compares related provisions from both specications used in designing underground concrete structures, such as underground utility structures, drainage inlets, three-sided structures, and box culverts. Although many provisions of these two codes are the same, important differences could have a signicant impact on the amount of reinforcement, member geometry, and cost to produce buried reinforced concrete structures. Many AASHTO LRFD code provisions that differ from the standard specications include terminology, load factors, implementation of load modiers, load combinations, multiple presence factors, design vehicle live loads, distribution of live load to slabs and earth ll, live load impact, and live load surcharge. This study demonstrates that greater reliability and a more uniform factor of safety are obtained when the LRFD specications are used.

Historically, much of the design methodology and design loads for underground concrete structures, such as pipes and box culverts, came from AASHO. In the 1930s, AASHO began publishing the Standard Specications for Highway Bridges. The standard practice at the time was to use one factor of safety. This methodology is commonly known as allowable stress design (ASD). In the 1970s, AASHTO began varying the factor of safety for each load in relation to the engineers ability to predict the corresponding load. This corresponding bridge design methodology was referred to as load factor design (LFD). The change from ASD to LFD was made in the form of interim revisions by AASHTO. In fact, the standard specications have never been completely revised and still include provisions from both the LFD and ASD methodologies (1).
L. J. Miller, Oldcastle Precast, Inc., 8392 West Riverview Parkway, Littleton, CO 80125. S. A. Durham, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado Denver, Campus Box 113, P.O. Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217. Corresponding author: S. A. Durham, stephan.durham@cudenver.edu. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2050, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 8189. DOI: 10.3141/2050-08

AASHTO introduced the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specications in 1994, with the intent of replacing the Standard Specications for Highway Bridges with this reliability-based code that provides a more uniform safety for all elements of bridges. The AASHTO LRFD Highway Bridge Design Specifications were developed with the intent of implementing a more rational approach for the design of highway structures. The LRFD specications utilize load and resistance factors based on the known variability of applied loads and material properties. The load and resistance factors were calibrated from bridge statistics, ensuring a more uniform level of safety (1). Today, the FHWA and state departments of transportation have established as a goal that the LRFD standard specications be used on all new culverts, retaining walls, and other standard structures after 2010. In fact, AASHTO, in concurrence with FHWA, has set a deadline of October 1, 2010, for full implementation by all states. States must design according to the LRFD specications for a project to receive federal funding. At least 46 states have fully or partially implemented the LRFD specications or are working with FHWA to develop a plan for implementation (2). A 2004 AASHTO Oversight Committee survey found that 12 states have fully implemented the specications. Another 34 states have partially implemented the LRFD specications or are developing implementation plans and designing pilot projects. FHWA is providing assistance to states in transition by providing a number of resources that include a team of structural, geotechnical, and research engineers who can meet with individual states and provide guidance in developing a state-specic LRFD implementation plan, training courses, and design workshops.

BACKGROUND Bridge designers are making the transition from the standard AASHTO bridge design specications to the LRFD specications. The LRFD specications were developed in 1994; however, bridge designers were given the option of using either set of specications. Differences between the two specications include terminology, load factors, implementation of load modiers, load combinations, multiple presence factors, design vehicle loads, distribution of live load to slabs and earth ll, live load impact, live load surcharge, and the concrete design methodology for fatigue, shear strength, and control of cracking. Very little research has been done to compare all the provisions from both specifications for the design of underground concrete structures. However, there has been research comparing specific
81

82

Transportation Research Record 2050

topics from both specications and the impact the LRFD specications has had on the engineering community. Rund and McGrath compared all the provisions from AASHTO standard specifications and the LRFD specifications for precast concrete box culverts (3). The research analyzed several combinations of box culvert sizes and ll depths under both specications. Typically, the provisions from the LRFD specications yielded greater design loads and therefore required more area of steel reinforcement. The differences in reinforcement areas were the most pronounced for fill depths less than 2 ft (0.61 m). These were primarily the result of the differences in distributing the live load to the top slab into equivalent strip widths. The equivalent strip width is the effective width of slab that resists the applied load. In addition, for culvert spans up to 10 ft (3.05 m), the LRFD specications require shear reinforcement. Analysis using the standard AASHTO specifications also shows required shear reinforcement for a similar range of spans, but the standard specifications permit the shear effects be neglected when the equivalent strip width methodology is used. For depths of fill between 2 and 3 ft (0.61 and 0.91 m), the differences in reinforcement areas were due to fatigue requirements. The provisions in the standard specications for fatigue were not present in the LRFD specications. For depths of overburden greater than 3 ft (0.91m), the differences in the reinforcing areas decreased slightly. However, with increasing depth, the LRFD specifications required greater area of steel reinforcement. This was primarily due to the distribution of live load through earth ll. The provisions in the LRFD specications often yield higher design forces from wheel loads than the standard specications. Several states have found that crack control requirements tend to govern the design of flexural steel in concrete structures more frequently under the 1994 LRFD specications than under the standard AASHTO specications (4). At the time it was believed that this was primarily due to the higher loads specied in the LRFD specications. In the 1994 AASHTO LRFD specications, exural crack control requirements were based on the Z-factor method developed by Gergely and Lutz (4) in 1968. Research completed by DeStefano et al. (5) suggested a new equation be adopted in the LRFD specifications. Their recommendation for a new equation was for the development of a simple, straightforward equation that accounts for the differences between bridge and building structures. The proposed revised crack control requirements identified a number of shortcomings with the Z-factor method. Example designs were included on box culverts to compare the allowable stresses in the existing Z-factor method with the proposed crack control method. The results indicated reasonable increases in allowable stresses, thus permitting more economical designs without sacricing long-term durability. The proposed equation developed in this research has been adopted in the current edition of the LRFD specications. The NCHRP funded a project that examined the distribution of live load through earth ll (6). This research compared provisions from both specications related to distribution of live load through earth ll. The design and evaluation of buried structures require an understanding of how vertical earth loads and vehicular live loads are transmitted through earth lls. When the depth of overburden is equal to or greater than 2 ft (0.61 m), both the standard AASHTO specications and the LRFD specications allow for the wheel load to be distributed throughout the earth ll. Both specications use approximate methods for estimating the distribution of vehicular live loads through earth ll. The LRFD specications take into account the contact area between the footprint of the tire and the ground surface. The distribution area is equal to the tire footprint, with the footprint dimensions increased by either 1.15 times the earth ll depth

for select granular backfill, or 1.0 for other types of backfill. The standard AASHTO specications do not account for the dimensions of the tire. Instead, the wheel load is considered to be a concentrated point load. The wheel load is distributed over a square equal to 1.75 times the depth of ll, regardless of the type of backll. One major difference between the two specications is that the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications use different approximate methods that signicantly increase live load pressures on buried structures when compared with the standard specifications. In addition, the basis for the methodology in which the live load is distributed through soil is not well documented or understood. As a result, the NCHRP developed Project 15-29, Design Specications for Live Load Distribution to Buried Structures. Administered by the TRB and sponsored by the member departments (i.e., individual state departments of transportation) of AASHTO. The objective of Project 15-29 is to recommend revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specications relating to the distribution of live load to buried structures. The project completion date was scheduled for October 20, 2007. Additional research has been performed in relation to the distribution of live load through earth fill by Bloomquist and Gutz at the University of Florida (7). (In 1998, the Florida Department of Transportation adopted the LRFD specications as the design standard for all structures.) The Bloomquist and Gutz research report discusses the development of equations to calculate the distribution of live loads through earth ll for the design of precast concrete box culverts. The objective of the research was to develop a new method and establish a single design equation for distributing live loads to the tops of precast concrete box culverts. The existing LRFD methodology is considered to be a rigorous design procedure that is extremely difficult to apply and too conservative when compared with the standard AASHTO specications. A signicant amount of design time can be saved by simplifying this process. Furthermore, the study was aimed at producing a simplied design equation that would be thorough but not overly conservative. The approach of the research was to use theoretical methods to calculate the distribution of live loads through varying earth ll depths and compare them with the current LRFD provisions.

LFD AND LRFD SPECIFICATIONS FOR BURIED STRUCTURES This paper examines the current LRFD design specifications (3rd edition), and the standard AASHTO specifications used in designing underground concrete structures such as underground utility structures, drainage inlets, three-sided structures, and box culverts. Many of the AASHTO LRFD code provisions that differ from the standard specifications include terminology, load factors, implementation of load modiers, load combinations, multiple presence factors, design vehicle live loads, distribution of live load to slabs and earth ll, live load impact, live load surcharge, and the concrete design methodology for fatigue, shear strength, and crack control. Although many training tools exist to aid in use of the LRFD specications on highway bridges, very few resources are available for designing underground precast concrete.

Design Vehicular Live Loads The most signicant change introduced in the LRFD specications is the new vehicular live load model (8). In the standard AASHTO

Miller and Durham

83

60 12 KIPS 12 KIPS 12.5 KIPS

60 12.5 KIPS

Direction of Travel

40

Direction of Travel

40

12 KIPS (a) FIGURE 1

12 KIPS

12.5 KIPS (b)

12.5 KIPS

Loading: (a) alternative military and (b) design tandem.

specications, the vehicular design live load is considered to be either the HS design truck loading or an alternate military loading (9). The design includes the configuration that produces the critical conditions. The LRFD specications include three components of the live load (8): Design truck, Design tandem, and Design lane load. A combination of the design truck or design tandem plus the design lane load is used as the vehicular live load in the LRFD specications. The force effects from both the design truck and the design tandem must be compared. The LRFD design truck is identical to the axle load portion of the HS20 truck of the standard AASHTO specications. However, the LRFD design truck is not scalable as is the HS20 truck. For example, there is no HS15 or HS25 equivalent under the standard LRFD specications. The design tandem has the same tire and axle spacing as the alternative military loading, but the load is slightly heavier (Figure 1). As noted earlier, another change in relation to the live load from the standard specications is the addition of the design lane load. In the standard LRFD specications a design lane load that consists of

a distributed load of 0.64 klf (9.34 kN/m) is added to the design truck or design tandem load to produce the worst-case force effects. Furthermore, the design lane load is also assumed to be uniformly distributed over a 10.0-ft (3.05-m) design lane width. Therefore, the lane load converts to an additional distributed live load of 0.064 ksf (440.96 kPa). The force effects from the lane load directly correlate with the design span: as the span increases, the force effects increases, and vise versa. The increase of the force effects from the lane load is shown in Figure 2, which indicates the percentage increase in service moment due to the lane load plus design truck for various depths of fill and increasing span lengths. For short spans of approximately 4 ft (1.22 m), the increase in service moment is approximately 4%, depending on the earth fill. The increase in the service moment approaches 14% with the addition of the lane load for a span of 16 ft (4.88 m).

Multiple-Presence Factor The LRFD specifications require the use of multiple-presence factors to account for the effects of multiple loaded lanes on a bridge. Multiple-presence factors are provided for the cases of one, two, three, and three or more loaded lanes. For a single loaded

16 14 12 % Increase in Ms 10 8 6 4 2 0 4 6 8 10 12 Design Span (ft) 14 16 0 ft. Fill 0.5 ft. Fill 1 ft. Fill 1.5 ft. Fill 1.99 ft. Fill

FIGURE 2 lane load.

Force effects due to design truck versus design truck plus

84

Transportation Research Record 2050

35 30 Impact (%) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 Earth Fill Depth (ft) 8 10 LRFD LFD

Lateral Live Load Surcharge Both the standard AASHTO specifications and the LRFD specifications require a live load surcharge pressure. The live load surcharge pressure is an increase in the lateral earth pressure due to the live load. The increase in horizontal pressure is calculated by Equation 1 (8). LLS = k s where LLS = constant horizontal earth pressure due to live load surcharge (psf), k = coefficient of lateral earth pressure, s = unit weight of soil (pcf), and heq = equivalent height of soil for a vehicle load (ft). The equivalent height of soil, heq, specified by the standard specifications is 2 ft (0.61 m). The LRFD specications calculate the equivalent height of soil as a function of the wall height, which is considered to be the distance between the top surface of backll and the footing bottom. In general, the LRFD specication requirements produce a greater increase in the lateral live load surcharge pressure when compared with the standard AASHTO specications for abutment heights up to 20 ft (6.10 m). The lateral live load surcharge pressure is considerably greater with the LRFD specications than with the standard AASHTO specications for abutment heights less than 4 ft (1.22 m). The difference in live load surcharge height is shown in Figure 4. The lower value of 2 ft (0.61 m) for the equivalent live load surcharge height in the standard specications was originally derived from an HS10-44 design truck (8). The values of the equivalent live load surcharge height in the LRFD specications were determined from a HL-93 design live load. This explains the large discrepancy between both specications. heq (1)

FIGURE 3 Dynamic load allowance versus impact (LRFD versus LFD).

lane, the multiple-presence factor is 1.2, whereas it is 1.00 for two loaded lanes.

Impact and Dynamic Load Allowance Both the standard AASHTO specifications and the LRFD specifications require an increase in the live load due to the dynamic load effects of moving vehicles. The standard specications refer to the dynamic load effects increase as impact, while the standard LRFD specications refer to it as the dynamic load allowance (8, 9). Both codes require an increase in the live load with respect to the earth ll depth. The LRFD provisions apply a factor that varies linearly from 33% at 0 ft (0 m) of ll to 0% at 8 ft (2.44 m). The standard specications decrease in 10% increments, shown in Figure 3. In general, the LRFD specication requirements produce a greater increase in the dynamic load effects when compared with the standard AASHTO specications. This is easily evident for depths of ll equal to and greater than 3 ft (0.91 m). The main difference between the two provisions is the application of the dynamic load allowance for depths up to 8 ft (2.44 m) by the LRFD specications. The standard specications neglect the dynamic load allowance for depths greater than 3 ft (0.91 m). The maximum increase in live load when comparing the LRFD and LFD specications is 21%, which corresponds to an earth ll depth of 3 ft (0.91 m).

Wheel Load Distribution for Depths of Fill Greater than 2 ft (0.61 m) When the depth of overburden is equal to or greater than 2 ft (0.61 m), both the standard AASHTO specications and the LRFD specica-

4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 heq (ft) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Abutment Height (ft) 14 16 18 20 LRFD LFD

FIGURE 4

Live load surcharge equivalent heights.

Miller and Durham

85

tions allow for the wheel load to be distributed throughout the earth fill. The LRFD specifications take into account the contact area between the footprint of the tire and ground surface. The distribution area is equal to the tire footprint, with the footprint dimensions increased by either 1.15 times the earth fill depth for select granular backfill, or 1.0 for other types of backfill. The standard AASHTO specifications do not account for the dimensions of the tire. Instead, the wheel load is considered as a concentrated point load. The wheel load is distributed over a square equal to 1.75 times the depth of ll, regardless of the type of backll. Both distribution areas are illustrated in Figure 5. As the earth ll depth increases, distributed wheel load areas created by adjacent wheels or axles begin to overlap. This complicates the distributed live load area and load value calculation. Three cases are considered in the standard AASHTO specications (9): Case 1. Distribution of wheel loads that do not overlap, Case 2. Distribution of wheel loads from a single-axle overlap, and Case 3. Full distribution of wheel loads from multiple axles.

The LRFD specifications require two additional cases, Cases 4 and 5 (8). The LRFD specifications require a check to determine whether the distributed live load pressure from multiple truck axles positioned side by side overlap. In other words, a calculation is required to determine the live load pressure from two vehicles traveling side by side spaced 4 ft (1.22 m) apart. Case 4 covers situations in which two wheels from separate axles overlap, as illustrated in Figure 6a. Case 5 occurs when both axles from each design truck overlap, as illustrated in Figure 6b. For Cases 1 to 3, a multiple-presence factor of 1.2 must be used, while for Cases 4 and 5, a multiplepresence factor of 1.00 is used as a result of two lanes being loaded simultaneously. The provisions from the LRFD specications often yield greater design forces than the standard AASHTO specications, specically at shallow covers. Figure 7 shows the live load service pressures for both LFD and LRFD design vehicles at various depths of ll. The single LRFD design truck with a multiple-presence factor of 1.2 produces the worst-case service live load pressure for depths of overburden between 0 and 5 ft (1.52 m). For depths of overburden greater than 5 ft (1.52 m), the design tandem spaced 4 ft (1.22 m) apart with a multiple-presence factor of 1.00 produces the largest

WHEEL LOAD

H WuLL

1.75 H (a)

LE

TH NG

W ID TH

DISTRIBUTED LOAD AREA

SP RE AD

A
(b)

D EA PR

FIGURE 5

Distribution areas for a single wheel for (a) LFD and (b) LRFD.

86

Transportation Research Record 2050

(a)

(b) FIGURE 6 Overlapping (a) wheel and (b) axle load distribution by passing vehicles.

2000 1800 1600 1400

WuLL (psf)
LFD HS20 Design Truck LRFD Design Truck LRFD Design Tandem LFD Alternative Military LRFD Dual Design Truck LRFD Dual Design Tandem

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Depth Of Fill (ft) 14 16 18 20

FIGURE 7

Distributed service live load values through earth fill with impact.

Miller and Durham

87

service live load pressures. However, this is not the case for factored live load pressures found in Figure 8. The single HS20 design truck specied in the standard AASHTO specications produces a higher live load pressure for an earth ll depth of 2 ft (0.61 m). For depths greater than 2 ft (0.61 m), the live load pressures follow a similar path as the service live load pressures discussed earlier. The single LRFD design truck with a multiple-presence factor of 1.2 produces the worst-case factored live load pressure for depths of overburden between 0 and 5ft (0 and 1.52 m). For depths of overburden greater than 5 ft (1.52 m) the design tandem spaced 4 ft (1.22 m) apart with a multiple-presence factor of 1.00 produces the largest factored live load pressures.

designer to take advantage of earth fill by assuming the axle load to be distributed laterally, increasing the load length. As a result of this provision, the LRFD specications produces smaller service moments compared with the standard AASHTO specications for earth ll depths less than 2 ft (0.61 m). Figure 9a shows the live load service moments for both the LFD (HS20) and LRFD design vehicles at various design spans and an earth ll depth of 1 ft (0.31 m). For each case, the service moments caused by the standard specifications control the design. This control is attributed to the load effect from the LRFD specifications acting more as a distributed load than a concentrated load. However, when the multiple-presence factors and the dynamic-load allowance are taken into account, the service moments from the standard LRFD specications control the design (Figure 9b).

Distribution of Live Loads for Depths of Fill less than 2 ft (0.61 m) Underground concrete structures are typically analyzed as twodimensional frames. For depths of overburden less than 2 ft (0.61 m), equivalent strip widths are used in both specications to simplify the analysis of the three-dimensional response due to live loads. Both specications examine the live load in strip widths. This strip width is the effective width of slab that resists the applied load. The primary differences include truck configuration, distribution widths, tire contact area, and lateral distribution. The standard AASHTO specications divide the design vehicle into a line of wheel loads, whereas the LRFD specifications use a full axle on the member. Both codes allow the respected live loads to then be distributed by a distribution width, E. The values of the distribution widths from both specications are identical. However, the distribution width in the LRFD specications is twice the distribution width found from the standard specications. This increase results from the use of a full axle instead of a single wheel in the LRFD specications (8). Both specications assume the tire contact as a rectangle with the length in the direction of traffic equal to 10 in. (254 mm) and a width of 20 in. (508 mm). The standard AASHTO specications do not take into account earth fill that is placed on the structure. The wheel load is simply assumed to act as a point load. The LRFD specications allow the

Load Factors and Load Combinations The load factor design methodology in the standard AASHTO specifications is similar to the load and resistance factor design requirements in the LRFD specications. Both specications use load factors and strength reduction factors and rely on loading combinations to check for strength and serviceability requirements. However, in the LRFD method, load and resistance factors are determined through statistical studies of the variability of loads and resistances. The LRFD approach is considered to be more realistic than the application of judgment-based factors in the LFD specifications. The goal of the LRFD approach is to provide a more rational design basis with more uniform reliability. The reliability theory on which the LRFD method was created and the calibration of the load and strength reduction factors are well documented. When underground precast concrete culverts and three-sided structures are being designed, the standard AASHTO specications apply one set of load factors to the force effect, while the LRFD specifications vary the load factors to maximize the load effects. Table 1 lists the load factors for both specications. The most signicant difference between the two specications is the live load factors. The live load factor in the LRFD specications

3500
LFD HS20 Design Truck LFD Alternative Military LRFD Dual Design Truck LRFD Dual Design Tandem

3000 2500
WuLL (psf)

LRFD Design Truck LRFD Design Tandem

2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Depth Of Fill (ft) 14 16 18 20

FIGURE 8

Distributed factored live load values through earth fill with impact.

88

Transportation Research Record 2050

20 18 16 14 Ms (kip - ft) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 4 6 8 10 12 Design Span (ft) (a) 20 18 16 14 Ms (kip - ft) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 4 6 8 10 12 Design Span (ft) (b) 14 16 LFD DESIGN TRUCK LRFD DESIGN TRUCK 14 16 LFD DESIGN TRUCK LRFD DESIGN TRUCK

FIGURE 9 Service moment for LRFD versus LFD design live loads (a) without impact and multiple presence factor and (b) with impact and multiple presence factor.

has been reduced from 2.17 to 1.75, a decrease of 19.4%. However, both the magnitude and the effective depth of the live load impact (dynamic-load allowance) have been increased. A multiple-presence factor of 1.2 has also been introduced in the LRFD specications for a single loaded lane. Therefore, the load factor for a single loaded lane equates to 2.1. Overall, the load effect from the LRFD specications produces greater live load effects on the entire structure. In some cases, this may call for additional reinforcement or thicker sections.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This paper compares the current LRFD design specications and the standard AASHTO specications used in designing underground precast concrete structures. A brief summary of select provisions and their impact on design is as follows:

Design vehicular live loads. The design truck and application are identical in both specications. However, the LRFD provisions require that an additional distributed lane load of 0.64 klf (9.34 kN/m) be added to the live load model. In addition, the design tandem truck, which replaced the alternative military loading from the standard specications, is 4% heavier. Multiple-presence factor. The LRFD specications introduced this factor. For a single loaded lane, the multiple presence factor is 1.2. The multiple-presence factor is similar to the load-reduction factor in the standard specications. The load-reduction factor for a single loaded lane is 1.0. Thus, comparing the two factors shows an increase from 1.0 to 1.2 for one loaded lane. This difference balances the reduction in the live load factor. The standard specications require a live load factor of 2.17, while the LRFD specications require 1.75. With the introduction of the multiple-presence factor, the live load factor in the LRFD specications becomes 2.1.

Miller and Durham

89

TABLE 1

Load Factors for LRFD and LFD Specifications (8, 9) Standard Load Factors 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.17 2.17

Load Designation Self weight Wearing surface Horizontal earth pressure Vertical earth pressure Live loads Live load surcharge

LRFD Load Factors 0.90 and 1.25 0.65 and 1.50 0.90 and 1.50 0.90 and 1.3 1.75 1.75

There is greater reliability and a more uniform factor of safety in the LRFD specications. The LRFD specications use load and resistance factors that are based on the known variability of applied loads and material properties. The load and resistance factors were calibrated from bridge statistics, ensuring a more uniform level of safety. The provisions in the LRFD specifications are more concise and beneficial to design engineers with the addition of the commentary.

REFERENCES
1. LRFD: State Department of Transportation LRFD Implementation Plan Initial Draft. Bridge Technology. April 15, 2006. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/lrfd/plan.cfm. Accessed April 16, 2006. 2. LRFD: Achieving Greater Reliability and Service for Bridges. Focus. July 2004. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. www.tfhrc.gov/ focus/july04/01.htm. Accessed May 10, 2006. 3. Rund, R. E., and T. J. McGrath. Comparison of AASHTO Standard and LRFD Code Provisions for Buried Concrete Box Culverts. Concrete Pipe for the New Millennium: ASTM STP 1368 (I. I. Kaspar and J. I. Enyart, eds.), ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2000, pp. 4560. 4. Gergely, P., and L. A. Lutz. Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members. Causes, Mechanism, and Control of Cracking in Concrete, SP-20, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1968, pp. 87117. 5. DeStefano, R. J., J. Evans, M. K. Tadros, and C. Sun. Flexural Crack Control in Concrete Bridge Structures. Florida Department of Transportation. 2004. www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/Research%20Projects/ researchProjectReports.htm. Accessed May 1, 2006. 6. Project 15-29: Design Specications for Live Load Distribution to Buried Structures. NCHRP. April 6, 2006. Transportation Research Board. www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+15-29. Accessed April 6, 2006. 7. Bloomquist, D. G., and A. J. Gutz. Evaluation of Precast Box Culvert Systems Design Live Loads on Box Culverts. University of Florida, Gainesville, 2002. 8. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd ed. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2005. 9. AASHTO Standard Specications for Highway Bridges, 16th ed. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1996.
The Concrete Bridges Committee sponsored publication of this paper.

Dynamic load allowance (impact). Both specications require an increase in the live load with respect to the earth ll depth. The LRFD specications require that an impact factor be applied up to a fill depth of 8 ft (2.44 m). The standard specifications neglect the effects of impact for depths greater than 3 ft (0.91 m). In general, the requirements in the LRFD specications produce a greater load effect than do the standard specications. Lateral live load surcharge. Both specifications require an increase in the lateral earth pressure due to the live load. The standard AASHTO specifications require a live oad surcharge pressure of 2 ft (0.61 m), regardless of structure type and geometry. The LRFD specications calculate the live load surcharge height as a function of the structures wall height. The lateral live load surcharge pressure is signicantly greater in the LRFD specications than in the standard AASHTO specications. Distribution of wheel loads through earth ll. Both specications allow for the live load to be distributed through earth ll. The LRFD specications allow the dimensions of the tire to be used. However, the LRFD specications generally produce greater load effects. The live load distribution areas are complicated, particularly when multiple loads from several vehicles overlap. Load factors and load combinations. Both specications use load factors and strength reduction factors. However, the load and resistance factors are determined through statistical studies in the LRFD specications.