Scribd
Upload
10 views1 page

Background To Specifications

The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications were adopted in 1994 to provide a more reliable and uniform approach to bridge design, replacing the outdated Standard Specifications. Developed by a team of over 50 experts, the LRFD methodology focuses on probabilistic design, resulting in a more consistent reliability index for bridges. The specifications are updated annually based on recommendations from subcommittees, with the latest interim changes published in 2006 and 2007.

Uploaded by

Mehmet Doğu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
10 views1 page

Background To Specifications

The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications were adopted in 1994 to provide a more reliable and uniform approach to bridge design, replacing the outdated Standard Specifications. Developed by a team of over 50 experts, the LRFD methodology focuses on probabilistic design, resulting in a more consistent reliability index for bridges. The specifications are updated annually based on recommendations from subcommittees, with the latest interim changes published in 2006 and 2007.

Uploaded by

Mehmet Doğu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

AASHTO LFRD

Background to
the Specifications by Dr. Dennis R. Mertz

B ridge designs initiated from October


2007 onwards must be in accord with the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
In the mid-1980s, SCOBS determined that the
Standard Specifications was falling behind the
times due to advances in the state of practice
greater uncertainty), the factors were chosen
rather qualitatively. The load and resistance
factors of the LRFD Specifications were
to qualify for federal matching funds. This with which their technical committees, based determined quantitatively using the theory of
is based on an agreement between American on volunteer participation from the various structural reliability.
Association of State Highway and Transportation departments of transportation (DOT), could not The LRFD Specifications are not intended to
Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway keep pace. Through the National Academies’ yield bridges with necessarily greater or lesser
Administration (FHWA). The LRFD Specifications National Cooperative Highway Research reliability, but with bridges having a more
was adopted in 1994 by AASHTO as a co-equal Program, AASHTO initiated project No. 12- uniform reliability index. The reliability index
alternative to the Standard Specifications for 33, which resulted in the first edition of the is the measure of reliability or safety associated
Highway Bridges. The 17th and final edition LRFD Specifications. A team of over 50 experts with a probability of failure. The reliability
of the Standard Specifications was published including practicing consulting engineers, indices represented by the bridges designed by
in 2002. academics, and DOT personnel, led by the bridge the Standard Specifications range from about
Since the 1920s, the AASHTO bridge design firm of Modjeski and Masters, Inc., wrote 1.5 to 4.7. This represents a huge range of
specifications have been developed through the first draft of the specifications. probability of failure ranging from 7 in 100
the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and The team was charged with developing design to 3 in 1,000,000. The bridges of the LRFD
Structures (SCOBS). This subcommittee consists specifications that are technically state-of-the- Specifications are more uniformly reliable with
of bridge engineers of the various states and art and easy to apply. At times, these goals were a limited range of about 3.3 to 3.8, centered
other territories and agencies. The subcommittee in conflict. The specifications were to include about the target reliability index of 3.5. The
updates and revises the specifications a parallel commentary but not read like a probability of failure associated with a reliability
yearly at their annual meeting based on textbook. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, index of 3.5 is about 2 in 10,000. Thus, the
recommendations from their subcommittees. the specifications were to be based on a new LRFD Specifications yields bridges of much
These meetings result in yearly interim changes probabilistically based design methodology, more uniform reliability.
to the specifications. These interim changes are termed load and resistance factor design (LRFD). Future columns will highlight the
published the following year as replacement The LRFD methodology appears very similar various additions and revisions to the LRFD
pages for the loose-leaf bound specifications. to the load factor design (LFD) of the Standard Specifications adopted by AASHTO in 2006 and
Periodically, new editions of the specifications are Specifications, as suggested by the LRFD to be published in 2007.
printed incorporating all of the interim changes equation below:
since the previous edition. Since the 1920s, 17 Σ(γ Q) ≤ φR
editions of the Standard Specifications have Where,
been issued. For a short time, 1994 through γ = load factors
1999, SCOBS issued yearly interim changes Q = loads
to both the Standard Specifications and the φ = resistance factors
LRFD Specifications. Since 2000, SCOBS R = resistance
is only maintaining the LRFD Specifications Whereas the load and resistance factors of the
through interim changes. The current LRFD LFD provisions of the Standard Specifications
Specifications is the third edition with Interim acknowledge uncertainty (for example, with
editions issued in 2005 and 2006. greater load factors associated with loads of

48 | ASPIRE, Winter 2007

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy