TwoSpan LRFD Design Example Karl Barth and Jennifer

Two-Span LRFD Design Example Karl Barth and Jennifer Righman West Virginia University

Objective The primary focus of this example is to demonstrate the use of Appendix A and Appendix B for a two-span continuous structure

Appendix A Overview n n n Accounts for the ability of compact and non-compact sections to resist moments greater than My Economy gained by Appendix A provisions increases with decreasing web slenderness Effects of St. Venant torsion are incorporated

Appendix B Overview n n Traditional AASHTO specifications have permitted up to 10% of the maximum pier section bending moment to be redistributed to positive bending regions Appendix B provisions explicitly compute the level of redistribution based on an effective plastic moment concept for sections meeting prescribed geometric criteria

Design Information

Design Information Framing Plan

Design Notes n n n 2004 AASHTO LRFD Specifications, 3 rd Edition Structural steel: ASTM A 709, Grade 50 W Normal weight concrete (145 pcf) with fc’=4 ksi Fyr = 60 ksi for reinforcing steel Operational importance, redundancy, and ductility factors = 1. 0

Design Loads – DC 1 n DC 1 loads are equally distributed to all girders n n n n Slab Haunch (average wt/length) Overhang taper Girder (average wt/length, varies) Cross-frames and misc. steel Stay-in-place forms =0. 983 =0. 017 =0. 019 =0. 200 =0. 015 =0. 101 k/ft k/ft S =1. 335 k/ft

Design Loads – DC 2 and DW n DC 2 n n n Barrier weight = 520 lb/ft Weight/girder = (0. 520)x(2)/(4) = 0. 260 k/ft DW n n Future wearing surface = 25 psf DW = (0. 025 ksf)x(34 ft)/4 = 0. 213 k/ft

Design Loads – WS and WL n WS n n Wind forces are calculated assuming bridge is located 30’ above water in open country Wind on upper half of girder, deck, and barrier assumed to be resisted by diaphragm action of the deck WS = 0. 081 k/ft (on bottom flange) WL n n Assumed to be transmitted by diaphragm action WL is neglected

Design Loads – Live Load n Controlling case of: n n Truck + Lane Tandem + Lane 0. 9 (Double Truck + Lane) (in negative bending) Impact factors used for all vehicular live loads (excluding lane load) n n I=1. 15 for fatigue limit state I=1. 33 for all other limit states

Design Loads – Live Load n Live load effects are approximated using distribution factors n Interior girder n n AASHTO empirical equations are used Exterior girder n n n AASHTO empirical equation correction factor Lever rule Special analysis

Interior Girder Distribution Factors n Moment n Varies with girder dimensions due to Kg term n One design lane n Two or more design lanes

Interior Girder Distribution Factors n Shear n One design lane n Two or more design lanes (CONTROLS)

Exterior Girder Distribution Factors n AASHTO exterior girder correction factor n Moment n Shear n Empirical formulas for exterior girder will not control

Exterior Girder Distribution Factor n Lever Rule – One Design Lane

Exterior Girder Distribution Factor n Special Analysis n One design lane n Two or more design lanes Controls for Moment

Distribution Factors for Fatigue n n Based on one design lane No multiple presence factor applied Maximum one lane distribution factor results from the lever rule, i. e. , EXTERIOR GIRDER CONTROLS DF = 0. 70

Unfactored Design Moments

Limit States n All applicable limits states for steel structures were considered n Strength n n n Strength I = 1. 25 DC + 1. 5 DW + 1. 75(LL+I) III = 1. 25 DC + 1. 5 DW + 1. 4 WS IV = 1. 5(DC + DW) V = 1. 25 DC + 1. 5 DW + 1. 35(LL+I) + 0. 4 WS Service n n Strength I controls in this example Service II = 1. 0(DC + DW) + 1. 3(LL+I) Fatigue = 0. 75(LL+I)

6. 10 Provisions Addressed n Cross section proportion limits n Constructibility n Serviceability n Fatigue n Strength

Appendix A Design 12 x 3/4 63’ 12 xx 7/16 3/4 36 16 36 xx 1 -1/2 7/16 16 x 1 -1/2 63’ 16 X 1 -1/4 54’ 16 36 x x 1 -1/4 1/2 x 1/2 1636 x 2 -1/2 16 x 2 -1/2 54’ 12 x 3/4 63’ x 3/4 36 12 X 7/16 1636 x 1 -1/2 x 7/16 16 x 1 -1/2 63’

Cross Section Proportion Limits n n n

n For discretely braced compression flanges Constructibility n n Fnc may be computed using Appendix A which accounts for increased torsional resistance For discretely braced tension flanges and continuously braced flanges

Constructibility - Loads n n Vertical DC 1 loads are determined considering deck casting sequence Lateral flange bending stresses are induced by the overhang form brackets § Construction dead and live loads considered

Constructibility Check n Stresses in compression flange of positive bending section control the allowable cross-frame spacing n Strength IV

Service Limit State n For top flange n For bottom flange n Bottom flange in positive bending (controls)

Fatigue Limit State n n Fatigue requirements significantly impact the design of the positive bending region Bolted stiffener to flange connections employed at locations of maximum stress range, i. e. , cross -frames at midspan n Bolted connections / Category B details n Welded connections / Category C’ details

Fatigue Limit State (cont. ) n n Use of bolted cross-frame connections requires that net section fracture requirements are satisfied Assuming one 7/8” diameter bolt hole is used:

n If , then Positive Flexural Capacity n Otherwise n Unless certain geometric conditions are satisfied n n Ductility check:

Negative Flexural Capacity Appendix A n n n Therefore, Appendix A is applicable.

Web Plastification Factors n Check if web is compact - NO n Noncompact web plastification factors are used

Web Plastification Factors (cont. ) n n n

Compression Flange Local Buckling Resistance n n Check if flange is compact - YES

Lateral Torsional Buckling Resistance n n

Lateral Torsional Buckling Resistance n n n

Negative Flexural Capacity Summary n n

Appendix A Performance Ratios Positive Bending Region Constructibility (Strength I) Top Flange 0. 94 Bottom Flange 0. 30 Constructibility (Strength IV) Top Flange 0. 93 Bottom Flange 0. 36 Top Flange 0. 47 Bottom Flange 0. 70 Bolted Conn. 0. 80 Welded Conn. 0. 98 Flexure 0. 69 Shear 0. 83 Service Limit State Fatigue and Fracture Limit State Strength Limit State (Strength I)

Appendix A Performance Ratios Negative Bending Region Constructibility (Strength I) Top Flange 0. 46 Bottom Flange 0. 34 Constructibility (Strength IV) Top Flange 0. 55 Bottom Flange 0. 39 Top Flange 0. 57 Bottom Flange 0. 69 Service Limit State Fatigue and Fracture Limit State Strength Limit State (Strength I) Bolted Conn. NA Welded Conn. 0. 58 Flexure 0. 96 Shear 0. 78

Appendix B Design n Moment redistribution procedures are used to create a more economical design 63’ 54’ 63’ 12 x 3/4 16 x 1 12 x 3/4 36 x 7/16 36 x 1/2 36 x 7/16 16 x 1 -1/2

Appendix. BB Requirements is valid for girders meeting Appendix n certain geometric and material limits n Web Proportions n n n

Appendix B Requirements (cont. ) n Compression flange proportions n n n Lateral Bracing n

Appendix B Requirements (cont. ) n Shear n n Section Transitions n n No section transitions are permitted within the first cross-frame spacing on each side of the pier Bearing Stiffeners n Bearing stiffeners are required to meet projecting width, bearing resistance, and axial resistance requirements

bending region is a function of the effective plastic moment, Mpe Higher Mpe values are permitted for girders Redistribution Moment n with either: n n Transverse stiffeners placed at D/2 or less on each side of the pier “Ultra-compact” webs such that Alternative Mpe equations are given for strength and service limit states

Redistribution Moment (cont. ) n n n Redistribution moment at pier: n n Redistribution moment varies linearly at other locations along the span Pier 1 Mrd 1 Pier 2 Mrd 2

Redistribution Moments (Strength I)

Appendix B Design Checks n Positive bending capacity n n Negative bending capacity within one lateral brace spacing on each side of the pier n n Not evaluated Negative bending capacity at other locations n n Evaluated for positive bending moment plus redistribution moment (at strength and service limit states) Evaluated for negative bending moment minus redistribution moment Otherwise, same as before

Appendix B Performance Ratios Positive Bending Region Constructibility (Strength I) Top Flange 0. 94 Bottom Flange 0. 30 Constructibility (Strength IV) Top Flange 0. 93 Bottom Flange 0. 36 Top Flange 0. 47 Bottom Flange 0. 70 Bolted Conn. 0. 80 Welded Conn. 0. 99 Flexure 0. 75 Shear 0. 83 Service Limit State Fatigue and Fracture Limit State Strength Limit State (Strength I)

Appendix B Performance Ratios Negative Bending Region Constructibility (Strength I) Constructibility (Strength IV) Service Limit State Fatigue Limit State Strength Limit State (Strength I) Top Flange Bottom Flange 0. 55 0. 42 0. 66 0. 48 Top Flange Bottom Flange Welded Conn. Flexure* Shear 0. 62 0. 79 0. 55 0. 48 0. 78 * Design of negative bending region controlled by 20% limit

Appendix A / Appendix B Design Comparisons n n Positive moment region same in both designs (controlled by fatigue) Cross-frame spacing the same (controlled by constructibility) Appendix B negative moment region 18% lighter Appendix B girder 6% lighter overall 63’ 54’ 63’ 12 x 3/4 16 x 1 -1/4 12 x 3/4 16 x 1 12 x 3/4 36 x 7/16 36 x 1/2 36 x 7/16 16 x 1 -1/2 16 x 2 -1/2 APPENDIX A DESIGN 16 x 2 APPENDIX B DESIGN 16 x 1 -1/2

Concluding Comments n n Fatigue requirements significantly impact the design of the positive moment region due to the relatively high distribution factor for the exterior girder Constructibility and Appendix B requirements led to the use of a 15 ft cross-frame spacing throughout Use of Appendix A leads to increasing economy with decreasing web slenderness (that is a section with a noncompact web at the upper limit will gain very little from Appendix A) Appendix B provides even greater economy