×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

LRFD vs. Standard Spec

LRFD vs. Standard Spec

LRFD vs. Standard Spec

(OP)
I am part of a team working on an elevated roadway for an international airport.  We have restrictions on the raodway depth to accompdate floor to floor heights appropriate to boarding aircraft and 13'-6" minimum clearance for the lower roadway.  We compared the AASHTO LRFD Specification and the Standard Specification and found that the combination of the lane and truck loads in the LRFD spec has some impact on the girders but the big hit was in the bents.  Since the lower roadway runs parrallel to and below the upper roadway, the bents have a 62-foot span between columns.  Our worst case bent has 105-foot span girders on one side and 30' span girders on the other side.  Since the LRFD spec also requires that the trucks be located in trains with 50-foot spacing between trucks, the reactions to the bents are far greater in LRFD than in the Standard Spec.  We found that the design moments were increased by a factor of three.  Has anyone run across this large of a discrepancy between designing by LRFD and designing by the Standard specs?  Did we miss something?

RE: LRFD vs. Standard Spec

Some thoughts:

Studies found the effects of the exclusion vehicles under estimated negative moments by by up to 80%. {AASHTO fig.C3.6.1.2.1-1.

The effect of two trucks for negative moments may be reduced by 90%. [AASHTO 3.6.1.3.1].

The 50 feet spacing refered to is a minimum, and a greater spcing may in fact produce a worst case.

The deck reinfocement may be used with the steel girders to resist the moments.



RE: LRFD vs. Standard Spec

Another thought:

Suspect 30 105 30 span arrangement is causing the negative moments over the interior supports to approach that of a fix end moment condition. You can study this behavior by increasing the first and last span and notice the moments at the interior support will decrease.

A similiar reduction in the stiffness of the girders in the first and last spans will also reduce the end moments.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources