CHAPTER 05

DESIGN LIMIT STATES

From “DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES LRFD” (3rd edition)

by “RICHARD [Link] & JAY [Link]”

1
 Topics to be covered

 Design philosophies
 Limit States
 Design Considerations
 Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
 Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

2
 5.1- INTRODUCTION

• Justification for a bridge design requires that the engineer verify

the structural safety and stability of the proposed design.
• A general statement for assuring safety in engineering design is
that the resistance of the components supplied exceed the
demands put on them by applied loads, that is
Resistance ≥ effect of the loads (5.1)

3
 Design Philosophies
 Resistance of structures is composed of its members
which comes from materials & X-section
 Resistance, Capacity, and Strength are somewhat
synonym terms.
 Terms like Demand, Stresses, and Loads are used to
express effect of applied loads.

4
 5.1- INTRODUCTION

• When applying this simple principle, both sides of the inequality

are evaluated for the same conditions.
• In other words, the evaluation of the inequality must be done for
a specific loading condition that links together resistance and the
effect of loads.

5
 5.1- INTRODUCTION

• When a particular loading condition reaches its limit, failure is the

assumed result, that is, the loading condition becomes a failure
mode. Such a condition is referred to as a limit state:

“A limit state is a condition beyond which a bridge system

or bridge component ceases to fulfill the function for which
it is designed”.

6
 Design Considerations

 Structure and Structural Members should have adequate

strength, stiffness and toughness to ensure proper functioning
during service life
 Reserve Strength should be available to cater for:
 Occasional overloads and underestimation of loads
 Variability of strength of materials from those specified

 Variation in strength arising from quality of workmanship

and construction practices

7
 Design Considerations

 Structural Design must provide adequate margin of safety

irrespective of Design Method

 Design Approach should take into account the probability of

occurrence of failure in the design process

8
 Design Considerations

 An important goal in design is to prevent limit state from

being reached.

 It is not economical to design a structure so that none of its

members or components could ever fail. Thus, it is necessary
to establish an acceptable level of risk or probability of failure.

9
 Design Considerations

 Brittle behavior is to be avoided as it will imply a sudden

loss of load carrying capacity when elastic limit is
exceeded.
 Reinforced concrete can be made ductile by limiting the
steel reinforcement.

10
 Design Considerations

 To determine the acceptable margin of safety, opinion should

be sought from experience and qualified group of engineers.
 In steel design AISC manuals for ASD & LRFD guidelines can
be accepted as reflection of such opinions.

11
 Design Considerations

 Any design procedure require the confidence of Engineer on

the analysis of load effects and strength of the materials.

 The two distinct procedures employed by designers are

Allowable Stress Design (ASD) & Load & Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD).

12
 5.2- DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN PROCEDURES

 Over the years, design procedures have been developed by

engineers to provide satisfactory margins of safety.
 As analysis techniques improved and quality control on materials
became better, the design procedures changed as well.
 To understand where we are today, it is helpful to look at
the design procedures of earlier AASHTO Specifications and
how they have evolved as technology changed.

13
 5.2.1- Allowable Stress Design

• Safety in the design was obtained by specifying that the effect of the
loads should produce stresses that were a fraction of the yield stress
: for example, one half.

14
 Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

 This is equivalent to:

FOS = Resistance, R/ Effect of load, Q
= fy/0.5fy
=2

15
 Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

 Since the specifications set limit on the stresses, it

became allowable stress design (ASD).

 It is mostly reasonable where stresses are uniformly

distributed over X-section (such on determinate trusses,
arches, cables etc.)

16
 5.2.1- Allowable Stress Design

• When ASD methods were first used, a majority of the

bridges were open-web trusses or arches.
• By assuming pin-connected members and using statics, the
analysis indicated members that were either in tension or
compression.
• The required net area of a tension member under uniform stress
was easily selected by dividing the tension force T by an
allowable tensile stress :
17
 5.2.1- Allowable Stress Design

• For compression members, the allowable stress depended on

whether the member was short (nonslender) or
long (slender), the required area was equal to the compressive
force divided by an allowable stress value:

18
 5.2.1- Allowable Stress Design

• The ASD method is also applied to beams in bending.

• By assuming plane sections remain plane, and linear stress–
strain response, a required section modulus S can be determined
by dividing the bending moment M by an allowable bending stress

19
 5.2.1- Allowable Stress Design

• What is the point in discussing ASD methods applied to

steel design in a book on bridge analysis and design? Simply
this:
“ASD methods were developed for the design of statically
determinate metallic structures. They do not necessarily
apply in a straightforward and logical way to other materials
and other levels of redundancy”.

20
 5.2.2- Variability of Loads

 In regard to uncertainties in design, one other point concerning the

ASD method needs to be emphasized.
 Allowable stress design does not recognize that different loads have
different levels of uncertainty.
 The safety factor is applied to the resistance side of the design
inequality of Eq. 5.1, and the load side is not factored.
 In ASD, safety is determined by

(5.2)
21
 5.2.3- Shortcomings of Allowable Stress Design

As just shown, ASD is not well suited for design of modern structures.
Its major shortcomings can be summarized as follows:
1. The resistance concepts are based on elastic behavior of
materials.
2. It does not embody a reasonable measure of strength,
which is a more fundamental measure of resistance than
is allowable stress.
3. The safety factor is applied only to resistance. Loads are
considered to be deterministic (without variation).
22
 5.2.3- Shortcomings of Allowable Stress Design

4. Selection of a safety factor is subjective, and it does not

provide a measure of reliability in terms of probability
of failure.

23
 5.2.4- Load and Resistance Factor Design
 To overcome the deficiencies of ASD, the LRFD method is
based on Strength of Materials
 It consider the variability not only in resistance but also in
the effects of load.
 It provides measure of safety related to probability of
failure.

24
 5.2.4- Load and Resistance Factor Design

• To account for the variability on both sides of the inequality in Eq.

5.1, the resistance side is multiplied by a statistically based
resistance factor φ, whose value is usually less
than one, and the load side is multiplied by a statistically
based load factor γ , whose value is usually greater than one.
• Because the load effect at a particular limit state involves a
combination of different load types ( ) that have different
degrees of predictability, the load effect is represented by a
summation of values.
25
•
 5.2.4- Load and Resistance Factor Design

If the nominal resistance is given by , the safety criterion is

(5.3)
Because Eq. 5.3 involves both load factors and resistance factors,
the design method is called load and resistance factor
design (LRFD). The resistance factor φ for a particular limitstate must
account for the uncertainties in
 Material properties
 Equations that predict strength
 Workmanship
 Quality control
 Consequence of a failure 26
 5.2.4- Load and Resistance Factor Design

The load factor γi chosen for a particular load type must consider the
uncertainties in
 Magnitudes of loads
 Arrangement (positions) of loads
 Possible combinations of loads

27
 ADVANTAGES OF LRFD METHOD

1. Accounts for variability in both resistance and load.

2. Achieves fairly uniform levels of safety for different limit states
and bridge types without involving probability or statistical
analysis.
3. Provides a rational and consistent method of design.
4. Provides consistency with other design specifications
(e.g., ACI and AISC) that are familiar to engineers and
new graduates.

28
 DISADVANTAGES OF LRFD METHOD

1. Requires a change in design philosophy (from previous AASHTO

methods).
2. Requires an understanding of the basic concepts of probability
and statistics.
3. Requires availability of sufficient statistical data and
probabilistic design algorithms to make adjustments in
resistance factors.

29
 Comparison of ASD and LRFD Design Approaches

 ASD combines Dead and Live Loads and treats them in the
same way
 In LRFD different load factors are assigned to Dead Loads
and Live Loads which is appealing
 Changes in load factors and resistance factors are much
easier to make in LRFD compared to changing the
allowable stress in ASD

30
 Comparison of ASD and LRFD Design Approaches

 LRFD is intrinsically appealing as it requires better

understanding of behavior of the structure in its limit states
 Design approach similar to LRFD is being followed in Design
of concrete structures in form of Ultimate Strength Design --
why not use similar approach design of bridge structures?

31
 Comparison of ASD and LRFD Design Approaches
 ASD indirectly incorporates the Factors of Safety by
limiting the stress whereas LRFD aims to specify Factors
of Safety directly by specifying Resistance Factors and
Load Factors
 LRFD is more rational as different Factors of Safety can
be assigned to different loadings such as Dead Loads,
Live Loads, Earthquake Loads and Impact Loads

32
 Comparison of ASD and LRFD Design Approaches

 LRFD considers variability not only in resistance but also in

the effects of load which provides measure of safety related
to probability of failure
 It achieves fairly uniform levels of safety for different limit
states.
 ASD still remains as a valid Design Method

33
 AREA Code for Design of Railway Structures

 AREA Stands for American Railway Engineers Association (AREA)

 Railway Bridges and Structures are usually designed using
provisions of the AREA Code
 AREA Code uses only the Allowable Stress Design Method.
However, the allowable stresses and design requirements may
differ from AISC/ASD method

34
AASHTO Code for Design of Highway Bridges

 AASHTO Stands for Association of American State and

Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

 Highway Bridges are usually designed using provisions of

the AASHTO Code

 AASHTO Code uses both ASD and LRFD Design Methods

35
 The role of various Codes
 It is very difficult to devise a design code that is applicable
to all uses and all types of structures such as buildings,
highway bridges, railway bridges and transmission towers
 The responsibility of infrastructure on roads, bridges and
electrical transmission towers rests with the organization
responsible for approving, operating and maintaining these
facilities

36
 The role of various Codes

 Uses and critical loads may be different in different types of

structures and no one code can cater to all the different
important considerations
 For above reasons different codes prevail and will continue to
do so
 AISC ASD Code and LRFD Code primarily is pertinent to
Building Structures.

37
 Limit States

 When particular loading reaches its limit, failure is the

assumed result, i.e. the loading condition become failure
modes, such a condition is referred to as limit state and it
can be defined as
 “A limit state is a condition beyond which a structural
system or a structural component ceases to fulfill the
function for which it is designed.”

38
 Limit States

 There are three broad classification of limit states:

1. Strength limit states
2. Serviceability limit states
3. Special limit states

39
 Limit States

Strength Limit States:

• Flexure • Fatigue
• Torsion • Settlement
• Shear • Bearing

40
 Limit States
Serviceability Limit States:
• Cracking
• Excessive Deflection
• Buckling
• Stability

41
Limit States

Special Limit States:

 Damage or collapse in extreme
earthquakes.
 Structural effects of fire, explosions, or
vehicular collisions.

42
 Limit States
 Design Approach used must ensure that the probability of
a Limit State being reached in the Design/Service Life of a
structure is within acceptable limits;
 However, complete elimination of probability of a Limit
State being achieved in the service life of a structure is
impractical as it would result in uneconomical designs.

43
 5.3- DESIGN LIMIT STATES

5.3.1- General
The basic design expression in the AASHTO (2010) LRFD Bridge
Specifications that must be satisfied for all limit states, both global and
local, is given as
(5.4)
where
= force effect =nominal resistance
=statistically based load factor applied to the force effects
=statistically based resistance factor applied to nominal resistance
44
=load modification factor
 5.3.1- General

 Equation 5.4 is Eq. 5.3 with the addition of the load modifier .
 The load modifier is a factor that takes into account
the ductility, redundancy, and operational importance of the
bridge.
 It is given for loads for which a maximum value of is appropriate
by
(5.5a)

45
 5.3.1- General

And for loads for which a minimum value of is appropriate

(5.5b)
Where
= ductility factor
= redundancy factor

= operational importance factor.

46
 The role of ‘n’

Ductility: It implies a large capacity for inelastic deformation without

rupture

 Ductility will ensure

redistribution of load through
inelastic deformation.

47
 Ductility Factor [A1.3.3]

 Ductility is important to the safety of a bridge.

 If ductility is present, overloaded portions of the structure can
redistribute the load to other portions that have reserve strength.
 Brittle behavior is to be avoided because it implies a sudden loss
of load-carrying capacity when the elastic limit is exceeded.
 Components and connections in reinforced concrete can be
made ductile by limiting the flexural reinforcement and by
providing confinement with hoops or stirrups.

48
 Ductility Factor [A1.3.3]

The values to be used for the strength limit state ductility factor are:
≥ 1.05 for nonductile components and connections
= 1.00 for conventional designs and details complying with the
specifications
≥ 0.95 for components and connections for which additional
ductility-enhancing measures have been specified beyond those
required by the specifications
For all other limit states:
= 1.00
49
 The role of ‘n’
Redundancy:
1. A simply supported beam is a determinate structure so it
has no redundant actions.
2. A fixed beam is indeterminate by 2 degrees so it has two
redundant actions.

50
 Redundancy

Yielding will initiate at mid span due to maximum moment at mid span
with no Redistribution of load

51
 Redundancy

Yielding will initiate at supports due to maximum moment at supports

52
 Redundancy

Redistribution of load to mid span after yielding of section at supports

53
 Redundancy Factor [A1.3.4]

 Redundancy significantly affects the safety margin of a bridge

structure.
 A statically indeterminate structure is redundant, that is, it has
more restraints than are necessary to satisfy equilibrium. For
example, a three-span continuous bridge girder may be classified
as statically indeterminate to the second degree. Any combination
of two supports, or two moments, or one support and one moment
could be lost without immediate collapse because the applied
loads could find alternative paths.
 The concept of multiple-load paths is the same as redundancy.54
 Redundancy Factor [A1.3.4]

Redundancy in a bridge system increases its margin of

safety, and this is reflected in the strength limit state by
redundancy factors given as
≥ 1.05 for nonredundant members
= 1.00 for conventional levels of redundancy
≥ 0.95 for exceptional levels of redundancy
For all other limit states:
= 1.00
55
 The role of ‘n’
Operational Importance:

A hospital and a school require more conservative design

than an ordinary residential building.

56
 Operational Importance

→ park
→ hospital

57
 Operational Importance Factor [A1.3.5]

 Bridges can be considered of operational importance if they are

on the shortest path between residential areas and a hospital or
school or provide access for police, fire, and rescue vehicles to
homes, businesses, and industrial plants.
 Bridges can also be considered essential if they prevent a long
detour and save time and gasoline in getting to work and back
home again.

58
 Operational Importance Factor [A1.3.5]

 In the event of an earthquake, it is important that all lifelines, such

as bridges, remain open. Therefore, the following requirements
apply to the extreme event limit state as well as to the strength
limit state:
≥ 1.05 for a bridge of operational importance
≥ 1.00 for typical bridges
≥ 0.95 for relatively less important bridges
For all other limit states:
= 1.00
59
 Load Designation [A3.3.2]

Permanent and transient loads and forces that must be considered in

a design are designated as follows:
Permanent Loads:
CR = Force effect due to creep
DD = Downdrag force
DC= Dead load of structural components and nonstructural
attachments
DW = Dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities
EH = Horizontal earth pressure load
60
 Load Designation [A3.3.2]

EL = Miscellaneous locked-in force effects resulting from the

construction process, including the jacking apart of cantilevers in
segmental construction.
ES = Earth surcharge load
EV = Vertical pressure from dead load of earth fill
PS = Secondary forces from posttensioning
SH = Force effects due to shrinkage

61
 Load Designation [A3.3.2]

Transient Loads
BR = Vehicular braking force
CE = Vehicular centrifugal force
CT = Vehicular collision force
CV = Vessel collision force
EQ = Earthquake load
FR = Friction load
IC = Ice load
IM = Vehicular dynamic load allowance
62
 Load Designation [A3.3.2]

LL = Vehicular live load

LS = Live-load surcharge
PL = Pedestrian live load
SE = Force effect due to settlement
TG = Force effect due to temperature gradient
TU = Force effect due to uniform temperature
WA = Water load and stream pressure
WL = Wind on live load
WS = Wind load on structure 63
 Load Combinations and Load Factors

The load factors for various load combinations and permanent loads
are given in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, respectively. Explanations of the
different limit states are given in the sections that follow.

64
65
66
 5.3.2- Service Limit State

• The service limit state refers to restrictions on stresses,

deflections, and crack widths of bridge components that occur
under regular service conditions [A1.3.2.2].
• For the service limit state, the resistance factors φ = 1.0 and nearly
all of the load factors are equal to 1.0.
• There are four different service limit state load combinations given
in Table 5.1 to address different design situations [A3.4.1].

67
 5.3.2- Service Limit State

Service I
This service limit state refers to the load combination relating to the
normal operational use of the bridge with 55-mph (90-km/h) wind, and
with all loads taken at their nominal values. It also relates to deflection
control in buried structures, crack control in reinforced concrete
structures, concrete compressive stress in prestressed concrete
components, and concrete tensile stress related to transverse analysis
of concrete segmental girders. This load combination should also be
used for the investigation of slope
68
stability.
 5.3.2- Service Limit State

Service II
This service limit state refers to the load combination relating only to
steel structures and is intended to control yielding and slip of slip-
critical connections due to vehicular live load. It corresponds to the
overload provision for steel structures in past editions of the AASHTO
Standard Specifications (AASHTO 2002).

69
 5.3.2- Service Limit State
Service III
This service limit state refers to the load combination for longitudinal
analysis relating to tension in prestressed concrete superstructures
with the objective of crack control and to principal tension in the webs
of segmental concrete girders. The statistical significance of the 0.80
factor on live load is that the event is expected to occur about once a
year for bridges with two traffic lanes, less often for bridges with more
than two traffic lanes, and about once a day for bridges with a single
traffic lane. Service I is used to investigate for compressive stresses
in prestressed concrete components. 70
 5.3.2- Service Limit State

Service IV
This service limit state refers to the load combination relating only to
tension in prestressed concrete columns with the objective of crack
control. The 0.70 factor on wind represents an 84-mph (135-km/h)
wind.

71
 5.3.3- Fatigue and Fracture Limit State

The fatigue and fracture limit state refers to a set of restrictions on

stress range caused by a single design truck. The restrictions depend
on the number of stress–range excursions expected to occur during
the design life of the bridge [A1.3.2.3]. They are intended to limit
crack growth under repetitive loads and to prevent fracture due to
cumulative stress effects in steel elements, components, and
connections. For the fatigue and fracture limit state, φ = 1.0.

72
 5.3.4- Strength Limit State

The strength limit state refers to providing sufficient strength or

resistance to satisfy the inequality of Eq. 5.4 for the statistically
significant load combinations that a bridge is expected to experience
in its design life [A1.3.2.4]. Strength limit states include the evaluation
of resistance to bending, shear, torsion, and axial load. The
statistically determined resistance factor φ will usually be less than 1.0
and will have different values for different materials and strength limit
states.
73
 5.3.4- Strength Limit State
Strength I
This strength limit state is the basic load combination relating to normal
vehicular use of the bridge without wind [A3.4.1].
Strength II
This strength limit state is the load combination relating to the use of the
bridge by owner-specified special design vehicles, evaluation permit
vehicles, or both without wind. If a permit vehicle is traveling unescorted,
or if the escorts do not provide control, the basic design vehicular live
load may be assumed to occupy the other lanes on the bridge
[A4.[Link]]. 74
 5.3.4- Strength Limit State

Strength III
This strength limit state is the load combination relating to the bridge
exposed to wind velocity exceeding 55 mph (90 km/h). The high winds
prevent the presence of significant live load on the bridge [C3.4.1].
Strength IV
This strength limit state is the load combination relating to very high
dead- and live-load force effect ratios. The standard calibration
process used to select load factors and resistance factors φ for the
strength limit state was carried out for bridges with spans less than
200 ft (60 m). 75
 5.3.4- Strength Limit State

Strength V
This strength limit state is the load combination relating to normal
vehicular use of the bridge with wind of 55-mph (90-km/h) velocity. The
strength V limit state differs from the strength III limit state by the
presence of live load on the bridge, wind on the live load, and reduced
wind on the structure (Table 5.1).

76
 5.3.5- Extreme Event Limit State

The extreme event limit state refers to the structural survival of a

bridge during a major earthquake or flood or when collided by a
vessel, vehicle, or ice floe, possibly under scoured conditions
[A1.3.2.5]. The probability of these events occurring simultaneously is
extremely low; therefore, they are specified to be applied separately.
For the extreme event limit state, φ = 1.0.

77
 5.3.5- Extreme Event Limit State

Extreme Event I
This extreme event limit state is the load combination relating to
earthquakes. This limit state also includes water load WA and friction
FR. The probability of a major flood and an earthquake occurring at
the same time is very small. Therefore, water loads and scour depths
based on mean discharges may be warranted [C3.4.1].

78
 5.3.5- Extreme Event Limit State

Extreme Event II
This extreme event limit state is the load combination relating to ice
load, collision by vessels and vehicles, and to certain hydraulic events
with reduced live load. The 0.50 live-load factor signifies a low
probability of the combined occurrence of the maximum vehicular live
load, other than CT, and the extreme events [C3.4.1].

79
 5.4 CLOSING REMARKS

 The AASHTO LRFD Specifications outline several limit states that

must be satisfied for an acceptable design.
 Limit states importantly consider the strength of the bridge but
also consider serviceability, the chance of an extreme event, and
fatigue and fracture.
 The LRFD format considers the variability of the material
strengths and their use in various components and, also, the
variability of dead, live, and other loads.
80
Thanks

81