PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY

URDANETA CITY CAMPUS

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
2ND SEM A.Y 2023-2024

CE 423
BRIDGE ENGINEERING

PROBLEM SET NO.3

GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

CE

VILLAR, JOHN CLINT J.

BSCE-4D

ACCURACY/CONTENT (50%)

PRESENTATION (25%)

INSTRUCTION (25%)

GRADE

ENGR. JOSUA C. JUNIO

INSTRUCTOR
ESSAY
1. THE PROBABILISTIC LIMIT STATES PHILOSOPHY OF LRFD IS FAVORED OVER THE
DETERMINISTIC DESIGN PHILOSOPHY OF ASD DUE TO SEVERAL KEY REASONS.
FIRSTLY, LRFD ACCOUNTS FOR VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY INHERENT IN
LOADS, MATERIAL PROPERTIES, AND OTHER DESIGN PARAMETERS, OFFERING A
MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND REALISTIC APPROACH. BY INCORPORATING
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND PROBABILITY THEORY, LRFD ENABLES ENGINEERS TO
QUANTIFY THE LIKELIHOOD OF DIFFERENT FAILURE MODES, LEADING TO MORE
RELIABLE AND SAFER DESIGNS. MOREOVER, LRFD ALLOWS FOR THE
CONSIDERATION OF RARE BUT POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC EVENTS, SUCH AS
EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS OR EARTHQUAKES, WHICH MAY NOT BE
ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY DETERMINISTIC METHODS. THIS PROBABILISTIC
APPROACH PERMITS OPTIMIZATION OF DESIGN FACTORS WHILE MAINTAINING A
SPECIFIED LEVEL OF SAFETY AND RELIABILITY.

2. RESIDUAL STRESSES PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE SELECTION OF A LIMIT

STATES DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FOR BRIDGES. THESE STRESSES, ARISING FROM
MANUFACTURING PROCESSES, WELDING, OR OTHER FACTORS, CAN INFLUENCE
THE STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR AND PERFORMANCE OF BRIDGE MEMBERS. IN THE
LRFD PHILOSOPHY, THE CONSIDERATION OF RESIDUAL STRESSES AS A
PROBABILISTIC FACTOR ALLOWS FOR A MORE ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF THE
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY AND RELIABILITY. BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE
UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH RESIDUAL STRESSES, LRFD ENSURES THAT
DESIGNS ARE ROBUST AND CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING POTENTIAL FATIGUE,
CRACKING, OR DEFORMATION UNDER SERVICE LOADS, THUS CONTRIBUTING TO
SAFER AND MORE EFFICIENT BRIDGE DESIGNS.

3. THE LOAD MODIFIER TERM Η IN THE AASHTO LRFD BASIC DESIGN EXPRESSION
SERVES TO ADJUST THE NOMINAL LOAD TO ACCOUNT FOR UNCERTAINTY AND
VARIABILITY. POSITIONED ON THE LOAD SIDE OF THE INEQUALITY, Η ENSURES
THAT THE DESIGN LOAD IS CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE
UNCERTAINTIES IN LOADS AND OTHER FACTORS, THEREBY PROVIDING A HIGHER
LEVEL OF SAFETY. BY INCORPORATING THIS MODIFIER, LRFD ENSURES THAT THE
STRUCTURE CAN WITHSTAND LOADS WITH A SPECIFIED LEVEL OF RELIABILITY,
ENHANCING THE OVERALL SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE OF BRIDGE

STRUCTURES.
4. DUCTILITY, REPRESENTED BY ΗD, PLAYS A CRUCIAL ROLE IN DETERMINING THE
RELIABILITY OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES. STRUCTURAL MEMBERS WITH HIGHER
DUCTILITY ARE BETTER EQUIPPED TO DEFORM AND REDISTRIBUTE LOADS UNDER
EXTREME CONDITIONS, THEREBY REDUCING THE LIKELIHOOD OF CATASTROPHIC
FAILURE. THIS INCREASED ABILITY TO DISSIPATE ENERGY AND WITHSTAND
UNEXPECTED LOADING CONDITIONS ENHANCES THE RESILIENCE AND
RELIABILITY OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES, MAKING THEM MORE CAPABLE OF
WITHSTANDING SEISMIC EVENTS, HIGH WINDS, OR OTHER EXTREME SCENARIOS.

5. THE REDUNDANCY FACTOR IN BRIDGE DESIGN REFERS TO THE PRESENCE OF

MULTIPLE LOAD PATHS OR REDUNDANT STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS THAT PROVIDE
BACKUP SUPPORT IN CASE OF FAILURE. BY ENSURING THAT THE BRIDGE REMAINS
FUNCTIONAL EVEN IF CERTAIN COMPONENTS OR CONNECTIONS FAIL,
REDUNDANCY ENHANCES STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY AND SAFETY. IN CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE BRIDGES, WHERE THE FAILURE OF A SINGLE COMPONENT
COULD HAVE SEVERE CONSEQUENCES, REDUNDANCY IS ESSENTIAL.
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS ARE DESIGNED, CONFIGURED, AND DETAILED TO
INCORPORATE ADEQUATE REDUNDANCY, THEREBY MAINTAINING STRUCTURAL
INTEGRITY AND SAFETY THROUGHOUT THE BRIDGE’S LIFESPAN.
II. CONCEPT APPLICATION

1. GIVEN AN AXIAL-FLEXURAL MEMBER SUBJECTED TO A LOAD COMBINATION OF 0.9D +

1.0E AND A REDUCTION FACTOR OF 0.90 IN LRFD AND A LOAD COMBINATION OF D +
0.70E WITH A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 2.0 IS TO BE DESIGNED USING BOTH
METHODOLOGIES. DETERMINE WHICH METHODOLOGY WORKS BETTER FOR DIFFERENT
RATIOS OF EARTHQUAKE LOAD TO DEAD LOAD (E/D RATIO). NOTE USE A RANGE OF
VALUES OF ( DE ) = (''0,0.1,0.2,0.25,0.30,0.35,0.40,0.45,0.50'') FOR E/D RATIO)

Required :
a. Determine the working equation LRFD
ASD =''function of (E/D)''
b. Plot curve using the range values above make a short description of graph.
c. Which methodology is better? Explain (in not less than 5 sentences)

SOLUTION :
a. @ LRFD @ ASD
0.9D + 1.0E ; ø = 0.90 ø Rn = 0.90D + 1.0E Rn
Ω = D + 0.7E
D + 0.70E ; Ω = 2.0 Rn = (0.90D + 1.0E) Rn
0.90 2.0 = D + 0.7E
1.0 Rn = 2.0D + 1.4E
Rn = D + 0.90E 1 2

LRFD = D + (1.0/0.90)E
ASD 2.0D+ 1.4E

= D 1.0E
D + 0.9D
2.0D
D + 1.4E
D

= 1 + 1.0E
0.9D ÷2
2.0 + 1.4E
D

LRFD = 0.5 + 0.556 E

ASD D
E
1.0 + 0.7 D

b.
 The chart displayed above shows the relationship between the ratio of the Earthquake Load
over the Dead Load to the Load Resitance Factor Design over the Allowable Strength Design. This shows
that LRFD/ASD value also increases when the E/D value increases.

C.
Choosing between ASD (Allowable Stress Design) and LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design)
depends on the specific requirements of a project and local building codes. ASD relies on allowable stress
evels, making it simpler but potentially less accurate. LRFD, on the other hand, considers load and
resistance factors, offering a more rational and consistent approach but may involve more complex
calculations. Ultimately, the decision should align with project specifications and regulatory standards.

2. GIVEN:
DEAD LOAD D= 448 kN - m Moment
LIVE LOAD L= 202 kN - m Moment
WIND LOAD W = 50 kN - m Moment
EARTHQUAKE LOAD E= 89 kN - m Moment

Required :
a. Determine the controlling load combination and the nominal strength if ø = 0.90 and Ω =
1.67. Use LRFD and ASD.
b. If we compare the two methodologies, which is more economical? Explain. (in not less
than 5 sentences).Which methodology is better? Explain (in not less than 5 sentences).
c. If we are to compare the two methodologies, which is more conservative? Explain. (in not
less than 5 sentences).

SOLUTION :
a.

@ LRFD
· 1.4(D+F) = 1.4(448) = 627.2 kN - m
· 1.2(D+F+T) + 1.6(L+H) + 0.5(Lr or R) = 1.2(448) + 1.6(202) +0.5(0) = 860.8 kN - m
· 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or R) + (f1L or 0.5W) = 1.2(448) + 1.6(0) + 0.5(202) = 638.6 kN - m
Or = 1.2(448) + 1.6(0) + 0.5(50) = 562.6 kN - m
· 1.2D + 1.0W +f1L + 0.5(Lr or R) = 1.2(448) + 1.0(50) + 0.5(202) + 0.5(0) = 688.6 kN - m
· 1.2D + 1.0E + f1L = 1.2(448) + 1.0(89) + 0.5(202) = 727.6 kN - m
· 0.90D + 1.0W + 1.6H = 0.90(448) + 1.0(448) + 1.6(0) = 851.2 kN - m
· 0.90D + 1.0E + 1.6H = 0.90(448) + 1.0(89) + 1.6(0) = 492.2 kN - m

@ ASD
· D + F = 448 + 0 = 448 kN - m
· D + H + F + L + T = 448 + 0 + 0 + 202 + 0 = 650 kN - m
· D + H + F + (Lr or R) = 448 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 448 kN - m
· D + H + F + 0.75(L + T + (Lr or R)) = 448 + 0 + 0 + 0.75(202 + 0 + 0) = 599.5 kN - m
E
· D + H + F + (0.6W or 1.4) = 448 + 0 + 0 + 0.6(50) = 478 kN - m
89
or = 448 + 0 + 0 + 1.4 = 511.571 kN - m
REFLECTIVE JOURNAL:

TODAY’S LESSON ABOUT BRIDGE ENGINEERING HAS BEEN REALLY INTERESTING. AS A

CIVIL ENGINEERING STUDENT, I’VE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT MAKING BRIDGES SAFE AND
RELIABLE. UNDERSTANDING WHY LRFD IS BETTER THAN ASD FOR BRIDGE DESIGN WAS
EYE-OPENING. LRFD CONSIDERS DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COULD GO WRONG AND
HOW LIKELY THEY ARE, WHICH MAKES BRIDGES SAFER. IT ALSO LOOKS AT RARE BUT
DANGEROUS EVENTS, LIKE EARTHQUAKES, TO MAKE SURE BRIDGES CAN HANDLE THEM.
LEARNING ABOUT RESIDUAL STRESSES WAS IMPORTANT TOO. THEY COME FROM HOW
BRIDGES ARE MADE AND CAN AFFECT HOW STRONG THEY ARE. LRFD TAKES THESE
STRESSES INTO ACCOUNT TO MAKE SURE BRIDGES CAN WITHSTAND THEM AND STAY
SAFE. THE Η THING IN LRFD ADJUSTS THE DESIGN LOAD TO BE EXTRA SAFE. IT MAKES
SURE BRIDGES CAN HANDLE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LOADS, WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT
FOR KEEPING THEM SAFE. UNDERSTANDING DUCTILITY AND HOW IT HELPS BRIDGES
HANDLE EXTREME CONDITIONS WAS ALSO INTERESTING. DUCTILITY LETS BRIDGES
BEND WITHOUT BREAKING, WHICH MAKES THEM SAFER DURING EARTHQUAKES OR
STRONG WINDS. LASTLY, LEARNING ABOUT REDUNDANCY IN BRIDGE DESIGN WAS
CRUCIAL. HAVING BACKUP SUPPORT IN CASE SOMETHING GOES WRONG KEEPS
BRIDGES SAFE AND ENSURES THEY STAY STRONG OVER TIME. OVERALL, TODAY’S
LESSON HAS MADE ME APPRECIATE THE COMPLEXITY OF DESIGNING SAFE BRIDGES.
IT’S INSPIRED ME TO KEEP LEARNING ABOUT CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MAKING SURE
OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS SAFE FOR EVERYONE.