This page provides guidance and recommendations on Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) of specific bridge substructure components.
|
General Recommendations |
|
Design LoadingDesign all bridge components for 2 in. of future asphaltic
concrete overlay at 0.140 kips per cu. ft.
Terminology and Notation
LRFD refers to Load and Resistance Factor Design, a design
methodology that makes use of load factors and resistance factors
based on the known variability of applied loads and material
properties. Bracketed <references> reference relevant sections of
the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
Limit states
TxDOT recommends the following limit states for design of bridge
system components <Article 3.4.1>:
| Component |
Limit State |
| Concrete bent caps |
Strength I and
Service I and (Service I with dead load only) |
| Columns |
Strength I, III, and
V, Service I, and Extreme I (for vehicle or vessel collision, when
required) |
Load Factors
TxDOT recommends the following permanent loads <Article 3.5>: The
engineer may reduce the maximum load factor for wearing surfaces and
utilities <DW in Table 3.4.1-2> to 1.25.
|
|
|
Abutments |
|
Geometric Constraints
Supporting an approach slab on wing walls is strongly discouraged. Compaction
of backfill is difficult and loss of backfill material can occur. Without the
bearing on the backfill, the approach slab is supported on only three sides (at
the two wing walls and the abutment backwall), and the standard approach slab is
not reinforced for this situation nor are the wing walls designed to carry the
load. The approach slab should be supported by the abutment wall and approach
backfill only, and appropriate backfill material is essential. TxDOT supports
the placement of a cement-stabilized sand (CSS) wedge in the zone behind the
abutment. CSS solves the problem of difficult compaction behind the abutment,
and it resists the moisture gain and loss of material common under approach
slabs.
Design Criteria
A construction joint is recommended in abutment caps longer than 90 ft. The
joint should clear the bearing seat areas.
|
|
|
Rectangular Reinforced
Concrete Caps |
|
Geometric ConstraintsCap width should be 3 in.
wider than the supporting columns to allow column reinforcing to extend into the
cap without bending.
Structural Analysis
- Apply dead load reactions due to slab and beam weight as point loads at
centerline of beam. Distribute the weight of one railing to no more than
three beams, applied to the composite cross section. Distribute dead loads
due to sidewalks, medians, and overlay evenly to all beams.
- Model the total live load reaction as two wheel loads, distributing the
remainder of the live load over a 10-ft. design lane width. Carefully
consider lane boundaries to produce the maximum force effect at various
critical locations:

Where:
W = The uniform load portion of the live load (kip/ft.).
LLRxn = Live load reaction/lane or (LLTruck
* 1.33) + LLLane (kip).
P = The load on one rear wheel of the HL-93 truck increased 33% for dynamic
load allowance (kip). Typically, P = 16k * 1.33.
The following figure shows the recommended live load model:

Software
Use
CAP18 with modified input file adjusted for LRFD (see design examples). Use
this spreadsheet for shear design.
Detailing
- Use a construction joint in multicolumn bents when the distance between
outside columns exceeds 80 ft. Locate the joint close to a dead-load
inflection point but not under a bearing seat buildup.
- Typically the minimum number of bars is four top and bottom, and the
maximum number in a layer is limited by a 2 1/2-in. clear-spacing
requirement to facilitate concrete placement and vibration. A second layer
may be placed 4 in. on center from the outside layer. A third layer should
be used only in very deep caps. A horizontal tie bar tied to the vertical
stirrup legs should support second and third layers. In heavily reinforced
caps, bundling bars in two-bar bundles may be used to maintain necessary
clear spacing. Layered and bundling bars should comply with <Articles
5.10.3.1.3 (layered) or 5.10.3.1.5 (bundled)>.
- For most caps more than four top bars can be cut off in compression zones
between columns. To simplify design, usually extend bars past an inflection
point rather than adhering to the requirements in <Article 5.11.2.2>. For
bottom reinforcement, limit the number of bars across a column and into a
cantilever to three or four to avoid congestion with vertical column steel
when possible. Additional bars should end at the column face. These top and
bottom bar cut-off criteria apply to conventional caps with moderate amounts
of reinforcement. For large caps with heavy reinforcement, follow the
provisions in <Articles 5.11.1.2.2. and 5.11.1.2.3>.
- Bars longer than 60 ft. require laps. Try to locate these laps in
compression or very low tension zones. Base lap lengths on tension lap
requirements (see the
Bridge Detailing Manual). Consider staggering or alternating laps in
adjacent bars to minimize congestion. Mechanical couplers or welded splices
may be specified for staged construction.
- Many cantilevers are too short to allow full development length for the
#11 Grade 60 top reinforcement. However, the reaction from the outside beam
provides a clamping effect and a bar extension of 15 in. beyond the center
of the beam will develop the bar. The standard distance from centerline beam
to end of cap is 1 ft.-9 in., which is a minimum for new designs.
- For most conventional caps, use #5 stirrups with a 4-in. minimum and
12-in. maximum spacing. Double stirrups may be required close to column
faces. For large heavily reinforced caps, use #6 stirrups.
- Pay attention to the bearing seat build-up for prestressed beam spans.
Extreme grades and skews can produce conflicts between the bearing seat or
bent cap and the beams or bearings if the seats are not shown properly on
the bent details. The
Bridge Detailing Manual shows typical bearing seat configurations.
Bearing seat build-ups taller than 3 in. require reinforcement, which should
be shown on the detail.
|
|
|
Inverted Tee Reinforced
Concrete Caps |
|
Geometric ConstraintsStem width should be at least 3 in. wider than
column width to allow column reinforcing to be extended into the cap without
bending. Use a stem height to the nearest whole inch. Ledge depth depends on the
punching shear capacity required. Determine ledge width from the development of
the ledge tie bars as shown in
this figure.
Design Criteria
- Design for primary moment and shear is similar to that for rectangular
caps. When considering moment, b is the bottom width for negative bending
and top width for positive bending. When considering shear, b is the stem
width.
- Because the caps are usually deeper than 3 feet, provide beam side
reinforcing according to
this figure. This reinforcing steel should meet the requirements of
<Equation 5.7.3.4-4>.
- Because the bearings are relatively far from the center of the cap,
consider torsion in single-column bents.
- Ledge reinforcing is determined by shear friction and flexure as indicated
in <Article 5.13.2.5>.
- Size web reinforcing for hanger loads, vertical shear, and vertical
shear/torsion when applicable. Hanger load stresses, which usually control,
are not added to shear and torsion stresses.
Structural Analysis
- For a skewed bent, place hanger and ledge reinforcing perpendicular to the
centerline of the bent. Detail the skewed ends of the bent with a section of
skewed stirrups and ledge reinforcing. Extend caps at least 2 ft. past
centerline of the exterior beam to prevent excessive hanger and ledge
reinforcing requirements and to provide adequate punching shear capacity.
For skewed bridges or phased designs, consider punching shear capacity for
the exterior beams: a cap extension of 2 ft. may not be adequate.
- Model the total live load reaction as two wheel loads, distributing the
remainder of the live load over a 10-ft. design lane width. Carefully
consider lane boundaries to produce the maximum force effect at various
critical locations.

Where:
W = The uniform load portion of the live load (kip/ft.).
LLRxn = Live load reaction/lane or (LLTruck * 1.33) +
LLLane (kip).
P = The load on one rear wheel of the HL-93 truck increased 33% for dynamic
load allowance (kip). Typically, P = 16k * 1.33.
The following figure shows the recommended live load model:

Software
Use
CAP18 for analysis of primary moment and shear (see design example). Use
this spreadsheet for shear design.
|
|
|
Columns for Multicolumn
Bents |
|
Structural Analysis (for typical bridges only)
- Round columns are preferred for multicolumn bents with rectangular caps
and are used for most structures. See
this figure for available column size, typical reinforcement, and
recommended height limits.
- Square or rectangular columns are occasionally used for aesthetic
enhancement of a structure.
- The designer should consider predicted scour when determining column
heights.
- Moments can be magnified to account for slenderness (P-delta) effects by
using <Article 5.7.4.3> or other analytical methods. However, results are
highly conservative.
- Analyze slender columns by taking effective length factors as 1.0
transversely and 1.5 longitudinally or by investigating secondary effects
and biaxial bending using the
PIER program or other computational methods.
- For multi-tier bents with square or round columns separated by tie beams,
analyze as a frame, and magnify transverse and longitudinal moments
separately.
- Column size may change within the bent height, producing a multi-tiered
bent. Consider multi-columns bent tiers with web walls to be braced in the
transverse direction. Column capacity in the longitudinal direction is not
affected by the web wall.
- Round columns within recommended height limits and with column spacing
between 10 ft. and 18 ft. may use the following diameters without analysis
for axial load and bending: slab spans - 24 in., pan form spans - 24 in.,
Types A and B and C prestressed beam spans - 30 in., and Type IV prestressed
beam spans - 36 in.
- Refer to
this figure for guidance for reinforcement in square columns.
- Refer to
this figure for desirable column-to-tie-beam connection details.
- Design and model single-tier bent columns as individual columns with
bottom conditions fixed against rotation and deflection in the transverse
direction but free to rotate and deflect in the longitudinal direction.
Top-of-column conditions should be considered free to translate but not
rotate in the transverse direction.
- When determining fixity conditions for loads other than temperature and
shrinkage, assume that columns on single drilled shafts are fixed at three
shaft diameters but not more than 10 ft. below the top of the shaft, and
that columns on footings with multiple drilled shafts or piling in both
transverse and longitudinal directions are considered fixed at the top of
the footing.
- Refine designs by limiting longitudinal deflections to the maximum
movement allowed due to joint closure.
SoftwareUse
FRAME11, BMCOL51, PIER, or equivalent applications.
|
|
|
Columns for Single-Column
Bents |
|
Structural Analysis (for typical bridges only):
- For columns taller than 100 ft., consider wind loads more appropriate for
the location and height. See "Wind Forces on Structures," J. M. Briggs,
Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Paper No. 3269, Volume
126, Part 2, Final Report, 1961.
- Longitudinal and transverse moments must be magnified separately for
P-delta effects using the method in <Article 4> or with a second order
analysis computer program such as BMCOL51.
- Effective length factor may be taken as 2.0 in both directions unless
restraints provided by the superstructure sufficiently limit secondary
moments.
- Refine designs by limiting longitudinal deflections to the maximum
movement allowed due to joint closure. This value can be determined by
taking the total number of joints along the entire bridge length minus 1
plus the thermal contraction along half the unit of the critical bent for
joint closure.
Design Criteria
For column design, use Strength I, Strength III, and Strength V limit states.
Column design must meet the requirements of <Article 5.7.4>.
Software
Use
BMCOL51 or equivalent applications.
|
|
|
Design Resources |
|
For additional information on LRFD bridge design as
implemented by TxDOT, consult the following resources:
|
|
|
Design Examples and
Spreadsheets |
|
|