Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / AASHTO LRFD specification

Contents

Journal articles
Dissertations / Theses
Books
Book chapters
Conference papers
Reports

Academic literature on the topic 'AASHTO LRFD specification'

Author: Grafiati

Published: 4 June 2021

Last updated: 3 February 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'AASHTO LRFD specification.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Journal articles on the topic "AASHTO LRFD specification"

1

Chang, Byungik, Kamal Mirtalaei, Seungyeol Lee, and Kenneth Leitch. "Structural Behavior and Design of Barrier-Overhang Connection in Concrete Bridge Superstructures Using AASHTO LRFD Method." Advances in Civil Engineering 2012 (2012): 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/935329.

Full text

Abstract:

The U.S. Departments of Transportation adopted the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications during the year 2007, which is mandated by AASHTO and FHWA. The application of LRFD specification initiated numerous research works in this field. This investigation addresses the LRFD and Standard design methodologies of concrete deck slab, deck overhang, barrier and combined barrier-bridge overhang. The purpose of this study is to propose a simplified manual design approach for the barrier-deck overhang in concrete bridges. For concrete deck slab overhang and barrier, application ofNational Cooperative Highway Research Programcrash test is reviewed. The failure mechanism, design philosophy and load cases including extreme event limit states for barrier and overhang are discussed. The overhang design for the combined effect of bending moment and axial tension is probably the most important part of the design process. The overhang might be a critical design point of the deck with significantly higher amount of reinforcement. The design process becomes complicated due to combined force effect, LRFD crash test level requirement and the existence of several load combinations. Using this program, different LRFD load combinations are plotted together with the interaction diagram and the design is validated.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Bass, Brent J., and Jesse L. Beaver. "Section Idealization of Corrugated Thermoplastic Pipe in AASHTO Design." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2672, no. 41 (October 1, 2018): 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361198118798990.

Full text

Abstract:

The AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO LRFD) thermoplastic pipe design method requires corrugated pipe local buckling resistance to be determined based on corrugation effective area. The effective area may be determined through calculations or physical tests on sections of pipe. When determined through calculations, effective area is based on individual corrugation element (e.g., crest, valley, web) slenderness following methods published by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) for cold-formed steel design. Cold-formed steel members are rolled from constant-thickness steel sheet and have cross-sections divided into elements by distinct corners. In contrast, corrugated thermoplastic pipe cross-sections have variable geometries with non-uniform thickness, elements without distinct corners defining their ends, and elements that may be rounded or have other beneficial features such as intermediate ribs or stiffeners. Applying the calculation method requires idealization of corrugation elements into flat plates of representative clear width and thickness. As corrugation geometries have evolved with the increased use of thermoplastic pipe, there has not been a thorough review of appropriate methods of idealization to ensure current geometries meet the intent of the design method. This paper reviews the existing AASHTO LRFD effective area calculation method, information from background documents upon which the AASHTO LRFD method was based (NCHRP reports 438 and 631), and relevant information from the AISI Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members; identifies important concepts for cross-section idealization; and provides recommendations for idealization of corrugation members with curves and intermediate stiffeners.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Goble, George G. "Load and Resistance Factor Design of Driven Piles." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1546, no. 1 (January 1996): 88–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361198196154600110.

Full text

Abstract:

A load and resistance factor design (LRFD) bridge specification has been accepted by the AASHTO Bridge Committee. This design approach is now being implemented for highway bridges in the United States, including the design of driven pile foundations. To test the new specification's practicality and usefulness, an example problem has been solved using it. In the example, a pipe pile was designed to be driven into a granular soil to support a bridge column subjected to a factored axial compression load of 10 MN. The nominal strength selected for the pile was 1.58 MN with an estimated length of 25 m. Since the resistance factors are defined by the specified quality control procedures, the number of piles required in the foundation also depends on the quality control. In this example, the number of piles required varied from 15 to 8 with improved quality control, for a savings of almost half of the piles. This example indicated that the new AASHTO LRFD specification for driven pile design can be used effectively to produce a more rationally designed foundation. Some modifications should be made to include additional serviceability limit states, and additional research may indicate that changes should be made in some of the resistance factors.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Fausett, Robert W., Paul J. Barr, and Marvin W. Halling. "Live-Load Testing Application Using a Wireless Sensor System and Finite-Element Model Analysis of an Integral Abutment Concrete Girder Bridge." Journal of Sensors 2014 (2014): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/859486.

Full text

Abstract:

As part of an investigation on the performance of integral abutment bridges, a single-span, integral abutment, prestressed concrete girder bridge near Perry, Utah was instrumented for live-load testing. The live-load test included driving trucks at 2.24 m/s (5 mph) along predetermined load paths and measuring the corresponding strain and deflection. The measured data was used to validate a finite-element model (FEM) of the bridge. The model showed that the integral abutments were behaving as 94% of a fixed-fixed support. Live-load distribution factors were obtained using this validated model and compared to those calculated in accordance to recommended procedures provided in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2010). The results indicated that if the bridge was considered simply supported, the AASHTO LRFD Specification distribution factors were conservative (in comparison to the FEM results). These conservative distribution factors, along with the initial simply supported design assumption resulted in a very conservative bridge design. In addition, a parametric study was conducted by modifying various bridge properties of the validated bridge model, one at a time, in order to investigate the influence that individual changes in span length, deck thickness, edge distance, skew, and fixity had on live-load distribution. The results showed that the bridge properties with the largest influence on bridge live-load distribution were fixity, skew, and changes in edge distance.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Nikhil, G., and N. I. Narayanan. "Interaction of Blast Load on AASHTO Girder Bridge." Applied Mechanics and Materials 857 (November 2016): 131–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.857.131.

Full text

Abstract:

Guidelines of blast resistant design for AASHTO girder bridges have not taken up much importance on researches. As the transportation infrastructure mainly bridges are highly vulnerable for bomb attack, they must be designed to resist it. The analysis and design of bridges subjected to blast load requires a detailed understanding of blast propagation and its dynamic effects on various structural elements. The response of bridge components subjected to blast load is carried out using Abaqus explicit finite element software. The bridge is modeled on the basis of AASHTO-LRFD bridge design specification for highway bridges. Blast load has been introduced on different critical location of the bridge to understand their effects on various structural elements and extent of damage. A thorough parametric study varying standoff distance and TNT mass is done to understand their importance in developing a blast resistant design for AASHTO Girder Bridge. The study concludes that the value of maximum displacement decreases with the increase in standoff distance.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Rezaei, Nazanin, and David Garber. "Study of Bridge Demolition DOT Survey and Available Standard Specifications." Advances in Civil Engineering 2019 (April 1, 2019): 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/4896717.

Full text

Abstract:

There are many damaged bridges in the United States which are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and require replacement or rehabilitation, many using accelerated bridge construction (ABC) techniques. Before a bridge is replaced or rehabilitated, the old structure or component needs to first be demolished. Although the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification presents minimum bridge design requirements, there is limited information about bridge demolition available for designers and contractors in this field. More study is required to determine best practices in demolition administration and avoid further unintentional events. This study presents the results from a survey prepared and disseminated through a research effort under the Accelerated Bridge Construction University Transportation Center (ABC-UTC). This survey was sent out to all State Departments of Transportation (DOTs). The results of the survey reveal the need for additional guidance in bridge demolition administrations at a national level. According to the results of this study, contractors are the most important part of bridge demolition projects from injuries, fatalities, and responsibility point of view.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Zokaie, Toorak. "AASHTO-LRFD Live Load Distribution Specifications." Journal of Bridge Engineering 5, no. 2 (May 2000): 131–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1084-0702(2000)5:2(131).

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Barnes, Robert W., J. Michael Stallings, and Paul W. Porter. "Live-Load Response of Alabama’s High-Performance Concrete Bridge." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1845, no. 1 (January 2003): 115–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1845-13.

Full text

Abstract:

Results are reported from live-load tests performed on Alabama’s high-performance concrete (HPC) showcase bridge. Load distribution factors, deflections, and stresses measured during the tests are compared with values calculated using the provisions of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. Measured dynamic amplification of load effects was approximately equal to or less than predicted by both specifications. Distribution factors from both specifications were found to be conservative. Deflections computed according to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications suggestions matched best with the measured deflections — overestimating the maximum deflections by 20% or less. Bottom flange stresses computed with AASHTO distribution factors were significantly larger than measured values. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications provisions suggest a special procedure for computing exterior girder distribution factors in bridges with diaphragms. When two or more lanes were loaded, this special procedure did not reflect the actual behavior of the bridge and resulted in very conservative distribution factors for exterior girders. Further research is recommended to correct this deficiency.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Essen, Donald, and Nurul Musyafa Ulul Hidayah. "COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PLATE GIRDER DESIGNS ON NON-COMPOSITE BRIDGES BETWEEN AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 2017 CODE WITH SNI 1729:2015 CODE." Neutron 20, no. 01 (July 31, 2020): 16–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.29138/neutron.v20i01.45.

Full text

Abstract:

This study aims to the structural design of non-composite plate girders using AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2017 code compared to SNI 1729:2015 code. The span of the bridge used as the object of study is 40 meters with a width of 10 meters. In this study, plate girders are designed based on AASHTO code and SNI code, then also given the loading according to SNI 1725:2016 code, and in the analysis of the structure using CSi Bridge software to get the value of internal forces i.e. Moment Force (Mu) of 3595.38 kNm and Shear Force (Vu) of 449.9968 kNm. The results obtained from this study are the non-composite bridge plate girder designed with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2017 and SNI 1729:2015 obtained the stability requirements of strong boundary conditions flexure design. Then obtained Nominal Moment value (ØMn) of 8016.843 kNm for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2017 and Nominal Moment value (ØMn) of 6081.97 kNm for SNI 1729:2015. From the values obtained it can be concluded that the two regulations produce a safe and strong plan as per the applicable provisions namely Moment (Mu <ØMn).

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Wollmann, Gregor P. "Steel Girder Design per AASHTO LRFD Specifications (Part 1)." Journal of Bridge Engineering 9, no. 4 (July 2004): 364–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1084-0702(2004)9:4(364).

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

More sources

Dissertations / Theses on the topic "AASHTO LRFD specification"

1

Han, Xiao. "Critical Vertical Deflection of Buried HDPE Pipes." Ohio University / OhioLINK, 2017. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ohiou1490790838331014.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Lin, Min. "Verification of AASHTO-LRFD specifications live load distribution factor formulas for HPS bridges /." Cincinnati, Ohio University of Cincinnati, 2004. http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/view.cgi?acc%5Fnum=ucin1108697828.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Lin, Min. "Verification of AASHTO-LRFD Specifications Live Load Distribution Factor Formulas for HPS Bridges." University of Cincinnati / OhioLINK, 2005. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1108697828.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Mohammed, Safiuddin Adil. "Impact of AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications on the design of Type C and AASHTO Type IV girder bridges." Texas A&M University, 2005. http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/4841.

Full text

Abstract:

This research study is aimed at assisting the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in making a transition from the use of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for the design of prestressed concrete bridges. It was identified that Type C and AASHTO Type IV are among the most common girder types used by TxDOT for prestressed concrete bridges. This study is specific to these two types of bridges. Guidelines are provided to tailor TxDOT's design practices to meet the requirements of the LRFD Specifications. Detailed design examples for an AASHTO Type IV girder using both the AASHTO Standard Specifications and AASHTO LRFD Specifications are developed and compared. These examples will serve as a reference for TxDOT bridge design engineers. A parametric study for AASHTO Type IV and Type C girders is conducted using span length, girder spacing, and strand diameter as the major parameters that are varied. Based on the results obtained from the parametric study, two critical areas are identified where significant changes in design results are observed when comparing Standard and LRFD designs. The critical areas are the transverse shear requirements and interface shear requirements, and these are further investigated. The interface shear reinforcement requirements are observed to increase significantly when the LRFD Specifications are used for design. New provisions for interface shear design that have been proposed to be included in the LRFD Specifications in 2007 were evaluated. It was observed that the proposed interface shear provisions will significantly reduce the difference between the interface shear reinforcement requirements for corresponding Standard and LRFD designs.The transverse shear reinforcement requirements are found to be varying marginally in some cases and significantly in most of the cases when comparing LRFD designs to Standard designs. The variation in the transverse shear reinforcement requirement is attributed to differences in the shear models used in the two specifications. The LRFD Specifications use a variable truss analogy based on the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT). The Standard Specifications use a constant 45-degree truss analogy method for its shear design provisions. The two methodologies are compared and major differences are noted.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Adnan, Mohsin. "Impact of AASHTO LRFD specifications on the design of precast, pretensioned u-beam bridges." Texas A&M University, 2005. http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/3096.

Full text

Abstract:

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is currently designing its highway bridge structures using the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, and it is expected that TxDOT will make transition to the use of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications before 2007. The objectives of this portion of the study are to evaluate the current LRFD Specifications to assess the calibration of the code with respect to typical Texas U54 bridge girders, to perform a critical review of the major changes when transitioning to LRFD design, and to recommend guidelines to assist TxDOT in implementing the LRFD Specifications. This study focused only on the service and ultimate limit states and additional limit states were not evaluated. The available literature was reviewed to document the background research relevant to the development of the LRFD Specifications, such that it can aid in meeting the research objectives. Two detailed design examples, for Texas U54 beams using the LRFD and Standard Specifications, were developed as a reference for TxDOT bridge design engineers. A parametric study was conducted for Texas U54 beams to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences between designs using both specifications. Major parameters considered in the parametric study included span length, girder spacing, strand diameter and skew angle. Based on the parametric study supplemented by the literature review, several conclusions were drawn and recommendations were made. The most crucial design issues were significantly restrictive debonding percentages and the limitations of approximate method of load distribution.The current LRFD provisions of debonding percentage of 25 percent per section and 40 percent per row will pose serious restrictions on the design of Texas U54 bridges. This will limit the span capability for the designs incorporating normal strength concretes. Based on previous research and successful past practice by TxDOT, it was recommended that up to 75% of the strands may be debonded, if certain conditions are met. The provisions given in the LRFD Specifications for the approximate load distribution are subject to certain limitations of span length, edge distance parameter (de) and number of beams. If these limitations are violated, the actual load distribution should be determined by refined analysis methods. During the parametric study, several of these limitations were found to be restrictive for typical Texas U54 beam bridges. Two cases with span lengths of 140 ft. and 150 ft., and a 60 degree skew were investigated by grillage analysis method.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Dallakoti, Pramish Shakti. "Structural Reliability Study of Highway Bridge Girders Based on AASTHO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications." University of Toledo / OhioLINK, 2020. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=toledo1588538610400668.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Kim, Young Hoon. "Characterization of Self-Consolidating Concrete for the Design of Precast, Pretensioned Bridge Superstructure Elements." 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2008-12-134.

Full text

Abstract:

Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is a new, innovative construction material that can be placed into forms without the need for mechanical vibration. The mixture proportions are critical for producing quality SCC and require an optimized combination of coarse and fine aggregates, cement, water, and chemical and mineral admixtures. The required mixture constituents and proportions may affect the mechanical properties, bond characteristics, and long-term behavior, and SCC may not provide the same inservice performance as conventional concrete (CC). Different SCC mixture constituents and proportions were evaluated for mechanical properties, shear characteristics, bond characteristics, creep, and durability. Variables evaluated included mixture type (CC or SCC), coarse aggregate type (river gravel or limestone), and coarse aggregate volume. To correlate these results with full-scale samples and investigate structural behavior related to strand bond properties, four girder-deck systems, 40 ft (12 m) long, with CC and SCC pretensioned girders were fabricated and tested. Results from the research indicate that the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor Design (AASHTO LRFD) Specifications can be used to estimate the mechanical properties of SCC for a concrete compressive strength range of 5 to 10 ksi (34 to 70 MPa). In addition, the research team developed prediction equations for concrete compressive strength ranges from 5 to 16 ksi (34 to 110 MPa). With respect to shear characteristics, a more appropriate expression is proposed to estimate the concrete shear strength for CC and SCC girders with a compressive strength greater than 10 ksi (70 MPa). The author found that girder-deck systems with Type A SCC girders exhibit similar flexural performance as deck-systems with CC girders. The AASHTO LRFD (2006) equations for computing the cracking moment, nominal moment, transfer length, development length, and prestress losses may be used for SCC girder-deck systems similar to those tested in this study. For environments exhibiting freeze-thaw cycles, a minimum 16-hour release strength of 7 ksi (48 MPa) is recommended for SCC mixtures.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Books on the topic "AASHTO LRFD specification"

1

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Officials, American Association of State Highway and Transportation. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington, D.C: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1994.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Officials, American Association of State Highway and Transportation. AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, customary U.S. units. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2007.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Wassef, Wagdy G., John M. Kulicki, Hani Nassif, Dennis Mertz, and Andrzej S. Nowak. Calibration of AASHTO LRFD Concrete Bridge Design Specifications for Serviceability. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/22407.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Alan, Puckett Jay, ed. Design of highway bridges: Based on AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. New York: John Wiley, 1997.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Kim, Yail Jimmy. Proposed AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for Light Rail Transit Loads. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/24840.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Puckett, Jay A., Michael G. Garlich, Andrzej (Andy) Nowak, and Michael Barker. Development and Calibration of AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/22240.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Zornberg, Jorge G., Amr M. Morsy, Behdad Mofarraj Kouchaki, Barry Christopher, Dov Leshchinsky, Jie Han, Burak F. Tanyu, Fitsum T. Gebremariam, Panpan Shen, and Yan Jiang. Proposed Refinements to Design Procedures for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Structures in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/25416.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

More sources

Book chapters on the topic "AASHTO LRFD specification"

1

Huang, C. "Incorporation of scour uncertainty to current AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications." In Scour and Erosion IX, 375–82. Taylor & Francis, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9780429020940-54.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Mertz, D. "The fatigue limit states of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications." In Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management and Life-Cycle Optimization, 489. CRC Press, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b10430-377.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Nassif, Hani, Peng Lou, and Paul Truban. "Bridge Safety Assessment for Strength II Limit State in AASHTO LRFD Specifications." In Maintenance, Safety, Risk, Management and Life-Cycle Performance of Bridges, 1200–1203. CRC Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781315189390-162.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Wassef, W., V. Storlie, and J. Kulicki. "Calibration of strength IV limit state in the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications." In Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management and Life Extension, 2136–41. CRC Press, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b17063-328.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Wassef, W., J. Kulicki, and A. Nowak. "Approach for developing calibrated service limit states for the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications." In Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management and Life Extension, 2142–48. CRC Press, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b17063-329.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Kulicki, J., W. Wassef, A. Nowak, and D. Mertz. "Approach for developing calibrated service limit states for the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications." In Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management and Life-Cycle Optimization, 558. CRC Press, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b10430-436.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Chen, Genmiao, Jingjuan Li, George Morcous, and Andrzej S. Nowak. "Reliability Analysis of Prestressed Bridge Girders: Comparison of Chinese Codes (1989), (2004), and AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2005)." In Bridge design, construction and maintenance, 153–62. Thomas Telford Publishing, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/bdcam.35935.0017.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Conference papers on the topic "AASHTO LRFD specification"

1

Wacker, James P., and James S. Groenier. "Designing Timber Highway Bridge Superstructures Using AASHTO-LRFD Specifications." In Structures Congress 2007. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40946(248)86.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Withiam, J. L. "Implementation of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for Substructure Design." In Proceedings of the International Workshop. WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789812704252_0019.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Hawkins, Neil, and Daniel Kuchma. "Recent Changes to Concrete Shear Strength Provisions of AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specifications." In Structures Congress 2008. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41016(314)11.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Rossini, Marco, Antonio Nanni, Fabio Matta, Steven Nolan, William Potter, and Derek Hess. "Overview of AASHTO Design Specifications for GFRP-RC Bridges 2nd Edition: Toledo Bridge as Case Study." In IABSE Symposium, Guimarães 2019: Towards a Resilient Built Environment Risk and Asset Management. Zurich, Switzerland: International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE), 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.2749/guimaraes.2019.1214.

Full text

Abstract:

<p>Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars are a viable corrosion-resistant reinforcement for concrete bridge structures. This technology is becoming increasingly attractive, especially in aggressive environments as coastal areas or cold-weathered regions where de-icing salts are used.</p><p>The development of a bridge-comprehensive national standard is crucial to foster the deployment of durable GFRP-RC structures. To respond to this demand, a task force of researchers and practitioners has developed a draft for the second edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for GFRP-RC (AASHTO GFRP-2). The draft was submitted to AASHTO Subcommittee T6 and approved for publication by AASHTO Committee on Bridge and Structures in June 2018.</p><p>Compared to the first 2009 edition of the guidelines, changes were introduced to reflect the current state-of-the-art. The goals included making the provisions more rational, offsetting some over- conservativeness, and harmonizing the design philosophy with that of authoritative national and international guides and standards.</p><p>This paper illustrates the salient contents of the document, with a focus on flexural design. The GFRP-RC deck of the Anthony Wayne Trail Bridge over Norfolk Southern Railroad (OH) is presented as an example of a common application for GFRP bars in cold-weathered regions. The design with GFRP bars according to AASHTO GFRP-2 is compared to an equivalent design performed according to the first edition of the specifications. Furthermore, the design is compared to traditional and non- corrosive steel-RC alternatives. Economic considerations are included.</p>

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Anderson, Donald G., Geoffrey R. Martin, I. P. Lam, and J. N. Wang. "Proposed Changes to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for the Seismic Design of Retaining Walls." In Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Congress IV. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40975(318)162.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Haussner, Christian, Takayuki Omori, and Nobuyuki Matsumoto. "Designing Seismic Resilient Railway Structures Combining Japanese Seismic and ASHTO Design Standards." In IABSE Congress, New York, New York 2019: The Evolving Metropolis. Zurich, Switzerland: International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE), 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.2749/newyork.2019.1449.

Full text

Abstract:

<p>This paper introduces the seismic design conducted for the railway viaducts in a highly seismic region in Metro Manila, Philippines, in accordance with the local bridge seismic design standard (DPWH-BSDS, 2013), AASHTO Guide Specifications for Load Resistance Factor Design Seismic Bridge Design (LRFD-S) and the Japanese Seismic Design Standard for Railway Structures and Commentary (JDSRS) for making reference to the anti-derailment check under Level 1 Earthquakes (1:100 return period).</p><p>The authors concluded that for level 1 earthquakes the seismic design for short piers (h<10m) and piers located in stiff soils, the seismic design was governed by the DPWH-BSDS and AASHTO LRFD-S due to its larger seismic coefficient for structures with short natural periods. Therefore, the initial structural sizes, reinforcement arrangement and number of piles did not need to be modified. On the other hand however, tall piers (h>10m) located in soft soils, the design is governed by the JDSRS due to its stipulated larger seismic coefficients for structures with a longer natural periods. In this regard, in order to limit the transverse natural period requirements of the JDSRS as part of the anti-derailment check, the sub-structural members needed to be increased in size by approximately 20% - 50%, re-arrange the pier steel reinforcement, and to increase the number of bored piles.</p>

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Roy, Sougata, and Frank A. Artmont. "Design Guidelines for Bolted Single Support Bar Modular Bridge Joint Systems." In IABSE Conference, Kuala Lumpur 2018: Engineering the Developing World. Zurich, Switzerland: International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE), 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.2749/kualalumpur.2018.0709.

Full text

Abstract:

<p>A comprehensive experimental and analytical study was performed to characterize the dynamic behavior of typical bolted single support bar (SSB) modular bridge joint systems (MBJS) under wheel loads and to determine the fatigue resistance of the center beam-support bar (CB-SB) connections within these systems. The study included static and fatigue testing of full-size SSB systems in the laboratory, characterization of suitable material models for the nonlinear rate-dependent polymeric components, static analyses of the tested system, and parametric 3D Finite Element Analyses (FEAs) of systems subjected to dynamic loading. The study established the infinite life fatigue resistance of bolted CB-SB connections as that of AASHTO Category B, characterized the behavior of the CB-SB connection and the influence of joint precompression level and polymeric materials, and quantified the dynamic amplification factor (DAF) for SSB MBJS as a function of the system parameters. Design guidelines for SSB MBJS were developed, and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design and Construction Specifications were revised based on the key findings of this study.</p>

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Nieto, Félix, Santiago Hernández, José Á. Jurado, and Luis E. Romera. "Code Provisions for Wind Loads on Short Road Bridges: Spanish IAP code, UNE-EN 1991-1-4 and 2007 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications." In Structures Congress 2010. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41130(369)192.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Reports on the topic "AASHTO LRFD specification"

1

Connor, Robert J., and Cem Korkmaz. Fatigue Categorization of Obliquely Oriented Welded Attachments. Purdue University, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284317210.

Full text

Abstract:

In current bridge design specifications and evaluation manuals from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO LRFD) (AASHTO, 2018), the detail category for base metal at the toe of transverse stiffener-to-flange fillet welds and transverse stiffener-to-web fillet welds to the direction of the web and hence, the primary stress) is Category C′. In skewed bridges or various other applications, there is sometimes a need to place the stiffener or a connection plate at an angle that is not at 90 degrees to the web. As the plate is rotated away from being 90 degrees to the web, the effective “length” of the stiffener in the longitudinal direction increases. However, AASHTO is currently silent on how to address the possible effects on fatigue performance for other angles in between these two extremes. This report summarizes an FEA study that was conducted in order to investigate and determine the fatigue category for welded attachments that are placed at angles other than 0 or 90 degrees for various stiffener geometries and thicknesses. Recommendations on how to incorporate the results into the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are included in this report.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!