2010Bridge StructuresRequires access

Comparison of AASHTO LRFD and ASD specifications for structural design of cantilever abutments and retaining walls

Steven Esposito, Husam Najm

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specification became the mandatory design specifications for United States highway structures in October 2007. This has introduced a number of changes in mandatory engineering design and analysis procedures. The differences between the allowable stress design (ASD) standard specifications and the LRFD specification are evaluated in this paper, as well as how they apply to earth retaining structure design. The effect of the new design standards on structural proportioning and cost were examined through several design examples. The difference between the LRFD specifications and the ASD standard specifications was insignificant for cantilever abutments and retaining walls 4.6 m and taller. However, an increase in footing length of about 30% and an increase in cost of approximately 10% of the cost of the retaining structures can result from designing shorter abutments and retaining walls using the LRFD specifications. While in some designs, these cost impacts to a structure can be significant, the AASHTO LRFD specifications provides a safe and reliable design method of paramount importance to engineers and the public.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specification became the mandatory design specifications for United States highway structures in October 2007. This has introduced a number of changes in mandatory engineering design and analysis procedures. The differences between the allowable stress design (ASD) standard specifications and the LRFD specification are evaluated in this paper, as well as how they apply to earth retaining structure design. The effect of the new design standards on structural proportioning and cost were examined through several design examples. The difference between the LRFD specifications and the ASD standard specifications was insignificant for cantilever abutments and retaining walls 4.6 m and taller. However, an increase in footing length of about 30% and an increase in cost of approximately 10% of the cost of the retaining structures can result from designing shorter abutments and retaining walls using the LRFD specifications. While in some designs, these cost impacts to a structure can be significant, the AASHTO LRFD specifications provides a safe and reliable design method of paramount importance to engineers and the public.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specification became the mandatory design specifications for United States highway structures in October 2007. This has introduced a number of changes in mandatory engineering design and analysis procedures. The differences between the allowable stress design (ASD) standard specifications and the LRFD specification are evaluated in this paper, as well as how they apply to earth retaining structure design. The effect of the new design standards on structural proportioning and cost were examined through several design examples. The difference between the LRFD specifications and the ASD standard specifications was insignificant for cantilever abutments and retaining walls 4.6 m and taller. However, an increase in footing length of about 30% and an increase in cost of approximately 10% of the cost of the retaining structures can result from designing shorter abutments and retaining walls using the LRFD specifications. While in some designs, these cost impacts to a structure can be significant, the AASHTO LRFD specifications provides a safe and reliable design method of paramount importance to engineers and the public.

Key concepts: Cantilever, Engineering, Structural engineering, Retaining wall, Forensic engineering

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of AASHTO LRFD and ASD specifications for structural design of cantilever abutments and retaining walls — Research Paper | ScholarLens