Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M REPORT S2-R19B-RW-1 Bridges for Service Life Beyond 100 Years: Service Limit State Design Modjeski and Masters, inc. with University of nebraska, LincoLn University of deLaware ncs consULtants, LLc
Subject Areas Bridges and Other Structures Highways Maintenance and Preservation Materials Figure 2.1 Credit With the permission of the Canadian Standards Association (operating as CSA Group), material is repro- duced from CSA Group standard CAN/CSA S6-06, âCanadian Highway Bridge Design Code,â which is copyrighted by CSA Group, 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga ON, L4W 5N6. This material is not the complete and official position of CSA Group on the referenced subject, which is represented solely by the standard in its entirety. While use of the material has been authorized, CSA is not responsible for the manner in which the data is presented, nor for any interpretations thereof. For more information or to purchase standards from CSA Group, please visit http://shop.csa.ca/ or call 1-800-463-6727.
SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.mytrb.org/store Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2 SHRP 2 Report S2-R19B-RW-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-27375-6 Â© 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copy- right to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular prod- uct, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in âwâ are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The Second Strategic Highway Research Program Americaâs highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technologyâsuch as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection tech- nologies, and human factors scienceâoffer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to com- plement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new trans- portation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memo- randum of understanding among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org
SHRP 2 STAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Cynthia Allen, Editor Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety Jared Cazel, Editorial Assistant JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Richard Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. At various times the project was managed by Monica Starnes, Mark Bush, and Jerry DiMaggio. Because of the close relationship between this project and NCHRP Project 12-83, information and report sections were freely exchanged between the two projects. NCHRP 12-83 is being managed by Waseem Dekelbab, and the principal investigator is Wagdy G. Wassef of Modjeski and Masters, Inc. The research described in this report was performed by Modjeski and Masters, Inc., supported by the University of Nebraska, Lincoln; the University of Delaware; and NCS Consultants, LLC. John M. Kulicki of Modjeski and Masters, Inc., was the principal investigator. Other authors are Wagdy G. Wassef of Modjeski and Masters, Inc.; Andrzej S. Nowak of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln; Dennis R. Mertz of the University of Delaware; Naresh C. Samtani of NCS Consultants; and through his participation in NCHRP Project 12-83, Hani Nassif of Rutgers University. The following graduate students contributed to this project at different times: Marek Kozikowski, Przemyslaw Rakoczy, Krzysztof Waszczuk, and Anna Maria Rakoczy of the University of Nebraska; Dustin M. Schopen and Benjamin Berwick of the University of Delaware; and Dan Su of Rutgers University.
This report, Bridges for Service Life Beyond 100 Years: Service Limit State Design, describes research, outcomes, and products on the basis of the R19B project objectives. The objectives were to develop design and detailing guidance and calibrated service limit states (SLSs) to provide 100-year bridge life and to develop a framework for further development of cali- brated SLSs. The products of this study are expected to be directly usable by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and departments of transportation (DOTs) and include â¢ Provisions needed to implement SLSs and the associated load and resistance factors necessary to produce calibrated bridge components and systems expected to have a predictable service life. â¢ Detailed design and detailing provisions required to design and construct the calibrated component or system. â¢ Databases used in the calibration, as well as instructions for a calibration spreadsheet, for use by DOTs to track and adjust service-based reliability with time. Consideration of SLSs requires different input data from the previously calibrated Strength Limit State I (also known as âultimate or strength limit states,â or ULSs). In ULSs, the limit state function is defined by resistance, which is considered constant in time, and loads. For SLSs, a different approach is needed because â¢ Exceeding a service limit state does not lead to a clear, immediate loss of functionality. â¢ Acceptable performance can be subjective (full life-cycle analysis is required). â¢ Resistance and load effects can be and often are correlated. â¢ Load must be considered to be a function of time, described by magnitude and frequency of occurrence. â¢ Resistance may be strongly affected by quality of workmanship, operation procedures, and maintenance. â¢ Resistance is subject to changes in time, mostly but not only by deterioration. â¢ Resistance can depend on geographical location (e.g., climate, exposure to industrial pollu- tion, or deicing agents). The topic of limit state design, also known as load resistance factor design (LRFD), within the United States has been under development and implementation for more than 25 years. The benefits of this design platform are now well understood by the bridge and structures com- munity as well as by transportation decision makers. Generally, it has been assumed that main- tenance activities will be sufficient to prevent significant loss of the strength and stiffness that would result in unsatisfactory service level performance. It has been recognized that advance- ments and further maturity of the LRFD platform need to focus on quantification and calibra- tions of the SLSs. Although previous work has been published in this area, the R19B study serves as a foundational reference to partially fill knowledge gaps and, perhaps more importantly, for direct application and reference for future study in this emerging technical area of design. F O R EWO R D Jerry A. DiMaggio, D.GE, PE, SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer, Renewal
C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 4 CHAPTER 1 Purpose of Report and Relation to Scope 4 1.1 Objectives of Project R19B 5 1.2 Scope 6 1.3 Research Team 7 1.4 Relationship of Project R19B to Project R19A 7 1.5 Relationship of Project R19B to NCHRP Project 12-83 7 1.6 Special Challenges Related to SLSs 9 1.7 Serviceability Versus Deterioration 9 1.8 Durability 12 1.9 Initial Coordination with FHWA Long-Term Bridge Performance Program 13 1.10 Dialogue with AASHTO HSCOBS and Others 14 CHAPTER 2 Current State of the Art 14 2.1 Approach 14 2.2 Summary of Literature Survey 18 2.3 Serviceability Requirements in Several Modern Bridge Design Specifications 44 2.4 Surveys of Current Practice 47 2.5 SLSs to Be Considered in This Report 48 CHAPTER 3 Overview of Calibration Process 48 3.1 Introduction 49 3.2 Calibration by Determination of Reliability Indices 54 3.3 âDeemed to Satisfyâ 55 3.4 Customizing the Process 56 CHAPTER 4 Deterioration 56 4.1 Introduction 56 4.2 Bolukbasi et al. (2004) 60 4.3 Jiang and Sinha (1989) 62 4.4 Hatami and Morcous (2011) 62 4.5 Comparison of Equations from Bolukbasi et al. (2004), Jiang and Sinha (1989), and Hatami and Morcous (2011) 69 4.6 Agrawal and Kawaguchi (2009) 78 4.7 Stukhart et al. (1991) 88 4.8 Massachusetts DOT 94 CHAPTER 5 Live Load for Calibration 94 5.1 Development of Live Load Models for Service Limit States 99 5.2 Initial Data Analysis 111 5.3 Statistical Parameters for Service Limit States Other than Fatigue
121 5.4 Development of Statistical Parameters of Fatigue Load 143 5.5 Development of Overload (Service II) Parameters 145 CHAPTER 6 Calibration Results 145 6.1 Foundation Deformations, Service I: Lifetime 171 6.2 Cracking of Reinforced Concrete Components, Service I Limit State: Annual Probability 176 6.3 Live Load Deflections, Service I: Annual Probability 180 6.4 Overload, Service II: Annual Probability 188 6.5 Tension in Prestressed Concrete Beams, Service III Limit State: Annual Probability 208 6.6 Fatigue Limit States: Lifetime 217 CHAPTER 7 Proposed Changes to AASHTO LRFD 218 7.1 Foundation DeformationsâService I 233 7.2 Live Load Response 238 7.3 Premature Yielding and Slip of BoltsâService II 240 7.4 Cracking of Prestressed ConcreteâCurrently Service III 243 7.5 Fatigue 260 CHAPTER 8 Purpose and Contents of Appendix F 261 CHAPTER 9 Summary and Recommendations 261 9.1 Summary 262 9.2 Recommendations 262 9.3 Implementation 263 References 269 Appendix A. SLS Requirements in the Eurocode 292 Appendix B. SHRP 2 R19B Survey of Bridge Owners 304 Appendix C. Comparison of Crack Width Prediction Equations for Prestressed Concrete Members 310 Appendix D. Derivation of the Resistance Prediction Equation of Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders 313 Appendix E. Normal Probability Plots of Fatigue Data for the Various Detail Categories 322 Appendix F. Data Used for Calibration