Scribd
Upload
86 views21 pages

3.76 LRFDtitle

This document summarizes design guidelines for concrete pile cap non-integral end bents. It includes sections on general material properties, design considerations like limit states and factors, and loads to consider. It also describes design assumptions and provides details on components like front sheets, beams, and wing bracing.

Uploaded by

Nurali Mamen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
86 views21 pages

3.76 LRFDtitle

This document summarizes design guidelines for concrete pile cap non-integral end bents. It includes sections on general material properties, design considerations like limit states and factors, and loads to consider. It also describes design assumptions and provides details on components like front sheets, beams, and wing bracing.

Uploaded by

Nurali Mamen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 21

LRFD

Section 3.76

Revised: May 2006

CLICK HERE TO Index


LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines
Concrete Pile Cap Non-Integral End Bents– Section 3.76 Page: i-1
Index

3.76.1 General
1.1 Material Properties

3.76.2 Design
2.1 Limit States and Factors
2.2 Loads
2.3 Design Assumptions

3.76.3 Details
3.1 Front Sheet
3.2 Wide Flange Beams, Plate Girders and Prestressed Girders
3.3 Wing Brace Details
3.4 Exploded View of the End Bent

New: Jan. 2005


LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines
Concrete Pile Cap Non-Integral End Bents – Sec. 3.76 Page: 1.1-1
Design

3.76.1 General

1.1 Material Properties


Concrete
Class B Concrete (Substructure) f’c = 3.0 ksi
n = 10

Class B-1 Concrete (Substructure) may also be used in special cases


(See Project Manager). The following equations shall apply to both
concrete classes:

E c = 33000 K 1 wc
1.5
LRFD 5.4.2.4 Concrete modulus of elasticity, f 'c
Where:
wc = unit weight of non-reinforced concrete = 0.145 kcf
K1 = correction factor for source of aggregate = 1.0.

LRFD 5.4.2.6 Modulus of rupture: For minimum reinforcement, f r = 0.37 f ' c


For all other calculations, f r = 0.24 f ' c
f ' c is in units of ksi.

Reinforcing Steel
Minimum yield strength, ƒy = 60.0 ksi
LRFD 5.4.3.2 Steel modulus of elasticity, Es = 29000 ksi

New: Jan. 2005


LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines
Concrete Pile Cap Non-Integral End Bents – Section 3.76 Page: 2.1-1
Design

3.76.2 Design
2.1 Limit States and Factors
In general, each component shall satisfy the following equation:

LRFD 1.3.2.1 Q= ∑η i γ i Q i ≤ φ Rn = Rr

Where:
Q= Total factored force effect
Qi = Force effect
ηi = Load modifier
γi = Load factor
φ = Resistance factor
Rn = Nominal resistance
Rr = Factored resistance

LRFD 5.5 Limit States


The following limit states shall be considered for abutment design:

STRENGTH – I
STRENGTH – III
STRENGTH – IV
STRENGTH – V
SERVICE – I
FATIGUE

See LRFD Table 3.4.1-1 and LRFD 3.4.2 for Loads and Load
Factors applied at each given limit state.

Resistance factors
LRFD 6.5.4.2 & 5.5.4.2 STRENGTH limit states, see LRFD 6.5.4.2 and LRFD 5.5.4.2
LRFD 1.3.2.1 For all other limit states, φ = 1.00

LRFD 1.3.2.1 Load Modifiers


For loads where a maximum value of load factor is appropriate:
η = (ηI ηR ηD) ≥ 0.95
For loads where a minimum value of load factor is appropriate:
η = 1 / (ηI ηR ηD) ≤ 1.0
Where:
LRFD 1.3.3 ηD = Factor relating to ductility
LRFD 1.3.4 ηR = Factor relating to redundancy
LRFD 1.3.5 ηI = Factor relating to operational importance

New: Jan. 2005


LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines
Concrete Pile Cap Non-Integral End Bents – Section 3.76 Page: 2.1-2
Design

Table 3.76.2.1 Load modifiers


All Limit States
Ductility, ηD 1.0
Redundancy, ηR 1.0
Operational importance, ηI 1.0
η = (ηI ηR ηD) 1.0
η = 1 / (ηI ηR ηD) 1.0

New: Jan. 2005


LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines
Concrete Pile Cap Non-Integral End Bents – Sec. 3.76 Page: 2.2-1
Design

2.2 Loads
See LRFD DG Sec. 1.2 Loads for distribution and magnitudes of loads to
be applied for abutment design.

Dead Loads
Loads from stringers, girders, etc. shall be applied as concentrated
loads applied at the centerline of bearing. Loads from concrete slab
spans shall be applied as uniformly distributed loads.

Live Loads
Loads from stringers, girders, etc. shall be applied as concentrated
loads applied at the centerline of bearing. Dynamic load allowance
(impact) should be included for the design of the beam. No dynamic
load allowance should be included for foundation design.

For wings with detached wing walls, no portion of the bridge live load
shall be distributed to the detached wall. The detached wing wall
shall be designed as a retaining wall as specified in LRFD DG Sec.
3.62. The weight of the safety barrier curb on top of the wall shall be
included in the dead load.

Collision
LRFD 3.6.5.2 Collision shall be designed if abutments are located within a distance
of 30.0 feet to the edge of roadway, or within a distance of 50.0 feet
to the centerline of a railway track and conditions do not qualify for
exemptions given in LRFD DG Sec. 1.2.2.5-2. If designed for, the
collision force shall be a static force of 400 kips assumed to act in
any direction in a horizontal plane, at a distance of 4.0 feet above
ground.

Temperature
The force due to expansion or contraction applied at bearing pads
are not used for stability or pile bearing computations. However, the
movement due to temperature should be considered in the bearing
pad design and expansion device design.

New: Jan. 2005

You might also like