A Discussion Of Inconsistencies Between Lrfd And Asd Methods For Geostructural Design Applications Of The Aashto Bridge Design Specifications

In the latest AASHTO design specifications, the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method is prescribed for the design of retaining walls. However, inconsistencies arise when LRFD is used for retaining wall design versus the traditional Allowable Stress Design (ASD). Required toe embedment and wall loading demand vary greatly when the two design approaches are compared, all else being equal. This is due to application of linear load factors to properties that vary non-linearly in the design. These inherent inconsistencies are further intensified when introducing factors such as layered soil profiles, different wall types, groundwater elevation, and surcharge requirements. When applied correctly, these two design approaches, in theory, should lead the designer to the same result with little discrepancy, as they do with steel structure design. However, the use of the current AASHTO LRFD method for various geostructural retaining wall designs yields contradictory results that suggest existing retaining walls that have been successfully designed and constructed are unstable. Fundamentally, LRFD should be built on reliability-based calibrations; the successful past performance of existing retaining structures designed using ASD suggests that the LRFD approach requires considerable modification. The authors of this paper recommend that the current LRFD load factors be reviewed and revised based on more comprehensive wall performance data and wall type such that the difference between retaining structures designed using LRFD and those designed using ASD is eliminated.