reliability of highway girder bridges
TRANSCRIPT
RELIABILITY OF HIGHWAY GIRDER BRIDGES
By Sami W. Tabsh1 and Andrzej S. Nowak,2 Member, ASCE
ABSTRACT: Reliablity procedures are developed for girder bridges. Load models are based on the available statistical data. The derivation of load models is described in other papers. Resistance models are developed by simulations using the available test results for materials and components. The girder behavior is described by a moment curvature relationship. Bridge capacity is determined in terms of the maximum truck load before failure. The analysis is performed for a single unit truck, a semitrailer, and combinations of these trucks. For a given truck position, the load is gradually increased until the deformation (maximum deflection) exceeds the critical level. The developed resistance models are used in the reliability analysis. Reliability indices are calculated for noncomposite and composite steel girders, reinforced concrete T-beams, and prestressed concrete girders. The calculations are performed for girders and structural systems. Reliability indices for the system are higher than for girders. The effect of correlation between girder strengths is analyzed. Girder bridges behave as parallel systems. Sensitivity functions are developed for various parameters related to the considered girders. The developed approach is demonstrated on typical girder bridges.
INTRODUCTION
There is a growing need for efficient methods for evaluation of bridge performance. Load and resistance parameters are random variables. Therefore, deterministic approaches usually do not reveal the actual safety reserve. On the other hand, in the past 20 years, probabilistic methods were developed and are available for practical applications. The objective of this paper is to present a practical procedure to calculate the reliability for girder bridges.
The analysis utilizes the available statistical data on bridge load and resistance. The basic parameters describing a random variable are the mean and standard deviation. It is convenient to use nondimensional parameters, bias factor, and the coefficient of variation. Bias factor is the ratio of mean to nominal, where nominal is the design value and the coefficient of variation is the ratio of standard deviation and the mean. The load model is based on truck-weight surveys. Resistance (load-carrying capacity) is considered for steel girders (noncomposite and composite), reinforced concrete T-beams, and prestressed concrete girders. The moment-curvature relationships are developed using the incremental load approach. The interaction between the girders is considered in calculation of the system reliability.
Structural reliability is measured in terms of the reliability index. Calculations are performed for a wide spectrum of girder bridges, including structural members (girders) and whole systems.
LOAD MODEL
The loads on a highway bridge include dead load, D, live load, L, dynamic load, / , environmental loads, and special loads (breaking and collision
'Struct. Engr., Gannett Fleming, Inc., Harrisburg, PA 17105; formerly, Grad. Stud. Res. Asst., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
2Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Note. Discussion open until January 1, 1992. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on January 22, 1990. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 8, August, 1991. ©ASCE, ISSN0733-9445/91/0008-2372/$1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper No. 26075.
2372
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
8000
7000
E" 6000
£" ^ J, g 5000
CO
£ *~ 4000 o II E -° "J 3000
2000
1000
0 0 100 200
Span (ft) ( 1 f t „ 3 0 5 m m )
FIG. 1. Live-Load Moments versus Span Length: Mean Maximum 75-Year Moment, Mean Maximum One-Month Moment, and HS-20 Moment {Standards 1989)
forces). For short and medium spans, dead load, live load, and dynamic load dominate the design. The live-load effect also depends on truck position and distribution factors.
Dead load is the weight of structural and nonstructural members. Because of differences in the statistical parameters, it is convenient to distinguish between factory-made members (steel and precast concrete), cast-in-place members (T-beams, slab), and wearing surface (asphalt). In this study, the mean-to-nominal ratio was taken to be 1.03 for factory-made members and 1.05 for cast-in-place members, with the coefficient of variation, V, equal to 0.08 and 0.10, respectively. The mean asphalt thickness was assumed equal to 3.5 in. (90 mm) and V equal to 0.15.
The live-load model was developed by Nowak and Hong (1991). It is based on the Ontario truck survey data (Agarwal and Wolkowicz 1976). Other available data were also considered in the load analysis, in particular weigh-in-motion (WIM) measurements from Wisconsin and Florida, and Michigan State Police citation files. The model includes the effect of multiple presence (in lane and side by side). It was determined that the maximum 75-year live load is the result of two trucks side by side, with correlated weights, each corresponding to a maximum monthly truck. The moments (per lane) due to the maximum 75-year truck, maximum monthly truck, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (Standard 1989) HS-20 truck are shown in Fig. 1 for spans up to 200 ft (60 m). For the maximum 75-year live load, the coefficient of variation is 0.14.
The mean maximum 75-year live load was derived for individual girders (Nowak and Hong 1991). The calculations were performed using a finite element procedure. AASHTO (Standard 1989) girder distribution factor is, in most cases, s/5.5, where s = girder spacing. The actual distribution is a nonlinear function of s. Therefore, the resulting' mean-to-nominal live load ratios vary depending on girder spacing. The coefficient of variation ex-
75 Year Moment
2373
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
Strain Structural Steel
Strain Prestressing Steel
Stress
Strain Reinforcing Steel
Strain Concrete
FIG. 2. Typical Stress-Strain Diagrams for Steel and Concrete
pressing the uncertainty in live-load analysis (analysis or influence factor) is 0.12.
The dynamic load model was developed by Hwang and Nowak (1991). It is based on bridge tests and numerical simulations. The dynamic load depends on three major factors: bridge dynamics, vehicle dynamics, and road roughness. In practice, it is very difficult to evaluate the contribution of these factors. It was observed that dynamic load (as a fraction of live load) is reduced for multiple trucks and for heavy trucks. In this study dynamic load is treated as an additional static equivalent added to live load. Based on the results of bridge tests and analytical simulations, it is further assumed that the mean maximum dynamic load is 0.15 of the mean maximum 75-year live load with a coefficient of variation of 0.8.
The total load, Q, is a combination of D, L, and /,
Q = D + L + I (1)
The mean of Q is a sum of means of its components and the variance is a sum of variances. Q = a sum of three components (1), therefore it is treated as a normal random variable.
RESISTANCE MODELS
Resistance, R, is considered as a product of three factors: material properties (strength), fabrication (dimensions), and professional (analysis). The statistical parameters were derived on the basis of the available data. As a product, the distribution of R is treated as lognormal.
The capacity of a bridge depends on the resistance of its components and connections. The major parameters include span length, number of girders, girder spacing, and transverse stiffeners (number and position of diaphragms). The component resistance is determined mostly by material strength and dimensions.
2374
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
TABLE 1. Statistical Parameters of Material Properties
Variable
(1)
Fy
fy f, fp. fc f'c E,
Nominal (ksi) (2)
36 40 60
270 3 5
29,000
Mean (ksi) (3)
38 45 67
281 2.76
4.03 29,000
Mean-to-nominal ratio (4)
1.055 1.125 1.115 1.04 0.92
0.805 1.0
V (5)
0.10 0.12 0.10 0.025 0.18 0.15 0.06
Note: 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
In this study, the behavior of girder bridges is considered at two levels. The first level involves the failure analysis of a single girder. The second level requires the analysis of the whole bridge as a structural system.
Material Properties Four basic materials are considered in the paper: structural steel, rein
forcing steel, prestressing steel, and concrete. Typical stress-strain relationships are shown in Fig. 2. The statistical parameters for material and fabrication variables were derived from the available test data (Ellingwood et al. 1980; Kennedy and Baker 1984; Siriaksorn 1980) and by analysis. The most important ones include yield stress for structural steel, Fy, yield stress for reinforcing steel, fy, ultimate prestressing stress, fps, compressive strength of concrete, f'c, and modulus of elasticity of steel, Es. The nominal (design) values, means, and coefficients of variation are shown in Table 1. Dimensions were also considered. It was observed that the mean-to-nominal ratio is 1.0 and the coefficient of variation is very small, 0.01-0.02 in most cases.
Girder Resistance Moment-curvature relationship is developed for bridge girders using the
strain incremental approach. The girder cross section is idealized by a set
I
[
Actual Section Idealized Section
FIG. 3. Actual and Idealized Girder Section
2375
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
[L + O
n - q
M- = Mean a = Standard Deviation
0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008
Curvature (rad/ln) (1ln = 25mm)
FIG. 4. Moment versus Curvature for Noncomposite W36 x 210 Steel Section
4800-
(i =Mean a = Standard Deviation
0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004
Curvature (rad/ln) (1ln = 25mm)
FIG. 5. Moment versus Curvature for Composite W36 x 210 Steel Section
of uniform layers, as shown in Fig. 3. For each strain level the corresponding stress diagram is generated using the nonlinear stress-strain relationships for the materials (Fig. 2). The position of a neutral axis is determined from the force equilibrium equation. Strain is increased gradually by increments and the procedure is continued until an ultimate strain of 0.0035 at the top of the concrete slab is reached. Tensile strength of concrete is neglected (below neutral axis). For steel girders, compact sections are considered.
The realization of moment versus curvature depends on material properties and geometry. Moment-curvature relationships were generated for the considered types of girders. Thousands of Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the statistical parameters for materials (Table 1) (Tabsh 1990).
2376
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
I to m
FIG.
H + a
H r H - a
H = Mean a = Standard Deviation
1 1 i 1 1 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004
Curvature (rad/ln) (1ln = 25mm)
6. Moment versus Curvature for Reinforced Concrete T-Beam
1 II
i
? A
I
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 Q 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 m
Curvature (rad/ln) (1ln = 25mm)
FIG. 7. Moment versus Curvature for Prestressed Concrete AASHTO Type III Girder
TABLE 2. Statistical Parameters of Girder Resistance Girder type (1)
Noncomposite steel Composite steel Reinforced concrete Prestressed concrete
Mean-to-nominal ratio (2)
1.11 1.10 1.14 1.05
V (3)
0.115 0.12 0.13 0.075
2377
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
M
Curvature
FIG. 8. Bilinear Idealization of Moment-Curvature Relationship for Composite Steel Girder
The results of these simulations are summarized in Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7 for noncomposite steel girder, composite steel girder, reinforced concrete T-beam, and prestressed concrete girder, respectively. Three curves are shown for each girder. The middle one represents the mean, the other two are one standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the mean. The statistical parameters of resistance (moment carrying capacity) are summarized in Table 2. Nominal moment carrying capacities are calculated using the AASHTO specifications (Standard 1989).
System Resistance Bridge capacity is usually defined in terms of the ultimate truck weight
that can be carried by the structure. However, this definition depends on truck configuration, truck weight distribution to axles, and truck position on the bridge. Furthermore, the maximum load effect is often due to multiple trucks (e.g., two trucks side by side). For a given truck (or trucks) type and position on the bridge, the bridge capacity can be determined by gradually increasing axle loads until deformations exceed acceptable values.
A nonlinear analysis of girder bridges was performed using the grid model and the direct stiffness method. The work is a continuation of the approach suggested by Tantawi (1986). System resistance is calculated for composite steel girders. Moment-curvature relationship for the girders is idealized by a bilinear model, as shown in Fig. 8. In Fig. 8, M* = the average of plastic moment and ultimate moment. Linear analysis is used to determine the load level corresponding to the first plastic hinge. Then, the stiffness matrix is updated and additional loading is applied until the next plastic hinge is formed. The procedure is repeated until either a large level of permanent deformation or an unstable grid is obtained.
The two most common truck configurations are used in this study: a single unit and a semitrailer (Moses and Garson 1973). The axle spacings and weight distributions of each truck type are shown in Fig. 9. When the wheel load
2378
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
20%
(a)
• U U if IT U W
40% (each) 11.1% 22.2% (each) 22.2% (each) (V o 0.3m)
(b)
FIG. 9. Truck Configurations Used in System Reliability Analysis: (a) Single-Unit Truck; (h) Semitrailer Truck
ouu -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0 -
H + a
-~ .... I ' ^~
1 1 I )x = mean
/ a = standard deviation
— L i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Maximum Bridge Deflection (ft) (1ft = 0.3m)
FIG. 10. Truck Load versus Maximum Bridge Deflection
position does not coincide with a grid node, then a linear distribution in the longitudinal direction is assumed. However, a nonlinear load distribution is considered in the transverse direction.
The system resistance is defined as the ultimate weight of a combination of trucks. For short spans only one truck per lane is considered, a single unit, S or a semitrailer, T. For longer spans, the following combinations are considered for each lane: S, T, SS, TT, and ST. For multilane cases, various side-by-side combinations of lane loads are considered. For each truck combination, the ultimate load is calculated. The obtained resistances are compared with extreme load values calculated using the available statistical models
2379
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
(Nowak and Hong 1991), The governing combination is used in the system reliability analysis.
The system resistance is a random variable. The variation is determined by variation in moment curvature for girders, and properties of the connecting media (slab and transverse stiffeners). The statistical parameters of the system resistance are obtained using a special sampling technique (Zhou and Nowak 1988). Load-deflection curves for a composite steel girder bridge are shown in Fig. 10. The span is 60 ft (18 m) with five W33 X 118 girders spaced at 8 ft (2.4 m). The middle curve represents the mean. The other two curves are one standard deviation above and below the mean.
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Reliability analysis starts with the formulation of a limit state function. The limit state function, g, is
g = R~Q ! (2)
where R = resistance and Q = load effect. The safety reserve is measured in terms of a reliability index, p, (Thoft-
Christensen and Baker 1982)
p = -$>~l(PF) (3)
where PF = probability of failure; and O - 1 = inverse of the standard normal distribution function.
The reliability index was calculated using an iterative procedure (Rackwitz and Fiessler 1978). The method is based on normal approximations of non-normal variables at the so-called design point.
Reliability of Bridge Girder This is a function of R and Q. The resistance, .R, is the moment carrying
capacity and the load, Q, is the total applied moment. Reliability index is a function of the statistical parameters of R and Q. The calculations were carried out for each case of material type, span, and girder spacing. The girders were designed according to AASHTO load factor design (Standard 1989). The factored load, Qn, is
Q„ = 1.3D + 2.17(L + I) (4)
where D, L, and / are load effects (moments) per girder calculated using the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (1989). The mean load per girder is calculated using the statistical models described earlier.
Required nominal (design) resistance, R„, is
Rn = ^ (5) <t>
where 4> = resistance factor; cj> is equal to 1 for steel girders, 0.90 for reinforced concrete (flexure), and 1 for pretensioned concrete girders. The mean resistance is calculated by multiplying the nominal by the bias factor (mean to nominal) (Table 2).
Reliability indices are calculated for girders in typical slab on girders bridges. Concrete slab thickness is 8 in. (200 mm), with 3-in. (75-mm) asphalt sur-
2380
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
X •a c
£ 3 i3 (9
0)
Reinforced Concrete Prestressed Concrete
Composite Steel Noncomposite Steel
10 20 30 —r~ 40 50 60
Span (m)
FIG. 11. Reliability Indexes versus Span for Bridge Girders
face. There are five girders spaced at 8 ft (2.4 m). The results are plotted versus span in Fig. 11, for noncomposite steel and composite steel, reinforced concrete, and prestressed concrete. The reliability varies with the span length and material type.
The load and/or resistance parameters may be underestimated or overestimated because of insufficient data, future changes, or human errors. There is a need to evaluate the importance of these parameters. Therefore, sensitivity functions are developed relating the reliability with the nominal values of load components (D, L, and/) and resistance parameters, such as material strength (Fy, fy, fps, and f'c) and section geometry (effective depth, d, slab effective width, b, slab thickness, ts, plastic section modulus, Z, reinforcing steel area, As, and prestressing steel area, Aps).
First, the calculations are performed using the nominal values of parameters according to AASHTO (Standard 1989). Then, for selected parameters (one at a time) it is assumed that the nominal value is either higher or lower than that specified by the code (whichever reduces reliability).
Reliability indices are calculated for various degrees of departure from the specified value. Bridges with span of 100 ft (30 m) are considered. The results are shown in Fig. 12 for noncomposite steel, Fig. 13 for composite steel, Fig. 14 for reinforced concrete, and Fig. 15 for prestressed concrete girders. Horizontal axis is the percentage departure from the specified nominal value.
The results indicate that the reliablity of steel girders depends mostly on the plastic section modulus and yield stress. For reinforced and prestressed concrete girders the most important parameters are the reinforcing or pre-
2381
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
"8 bo to
f x u
•a "2
g . s
c S H ^ o .a o O
•a « 0*
"T 10
FIG.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent Change from Nominal
12. Sensitivity Functions for Noncomposite Steel Girder
Percent Change from Nominal
FIG. 13. Sensitivity Functions for Composite Steel Girder
stressing steel area and effective depth. On the other hand, dynamic load, slab dimensions (effective width and thickness), or concrete strength do not affect the structural reliability considerably.
Reliability of Bridge System This depends on the strength of components (girders, slab, and transverse
stiffeners). From the system reliability theory point of view, a girder bridge is a mixed parallel and series system. Usually, several girders must reach their ultimate load before the structure goes down. An example of load-deflection curves for a 60-ft- (18-m-) span composite steel girder bridge is shown in Fig. 16. The calculations are performed for two truck configura-
2382
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
-»q
O
is
2 5
§
•a
ei -0.2
0 10 20 30 40 Percent Change from Nominal
FIG. 14. Sensitivity Functions for Reinforced Concrete T-Beam
0 10 20 30 40
Percent Change from Nominal
FIG. 15. Sensitivity Functions for Prestressed Concrete Girder
tions, a single three-axle truck and a five-axle semitrailer, as shown in Fig. 9.
The first plastic hinge is formed at the total truck weight of 350 kips (1,550 kN) for a single truck and 500 kips (2,220 kN) for a semitrailer (truck is placed in one lane only). The ultimate loads are 500 kips (1,550 kN) for a single truck and 750 kips (3,340 kN) for a semitrailer. The difference between the ultimate load for the first girder and ultimate load for the bridge can be considered as a measure of redundancy..
Reliability indices can be calculated using the system resistance and load models. For each truck configuration (one or two trucks per lane, one or
2383
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
•a
•4
1 1
800
600
400
200
# ™ ^
Single Truck
Semi-trailer
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Maximum Bridge Deflection (ft) (1ft s 0.3m)
FIG. 16. Load Deflection Curves for Composite Steel Girder Bridge with Span of 60 ft (18 m); Due to Single Truck and Semitrailer
IX
l ft.
34 ft
right lane left lane A
0 © © 0 © •4-^ t^ 4 @ 8 ft. = 32 ft. M ^ - # 1 ft.
(1ft = o.3m)
FIG. 17. Cross Section of Considered Girder Bridge
two loaded lanes were considered) the ultimate strength is calculated using the load incremental method. The mean maximum load is calculated accordingly, due to one or multiple trucks.
Bridge girders share the live load. At the higher load levels several girders may reach their ultimate load, and there is a nonlinear redistribution of external forces. An important consideration is the effect of correlation between girder strengths on the system reliability. Correlation is measured in terms of the coefficient of correlation, p. There is practically no data available to estimate the correlation. Therefore, two extreme cases are considered. The calculations are performed for full correlation (p = 1) and no correlation (p = 0).
The system reliability analysis is demonstrated on a 60-ft (18-m) composite steel girder bridge with 5 W33 X 135 girders spaced at 8 ft (2.4 m), as shown in Fig. 17. The reliability index of each girder is 3.80. Various
2384
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
a a
u OS
I >-.
CO
o 00 03
9-j
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
0 -
J3 p=0
^ ^ / * P = 1
^ ^ ' ^ s '
y S ^ S ^
/ T y / ^
/yr ^\S • p = Coefficient of Correlation.
,—__ , , , , , ,. .,,
Girder Reliability Index
FIG. 18. Girder versus System Reliability Indices for Full Correlation and No Correlation
x o •o c
CO
to T3
a
u -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
0 -
AB
e
, .__
«f G
(1ft 3 0.3m)
' I " I ' 1
f " •
H Span = 40 ft. « Span = 60 ft.
a Span = 80 ft.
O Span = 100 ft
• 1 •» 1 '
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Girder Reliability Index
FIG. 19. Girder versus System Reliability Indices for Spans 40, 60, 80, and 100 ft (12, 18, 24, and 30 m)
combinations of trucks (Fig. 9) are considered. It turned out that two side-by-side trucks govern. The system reliability indices are calculated for correlated and uncorrelated girder strengths, and the results are 4.95 and 6.20, respectively.
The increase of system reliability over that of girder reliability reflects the level of redundancy girder bridges have. The difference between the correlated and uncorrelated cases indicates that girder bridges behave like parallel systems.
Reliability indices are also calculated for other steel sections. The span,
2385
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
slab, and girder spacing remain the same. The comparison of system and girder reliabilities for correlated and uncorrelated cases is presented in Fig. 18. The relationship is almost linear in the practical range of values.
A practically linear relationship between the system and girder reliability is observed for other spans too. Composite steel girder bridges are considered with spans 40, 60, 80, and 100 ft (12, 18, 24, and 30 m). For uncorrelated girders spaced at 8 ft (2.4 m) the results are plotted in Fig. 19.
CONCLUSIONS
Reliability is a convenient meausre of the structural performance. There is a need for an efficient methodology to be used in the development of bridge evaluation and design criteria.
Reliability indices are calculated for girders and bridge systems. Load and resistance models are based on the available data. The analysis is performed for composite and noncomposite steel girders, reinforced concrete T-beams, and prestressed concrete girders. The results indicate that the reliability of bridges designed according to AASHTO Specifications {Standard 1989) vary depending on span and type of material. For noncomposite steel the reliability indices are 3 -3 .5 , for composite steel they are 2 .5-3.5 and for reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete 3 .5-4.
The effect of correlation between the strength of girders in the same bridge is also considered. The reliability indices are calculated for full-correlation and no-correlation cases. The calculated system reliability is higher than for girders. Therefore, the considered girder bridges can be considered as parallel systems.
Sensitivity analysis is performed for various design parameters related to bridge girders. The results indicate the importance of resistance parameters such as yield stress of steel or steel area.
The developed reliability procedure is demonstrated on typical composite steel girder bridges. The relationship between the reliability index for a girder-and-bridge system is derived, and it is slightly nonlinear.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The presented research was partially supported by the National Science Foundation, under Grant No. MSME-8715496, with program director Kenneth Chong, which is gratefully acknowledged.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Agarwal, A. C , and Wolkowicz, M. (1976). Interim report on 1975 commercial vehicle survey. Res. and Development Div., Ministry of Transp. and Communications, Downsview, Ontario.
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T. V., MacGregor, J. G., and Cornell, C. A. (1980). "Development of a probability based load criterion for American National Standard A58." Report 577, Nat. Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.
Hwang, E.-S., and Nowak, A. S. (1991). "Simulation of dynamic load for bridges." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(5), 1413-1434.
Kennedy, L. D. J., and Baker, K. A. (1984). "Resistance factors for steel highway bridges." Can. J. Civ. Engrg., 11(2), 324-334.
Moses, P., and Garson, R. (1973). "Probability theory for highway bridge fatigue
2386
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
stresses." Report SMSMD No. 50, Div. of Solid Mech., Structures and Mech. Design, Case Western Reserve Univ., Cleveland, Ohio.
Nowak, A. S., and Hong, Y.-K. (1991). "Bridge live load models." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(9).
Rackwitz, R., and Fiessler, B. (1978). "Structural reliability under combined random load sequences." Comput. Struct., 9(5), 489-494.
Siriaksorn, A. (1980). "Serviceability and reliability analysis of partially prestressed concrete beams," thesis presented to the University of Illinois, at Chiago, Illinois, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Standard specification for highway bridges. (1989). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Tabsh, S. W. (1990). "Reliability-based sensitivity analysis of girder bridges," thesis presented to the University of Michigan, at Ann Arbor, Mich., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Tantawi, H. M. (1986). "Ultimate strength of highway girder bridges," thesis presented to the University of Michigan, at Ann Arbor, Mich., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Thoft-Christensen, P., and Baker, M. J. (1982). Structural reliability theory and its applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y.
Zhou, J-H., and Nowak, A. S. (1988). "Integration formulas to evaluate functions of random variables." Struct. Saf, 5(4), 267-284.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Aps
As
b D d
Es
Fy
f'c Jps
fy g I L
M Mn
M* PF
Q R S
SS ST
s T
TT
*s
= = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
area of prestressing steel; area of rebars; slab effective width; dead load; effective depth; modulus of elasticity for steel; yield stress of structural steel; compressive strength of concrete; ultimate stress of prestressing tendons; yield stress of rebars; limit-state function; impact, or dynamic load; live load; moment; nominal (design) moment carrying capacity; average of plastic moment and ultimate moment; probability of failure; total load; resistance (load carrying capacity); single unit truck configuration; two side-by-side single-unit trucks; single-unit truck and semitrailer (configuration); girder spacing; semitrailer truck configuration; two side-by-side semitrailers; slab thickness;
2387
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
V ~ coefficient of variation; Z = plastic section modulus; P = reliability index; p = coefficient of correlation between girder strengths;
< J > - 1 = standard normal distribution function; and <}> = resistance factor.
2388
J. Struct. Eng. 1991.117:2372-2388.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
Am
eric
an U
nive
rsity
of
Shar
jah
on 0
2/15
/15.
Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.