Vol.12, No.

2 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION June, 2013

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2013) 12: 241-250 DOI: 10.1007/s11803-013-0167-z

Bridge pier failure probabilities under combined hazard effects of

scour, truck and earthquake. Part II: failure probabilities

Zach Liang1 and George C. Lee2

1. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Unidersity at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
2. Depart of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA

Abstract: In many regions of the world, a bridge will experience multiple extreme hazards during its expected service
life. The current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) load and resistance
factor design (LRFD) specifications are formulated based on failure probabilities, which are fully calibrated for dead load
and non-extreme live loads. Design against earthquake load effect is established separately. Design against scour effect is
also formulated separately by using the concept of capacity reduction (or increased scour depth). Furthermore, scour effect
cannot be linked directly to an LRFD limit state equation because the latter is formulated using force-based analysis. This
paper (in two parts) presents a probability-based procedure to estimate the combined hazard effects on bridges due to truck,
earthquake and scour, by treating the effect of scour as an equivalent load effect so that it can be included in reliability-based
failure calculations. In Part I of this series, the general principle for treating the scour depth as an equivalent load effect is
presented. In Part II, the corresponding bridge failure probability, the occurrence of scour as well as simultaneously having
both truck load and equivalent scour load effect are quantitatively discussed. The key formulae of the conditional partial
failure probabilities and the necessary conditions are established. In order to illustrate the methodology, an example of dead,
truck, earthquake and scour effects on a simple bridge pile foundation is represented.

Keywords: multi-hazards; load and resistance factor design; bridge scour

1 Introduction The scour depth is considered as a function of

1.1 Objectives
The basic formula of bridge failure probability is
given in Eq. (1) of Part I; and the total failure probability
due to dead, truck, earthquake and scour hazard effects
is given in Eq. (24) of Part I, where the equivalent scour
load effect S is defined as a function of the amount of
resistance reduction R. Both are treated as force-based
random variables or processes, that is
S = f (R)
Furthermore, the scour depth, considered as a non-
force based random variable, is also a function of the
scour effect S. The corresponding design parameter dS
is therefore a function of these parameters that affect the
resistance R.
Correspondence to: Zach Liang, Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
14260, USA
Tel: +1 716 645 4354; Fax: +1 716 645 3040
E-mail: zliang@buffalo.edu
the reduction of the change in resistance R, which is
calculated for the case without scour. The specific
function should be established in terms of the types of
scours and the types of bridge foundations. In this study,
only the local scour and the drilled shaft foundation is
considered as an example to explain the methodology.
No attempt is made to review the state-of-the-art of
scour studies and their countermeasures in bridge design
(Liang and Lee, 2012a, b; HEC-18, 2012; HEC-20,
2001; HEC-23, 2009).
(1) There are two objectives of this study. The first is
to establish the relationship between the design scour
depth DS and the reduction in resistance caused by the
scour (see Part I). Upon treating the scour effect as an
equivalent load effect,
L = D + T + E + DS (2)
In which D, T, E, are nominal dead, truck and earthquake
loads and is a proportional constant to be determined.
Except for the dead load D, all other load effects are time
variables that may or may not occur simultaneously.

Associate Professor; Professor Therefore, these load effects cannot be combined. To

Supported by: Federal Highway Administration at the University carry the probabilistic summation described in Eq. (2), it
at Buffalo under Contract Number DTFH61-08-C-00012 is necessary to first address the issue of combining time
Received October 22, 2012; Accepted May 7, 2013 variables. This is the second objective of this study and is
242 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
discussed herein by establishing the failure probabilities
of the load effects given in Eq. (2).
With the methodology established in this study
(presented in Parts I and II), it is possible to develop the
design limit state equation described in Eq. (25) of Part I.
A theoretical framework to establish MH limit states
and the methodology developed is briefly explained in
Appendix A. Details about this theoretical framework
are documented in an MCEER technical report currently
under review for publication in 2013. *
1.2 Partial failure probability
The concept of partial failure probability described
in Appendix A can be used to realize Eq. (1). In Eq.
(A9) each partial failure probability consists of two
components, conditional probability P(Li RLi only)
and the probability of condition P(Li only). Practically
speaking, Eq. (A9) cannot be used to realize a specific
partial probability, because the probability of condition
P(Li only) is a function of the amplitude x. That is, in the
general form of a discrete variable,
m
pfL = P( Lia R |L
i
ia only ) P( Lia only)
a =1
where the second subscript a denotes the level of
amplitude.
1.3 Criterion for including hazard effects
The computation of failure probabilities is far more
complex than for the case of dead and truck load only,
L
because there are many terms of pf . However, if some
of them are sufficiently small, then it is not necessary to
include them in the computation of the total pf. Thus, a
criterion is established in the form of
pfL pf
i
where is a proportional factor, say, = 0.05 0.1.The
specific volume will be chosen after several trial
calculations.
It is seen that in Eq. (3), if in the second term P(Lia
only) the level a is not specified but a general case of
whether Li only occurs without other loads is considered
and denoted as P(Li only), the result is
m m
P( Li only) = P( Lia R |L ia only ) P( Lia R |L
a =1 a =1
= pfL i
Furthermore,
L
P(Li only) pf
Since any term of probability must not be greater
than unity, if
P (Li only) pf (7)
* Readers are advised to contact the authors for the exact date
of publication and availability of the report and for answers to
specific questions in Appendix A.
Vol.12
then load Li can be ignored. To be compatible with
currently used AASHTO LRFD, in the following,
assume pf = 0.23%.
Consider the case of a combination of truck,
earthquake and scour as an example (for which Eq. (18)
in Part I can be used)
pfTES pUTES (8)
That is, if the term
pUTES pf (9)
then Eq. (17) must be satisfied.
In Eq. (5), when the term P(Li only) is taken out of
the summation, it indicates that the truck, earthquake
and scour are assumed to be independent. Under this
assumption,
pUTES = P(scour occurs) P(truck and earthquake
occur simultaneouslyscour occurs)
Suppose the occurrence rate of a special scour type in
one year is S, with an average duration of occurrence tS.
Denote the occurrence rate of a truck and an earthquake
in one second to be T, and E, respectively, and denote
(3) the average duration of earthquakes to be tE. Then in the
bridge service time, say 75 years, the chance to observe
a special type of scour is given by
( )
75
P (scour occurs) = 1 1 e
1 S
Consider now P (truck and earthquake occur
simultaneouslyscour occurs). When this specific type of
scour occurs, the chance to simultaneously have truck
loads and earthquakes can be written as
i P (E+TSC) P (truck and earthquake occur
simultaneouslyscour occurs)
This results in (see Appendix B for a detailed
derivation)
(4) pUTES P (E+TSC) =
n ( r tE ) mr (T r tE ) k (ETS )r
e
E
TS
e (10)
E T
k! r!
r =1 k =1
where TS is the total time of scour in 75 years and nE and
m are, respectively, the numbers of earthquakes in Ts
and the number of trucks during an earthquake. Suppose
nE = 75 and m = 1.
To carry out Eq. (10), assumptions are needed.
ia only )P( Lia only) First, it is assumed that the occurrence of trucks and
(5) earthquakes are of Poisson distributions. It is also
assumed that each earthquake and truck have an average
duration tE and tT. Suppose tE =30 s and tT = 2 s. With
i
(6) average daily truck traffic = 500, and earthquake return
period = 500 years, the result is pUTES = 0.00096. In this
TES
case, pU = 0.42 pf > 0.1 pf . That is, only using Eq. (7),
the case of the combination of truck, earthquake and
scour cannot be ignored.
However, if the earthquake return period is taken
TES
to be 2000 years, the result is pU = 0.00023. In this
TES
case, pU = 0.1 pf . That is, based on Eq. (7), the case
of the combination of truck, earthquake and scour can
No.2 Zach Liang et al.: Bridge pier failure probabilities under combined hazard effects of scour, truck and earthquake. Part II 243

be ignored. S R
A further analysis shows that if Eq. (3) is used, which I
is more precise than Eq. (7), in most cases of interest,
pUTES < 0.1 pf . Therefore, in this paper, pUTES will not be T
considered as an example of how to use the suggested II
framework. In any case, in frequent earthquake and E
scour zones, the partial probability pUTES cannot be

PDF
ignored. III
TE

2 Probability of condition
2.1 Total and partial failure probabilities
In Part I and the above discussion, the methodology
that a bridge failure probability pf can be represented by
several partial failure probabilities is described. Each of
the partial failure probabilities can be further written as
a product of an x-condition probability and a uniqueness
occurrence probability. For example, the partial failure
S
probability due to the dead load and the scour effect, pf ,
is given in Part I, Eq. (15). In this equation, the term px
S as T, E, TE, and TS. For convenience in the following
S
is the conditional probability and here, px is used as an
example to describe how to evaluate these x-condition
probabilities.
S
The term px in Eq. (15) of Part I exists with a
rigorous condition. The partial failure probability pf
S 2.2 Secondary load effects
is obtained when the scour effect reaches its maximum
value x. There are several conditions to guarantee that
the count x is indeed a true maximum effect. From Fig. 1,
the x-axis of the probability density function (PDF) is
the maximum value of the load effect when a given
bridge is subjected to the dead load and a single time
variable such as the scour effect only, denoted by S. The
dead load is time invariant. When the sum of the time
variable scour effect and the dead load effect reaches a
certain maximum level, x, there is no chance that other
load effects reach this specific level. (For convenience,
the dead load is ignored in Fig. 1. Furthermore, any time
variable load is automatically combined with the dead
load). In Fig. 1, R stands for the resistance.
If other loads exist when the time variable scour
effect reaches a given level, then there can be a chance
that the rest of the time variable loads have already
reached and/or exceeded the same level. The rest of
the time variable loads can be the truck load only, the
earthquake load only, the simultaneous combination of
truck and scour and the simultaneous combination of
truck and scour, denoted by T, E, TE and TS in Fig. 1.
In this case, the impact of the scour effect cannot be
guaranteed to be the maximum value. In other words,
for a time variable load effect to be recognized as the
maximum value at intensity x, no other load effects can
have reached the same level.
Figure 1 conceptually shows this condition. At
Position I, the solid and dotted lines are, respectively,
the PDFs of the equivalent scour load effect and the
resistance. At Positions II, III, IV and V, the curves are,
respectively, the PDFs of the truck, the earthquake, the
IV
TS
V
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Intensity (MN.m)
Fig. 1 Maximum intensity of single or combined probability
density functions
combined truck and earthquake and the combined truck
and scour load effects, which are, respectively, denoted
discussions, the effects of T, E, TE, and TS are referred
to as secondary effects, and the scour S is referred to as
the primary effect.
In Fig. 1, the shadowed areas represent all the
chances that the secondary load effects are smaller than
this given level x.
Generally speaking, the sum of all these chances can
be expressed as the integral of the PDF of the second
load effect, fS (z, x). Here, the subscript S denotes the
secondary load effect, and in the following, the font
of blackadder ITC is used to denote the conditional
PDFs. That is,
PS ( x ) = -x fS ( z , x ) dz 1 (11)
Therefore, the PDF of the primary load, fS(x), shown
in Fig. 1, must be modified as fS(x)PS(x). Generally
speaking, PS(x) < 1, so that the resulting failure
probability due to the first load only, should be smaller
than the case with the first load only.
The secondary load effects are considered one by
one in the following discussion. For the truck load only,
denote the corresponding PDF of truck effect as fT (x).
From Eq. (11),
PT ( x ) = -x f T ( z , x ) dz (12a)
The level of the first load effect, denoted by y, can be
taken from x to ; therefore, Eq. (12a) is modified to be
PT ( x ) = -y f T ( z , x ) dz (12b)
In Eq. (12b), the symbol x is still used to denoted the
condition y x.
Now, consider the earthquake load only in a similar
fashion and denote the corresponding PDF as fE(x). From
Eq. (11),
PE ( x ) = -y f E ( u , x ) du (13)
244 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.12

Considering the simultaneous load combination of where fT(y) is the PDF of the maximum truck effect.
truck and earthquake load effect only and denoting the
corresponding PDF as fTE(x), 2.5 Partial failure probabilities due to earthquake
load
PTE ( x ) = -y f TE ( v, x ) dv (14)
The partial failure probability due to earthquake
Finally, considering the simultaneous load combination only, pfE, can be written as
of truck and scour load effect only and denoting the
corresponding PDF as fTS(x), pfE =

f R ( x ) x f E ( y ) -y f T ( z , x ) dz -y fS ( u , x )du

PTS ( x ) = -y f TE ( w, x ) dw - f TE ( v, x ) dv - f TS ( w, x ) dw dy dx
y y
(15)
T n ( r t ) (STH )
r
Therefore, the x-condition probability pxS can be 1 -e 1- 1-e
S
(19)
r! / p
S H T S

written as r =1

where fE(y) is the PDF of the maximum earthquake

pxS = f R ( x )x fS ( y ) pT ( x) pE ( x) pTE ( x) pTS ( x)dy dx effect.

= f R ( x )x fS ( y )
y
f T ( z , x ) dz
y
f E ( u , x ) du
2.6 Partial failure probabilities due to combined
f TE ( v, x ) dv f TS ( w, x ) dw dy dx truck and earthquake effect
y y
(16)

where fS(y) is the PDF of the maximum scour effect. The partial failure probability due to truck and
earthquake only, pfTE, can be written as
2.3 Partial failure probabilities due to scour effect
pfTE =

f R ( x ) x f TE ( y ) -y f T ( z , x ) dz -y fS ( u , x ) du
In the next section, the uniqueness occurrence
- f E ( v, x ) dv - f TS ( w, x ) dw dy dx
y y
probability for having scour only will be described.
Suppose this probability of condition is given; the partial n (T r tE )k (ETH )r
( r tE ) mr
e T e
E

failure probability due to the scour effect only can be / p

E H T

further written as r =1 k =1 k! r!
(20)
where fTE(y) is the PDF of the maximum combined truck
pfS =

f R ( x )x fS ( y ) -y f T ( z , x ) dz -y f E ( u,x ) du and earthquake effect.
- f TE ( v, x ) dv - f TS ( w, x ) dw dydx
y y

2.7 Partial failure probabilities due to combined

T n ( r t ) (STH )
r
(17) truck and scour effect
1- 1-e
S

1 -e r! / P
S H T S

r =1

The partial failure probability due to truck and scour
In Eq. (17), the partial failure probability is a only, pfTS, can be written as
function of level x. Namely, at different levels, the value
of the partial failure probability is different. pfTS =

f R ( x ) x f TS ( y ) -y f T ( z , x ) dz -y fS ( u , x ) du

- f E ( v, x ) dv - f T E ( w, x ) dw dy dx
y y
2.4 Partial failure probabilities due to truck load
n ( T )r
e T 1-e ( r t ) S H / p
S
Similar to the case of scour effect only, the rest of S H T
(21) S

the partial failure probabilities, pfT, pfE, pfTS and pfTE can r =1 r!
also be formulated. Since the procedure of derivation where fTS(y) is the PDF of the maximum combined truck
is identical to pfS, they are listed below without and scour effect.
elaboration.
The partial failure probability due to truck only, pfT,
can be written as 3 Uniqueness occurrence probability
pfT =

f R ( x ) x f T ( y ) -y f T ( z, x ) dz -y f E ( u, x ) du In the above discussion, it is assumed that the
probability of uniqueness occurrence is given. These
- f TE ( v, x ) dv - f TS ( w, x ) dw dy dx
y y
uniqueness occurrence probabilities are formulated as
n mr ( r t ) k ( T ) r
follows.

[1 e T e T e ( r t ) T E E H
E
T H E H T E

r =1 k =1 k! r! 3.1 Uniqueness occurrence probability under the
n ( T ) r condition of no truck loads
e T 1 e ( r t ) E H / p
S
S H T S

r =1 r! (18) Consider the occurrence probabilities of having

No.2 Zach Liang et al.: Bridge pier failure probabilities under combined hazard effects of scour, truck and earthquake. Part II 245

scours and earthquakes under the condition of no truck

loads. Because the conditional probability of not having nS (ETH ) r n r (E r tS )k
( r tS )
pse =e T e T e
S

S H S H E
trucks is smaller than unity, the occurrence probability r! k!
of simultaneously having both earthquakes and scours
r =1 r =1
k =1

is negligible. This simplifies the computation of load (STH )r T n S

( r tS ) r (E r tS )k (STH )r
=e 1-eS H E

occurrence probabilities. r! r =1
k =1 k! r!
Assume the return period of scour is 1 year. The (25)
rate of occurrence is then S = 1/75 for an expected
bridge service life of 75 years. On average, a scour An alternative formula for the probability of not
lasts for 2 weeks. Thus, the duration tS = 1,209,600 s; having earthquakes when scours occur can be written as
or approximately 1 106 s. In 75 years, there are 75 nS
( r tS ) (STH )r
scours, the total scour time is TS = 9,072 104 s, or pse = e T e
S H E
(26)
r =1 r!
approximately 1 108 s. If the return period is 0.5 year,
then S = 2/75, and TS 2 108 s. Comparing Eq. (25) and Eq. (26), both yield virtually
Assume the return period of an earthquake is 2 years. the same results with acceptable errors.
The rate E = 2/75; on average, an earthquake lasts 100 s, 3.1.3 Uniqueness occurrence for earthquake only
and duration tE 100 s. Thus, the total duration TE 7500 In 75 years, if nE earthquakes occur, then the
s. The total seconds of 75 years is TH = 2.3668109 s. probability of not having scour when an earthquake
In the following subsections, the occurrence occurs is denoted by pse , written as
probabilities of scour and earthquake, without
pse = pe - pse (27)
considering the condition of whether or not a load exists,
are addressed first. Then, the condition of having a load
Note that
(the truck load is again excluded) is investigated. nE (ETH )r
3.1.1 Uniqueness occurrence for simultaneous pe = e T E H
(28)
Therefore, r =1 r!
occurrence of scour and earthquake
Consider the chance that scour and an earthquake nE (ETH )r T n ( r t ) r (E r tS )k (STH )r
pse = e T
S
occur simultaneously. Based on the Poisson model E H
-e e
S H
E

S

(Liang and Lee, 2012a, b) , in one time duration tS, the r =1 r! r =1

k =1 k! r!
chance of having an earthquake is e t (E tS ) . Thus, E S (29)
up to r tS, there may be more
r ( r t ) k Alternatively, in 75 years, if there are nE earthquakes,
earthquakes, and the chance is e ( r t ) E S . E S

k =1 k! the probability of not simultaneously having scour

Furthermore, in duration TH, the chance of having a denoted by pse , can be written as
scour is e T (S TH ) , which is the condition that one
S H

(ETH )r
nE
of the duration tS within TH both earthquake and scour p se = e T e ( r t
E H
(30) S E )
can simultaneously occur. Thus, the condition to have r =1 r!
up to nS scours is the probability of having scour in the The difference between the results from Eq. (29)
duration TH, denoted by ps . It can be written as and Eq. (30) is smaller than 0.1 percent in most cases.
Therefore, it can also be concluded that Eq. (29) and Eq.
nS (ETH )r (22) (30) yield virtually same results with acceptable errors.
ps = e T S H

r =1 r! 3.1.4 Uniqueness occurrence probability with the

condition of having load effect
Therefore, in 75 years, if there are nS scours, the Consider the condition of having load effect that is
probability of simultaneously having earthquake and only caused by scour and/or earthquake (no truck load).
scour, denoted by pse, can be written as Denote the sum of occurrence probabilities without
n
considering whether there is a load to be p:
(r tS ) r (E r tS ) k (STH )r
pse = e T e
S
S H E
(23) p = pse + pse + pse
r =1
k =1 k! r! (31)
Based on this condition, the probability of
3.1.2 Uniqueness occurrence for scour only simultaneously having earthquake and scour, denoted by
In 75 years, if there are nS scours, the probability of pSE, can be written as
not having earthquakes when scours occur, denoted by pSE = pse/ p (32)
pse , can be obtained as follows.
Denote ps as the occurrence probability of scour, the probability of having scour without earthquake,
which is also the sum of probability pse and pse. That is, denoted by pSE , can be written as
pse = ps - pse (24) pSE = pse / p (33)
and, the probability of having earthquake without scour,
From Eq. (22) through Eq. (24), denoted by pSE , can be written as
246 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.12

pSE = pse / p (34) and for earthquake only, Eq. (25) and Eq. (29), will be
different. In the following paragraphs, these terms are
4 Total failure probability considering truck, recalculated.
earthquake and scour The term pUTS in Eq. (36) implies that when the
truck and the scour simultaneously occur, there is no
4.1 Modified total failure probability earthquake. And, the term pUTE in Eq. (36) implies that
when the truck and the earthquake simultaneously occur,
4.1.1 Rejection of simultaneous scour and earthquake there is no scour. The relationship among truck, scour
and earthquake may be plotted as a Venn diagram shown
From the above discussion of trucks, earthquake and in Fig. 2.
scour load effects, the small chance of simultaneously Denote the probabilities of truck, scour and
having both scour and earthquake means that the earthquake occurrences, respectively, as pT, pS and pE,
combined effect of scour and earthquake will not from Fig. 2,
contribute much to the bridge failure probabilities. pT = pUT +pUTS +pUTE (37)
Therefore, this condition is rejected to simplify the
calculations. In Fig. 3, the shaded area shows the probabilities
4.1.2 Rejection of simultaneous scour, earthquake and pUT =p T -pUTS -pUTE . This is not exactly true, because there
TES
truck will be a slim chance of the occurrence probability, pU .
Since the uniqueness occurrence probability of However, it is rejected in this analysis for
simultaneously having both scour and earthquake can simplicity,
be rejected, it is obvious that the uniqueness occurrence pUTES = 0 (38)
probability of simultaneously having truck, scour and
Thus, Eq. (37) holds. Similarly,
earthquake can be rejected.
4.1.3 Total failure probability S TS
pS = pU +pU (39)
In Liang and Lee (2012), it is shown that in certain
and
earthquake zones, the uniqueness occurrence probabilities E TE
pE = pU +pU (40)
of earthquake only and that of simultaneously having
truck and earthquake are not negligible. Therefore, 4.1.4 Uniqueness occurrence probability without
in formulating the partial failure probabilities not considering load existence
due to truck only, the terms pfT, pfE and pfTE should be In the following subsections, the uniqueness
considered. Furthermore, if the total duration of scours occurrence probabilities are shown without considering
is compatible with that of earthquakes, then the term pfTS whether there is a load, for simplicity reasons.
should also be considered. In fact, it can also be shown 4.1.5 Uniqueness occurrence probability of
that pfTS is indeed not negligible. In this case, Eq. (18) simultaneously having truck and scour
can be rewritten as According to Liang and Lee (2012) the uniqueness
pf = pfT + pfS + pfE + pfTS + pfTE (35) occurrence probability of simultaneously having truck
and earthquake can be written as
Furthermore, considering level x, Eq. (35) can be
rewritten as n (r tE )
mr (T r tE )k (ETH )r
pte = e T e
E
E H T

pf ( x) = pxT pUT + pxS pUS + pxE pUE + pxTS pUTS + pxTE pUTE r =1 k =1 k! r!
(36) (41)
When the truck load is considered, the values of Equation (41) is obtained under the condition of no
the uniqueness occurrence probabilities for scour only scour, which is guaranteed by the condition described
for Eq. (36). Thus, Eq. (41) can be used.

Truck Scour

Truck

Scour Truck only

pT
U

Earthquake

Earthquake Truck

Fig. 2 Venn diagram of truck, scour and earthquake Fig. 3 Probabilities of truck only
No.2 Zach Liang et al.: Bridge pier failure probabilities under combined hazard effects of scour, truck and earthquake. Part II 247

4.1.6 Uniqueness occurrence probability of ps te = ps - pts

simultaneously having truck and scour n
( r tS ) (STH )
r
=1-e T e T 1-e
S
From the above discussion, when the unique
S H S H T

r!
occurrence of simultaneously having both truck and r =1
scour is calculated, denoted by pts, no earthquake is n ( T ) r
=1 -e T 1- 1-e ( r t ) S H
S

present. Thus,
S H T S
(47)
r =1 r!
n ( r tS ) mr (T r tS )k (STH )r 4.1.9 Uniqueness occurrence probability of having
pts = e T e
S
S H T
(42)
r =1 k =1 k! r! earthquake only
Liang and Lee (2012a, b) provided a method to
Equation (42) is difficult to calculate because the calculate the uniqueness occurrence probability pe t as
value of factorial k! can be very large. Therefore, an given by
alternative method is used to calculate the probability of
having truck in duration rtS. It is seen that, in duration rtS, n ( T ) r
pe t = e T e ( r t ) E H
E

the chance of no truck is e ( r t ) so that having trucks is

T S
E H T E
(48)
r =1 r!
1- e ( r t ) . Such a chance is clearly overestimated.
T S

However, according to the experience gained in the This equation is obtained under the condition
computation of scour and earthquake, it is seen that the without scour. However, from Fig. 2, it is seen that
corresponding error is negligible. Therefore, Eq. (42) there is virtually no overlap between earthquake and
may be replaced by scour. Therefore, this equation can also be used for the
situation with the equivalent scour effect. That is
n ( T ) r
pts = e T 1-e ( r t ) S H
S

(43)
S H T S

r =1 r! n (r tE ) (ETH ) r
pe ts = pe t = e T e
E

(49)
E H T

r!
4.1.7 Uniqueness occurrence probability of having truck r =1
only
4.2 Uniqueness occurrence probability with condition
It is noted that the probability pte is not just pUTE ,
of existence of load
because pte is calculated without considering the
condition there must be a load, which is the only case 4.2.1 Condition of existence of load
of interest. The occurrence pUTE should be calculated As mentioned above, the case with load is the one
with the condition of having load only, which will be of interest. That is, the focus is on the sampling space of
discussed later. The same situation is also true for the load occurrence. Thus,
TS
probabilities of pts and pU .
Now, without considering the condition of whether pUT + pUS + pUE + pUTS + pUTE = 1 (50)
or not there is a load, the probability of having truck,
denoted by pt, can be written as In the above discussion, the level of load effect x is
assumed. Namely, with different levels of load effect,
pt = 1 e- T TH
(44)
these uniqueness occurrence probabilities in Eq. (48)
where T is the rate of occurrence of truck in duration can be different. That is, Eq. (48) should be rewritten as
TH. Equation (37) in this situation is rewritten as
pUT ( x ) + pUS ( x ) + pUE ( x ) + pUTS ( x ) + pUTE ( x ) =1 (51)
pt = ptse + pte + pts (45)
where ptse is the uniqueness occurrence probability 4.2.2 Uniqueness occurrence probabilities
of having truck only without scour (and without To realize Eq. (50) or Eq. (51),
earthquake). From Eq. (45),
ptse +ps te +pe ts + pts +pte = p (52)
ptse = pt pte pts = 1 e -T TH

With the help of Eq. (52), the uniqueness occurrence
E TH
n
E
T (r tE )
mr ( r t ) k ( T )r probability with the level x of truck only is
e e T E E H
r =1 k =1 k! r! pUT ( x ) =ptse / p (53)
nS
( r tS ) (STH )
r
The uniqueness occurrence probability with the level x
e T 1-e
S H T

r =1 r! of scour only is
(46)
pUS ( x ) =ps te / p (54)
4.1.8 Uniqueness occurrence probability of having scour
only The uniqueness occurrence probability with the level x
From the above discussion, when the unique of earthquake only is
occurrence of having scour only is calculated, denoted pUE ( x ) =pe ts / p (55)
by ps te , no earthquake is present. Thus, from figure 4.1,
248 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.12

The uniqueness occurrence probability with the level x
of simultaneously having truck and scour only is
pUTS ( x ) =pts / p (56)
The uniqueness occurrence probability with the level x
of simultaneously having truck and earthquake only is
pUTE ( x ) =pte / p (57)
4.3 Total failure probability with load effect level
being x
With the help of Eq. (53) through Eq. (57), the total
failure probability at load effect level x is given by
pf(x) = pxT pUT ( x ) + pxS pUS ( x ) + pxE pUE ( x ) + pxTS pUTS ( x ) +
p TE p TE ( x )
x U
(58)
5 Relationship between factors of equivalent
scour effect and scour depth
After the partial failure probabilities in Eq. (58) are
calculated, design limit state equations can be further
established. This procedure is identical to the pure force
based multi-hazards (MH) loads. However, for non-force
based hazards such as scour, the factor of equivalent
load cannot be directly used in bridge design. Obtaining
the factor of scour depth is considered, as an example to
show the general steps for non-force based hazards. In
this case, only r the simplest case of the equivalent load
effect due to vertical displacement is considered. Since
the relationship is linear, the load factors can be used
directly (see Eq. (34)).
In general, the relationship between scour depth and
equivalent load is nonlinear. An approach is needed to
convert the load parameter to the scour parameter. In this
section, the determination of mean values and standard
deviations of equivalent scour effects are discussed
before the partial failure probabilities are calculated.
5.1 Statistical characteristics
5.1.1 Equivalent scour effect
When the conditional partial failure probabilities pCS ,
are established, the equivalent scour effects share the
identical formula expressed by Eq. (54). For a given
bridge located at a specific location, the depth dS of the
live bed local scour can be calculated. For example, the
formula given by HEC-18 is adopted (HEC-18, 2012),
namely
dS = f (V, Q, s, d) (59)
Once the scour depth is calculated based on Eq. (59),
the equivalent scour effect can also be determined. It is
assumed that the mean value of the scour depth, Ds and
the mean value of the scour effect S can be described
as
S = 3 Ds3 + 2 Ds2 + 1 Ds+ 0 (60)
where 3 , 2 , 1 and 0 are coefficients that are functions
of the design total pile foundation length H and the
sediment depth H0.
Furthermore, assume the standard deviation of the
scour depth, Ds, and the standard deviation of the scour
effect, S, can be described as
S = 3 Ds3 + 2 Ds2 + 1 Ds+ 0 (61)
where 3 , 2 , 1 and 0 are coefficients that are also
functions of the design total length H and the sediment
depth H0. Note that all the coefficients i s and i s can
be determined through Monte Carlo simulations (Liang
and Lee, 2012).
5.1.2 Scour effect under different conditions
Consider first the mean values. The scour effect has
two different Conditions. Condition A is the dead load
with scour and Condition B is the dead load, truck load
and scour. To account for these two conditions, let the
nominal design value of the equivalent scour effect NS
be equal to the mean value, that is,
NS = S (62)
This mean value of scour effect should be distributed
into the above-mentioned two Cases A and B.
The distributions should be based on the chances of
the appearance of scour in these two cases, namely SA
and SB. Using kA and kB to denote these two different
chances,
kA S = SA (63)
kB S = SB (64)
In Part I of this paper, only the uniqueness occurrence
probability of scour, ps te was addressed and that of scour
and truck pts. Therefore, the chance of scour appearance
for Cases A and B are given as
ps te
kA = (65)
ps te + pts
and
pts
kB = (66)
ps te + pts
Consider next the standard deviations. Here the scour
is treated as random variables with normal distributions.
The distributions of scour effect for Case A and B are
also normalized as normal distributions (see footnote on
p242). Denote SA and SB as the corresponding standard
deviations. The following may be written:
SA = (bSA) SA
(67)
SB = (bSB) SB
B
(68)
where bSA and bSB are values of bias for the Case A
and B. The exponents and B are positive numbers,
No.2 Zach Liang et al.: Bridge pier failure probabilities under combined hazard effects of scour, truck and earthquake. Part II
whose value can be determined through Monte Carlo
simulations. In this study, let
= B = 0.01 (69)
By using the above equations, the required mean and
standard deviations for computing the corresponding
partial failure probabilities are obtained.
6 Summary
A probability based approach to combine frequent,
non-extreme loads and infrequent extreme hazard
load effects is described herein. Emphasis is given to
methodologies that handle combinations of random
processes and combinations of direct capacity reduction
hazard effects (e.g., bridge scour) with force-based
hazard effects (e.g., earthquake) . An example of dead,
truck, earthquake and scour effects on a simple bridge
pile foundation is used to illustrate the methodology.
The formulae of the conditional partial failure
probabilities and the necessary conditions were first
established. In the case of truck, earthquake and
equivalent scour load effects, the number of conditions
necessary to calculate the partial failure probabilities is
at least four.
The proposed approach is illustrated by using a
specific common failure model of live-bed local scour.
Based on several assumptions of triangle shaped
sediment stiffness and normal scour depth values, the
relationship between scour depth and the required
elongation of a bridge column compared with no scour
is provided.
With the specific scour failure model, the limit state
equations of bridge failure are established, in which the
scour effects are treated as equivalent loads.
Acknowledgement
This paper presents part of the results of a
research contract sponsored by the Federal Highway
Administration at the University at Buffalo (Contract
Number DTFH61-08-C-00012). The authors express
their sincere appreciation to members of the research
team: Wei-huei Yen (COTR, Federal Highway
Administration), John M. Kulicki and Thomas
Murphy (Modjeski and Masters), Harry Capers (Arora
& Associates), Jerry J. D. Shen (Federal Highway
Administration) and Chao Huang (University at Buffalo)
for their critical comments, advice and contributions.
References
Das BM (2007), Principles of Foundation Engineering,
6th ed, Thomson.
HEC-18 (2002), 5th ed Evaluating Scour at Bridges
Publication No. FHWA HIF-12-003.
249
HEC-20 (2001), 3rd ed Stream Stability at Highway
Structures, Publication No. FHWA NHI 01-002.
HEC-23 (2009), 3rd ed. Bridge Scour and Stream
Instability Countermeasures, Publication No. FHWA-
NHI-09-111.
Liang Z and Lee GC (2012a), Towards Multiple
Hazard Resilient Bridges: a Methodology for Modeling
Frequent and Infrequent Time-varying Loads. Part
I, Comprehensive Reliability and Partial Failure
Probabilities, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 11(3): 293301.
Liang Z and Lee GC (2012b), Towards Multiple
Hazard Resilient Bridges: a Methodology for Modeling
Frequent and Infrequent Time-varying Loads. Part
II, Examples for Live and Earthquake Load Effects,
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
11(3): 303311.
Melih YA and Apaydin M (2011), A Study on Bridge
Scour Risk Assessment and Countermeasure Design
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
Submitted February 4, 2011; accepted June 14, 2011;
posted ahead of print June 16, 2011. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)CF.19435509.0000254.
NCHRP Report 396 (1997), Monitoring Scour Critical
Bridges.
Appendix A Challenges in formulating
multiple extreme hazard effects
A non-forced based hazard such as scour can be
considered as an equivalent load effect. Such an effect
may be the result of a single load or load combinations.
In the following discussion, the dead load is temporarily
excluded and the term load and load effect are used
interchangeably to address the issue.
To facilitate subsequent discussion, the physical
meaning of Eq. (1) in Part I of this series is explained in
the following paragraphs.
Define non-extreme load by I-(1). The first notation
I stands for the first case consisting of non-extreme dead
and truck load only. Symbol II is used to denote the
second case of extreme hazard loads.
The probability of condition I-(1) is unity, namely
P (load occurs) 1 (A1)
When Eq. (1) is used in Part I, this condition can be
overlooked.
I-(2), The magnitude of the load is L;
In the case of only having dead and truck load, since
whenever truck load occurs, dead load must exist and
also because I-(3) the load must be maximum, the case
of dead load only can be excluded. In other words, L
must be a combined effect. Or, the probability of that
load can be L for unity, namely
P (load is L) 1 (A2)
250 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Thus, the second condition can also be overlooked.
I-(3), L is considered to be the maximum value;
L is the maximum value and is also a random
variable. To account for L, its distribution function
needs to be considered. That is, it will be sufficient (and
necessary) to have its probability distribution function,
(PDF), denoted by fL(l).
I-(4), LR, (R is the value of resistance).
Since R is also a random variable, its PDF denoted
by fR(r) must be taken into account. Combining both I-
(3) and I-(4), the failure probability can be evaluated as
f R ( x ) x f L ( y ) dy dx P(L1 RL1 only) P(L1 only) + P(L2 RL2 only) P(L2 only)
(A3)
Now, consider MH loads as the second case, denoted
by II. Note that the formula (1) in Part I also works for
MH loads. Therefore, the above-mentioned conditions I-
(1) through I-(4) should also be considered, but denoted
as II-(1) through II-(4) for the second case.
First, consider Eq. II-(1). In the MH loads, there are
more loads than dead and truck loads only. Therefore, at
a moment when a load (other than dead load) exists, that
there can be different types of load; and at different time
moments, other types of loads may exist. The occurrence
of loads becomes time variable (random process). In this
case, the time t will become a factor, the probability of
condition that whether a load occurs (A1) is still held.
However, P(L1 occurs) is no longer unity in general;
that is
P (load occurs, the load is L1) 1 (A4)
Second, consider Eq. II-(2), because of MH, a simple
L cannot be used, but L1, L2, to denote the load. The
probability of condition that only a given load Li occurs
is, generally speaking, no longer unity. Therefore, (A4)
is further written as
P(load occurs, the load is L1 only) < 1 (A5)
Calculating the above corresponding probability will
be introduced after the discussion of II-(3).
Thirdly, consider II-(3). Without loss of generality,
consider L1 for the load 1, only.
(a), This condition must include the following: when
load 1 is the maximum value, denoted by x, load L2, L3,
etc. must not be greater than x. Therefore, this condition
must include the subconditions:
L2 < x, L3 < x, etc. (A6)
It is understandable that each probability of the
above condition is, in general, smaller than unity.
(b), For I-(3), the PDF of L is used, which is a
function of level x. However, for MH loads L1 , L2, L3
etc. Although L1 is caused on load 1, it can also combine
with load 2, 3, etc. At different level x, the proportions
of L1 in these combinations are different. Thus, at level
xa, load 1 has a%, and at level xb, load 1 has b%, and in
general
Vol.12
a% b% (A7)
Equation (A7) states that the distribution of L1 is
no longer a function of level x only, but is affected by
other loads. In other words, the PDF of L1 is a function
of x. This is the reason that a simple solution cannot be
provided when discussing Eq. II-(2).
Lastly, a discussion of Eq. (14) in Part I is provided.
In I-(1), L R, whereas, in Eq. II-(1), the load L consists
of L1, L2, etc. Based on the above discussion, Eq. (2)
can be separated as
+ = pf (A8)
Denote the ith term in (A8) as
L
P(Li RLi only) P(Li only) pf i
(A9)
where pfL can be called the ith partial failure probability
i
and Li is a combination of a single load with dead load
DL. In this case, the procedure of load analysis and
computation of failure probability is identical to Eq. (1)
in Part I. Note that here, the phrase single load includes
a single type of load combination. For example, if there
is a combination of scour SC and truck load LL without
other types of loads or load combinations, SC+ LL + DL
only is considered as a single load.
Appendix B A brief derivation for Eq. (10)
TES
The term pU is a conditional probability that
describes the chance of simultaneous occurrence of
earthquake and truck loads with the presentation of
bridge scours.
To better understand Eq. (10), consider the procedure
to derive the probability that when a scour occurs, an
earthquake occurs simultaneously. Since in the averaged
duration of one scour occurrence, tS , the chance of
having only one earthquake can be obtained based
on the model of Poisson arrival. In the total time of
scour in 75 years, TH, more earthquakes may occur, say
n ( T ) r
nE earthquakes, so the chance becomes e T E S .
E
E S
r =1 r!
Furthermore, in duration tE, the chance that there is
a truck is e t (T tE ) ; therefore the condition to
T E
have up to mr trucks is the probability written as
mr ( r t ) k
e ( r t ) T E
T E
k =1 k!
Thus, with the assumption of Poisson arrivals,
E TS
nE ( r t ) mr (T r tE ) k (ETS ) r
P(E+TSC)= e e
T E
r =1 k =1 k! r!
(B1)
In addition, the chance of having scours in 75 years
is close to 1; therefore, the term pUTES is roughly equal
to P (E+TSC).