Reliability of Existing Bridge

Structures

prof. Ing. Josef Vian, CSc

University of ilina
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Department of Structures and Bridges
Lecture Content
Reliability of Existing Bridge Structures

1. General formulation of the reliability assessment of
building structures
- Reliability as a ability of structure to fulfil required functions
- Classification of reliability verification methods
- Engineering methods for the reliability assessment of building
structures and basic reliability condition
- The partial safety factors method

2. Reliability of existing bridge structures
- Relationship between structural design and evaluation of existing
structures



- Adjusted reliability level for existing bridge evaluation
- Loading capacity as the basic parameter of existing bridge
evaluation

3. Parameters entering process of reliability verification
- Steel bridge actions and materials basic characteristics
- Partial safety factors for existing bridge evaluation
- Calibration of partial safety factors for action and material

4. Conclusions

1. General formulation of the reliability
assessment of building structures


1.1 Reliability of building structures

Structural reliability is an ability of a structure to meet required
functions from the viewpoint of preserving real service indicators
in actual conditions and limits over the required time period.

Partial reliability components are:

safety do not endanger human health and environment,
serviceability utilization of a structure for intended purpose,
durability time period of reliable service.


The structure occurs in certain states during its lifetime:

from the viewpoint of activity: - service
- downtime
from the viewpoint of failure: - failure-free state
- state of failure.
Specific structural state - limit state
state when performing required functions is stopped
state when the structure does not meet the proposed requirements
anymore
the state of failure downtime
In the case of building structures, we can distinguish:

ultimate limit states related to the safety and durability of
structures
serviceability limit states related to the serviceability of
structures
Ultimate Limit State
Exceeding them leads to structural failure structural collapse

failures due to exceeding the material strength or due to excessive
deformation,
lost of member or structural stability,
fatigue or brittle failure,
lost of structural equilibrium.

Serviceability Limit States

Due to their exceeding, service requirements of structures will not be
fulfilled.

excessive deformations affecting features or utilization of structure,
unacceptable vibrations influencing psychics and convenience of people
as well as structural behaviour
local failures (cracks) reducing structural durability.

To prevent attaining individual limit states, the reliability conditions shall
be fulfilled. These reliability condition are defined in corresponding codes
for structural design.
Actions


Building structure
Material and geometrical
parameters


Transformation models
of structural response


Transformation models
of structural resistance

Material, member or
structural resistance

Structural response

Reliability
verification
Ultimate limit
states

Serviceability
limit states

Process of reliability verification of building structures
1.2 Classification of reliability verification methods

Deterministic methods: - allowable stress design
- safety factor design

Probabilistic methods - 1. level semi probabilistic methods
- 2. level engineering methods
- 3. level mathematical methods

Deterministic
methods
Probabilistic methods
Methods of
2. level
Methods of
3. level
Methods of 1. level
Partial safety factors method
calibration calibration calibration
1.3 Engineering methods for reliability assessment of
building structures


The engineering probabilistic method (Ranicyn,
Cornell)

It is the most simple probabilistic method of structural reliability
verification based on probabilistic evaluation of reliability margin G
defined in the form:






R is the structural resistance as a function random variable enter
parameters,
E are action effects as a function of random variable enter
parameters.



G R E 0 (1a)
G R/ E 1 (1b)
= >
= >
Probability of failure :
f
f
P P(G 0) P(R E 0)
P P(G 1) P(R/ E 1)
= < = <
= < = <
Assuming statistical independence of R and E, the probability of
failure can be defined:




where
|
R
(x) is the cumulative distribution function of structural resistance R



f
E
(x) expresses probability occurrence of action effects E in
a neighbourhood of the point x


}

(x) dx (x) f = P
R E f
|
( ) x
R
x) P(R | = <
( ) ( )dx x f / dx x E / dx x P
E
= + s s 2 2
(2)
(3)
}

(x) dx (x) f = P
R E f
|
( ) x
R
x) P(R | = <
( ) ( )dx x f / dx x E / dx x P
E
= + s s 2 2
(3)
e,r,x
f
E
(e)
f
R
(r)
m
E
m
R
f
E
(e)
f
R
(r)
f
E
(x)
F
R
(x)
x
dx
x
dx
G
f G

(G)
m
G

P
r
P
f
f
G
(G)
s
G

b.s
G

0
f G
r G
0
P f (G)dG
P f (G)dG

=
=
}
}
(4)
Reliability index (according to Cornell):
G R E
2 2 0,5
G R E
( )

| = =
o o +o
(5)
Reliability condition:
d
fd f
P P
| | >
s
Design values of P
fd
and |
d
for planned structural lifetime of
T
d
= 80 years


Limit states
ultimate serviceability
Reliability
level
P
fd
|
d
P
fd
|
d
decreased 5 . 10
-4
3,30 1,6 . 10
-1
1,00
basic 7 . 10
-5
3,80 7 . 10
-2
1,50
increased 8 . 10
-6
4,30 2,3 . 10
-2
2,00

( )
( ) | |
( ) ( ) | |
5 , 0
1
297 , 0 605 , 0 198 , 0
5 , 1 198 , 0 / log 605 , 0
10
2
+ ~ =
~ =

f f
f
P P
P
| |
| |
|
(6)
Engineering probability method represents simplified approach using
linear combination of two resultant random variable E and R.
actually, E and R are linear and nonlinear combinations of action
effects, material and geometrical characteristics which can be
statistically independent or dependent random variables.
it is a system random variables X
i
in n-dimensional space.
Reliability margin is a function of random variables X
1
, X
2
.. X
n


and reliability condition has a form:

Then probability of failure shall be written as follows:


f(x
1
, x
2
x
n
) is the compound probability density function of
random variables x
1
, x
2
.x
n

( ) 0
2 1
> . = ) X , X g(X X g
n
1 2 n
G g(X , X X ) = .

2 1 2 1
}
. . =
f
D
n n f
dX . dX . dX . ) X ,X f(X P
(7)
(8)
(9)
Examples of the actual failure function




Methods how to solve the problem

approximate methods - FORM, SORM
simulation techniques - Monte Carlo, Importance Sampling,Latin
Hypercube Sampling, Response surface and
others.
2 2 n n
i i i i 3
i 3 i 4 i 1 i 1
G X X , G X X / X
= = = =
| |
= =
|
\ .
[ [
(10)
Approximate methods
Enter values X
i
are transformed on uncorrelated norm random
variables Y
i
Position of design point D is found which lies on the failure
function g(y) and has the minimal distance from centre of
distribution C. The distance is reliability index (Hasofer -
Lind reliability index).
Failure function can be usually linearly distributed (FORM)
using Taylor progression or the quadratic approximation form
can be used (SORM).

fy1(y1)
fy2(y2)
D
g(y)=0
C
Simulation techniques
Monte Carlo
- Repeated numerical simulation solving failure function g(X) always
with another random generated vector of enter parameter X
i
.
- Obtained set G (g
1
, g
2
g
n
) is statistically evaluated.
Probability of failure:

where N
f
is the number of simulations with g
j
s 0,
N is the global number of simulations.

To obtain correct results,large number of simulation is needed, so that
much computer time is necessary although powerful computer is used.
This disadvantage can be eliminate by means of modern simulation
techniques.
/N N P
f f
= (11)
Importance Sampling
Concentration of simulations in the region of g(x) = 0 using weight
function h
y
(x)


Where 1 [g(x)] = 1 for X
j
from field of failure,
= 0 for other X
i

Concept of Importance Sampling can be applied also for another point,
e.g. for surroundings of point corresponding with mean values.
(12)
| | (x) dX h
(x) h
(x) f
g(x) P
y
D
y
x
f
f
=
}
0 1
hy=fx(x)/pf1 hy=fx(x)/pf2
pf1 pf2
hyX(x)=0
1.4 The partial safety factor method

Reliability condition is defined in the partial safety factor method in a
separate form as follows:





E
d
are design action effects,
R
d
is the design resistance of material, member or structure,
C
d
is the nominal value of certain properties of structural member or
structure.



(13)
d d
d d
C E
R E
s
s
- Separation of random variables E and R
( )
( )
( )
E E R R
E R
E R
E R
E R
E R
E R
E R
E R
o o o o

o o
o o

o o
o o
o o

|
+

=
+
+

=
+
+
+

=
2 2
2 2 5 , 0
2 2
5 , 0
2 2
5 , 0
2 2
.
Separation is attained through the so-called separation (sensitivity,
linearised) function of action effects and structural resistance.
(14)

From the reliability condition in the form:
the following equation can be derived:

is the separation function of
action effects
is the separation function of
structural resistance
Separation functions o
E
and o
R
are replaced in the method of partial
factors by constants:

expressing very well the real form of the functions o
E
and o
R
within the
range of o
E
a o
R
:

(15)
d
| s |
( )
( )
5 , 0
2 2
5 , 0
2 2
/
/
E R R R
E R E E
o o o o
o o o o
+ =
+ =
(16)
(17)
6 7 16 0 , / ,
R E
< o o <
8 , 0
7 , 0
=
=
R
E
o
o
R d R R E d E E
o | o o | o + s +
- Application of characteristic values

- design value of action
- design value of material property
- design value of geometrical property

- design value of action effects
- design value of material resistance

Assuming proportionality of loads effects E to the action F and model
uncertainties, the following relations for partial safety factors
F
and
M
can
be derived:
- partial safety factor of action effects

- partial safety factor of material
=
d f k
F F
m k d
X X / =
a a a
nom d
A =
( )
( )
,
/ , /
= A
= A
d Ed f k nom
d k m nom Rd
E E F a a
R R X a a
( )
( )
F f Ed nom
M m Rd nom
1 a / a
/ 1 a / a
= + A
= A

f
is a partial safety factor for action allowing for adverse deviations
of loading from its representative values,

m
is a partial safety factor for material properties considering
adverse deviations of material properties from their characteristic
values,

Ed
is a partial factor considering uncertainties of the model of load
response,

Rd
is a partial factor allowing for uncertainties of the resistance model

Aa allows for effect of adverse deviations of geometrical properties from
their nominal values a
nom
.
Generally, the partial safety factors for action effects and materials
can be derived as follows:







Where

E
,
R
are the ratios of the mean values of action effects or
structural resistance respectively to the relevant
characteristic values,so-called bias factor of action
effects or structural resistance,
=
E
, =
R
are the coefficients of variations of action effects or
structural resistance respectively.
( )
( )
( )
( )
1
R d R
1
R
R d R R
k
d k M
E d E E
k
E d E E
k d F
1
1
R
R / R
1
E
1
E / E

e | o + =
e | o
= =
e | o + =
e | o +
= =
(18)
(19)
2. Reliability of existing bridge structures

2.1 Relationship between structural design and
evaluation of existing structures


Reliability of existing bridge structure is the ability to meet required
functions within bridge remaining lifetime respecting usual traffic
condition and bridge maintenance.

Required functions:

to carry all actions especially traffic action on bridges
to preserve required operating efficiency of transport communications
to preserve required comfort and convenience for passengers

Number of bridges: 7423 persistent bridges
29 temporary bridges

Material: concrete - 93 %
steel - 3 %
others - 4 %

Global length of bridges: 106,521 km
from this: 96,6 % massive bridges
3,4 % steel bridges

Evaluation : 22 % bridges do not meet required
loading capacity
2.1 % is in accidental condition

Statistical data about road bridges in Slovakia

Number of bridges: 2281 bridges

Material: 78 % massive bridges
22 % steel bridges

Global length of bridges: 78,030 km
from this: 52,5 % massive bridges
47,5 % steel bridges

Evaluation: 23 % is more than 77 years
14 % is more than 100 years
2.4 % bridges do not meet required loading
capacity

Statistical data about railway bridges in Slovakia
Causes
Bad concept and technology of the bridge erection
Increasing of transport intensity
Material degradation due to retrogressive environment
Insufficient and unqualified bridge maintenance
Shortage of financial resources for bridge maintenance
Development of Slovak motorway network and modernisation of
European railway corridors

The main differences between existing bridges and
newly designed ones:
effect of the regular inspection as well as the results of the
technical diagnostics, which reduce the uncertainties of input
parameters of reliability verification,
lengths of the bridge remaining lifetime; it means time,for
which the results of evaluation are reliable,
effect of the reliability level differentiation in dependence on
function of the element in the whole system,
actual bridge condition found by diagnostic investigation.

Therefore, the adjusted reliability level for existing
bridge evaluation should be considered.
In assessing reliability of existing structures include bridges,it is
necessary to consider differences they may have in comparison with
newly designed structures.
2.2 Adjusted reliability level for existing bridge evaluation

Due to differences between design of new structures and evaluation of the
existing ones, the adjusted reliability level should be derived using
theoretical approach based on conditional probability respecting basic
information from regular bridge inspection.
Basic assumptions:
The observed bridge member was designed for planned lifetime of Td with
basic reliability level given by reliability index (t):

R
(t),
R
(t) are the mean value and the standard deviation of normally
distributed member resistance,

E
(t),
R
(t) are the mean value and standard deviation of normally
distributed action effects.

| |
0,5
2 2
R E R E
(t) (t) (t) / (t) (t) 3.80
(
= + =

(20)
An inspection carried out at time t
insp
< T
d
has shown that the verified
bridge member should not fail in the sense of exceeding any of its limit
states. This state can be described by following equation:


Time dependent R and E enables considering changes of member resistance
and action effects in time to allow for e.g. effects of material degradation.
The conditional probability that bridge member survives to planned lifetime
T
d
will be as follows:
i insp
R(t) max[E (t)], for i 1, 2 . N (t ) > = .
(21)
( )( )
( )( )
i d
i insp
P R(t) max(E (t) i 1,..., N(T )
P R(t) max(E (t) i 1,....N(t )
=
=
=
(22)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
i insp d
i insp
P R t max E t , for i N t 1 N T /
R(t) max E (t) , for i 1, . N t
> = + .
> = . =
The probability of failure for member remaining lifetime will be then:



And corresponding reliability index:

Individual probability of failure P
f
(t
insp
) respectively P
f
(T
d
) could be
calculated using formulae:




where
is the cumulative distribution function of random variable E(t)
f d f insp
f d
fu
f insp f insp
P (T ) P (t )
1 P (T )
P (t) 1
1 P (t ) 1 P (t )

= =

) 23 (
( ). ) ( ) (
1
t P t
fu u

= | |
(24)
} } |
|
.
|

\
|

=


t
R R
R
f
dx d f
x
x F t P
0
) (
) (
1
) (
) (
) ( 1 ) ( t t
t o t o
t

(25)
(
(

t t
|
|
.
|

\
|
t o
t
|
}
=
t
0
E
E
d ) ( f
) (
) ( x
1 ) t ( L
e ) x ( F
(26)
( ) ( ) ( )
> e< =
> e< =
t pre
t pre t L f
, 0 , 0
, 0 , /
t
t t t
(27)
Action effects E
i
(t) are considered as a set of load effects repeating in
time with frequency N(t), that is a random variable having Poisson
distribution of probability in form:





Parameter (t) represents intensity of action effects occurrence
within the requisite time and thus also intensity of failures. It may be
considered constant or in time linearly dependent within observed
time.
(28)
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
}
=
= = =
t
t L
k
d t L
k k e t L k t N P
0
... 0 for , ! /
t t
Results of parametric studies show, that reliability index (t) increases
for member remaining lifetime due to positive information acquired
upon performed inspection. If proper implementation of inspection can
be assumed when designing a structural member, the member can be
designed to a lower target reliability index
t
. This can be determined
by iteration, so that at the end of the member lifetime its value did not
decrease below the basic design level
d
= 3.80.
2,4
2,9
3,4
3,9
4,4
0,000 0,125 0,250 0,375 0,500 0,625 0,750 0,875 1,000
t
insp
/T
|
u


=
0,0125
0,025
0,0625
0,125
0,25
|
u
2,4
2,6
2,8
3,0
3,2
3,4
3,6
3,8
4,0
0,000 0,125 0,250 0,375 0,500 0,625 0,750 0,875 1,000
t
insp
/T
|
t
=
0,0125
0,025
0,0625
0,125
0,25
As it has been shown in previous pictures, the reliability level is in all
cases connected closely with a structural lifetime. In the case of new
structures, it is their planned lifetime.

In the case of existing ones it should be the remaining lifetime for which
the determined level of reliability is applicable. Due to difficulties in
determining realistic remaining lifetime of existing bridge structural
members, the reliability level for planned remaining lifetime has been
derived.

The planned remaining lifetime is the difference between the design
lifetime T
d
and the time during which the structure was in operation,
provided all design requirements were respected purpose of the
structure, periodic inspections, current maintenance, etc.
Table 1 The reliability levels for existing bridge evaluation
Bridge evaluation after
20. years 40. years 60. years 70. years
Remaining
lifetime
|years| P
ft
|
t
P
ft
|
t
P
ft
|
t
P
ft
|
t
3 5,60.10
-4
3,26 1,08.10
-3
3,07 1,58.10
-3
2,95 1,82.10
-3
2,91
5 3,73.10
-4
3,37 6,70.10
-4
3,21 9,65.10
-4
3,10 1,11.10
-3
3,06
10 2,23.10
-4
3,51 3,71.10
-4
3,37 5,18.10
-4
3,28 5,91.10
-4
3,24
20 1,48.10
-4
3,62 2,21.10
-4
3,51 2,95.10
-4
3,44
30 1,23.10
-4
3,67 1,73.10
-4
3,58
40 1,11.10
-4
3,69 1,48.10
-4
3,62
50 1,05.10
-4
3,71
60 9,70.10
-5
3,73
Table 1 The reliability levels for existing bridge evaluation
Bridge evaluation after
20. years 40. years 60. years 70. years
Remaining
lifetime
|years| P
ft
|
t
P
ft
|
t
P
ft
|
t
P
ft
|
t
3 5,60.10
-4
3,26 1,08.10
-3
3,07 1,58.10
-3
2,95 1,82.10
-3
2,91
5 3,73.10
-4
3,37 6,70.10
-4
3,21 9,65.10
-4
3,10 1,11.10
-3
3,06
10 2,23.10
-4
3,51 3,71.10
-4
3,37 5,18.10
-4
3,28 5,91.10
-4
3,24
20 1,48.10
-4
3,62 2,21.10
-4
3,51 2,95.10
-4
3,44
30 1,23.10
-4
3,67 1,73.10
-4
3,58
40 1,11.10
-4
3,69 1,48.10
-4
3,62
50 1,05.10
-4
3,71
60 9,70.10
-5
3,73
The adjusted reliability levels shown in Table 1 are valid for primary bridge
members.
The uniform reliability level, P
ft
= 2,3 . 10
-3
or |
t
= 2,80 was established
for secondary bridge members.


2.3 Loading capacity as the basic parameter of
existing bridge evaluation

Process of reliability verification of existing bridge structures is a
crucial part of their overall evaluation, which is understood as a
complex assessment based on processing all available information to
reach the optimum most economic decision concerning the bridge
rehabilitation strategy.
Two approaches to existing bridge evaluation :

classification approaches
reliability based approaches
Classification approaches involve assessment of an existing bridge
structure based on results of periodic inspection, but without checking the
reliability of existing bridge structure taking into account only current
technical bridge condition.
In classification approaches,this is expressed by various weighted
coefficients which seek to take into account the influence of bridge
member damage or failure upon its reliability and reliability of whole
bridge structure.

Reliability-based approaches to the existing bridge evaluation look at
direct influence of current bridge member technical condition on its
behaviour and its reliability by means of its reliability verification.

The basic quantitative and qualitative parameter in reliability-based
evaluation of existing bridge structure is its loading capacity expressed in
the form of so-called

Live load rating factor - LLRF.


Loading capacity of existing bridge structures

LLRF can be derived for separate bridge member from a marginal condition of
reliability of relevant limit state. In the case of ultimate limit states:


where





where E
Qd
is the design value of the variable short-term traffic load
effects
are design values of others loads acting simultaneously with the
traffic load ( permanent load, variable long-term load, climatic
loads, brake forces,lateral strokes etc.)
(20)
d d
E R =
n 1
d rs,di Qd d
i 1
n 1
d
rs,di Qd
i 1
E E LLRF E R
LLRF R - E E

=
= + =
| |
= /
|
\ .

(21)

=
1
1
n
i
rs,di
E
Loading capacity is understood as the amount of bridge capacity used
by a variable short-term traffic action. It is expressed via the level of
an appropriate variable load effects, either road or railway traffic,
which are considered by ideal load models.

In the case of railway bridges - dynamic load effects of load
model UIC-71 (E
UIC,d
) are considered as the appropriate level of load
effects.
In the case of road bridges three types of loading capacities
shall be distinguish according to Slovak standards:

normal loading capacity (n)
exclusive loading capacity (r)
exceptional loading capacity (e)


In accordance with appropriate type of road loading capacity, the
relevant traffic load models for normal, exclusive and exceptional
loads shall be applied.




where
V
j
is the the loading capacity expressed by vehicle weight of the
appropriate road traffic load model,
V
jk
is the characteristic value of vehicle weight of the appropriate
road traffic load model.

n 1
j d rs,di d jk
i 1
V R - E / Q .V , for j n, r, e

=
(
| |
= =
( |
\ .

(22)
While the loading capacity of road bridges directly specified the
weight of vehicles passing the bridge structure without any
limitations, in the case of railway bridges the passage of actual traffic
load shall be specified additionally using following formulae:


where

and
UIC
is the actual railway traffic load efficiency,
E
T
is the characteristic value of actual railway traffic load
effects,
E
UIC
is the characteristic value of load model UIC-71 effects

is the dynamic factor of the load model UIC-71,

f
is the dynamic factor of actual railway traffic load
effects.
UIC UIC
UIC T UIC
LLRF
E / E
>
=
(23)
(24)
f
/ =
Load class Axle load
[kN]
Equivalent uniformly
distributed load
[kNm
-1
]
A 160 50
B 1 180 50
B 2 180 64
C 2 200 64
C 3 200 72
C 4 200 80
D 2 225 64
D 3 225 72
D 4 225 80
The real railway traffic vehicles are simulated by means of represen-
tative traffic load models included in nine classes. The axle forces and
equivalent uniformly distributed load are defined for every
representative load model.

In the approach described above, the UIC-71 load model effects are
used as a comparative level for determining passage of actual traffic
load over the observed bridge, so that it means generalization but
also simplification of the approach presented above.
To avoid some shortages of the simplified standard practice
mentioned above, the concept of traffic loading capacity in the form
of Traffic Load Rating Factor (TLRF) was developed having the
following form



E
Td
is the design value of the dynamic effects of the actual railway
traffic load classified in nine classes presented on previous
slide.
(25)
( )
T d rs,di Td
LLRF R - E /E =
3. Parameters entering process of existing
bridge reliability verification
3.1 Load and material characteristics of steel bridge
structures

Permanent and long-term actions
Self-weight of structural and non-structural bridge member
Characteristic values:

A
k
is the nominal value of cross-section area,
is the average material bulk density.
Design values:
- considering G
k
as a nominal value
- considering G
k
as a mean value

k k
A G = (26)
k G d
G G =
(27)
( )
G d EG G Sd G
e | o + = 1
1
( )
G d EG Sd G
e | o + = 1
2
Table 2
Action

G1

G2

G
Hot-rolled bars 1.050 0.062 1.209 1.198 1.223
Sheets 1.000 0.030 1.074 1.068 1.080
Compound cross-sections 1.008 0.067 1.173 1.162 1.188
Cast-in-factory members 1.030 0.080 1.232 1.217 1.250
Cast-in-place members 1.050 0.100 1.307 1.289 1.330

The values of partial safety factors for some types of permanent actions

Gi
were calculated using adjusted reliability level derived for existing
bridge structure evaluation. In Table 2 are given the adjusted values of
Gi

determined for adjusted reliability indexes
t
= 3.50(
G1
)and
t
= 3.25
(
G2
)valid for bridge remaining lifetime t=20 years or t=10 years
respectively. Partial safety factor of model uncertainties was taken into
account by value
Ed
=1.0. Calculated values are presented in Table 2
together with basic value valid for
d
=3.80(
G
).
Variable traffic actions
In case of railway bridges, the load model UIC-71 is used to
calculate LLRF
UIC
and
UIC
.
Load class Axle load
[kN]
Equivalent uniformly
distributed load
[kNm
-1
]
A 160 50
B 1 180 50
B 2 180 64
C 2 200 64
C 3 200 72
C 4 200 80
D 2 225 64
D 3 225 72
D 4 225 80
The real railway traffic vehicles are simulated by means of represen-
tative traffic load models included in nine classes. The axle forces and
equivalent uniformly distributed load are defined for every
representative load model.





3.2 Partial safety factors for existing bridge evaluation


To determine adjusted values of partial safety factors for railway
traffic action, the statistical characteristics of actual railway traffic
action is necessary to know.

The basic information is possible to obtain:

- by means of information system of Slovak Railways IRIS-N, where
data about freight trains are available,
- in-situ measurements on real bridge structures,
- numerical simulation of trains passing the bridge structures using
appropriate transformation models of bridge structures and
information acquired from IRIS-N,
- combination of above mentioned approaches.


To obtain effects of the real railway traffic load, the in-situ
measurements on the actual bridge structure across river Vh were
carried out. The observed bridge structure is located near the
railway station Turany and represents the three-spans steel railway
bridge consisting of two truss girders and open bridge deck. The in-
situ measurements were carried out in 43.4 m long span, which
cross-section is presented in following Fig.

The passages of the 25 freight trains and 26 local trains were
monitored within the 20-hour in-situ measurement. The measured
values were statistically processed.
In-situ measurements and numerical simulation of
traffic load effects

Results of in-situ measurements
The mean values (
s
) and coefficients of variation (
s
) of the
processed statistical data obtained by in-situ measurements are as
follows:

s,H4
= - 24.02 MPa,
s,H4
= - 0.20,
H4
= 0.34
for the upper chord

s,S4
= 19.21 MPa,
s,S4
= 0.20,
S4
= 0.37
for the bottom chord


Results of the numerical simulation
Using numerical simulation of train passages over the bridge, the
static load effects of the 205 freight train sets moving on the
bridge within one week were obtained. Dynamic response of the
observed bridge chord members was allowed for using the
dynamic factor o
f
in accordance with ENV 1991-3 (1995) that is
valid for actual railway traffic load taking into account the actual
train speed. The stress responses of the bridge chord members
obtained by numerical simulations were statistically processed.
and are presented.

The major statistical characteristics of the observed members
stress response are as follows

s,H4
= - 32.84 MPa,
s,H4
= - 0.20,
H4
= 0.47

s,S4
= 23.87 MPa,
s,S4
= 0.19,
S4
= 0.47

Bottom chord S
4
0
5
10
15
20
1
2
,
0
0
1
4
,
4
4
1
6
,
8
8
1
9
,
3
2
2
1
,
7
6
2
4
,
2
0
2
6
,
6
4
2
9
,
0
8
3
1
,
5
2
3
3
,
9
6
3
6
,
4
0
3
8
,
8
4
Stress [MPa]
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

[
%
]
Upper chord H
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
-
5
6
,
0
0
-
5
2
,
8
8
-
4
9
,
7
6
-
4
6
,
6
4
-
4
3
,
5
2
-
4
0
,
4
0
-
3
7
,
2
8
-
3
4
,
1
6
-
3
1
,
0
4
-
2
7
,
9
2
-
2
4
,
8
0
-
2
1
,
6
8
Stress [MPa]
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

[
%
]
Partial safety factors for traffic load
The obtained statistical data was applied for determining values of
partial safety factor for railway traffic action respecting adjusted
reliability level valid for existing bridge evaluation. Due to many
quantities with very similar values, a simplification has been performed
and result values recommended for practice are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Bridge age
Less than 60 year More than 60 year
Remaining bridge lifetime t
r
Remaining bridge lifetime t
r

Bridge
component


10s t
r
s20

3s t
r
<10

t
r
< 3

10s t
r
s20

3s t
r
<10

t
r
< 3
Main bridge
components
1.30 1.25 1.20 1.30 1.20 1.15
Secondary
bridge
components
1.20 1.20 1.20 1.15 1.15 1.15

Material characteristics
To determine partial safety factors for structural steel, we have a
large statistical sets of yield strength collected from 60-ties. Assuming
gamma distribution of collected material properties we determine
partial safety factor of structural steel for adjusted reliability level
t

= 3.50.




where f
yk
is the characteristic value of steel yield strength,
f
yd
is the design value of steel yield strength,
a
R
is the non-symmetry coefficient of steel yield strength,
e
R
is the variation coefficient of steel yield strength,

r
is the mean value of cross-sectional characteristic,
e
r
is the variation coefficient of cross-sectional characteristic,
k,k
d
are constants allowing for adjustment of the reliability index for
gamma distribution.
| |
5 , 0 2 2
) )( 1 ( 1
) 1 ( 64 , 1 1
/
r R R d t R r
R R
yd yk M
a
a
f f
e e k | o
e k

+

= =
(28)
for 3 s t
r
s 20 years:
M
= 1.10 for S 235

M
= 1.15 for S 355

for t
r
< 3 years:
M
= 1.05 for S 235

M
= 1.10 for S 355
Bridge age
<
60 years
>
60 years
Bridge remaining lifetime t
r


comp tens comp tens
10 s
t
r

s
20 years
1,25 1,40 1,20 1,30
3
s
t
r

<
10 years
1,20 1,30 1,20 1,25
t
r


< 3 years 1,15 1,25 1,15 1,20
3.3 Calibration of partial safety factor for action and
material

The values of partial safety factors for actions and for material were
determined for adjusted reliability level separately. Now we will
verified proposed values of relevant partial safety factors using
calibration.
Load model
As the representative load model of railway traffic load, the load model
A according the UIC Kodex 700 V has been chosen.
Resistance model

Tension member S
4
of bottom chord

N
t,4
= R
t
. A
n
= f
y
.
a
. A
n
(29)

f
y
is the steel yield strength,

a
= A/An is a ratio of real and nominal value of cross-sectional
area of the bottom chord.

Member resistance R
t
has been determined using Monte Carlo
simulation.

Rt
= m
Rt
/m
Rk
= 1,20 - bias factor of the member resistance,
v
Rt
= 0,092 - coefficient of variation of the member resistance.


Compression member of upper chord

The buckling resistance of the bridge upper chord could be
determined according to formulae valid for pin-ended strut with
initial out-of-straightness of sinus half wave derived by ertler, Vian
and Slavk (1992) in form taking into account all the parameters as
random variables.
R
C
= [| - (|
2
- |
1
)0,5
]
a
(30a)
where | = 0,5 [f
y
+ t
2
E ((
b
/
L
.

n
)
2
+
e
.e
oe,n
.z
n
.
b
/
L
)]

|
1
= t
2
Ef
y
(
b
/
L

n
) (30b)


and
a
= A / A
n
is the ratio of the actual and nominal
values of the cross-section area (fabrication
factor)
f
y
is the actual steel yield strength.

The following symbols were used in relation (30a) and (30b):


L
= L
cr
/ L
n
,
b
= b / b
n
,
e
= e
oe
/ e
oe,n
, z
n
= (z / L)
n
(31)



n
is the nominal value of the member slenderness,
L
cr
(L
cr,n
) is the actual (nominal) buckling length of
chord member,
b (b
n
) is the actual (nominal) width of the chord
cross-section,
e
oe
(e
oe,n
) is the actual (nominal) equivalent value of the relative
initial out-of-straightness,
z
n
is the nominal distance of the extreme cross-sectional
fibres from the centroid of the chord cross-section.

The empirical distribution of steel yield strength and relative width
b
of the upper chord cross- section
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2
3
8
2
4
8
2
5
8
2
6
8
2
7
8
2
8
8
2
9
8
3
0
8
3
1
8
3
2
8
f
y
[MPa]
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

[
%
]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
,
9
6
0
,
9
7
0
,
9
8
0
,
9
9
1
,
0
0
1
,
0
1
1
,
0
2
1
,
0
3
1
,
0
4
1
,
0
5
1
,
0
6
1
,
0
7
1
,
0
8
1
,
0
9
1
,
1
0
1
,
1
1
1
,
1
2
f
b
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

[
%
]
The remaining random variables have normal distribution with
parameters

a

a
= 1.001,
a
= 0.03

e

e
= 0.963,
e
= 0.022

Constants entering formulae (30) have following values:

E = 210 000 MPa, z
n
=

0.06912,
n
=23.42, e
oe,n
= 0.001

Histogram of the chord buckling resistance obtained by Monte-Carlo
simulation
Statistical characteristics of the buckling resistance R
C


R
= 266,101 MPa,
R
= 19,603 MPa

R
=
Rc
/
Rk
= 1,15 bias factor of member resistance

Rc
= 0,070 variation coefficient of member
resistance

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
0
6
,
1
1
2
1
4
,
2
4
2
2
2
,
3
7
2
3
0
,
5
0
2
3
8
,
6
3
2
4
6
,
7
6
2
5
4
,
8
9
2
6
3
,
0
2
2
7
1
,
1
5
2
7
9
,
2
8
2
8
7
,
4
1
2
9
5
,
5
4
3
0
3
,
6
7
3
1
1
,
8
0
3
1
9
,
9
3
3
2
8
,
0
6
3
3
6
,
1
9
R
c
[MPa]
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

[
%
]
RackwitzFiessler method of design point

Design point D is laying on the failure border and has the maximum
probability of failure.

G = R E = 0
so that following relation is valid for point D (R
D
, E
D
)

R
D
= E
D
.
The approximation of cumulative distribution function of resistance F
R

and load effects F
E
on cumulative distribution functions of normally
distributed random variables is the basic assumption of the above
mentioned method.
Then standard deviation and mean value can be defined by following
relations


| | { } ) R ( f / ) R ( F
D R D R n
R
1
| = o
Similar relations are valid for standard deviation and mean value of load
effects .


n
is the probability density function of norm normal distribution,
| is the cumulative distribution function of norm normal distribution.

| |
) R ( F . R
R

D R
R D
1
| =
Now the reliability index can be determined, which defines the distance
of the design point D from the centre C of distribution.


Sradnice nvrhovho bodu urme zo vzahov


( )
5 0
2 2 2
,
E R R
R D
/ R o + o o | = ( )
5 0
2 2 2
,
E R E
E D
/ E o + o o | + =
( ) ( )
5 0
2 2
,
E R E R /
+ = |
In the analysed case, the normally distributed load effects has been
considered, because they are a sum of effects of permanent , long-term
variable and short-term variable actions. From this point of view, the
approximation of cumulative distribution function has not be needed. The
member resistance has been assumed as log-normally distributed random
variable.

The calibration of partial safety factors has been performed for basic
combination of permanent, long-term variable and short-term variable
traffic actions represented by load model A.

M k Tk
f
FT
Qk
FQ
Gk
FG
/ R E E E s o + +


Fi
are partial safety factors of effects of permanent action
(E
Gk
), long-term variable action (E
Qk
) and short-term variable
traffic action (E
Tk
),

f
is the dynamic factor of real traffic load,

M
is the partial safety factor of structural steel.

For set of partial safety factors determined separately for adjusted
reliability level given by reliability index
t
= 3,50


FG
= 1,10,
FQ
= 1,20,
FT
= 1,20,
M
= 1,10

the characteristic value of R
k
has been determined from marginal
reliability condition and using bias factor of member resistance the
mean value of resistance
R
is calculated. By means of statistical
characteristics of individual load effects, the mean value
E
and
standard deviation
E
of global load effects could then be determined.
The standard deviation and mean value of the approximate normal
distribution of the member resistance R in the point R
D
will be then
as follows:
D R R .R = = o
R
R D
R
D
R
)/ ln (lnR R = o =
) k (1 R R
D
R
= =
For proposed set of partial safety factors, the distance of design point
from centre of distribution has been calculated by means of an iteration
process.



= 4,343 > t = 3,50
= 4,415 > t = 3,50
In the case of compression resistance model of the chord H4 :
In the case of tension resistance model of chord S4: