Deliverable D5

DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS
(LOADS AND STRENGTH)

Status P

BRIME
PL97-2220

Project
Coordinator:

Dr R J Woodward, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)

Partners:

Bundesanstalt fuer Strassenwesen (BASt)

Centro de Estudios y Experimentacion de Obras Publicas (CEDEX)
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses (LCPC)
Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA)
Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute (ZAG)

Date:

October 1999
PROJECT FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION UNDER THE TRANSPORT
RTD. PROGRAM OF THE
4th FRAMEWORK PROGRAM

by

C Cremona, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses (LCPC)

R Kaschner, P Haardt, Bundesanstalt fr Straenwesen (BASt)
A Daly, D Cullington, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)

Deliverable D5
2

P97-2220
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary
SCOPE................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1

2. DESCRIPTION OF INTRINSIC AND STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES.................3

2.1. Events - fields .....................................................................................................................................................................3
2.1.1. Measures of probability ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2. Consequences............................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1.3. Conditional probabilities .......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.4. Bayes theorem............................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1.5. Independence............................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2.6. Random variable ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.7. Mean and standard deviation.................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.8. Some useful random variables ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1.8.1. Normal distribution ........................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.8.2. Lognormal distribution..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.8.3. Gumbel distribution (max) ................................................................................................................................ 6
2.2. Sampling ............................................................................................................................................................................6
2.3. Estimation ..........................................................................................................................................................................7
2.3.1. Method of moments .................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3.2. Maximum likelihood method .................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.3. Estimation by confidence intervals ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.4. Tests of hypotheses ..........................................................................................................................................................9
2.5. Uncertainty updating......................................................................................................................................................10
2.6. Extreme distributions ....................................................................................................................................................10
2.7. Other sources of uncertainties....................................................................................................................................11
2.7.1. Relations between variables .................................................................................................................................. 11
2.7.2. Errors and noises ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.7.3. Description of the model uncertainties ................................................................................................................ 11

3. RESISTANCE MODELLING..........................................................................................12
3.1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................12
3.2. Basic properties of hot-rolled steel members ...........................................................................................................12
3.2.1. Steel material properties.......................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.2. Yield strength........................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.3. Moduli of elasticity ................................................................................................................................................. 14
3.2.4. Strain-hardening properties ................................................................................................................................... 14

3.3. Properties of steel reinforcing bars ...........................................................................................................................15

3.4. Concrete statistical properties ....................................................................................................................................16
3.5. Statistical properties of structural members............................................................................................................18
3.5.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.5.2. Methods of analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 18
3.5.3. Second-moment analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 19
3.6. Acceptance criteria for existing structures..............................................................................................................20
3.6.1. Probabilistic format.................................................................................................................................................. 21
3.6.2. Semi-probabilistic format........................................................................................................................................ 21

4. ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC LOADS AND LOAD EFFECTS................................23

4.1. Design codes....................................................................................................................................................................23
4.2. UK - Assessment - Code ................................................................................................................................................24
4.3. Simulation method..........................................................................................................................................................25
4.3.1. General....................................................................................................................................................................... 25
4.3.2. Simulation of load effects ....................................................................................................................................... 26
4.3.3. Simulation of characteristic traffic loads.............................................................................................................. 27
4.4. Analytical methods .........................................................................................................................................................28
4.4.1. General....................................................................................................................................................................... 28
4.4.2. Method of asymptotic distribution of extremes.................................................................................................. 29
4.4.3. Consideration of the second lane in an analytic way ........................................................................................ 30

5. DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADAPTED LOAD MODEL.................................................31

5.1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................31
5.2. Basic values and assumptions ......................................................................................................................................31
5.2.1. Structural Systems ................................................................................................................................................... 31
5.2.2. Traffic data................................................................................................................................................................ 33
5.2.3. Traffic categories ..................................................................................................................................................... 36
5.2.4. Dynamic influences ................................................................................................................................................. 37
5.3. Results..............................................................................................................................................................................38
5.3.1. Extreme traffic loads ................................................................................................................................................ 38
5.3.2. Extreme Load Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 40
5.3.3. Approximation for extreme load effects................................................................................................................ 47
5.3.4. Conception of a load model................................................................................................................................... 48

6. REFINED OBJECT - RELATED ANALYSIS ..............................................................51

7. DETERMINATION OF PARTIAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR TRAFFIC LOADING
.................................................................................................................................................53
8. CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................55
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................57

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SCOPE
Europe has a large capital investment in the road network including bridges, which are the most
vulnerable element. The network contains older bridges, built when traffic loading was lighter and
before modern design standards were established. In some cases, therefore, their carrying capacity
may be uncertain. Furthermore, as bridges grow older, deterioration caused by heavy traffic and an
aggressive environment becomes increasingly significant resulting in a higher frequency of repairs and
possibly a reduced load carrying capacity.
The purpose of the BRIME project is to develop a framework for the management of bridges on the
European road network. This would enable bridges to be maintained at minimum overall cost, taking
all factors into account including condition of the structure, load carrying capacity, rate of
deterioration, effect on traffic, life of the repair and the residual life of the structure.
The objective of WP 2: Assessing the load carrying capacity of existing bridges is to derive
general guidelines for structural assessment. The knowledge of material strength and loading is
therefore essential for performing an appropriate assessment of an existing structure. For this
purpose, this report describes first some statistical concepts useful for defining distributions and
characteristic values. The second part is dedicated to models for strength highlighting the inherent
variabilities and the possible reduction in safety factors. The third part concerns traffic load
modelling. It is shown, in which way suitable and realistic object related assumptions for traffic loads
can be obtained and how they can be used for structural assessment.

SUMMARY
This report describes different models for strength and traffic load. As a first step (section 2), the
report presents general information about uncertainty modelling. Section 3 provides different results
regarding the uncertainties associated with strength properties (and some stiffness properties).
Reductions in safety factors as prescribed by the Canadian standards are also given. Section 4
presents some possibilities for adjusting traffic loading according to the bridge which as to be
assessed when for instance its conventional lifetime is reduced.

IMPLEMENTATION
This report forms the basis for a subsequent discussion and evaluation of bridge assessment
procedures which will ultimately lead to the development of proposals and guidelines. Materials
presented in this report are linked to proposals made in deliverable D10 Guidelines for assessing
load carrying capacity and is taken into considerations in deliverable D6 Experimental assessment
methods and use of reliability techniques.

DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL
(LOADS AND STRENGTH)

ABSTRACT
This report describes different models for strength and traffic load. As a first step (section 2), the
report presents general information about uncertainty modelling. Section 3 provides different results
regarding the uncertainties associated with strength properties (and some stiffness properties).
Reductions in safety factors as prescribed by the Canadian standards are also given. Section 4
presents some possibilities for adjusting traffic loading according to the bridge which as to be
assessed when for instance its conventional lifetime is reduced. Finally, in conclusion, some
proposals are made regarding the format to use (probabilistic, semi-probabilistic) for assessment.

1. INTRODUCTION
For structural assessment of existing bridges several procedures are practicable, which differ with
regard to amount and complexity. First of all it has to be clarified which are the true loads and
present structural strength. Beside this the format expressing those variables will differ according to
the assessment approach (deterministic, semi-probabilistic, probabilistic).
To limit amount and complexity of assessment it is obvious to start with simple assumptions and
methods and to refine the investigation by steps in case of need. Consequently, The essential
parameters which characterise structural resistance or applied loads, cannot be defined solely in
terms of characteristic values reduced by partial safety factors, but also in terms of random variables
characterised by means and moments. Indeed, if a full reliability analysis has to be performed (see
deliverable D6 /21/), one has to express them in terms of statistical distributions. For this purpose,
the first section briefly presents the different approaches given by the probability theory for modelling
and assessing the physical, statistical and model uncertainties.
The uncertainties associated with strength properties (and some stiffness properties) will be
considered in this report. To describe adequately the resistance properties of structural elements,
information about the following is required /23/:

statistical properties for material strength and stiffness,

statistical properties for dimensions,
rules for the combination of various properties (as in reinforced concrete members),
influence of time (e. g. size changes, strength changes, deterioration mechanisms such as
fatigue, corrosion, erosion, weathering, marine growth effects),
1

effect of "proof loading", i.e. the increase in confidence resulting from prior successful
loading,
influence of fabrication methods on element and structural strength and stiffness (and
perhaps other properties),
influence of quality control measures such as construction inspection and in-service
inspection,
correlation effects between different properties and between different locations of members
and structure.

Only relatively little information is available in statistical terms, mostly for items (1)-(3). A useful
summary of time-independent statistical properties for reinforced and prestressed concrete
members, metal members and components, masonry and heavy timber structures has been given by
/1/. To illustrate the essential thinking, the present report will mainly review of the statistical
properties of structural steel and concrete.
In the frame of the present report only traffic loads are taken into consideration, because this type of
action is particularly important for bridges and one of their main loads. Traffic loads are subjected to
remarkable changes in time. Therefore they differ from permanent loads, which remain constant
during the service life, if no substantial intervention on the structure was performed. For instance in
Germany a steam-roller and a specified crowd of people was used as specified traffic load on
bridges 60 years ago. The increase of traffic loads has to be taken into account in the load model,
because bridges may reach a service life up to 80 to 100 years. This is done by application of
extreme traffic situations and the definition of a sufficient safety level. From time to time it has to be
checked, if the load standard covers the actual traffic. When the occasion arises the code must be
adapted. The last time this was performed in Germany was in 1985 as a result of the remarkable
increase of heavy good vehicle loads. Another adaptation will take place in future when the EC 1
load model will be introduced.
But not every existing bridge is exposed to extreme traffic loads, respectively the frequency of traffic
loads can be lower during the remaining or planned service life. In particular these aspects shall be
taken into account in the development of a load model for structural assessment of existing bridges.
In the case of bridges, which are eventually used for only 10 or 20 years, it is not purposeful to
calculate on a basis of a 1000 year return period of extreme loads, like it is taken as a basis for the
load model of EC1.
Above all in the following it will be shown, in which way suitable and realistic object related
assumptions for traffic loads can be obtained and how they can be used for structural assessment.

2. DESCRIPTION OF INTRINSIC AND STATISTICAL

UNCERTAINTIES
The statistical analysis is the easiest method for characterising the intrinsic uncertainty. For studying
the random phenomena, it is first necessary to precise the conditions necessary for their
observations. When these conditions are fixed by the observer, they define a random experience; if
it is not the case, they characterise a random test during which the phenomenon is realised (rain,
storm,...).
During an experiment E, the observer must define the set of all the possible results. There is a
real difficulty to do that. The same phenomenon can be defined by several random experiments.
Furthermore, the set of results can be finite or not. Often, the experiment introduces several stages:
measure of the temperature each day. Each stage is an experiment corresponding to a set of results
i . The total universe of the experiment is the cartesian product of i . If all the universes i are
identical, then the experiment is a processus.

2.1. Events - fields

For studying an uncertain or variable phenomenon in a significant manner, it is necessary to record
the set of the different samples, states, or results. The set is called the also called the sample
set. A familly T of subsets of is called a -field under the following conditions:
T
A T , A T (complemen tary event)

( An )n (series of events of T ),

(2.1)
(2.2)

U A T

(2.3)

The members of T are called events. A typical a -field is the family of the subsets of set .
2.1.1. Measures of probability
Let us consider a field T on a sample set , and let us assume that the evaluation of the confidence
regarding to the occurrence of a particular event A is required. The event is always certain,
since all the events are included in it, and the empty set is the impossible event. A measure of
probability P is a confidence measure defined by:
P : T [0,1]

(2.4)

A P( A)

and verifying:
P( ) = 0 ,
P( ) = 1 ,

( An )n Ai A j = , P

U
n

An =

P( A )
n

2.1.2. Consequences
Some results can be deduced from the previous definitions:

( )

A, P( A) = 1 P A ,
A, B A B ,P( A) P( B)
A, B P( A B) = P( A) + P(B ) = P( A B )
2.1.3. Conditional probabilities
Let us consider two events A and B; the conditional probability P( A / B ) of A according to B is
defined by:
P( A / B ) =

P( A B )
P(B )

(2.5)

If ( Bn )n is a series of events verifying P

Bn = 1, P( Bi ) > 0 , then it comes:

n N

A T , P ( A) =

P(B )P(A / B )
i

(2.6)

This result is called the theorem of total probabilities.

2.1.4. Bayes theorem
Under the same hypotheses of the theorem of total probabilities, and by assuming that the Bn are
non compatible ( Bi B j = ) then the following result called Bayes theorem can be stated:
P( Bi / A) =

P( A / Bi )P( Bi )

P( A / Bi )P( Bi )

(2.7)

2.1.5. Independence
Two events are said independent if the following condition is fulfilled:

P( A / B ) = P( A)
or
P( A B ) = P ( A).P( B )

(2.8)

2.2.6. Random variable

A random variable X is a function from to :
X :

(2.9)

X ( )

It is assumed that for all subset J of , X 1 ( J ) belongs to T.

The distribution of X is defined as the measure of probability PX verifying:

PX (J ) = P({ / X ( ) J })

(2.10)

for all subset J of . By sake of simplicity, the set { / X ( ) J } is noted X J .

The distribution of a random variables is entirely determined by the knowledge of the function:

FX ( x ) = PX (] , x]) = P({ / X ( ) x}) = P( X x )

(2.11)

This function is the probability function of the random variable X.

The distribution of X is said absolutely continuous or with density, if there exists a function f on
such as:
1.

f ( x )dx = 1

2.

F( x ) =

f ( x )dx

The function f is the probability density function of X.

Note: All these concepts can be generalised to random vectors, the real set being replaced by
p in the definitions of the random variable, the probability distribution, the probability function and
the probability density function.
2.1.7. Mean and standard deviation
From the density function, it is possible de define two very useful concepts, the mean and the
standard deviation:

Mean

X =

xf (x )dx

Standard deviation =

(2.12)

2
(
x X ) f (x )dx

2.1.8. Some useful random variables

2.1.8.1. Normal distribution

( y X )2
1
Probability function:
F( x ) =
exp

2
2

X and are respectively the mean and the standard deviation.

dy

2.1.8.2. Lognormal distribution

A variable is lognormal if its logarithm is a normal random variable.
ln( x ) 1
( y )2
Probability function:
F( x ) =
exp

2 s
s2

1
Mean:
X = exp( + s 2 )
2

Standard deviation:

= 1 exp( s 2 ) exp + s 2

dy

2.1.8.3. Gumbel distribution (max)

Probability function:
Mean:
Standard deviation:

x
F ( x ) = exp exp

X = + 0.5772

=
s
6

2.2. Sampling
Sampling is a random experiment which consists in the realisation of one or more elements of a set.
If n successive samplings are performed, X i being the one-dimensional random variable related to
the i-th draw, the n-random sample En = ( X1 ,L, X i ,L, X n ) is formed. The distribution of this
random vector is often called the likelihood. In presence of such a n-random sample, the question
which arises is to know what kind of information can be extracted concerning the phenomenon
under study. These information are called statistics. The most commonly used are the means and
the standard deviations of the random variables constituting the n-random sample. The sampling
distribution is therefore the probability distribution of a statistics defined by a random sample.

2.3. Estimation
After sampling, it may be useful to resume the information contents by numerical values. The most
interesting quantitative information are in general the characteristic parameters of the random
variables related to the studied phenomenon. Statistics being random variables, the numerical values
will depend on the sample. Consequently, with samples, it is only possible to obtain estimates of the
characteristic parameters of X.
There are two ways to perform estimation: punctual estimation and estimation by confidence
interval. The punctual estimation will characterise a parameter L by an unique value determined
from a statistics . is the estimate of L. Function of the sample size, n, it is noted n . The
estimation by confidence interval has for objective to define an interval ]a , b[ in which the value of L
can belong with a given probability .
In these two estimation approaches, it is useful for obtaining a correct estimation to look for an
estimate which verifies:
lim E (n ) = L

(2.13)

n +

i.e. asymptotically unbiased. This property expresses the fact that the estimate mean value is equal
to L. Nevertheless, that does not precise if the individual values of the sample are close to the
parameters.
An estimate must also be convergent in probability to L:
lim V (n ) = 0

(2.14)

n +

This property expresses that the error induced by the estimate decreases with the sample size.
For instance, the two following estimates:

1
X=
N
2X

(2.15)

i =1

1
=
N 1

(X

X)

(2.16)

i =1

are convergent and unbiased estimates for the mean and for the standard deviation.
A priori, several estimates exist: how to choose and what criteria to apply? It seems logical to select
among all the possible estimates, the estimate which has the minimal standard deviation for a given
sample. Such an estimate is called efficient: Furthermore, an estimate must use all the information
contained in the sample: it is said that the estimate is sufficient.

In practice, it is not possible to obtain estimates verifying the total set of properties. Numerous
methods exist for providing satisfying estimates. The two most used methods are respectively the
maximum likelihood method and the method of moments.
2.3.1. Method of moments
The most intuitive approach when there are r parameters to estimate, consists to identify the
theoretical expressions of the r moments non equal to 0 to the empirical moments calculated with the
sample. A system with r equations and r unknowns is obtained leading to the estimation of the r
estimates.
2.3.2. Maximum likelihood method
For obtaining the expression of the estimate of a parameter L, an approach consists in maximising
the likelihood function l ( x1,L, xn , L ) of the sample:
l
( x1 ,L , x n , L ) = 0
L

(2.17)

or similarly :
log (l )
( x1 ,L , xn , L) = 0
L

(2.18)

If the domain of the statistics is not depending on the parameter L, there exists an efficient estimate
n if and only if the following relation is satisfied:
log (l )
( x1 ,L , xn , L) = h( L )(n L )
L

where h ()
. is a function of L. n is then the unique efficient estimate of L and V (n ) =

(2.19)
1
. Such
h( L )

an estimate is called maximum likelihood estimate.

A priori, the estimates obtained from the maximum likelihood method and from the method of
moments are not necessary identical.
2.3.3. Estimation by confidence intervals
When an estimate n has been chosen for defining a parameter, and that an estimation has been
calculated, it is then also possible to define an open interval ]a ( ), b( )[ which covers the exact
value of the parameter L with a given probability . More precisely, the sample being selected and
the value assessed, a rational way to define this open interval must be determined. Statistical tests
provide efficient methods for determining such intervals with a confidence level. Some are presented
in the next section.
8

2.4. Tests of hypotheses

Numerous are the problems in practice which are not expressed in terms of estimation but in terms
of comparisons. One of the major problems is to assess if two different samples represent the same
phenomenon. The objective is to determine a level upon which the deviations are significant of a
difference. The determination of this level introduces an important concept in statistics: the test of
hypothesis.
This approach tries to privilege an hypothesis versus another one. It constitutes an element of a more
general theory : decision theory. It permits to rationalise the choices and the decisions to be taken
with reducing the risks of errors to allowable values.
The theory of the tests of hypotheses tends to resume an uncertain problem to an alternative
composed of two hypotheses H and H. H is the fundamental hypothesis, H being defined versus
H:
when H is accepted, H is refused,
when H is refused, H is accepted.
Most of the tests are related to normal samples. In other cases, if the sample sizes are large enough,
the central limit theorems allow to use the results from normal cases. The tests of hypotheses are
generally classified into two families:
Tests of conformity:
Tests of comparison to a standard: they permit to determine if the parameter of a
probability distribution has a fixed value,
Tests of comparison of samples: they permit to answer to the question of identity between
two samples,
Tests of adequation:
Tests of adjustments: they aim to verify that a sample has a specific probability distribution,
Non parametric tests: they are used to compare several samples with unknown probability
distributions.
Among the tests of conformity, the classical tests on mean, standard deviation or proportions are
included. Nevertheless, in practice, random variables with unknown probability distributions are
often met. To avoid this difficulty, non parametric tests have been built for verifying that a model
built for formalising some hypotheses is adequate. In those tests, the privileged hypotheses are the
model, the alternative being not defined. These free tests are valid for all the random variables and
are particularly robust. Some of them are very easy to use and sometimes lead to less calculations
than the parametric ones. But, they do not have to be substituted to the latter because non
parametric tests are less efficient than the classical tests. Between the non parametric tests, the 2 test is certainly the most powerful. Very simple, it can be used as adjustment test, homogeneity test
or independence test. More appropriate to continuous distributions than the 2 -test, the
Kolmogorov test presents interesting features for comparing to distributions.
9

2.5. Uncertainty updating

The previous sections highlight that the statistical parameters must be seen as random variables. An
interesting problem lies in the possibility to use new realisations of a random variable for updating the
parameters and their probability distributions.
Bayesian analysis is a probabilistic framework in which the uncertainty of a variable and the
knowledge on this latter are combined. With this combination, the knowledge of new realisations
allows to estimate the parameters of the probability distribution and then, to interfere on the
occurrence of future events.
Let us consider a random variable X described by a density function f X ( x / ) conditioned by
uncertain parameters . If ( ) is the a priori distribution of , the theorem of Bayes permits to
deduce the marginal distribution of , knowing a N-sample X N of X:

( / X n ) =

l ( X N / ) ( )
+

l (X

(2.20)

/ ) ( )d

l ( X N / ) is the likelihood function of the sample X N . If the draws are independent, then it comes:

l( X N / ) =

f (x / )

(2.21)

i =1

The a posteriori density function of the variable X is then:

f (x / X n , ) =

l( X

/ ) ( / X n )d

(2.22)

The major problem in this approach is the construction of the a priori distribution of .

2.6. Extreme distributions

In a reliability analysis, variable modelling requires to consider extreme values. For instance, it can
be interesting to determine a 100 years reference load or the weakest component in a structure. In
general, instantaneous information are only available, and the distribution of minimal (or maximal)
values has to be predicted.
Let us consider FX ( x ) the probability function of the variable X, maximal value of a series of n
independent random variables Z i with the same distribution. The probability function of X is written:

FX ( x ) = Pr ob(Z1 x ,L , Z n x ) =

F
i =1

Zi

( x ) = (FZ ( x ))n

(2.23)

10

When n , the probability function of the maximal values FX ( x ) exists. It verifies the stability
property:

x an
an ,bn > 0 tel que : F
bn

= F (x )n

(2.24)

That principle is important since it allows to prove that only three extreme values distributions exist.
They are respectively for maximal values:

Type I or Gumbel:

Type II or Frchet:

Type III or Weibull:

FX ( x ) = exp[ exp( x )]

FX ( x ) = exp (x )

FX ( x ) = 1 exp ( x )

For minimal values, the extreme distributions are:

Type I or Gumbel:

Type II or Frchet:

Type III or Weibull:

FX ( x ) = 1 exp[ exp( x )]

FX ( x ) = 1 exp ( x )

[ ]

FX ( x ) = 1 exp x

2.7. Other sources of uncertainties

2.7.1. Relations between variables
In a probabilistic study, the analysis is not reduced to a single variable, but may concern several
variables and more precisely the effect they are on the occurrence of particular events. In that case,
regression analysis constitutes a framework for determining relations between these variables. Most
of the techniques are linear, but they can be nonlinear or polynomial. A quantitative measure of the
uncertainty given by one of this technique is the standard deviation of the errors between data and
regression predictions. This point must be compared to the problem of efficiency for an estimate, the
estimates being the regression parameters.
2.7.2. Errors and noises
A lot of variables are evaluated through measurements. The measures are always subject to random
errors which must be quantified. The measures can be qualified by their precision and by their bias.
The precision qualifies the agreement between results from several measurement series performed in
the same conditions. Small bias indicates the agreement between measures and exact parameter
value. Lack of precision is quantified by a large variation of the data around the mean, while bias is
an indicator of a mean shift versus the true value.
2.7.3. Description of the model uncertainties
Two types of model uncertainties can be defined: the probabilistic uncertainties and the physical
uncertainties. The former one is related to the parameter variabilities introduced in the model.
11

Previous sections can be applied for dealing with this problem. Physical uncertainty is the quality
level of the model to predict the studied phenomenon. It is the deviation between the physical reality
and the phenomenon idealisation. This deviation is an increasing function of the complexity degree of
the model. The introduced uncertainty can be numerical, but can also be due to a lack of knowledge
regarding the phenomenon, or to the choice of an appropriate model.

3. RESISTANCE MODELLING
3.1. Introduction
The uncertainties associated with strength properties (and some stiffness properties) will be
considered in this section. To describe adequately the resistance properties of structural elements,
information about the following is required /23/:

statistical properties for material strength and stiffness,

statistical properties for dimensions,
rules for the combination of various properties (as in reinforced concrete members),
influence of time (e. g. size changes, strength changes, deterioration mechanisms such as
fatigue, corrosion, erosion, weathering, marine growth effects),
effect of "proof loading", i.e. the increase in confidence resulting from prior successful
loading,
influence of fabrication methods on element and structural strength and stiffness (and
perhaps other properties),
influence of quality control measures such as construction inspection and in-service
inspection,
correlation effects between different properties and between different locations of members
and structure.

Only relatively little information is available in statistical terms, mostly for items (1)-(3). A useful
summary of time-independent statistical properties for reinforced and prestressed concrete
members, metal members and components, masonry and heavy timber structures has been given by
/1/. To illustrate the essential thinking, the present report will mainly review of the statistical
properties of structural steel and concrete.

3.2. Basic properties of hot-rolled steel members

3.2.1. Steel material properties
Steel material properties data have long been available from tests taken on billets produced at steel
mills /2/, /3/ and from more specific testing programs. The applicability of such data in reliability
assessment must be evaluated. Thus mill test data are often considered unsuitable since the tests are
performed at a loading rate greater than that likely in real structures. Further, the steel tested is not
necessarily typical of the "as supplied" steel. It is a practice, in some cases, to self rejected higher
grade steel as the next lower grade and this tends to cause a possible second peak in the probability
density function for the yield strength. A further difficulty is that mill test samples are commonly taken
from the webs of rolled sections, whereas in practice the (usually longer strength) properties of the
12

(thicker) flanges are of more interest. Finally, there is evidence that bias is present in mill test results
as a result of the effect of different mills /4/.
3.2.2. Yield strength
The strength of steel is dependent on the material properties of the alloy, and hence statistical
properties must be related closely to the specified steel type. It is normal practice to sample each
billet of steel and only if a specified minimum strength is achieved is the steel accepted for further
processing. The data so obtained are extensive but, as already noted, have certain flaws if they are
to be used for statistical properties of complete steel members.

Mean mill Fy

Estimated mean static Fy

Specified Fy

Specified Fy

1.21
1.21

1.09
1.09

Coefficient of
variation

Number of
Samples

Reference

0.087
0.078

3974
3124

Julian (1957)
Tall and Alpsten
(1969)

Data apply to samples taken from webs of hot-rolled sections.

Specified nominal mill strength Fy = 228 MPa.
There is no overlap between the two sources of data /6/
Table 3.1. US yield stress Fy data

Type of steel

Plate
Mill
Thickness
(mm)

Structural
10-13
Carbon steel 10-13
Plates 37-50
37-50
High-strength
10-13
Steel plates 10-13
37-50
37-50
Structural
10-13
Carbon steel 16-20
webs of shapes
High strength
6-10
Steel 37-50
webs of shapes
Structural
3.7
Carbon steel 6.4
Tubes
High strength
5.9
Steel tubes 6.4
Nominal

Mean mill Fy

Estimated mean static F y Coefficient

Specified F y

Specified Fy

of variation

Y
W
Y
W
M
K
M
L
Q
L

1.15
1.14
1.03
1.07
1.11
1.11
1.06
1.15
1.20
1.19

1.04
1.03
0.92
0.96
1.03
1.03
0.98
1.17
1.09
1.10

0.09
0.05
0.12
0 05
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0 12

N
L

1.19
1.06

1.11
0.98

0.06
0.05

1.27
1.32

1.16
1.21

0.05
0.08

1.18
1.15

1.10
1.07

0.05
0.08

F y : structural, 250 MPa; high-strength, 360 MPa.

Table 3.2. British yield stress

F y data /5/

13

Nominal F y
220
260
360
400

Mean mill Fy

Estimatedmean static Fy

Specified Fy

SpecifiedFy

1.234
1.174
1.108
1.092

1.11
1.06
1.03
1.02

Table 3.3. Swedish yield stress

Coefficient of
variation

Number of
samples

0.103
0.099
0.057
0.054

19 857
19 217
11 170
2447

F y data /3/

Typical mill test data for steel hot-rolled shapes are given in Table 3.1 for ATSM A7 steel from US
mills. Both sets of data cover a number of steel mills, many shapes of section and a time span of
more than 40 years prior to 1957. Table 3.2 summarises the British mill test data given by Baker
(1969) /5/ for both plates and structural sections to BS 15 and BS 968 while a summary of Swedish
mill test data is given in Table 3.3.
From the work of Alpsten (1972) /3/ and Baker (1969) /5/, it is possible to observe that the
Extreme Value Type I distribution, the lognormal distribution, and, to a lesser degree the truncated
normal distribution all fit the experimental data. These distributions are all positively skewed as
would be expected since the minimum value of the yield strength is zero and the distribution would
be affected in the longer (left) tail by rejection of steel which does not pass mill tests.
3.2.3. Moduli of elasticity
A summary of collated data for the elastic moduli E (elastic modulus in tension or compression),
(Poissons ratio) and G (shear modulus) is given in Table 3.4. The data cover a period of more than
20 years. At least two different (US) steel mills were involved and, although all tests were performed
at the same laboratory, the data are not comprehensive enough to indicate clearly an appropriate
probability distribution.
Property

Mean /
Specified

Coefficient
of variation

Number
of tests

E
E
E
E
E
E

1.01
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.08
0.99
0.99
1.08

0.010
0.014
0.01
0.01
0.038
0.060
0.026
0.021
0.042

7
56
67
67
50
94
57
48
5

G
Source: adapted from /6/
Specified values: E = 200 000 MPa; = 0.03; G/ E = 0.385.
Table 3.4. Elastic moduli of structural steel

3.2.4. Strain-hardening properties

A useful discussion of the difficulties of determining strain-hardening properties for steel has been
given by Alpsten (1972) /3/. Only the strain-hardening modulus appears to have been investigated in
14

some detail. Work by Doane, quoted in Galambos and Ravindra (1978) /6/, indicates that E ST =
3900 MPa in tension and 4600 MPa in compression. It was suggested that a coefficient of variation
of 0.25 might be appropriate.
3.2.5. Size variation
Relatively few data for cross-sectional dimensions of hot-rolled section shapes are available. Typical
distributions of a cross-sectional dimension are given in /3/. Height and width variation appear to be
quite small, typically with a coefficient of variation of 0.002. There is slightly greater variation in
thickness. Of somewhat more importance for strength is the variation in section properties such as
cross-sectional area, second moments of area, weight per unit length and elastic section modulus /3/
Most of the variation is due to flange thickness variation. A value of unity for the ratio of
mean/specified geometric properties, and an average coefficient variation of 0.05 have been
suggested /1/.

3.3. Properties of steel reinforcing bars

The sources of variability and the physical properties of interest for reinforcing bars are rather similar
to those for hot-rolled steel shapes. A useful overview has been given by Mirza and MacGregor
(1979) /7/.
There is negligible variation of yield or ultimate strength within the length of a typical reinforcing bar.
Thus strength correlation can be taken as unity. For bars of the same size and in the same job lot it is
likely that the bars will originate from the same (but unknown) steel mill, in which case the coefficient
of variation is about 1-4% and the correlation coefficient between yield strengths of individual bars is
around 0.9 /8/. Overall variability (COV) for bars from different sources and in different locations in
the structure is likely to be around 4-7%.
Variability of bar sizes typically is small, with the ratio of actual area to nominal area having a mean
of 1.00 and a COV of around 2%. There is an effect on yield and ultimate strength resulting from the
rate of specimen testing, similar to that noted for structural steel.
After adjustment for rate of testing, and after allowing for nominal cross-section areas of bars, the
probability density function for the yield strength of steel has variously been assumed to follow a
normal, lognormal or extreme value distribution /3/, /7/ but none appears to be a particularly good fit
away from the mean region. Mirza and McGregor (1979) /7/ suggested the use of the Beta
distribution for the yield strength:
f Fy

Fy a

= A
c

b Fy

(3.1)

where the constants (A, B, C, a, b, c) were obtained from fitting the distribution to the available
data. They are given in Table 3.5 for 300 and 410 MPa steels, in each case with a range of validity
a Fy b .
Grade

Mean

COV A

300
~310
~35
4.106
2.21
3.82
410
461
38
7.587
2.02
6.95
Table 3.5. Coefficients for probability density function
for yield strength of reinforcing bars /7/

Unit~

228
372

428
703

200
331

MPa
MPa

15

3.4. Concrete statistical properties

Although the statistical distribution of concrete compressive strength has been of interest for a long
time /2/, /9/ it often has a much smaller influence on structural strength and behaviour than do
reinforcement properties. This is due entirely to the conventional design philosophy of attempting to
achieve ductility in the structure. Nevertheless, it is important for estimating reliability of reinforced
columns and for serviceability investigations /10/. Based on many test results for cast "on-site"
concrete test (or control) cylinder and cubes /11/, /12/, /13/, /7/, the value of the coefficient of
variation or standard deviation given in Table 3.6 are appropriate for between-batch variation (i.e.
considering concretes from all sources). The coefficient of variation are roughly halved for
within-batch variation (i.e. for concrete from one source). It is evident that quality control is an
important parameter.
Control

Coefficient of Variation
Fc' < 28MPa

Standard deviation
28 < Fc' < 50MPa

Excellent
0.10
2.8 Mpa
Average
0.15
4.2 Mpa
Poor
0.20
5.6 Mpa
Table 3.6. Variation of "on-site" concrete compressive strength for control cylinders and cubes
(between-batch)

In the assessment of existing structures and for reliability assessments, the in-situ concrete strengths
are of most interest, rather than the results for field (control) cylinders. For concrete compressive
strength the relationship between in-situ strength f cis and the characteristic (or specified design)
strength Fc' may be taken as /7/:

f cis = 0.675Fc' + 7.7 1.15Fc'

2
2
Vcis
= Vccyl
+ 0.0084

(3.2)

where f cis is the mean in-situ strength, Vccyl is the coefficient of variation for results for control
cylinders taken on-site and the constant 0.0084 arises from variation between control cylinder
strength and in-situ strength and from variation within cylinder tests.
Relationships (3.2) can be broken clown by examining the influences between Fc' and the in-situ
strength. Based on Canadian field investigations, Bartlett and McGregor /14/ suggested that (3.2) be
modified to:

f cis = F1 .F2 .Fc'

2
Vcis
= VF21 + VF22

(3.3)

'
where F1 .Fc' is the strength of concrete f ccyl
(as measured by standard cylinders under laboratory

control"control cylinders") produced by concrete manufacturers. It allows for variation in

16

materials, batching etc. and depends on the manufacturer's willingness to risk having low strength
concrete rejected. Typically, for cast in-situ concrete, F1 =1.25 and F1 =0.13 while for precast
concrete these become F1 =1.19 and F1 =0.06 respectively.
Both normal or lognormal distributions could be applied.
The factor F2 converts the control cylinder strength to the average in-place concrete strength. At
28 days it has a mean value of 0.95 for elements less than 450mm deep and 1.03 for deeper
elements. At one year, these values are about 25 percent greater. The coefficient of variation in all
cases is about 0.14. A lognormal distribution appears to be the best probabilistic description for
F2 . Generally similar observations were made by Stewart (1995) /15/ using earlier published data.
'
The strength estimate for control cylinders given by f ccyl
= Fc' F1 can be considered in more detail,

noting that it is a function of curing k cr and compaction k cp of the concrete /15/:

'
f ccyl
= k cp k cr Fc' + 1.65 cyl

where the term Fc' + 1.65 cyl

(3.4)

) represents the mean compressive strength of perfect control

cylinders, cyl is the standard deviation of the between-batch concrete strengths (see Table 3.6).
They are functions of workmanship and quality control (performance) and are given in Table 3.7.
The above investigations confirmed that a normal distribution may be adopted for the compressive
strength of good quality concrete; a lognormal distribution appears more appropriate where control
is poor /16/. However, even in the latter case the distribution is only slightly skewed and there is little
to distinguish the two distributions' except, and importantly, in the extreme tails. This has been noted
by a number of investigators.
k cp
Performance
poor
Fair
Good

Mean
0.80
0.87
1.00

Table 3.7. Statistical parameters for

COV
0.06
0.06
0.00

k cr (3 days)

k cr (7 days)

Mean
0.66
0.84
1.00

Mean
0.66
1.00
1.00

COV
0.05
0.05
0.00

COV
0.05
o.oo
0.00

k cp and k cr

The spatial variation of strength within a given structure, that is, the variation from point to point, is
also of interest. For Canadian practice it was found to have a coefficient of variation of about 7
percent for one member cast from a single batch of concrete to about 13 percent for many members
cast from a number of concrete batches. Further, it was estimated that the coefficient for in-situ
concrete strength for yet to be placed concrete (e.g. design estimate of uncertainty) was about 23 %
/14/.
The tensile strength of concrete and its modulus of elasticity have also had some attention /7/
Probabilistic descriptions of creep and shrinkage properties been discussed by Madsen and Bazant
/17/.
17

Of particular interest in reinforced concrete construction is dimensional variability /7/. In most cases
it has been found that the actual thickness of slabs is greater than the nominal thickness by ratios
varying up to about 1.06, with a coefficient of variation up to about 0.08, but with corresponding
values 1.005 and 0.02 for quality bridge decks. Similar values also apply to precast slabs.
In contrast, the effective depth to the reinforcement for in- situ slabs appears to be generally less
than specified, in the range (actual/nominal) 0.93-0.99 with a coefficient of variation of around 0.08.
There is some evidence that these values are considerably better in good-quality work and that in
precast slabs the deviation and variability is almost negligible. Considerably fewer data are available
for other concrete elements /7/.

3.5. Statistical properties of structural members

3.5.1. Introduction
The probabilistic description for the strength or other properties of structural members ends on the
probabilistic description of component properties for the member(s), such as cross-sectional
dimensions and material strengths. When probabilistic properties for the members are derived using
mathematical relationships, differences between the derived result(s) and field or experimental results
would be expected. In part this is due to inherent variability in experimental techniques and
observations. The greater part of the difference. however, is the result of the simplification(s)
introduced by the mathematical model which relates material and geometric parameters to structural
element behaviour. For example, in deriving an expression for the ultimate moment capacity of a
reinforced concrete beam section, it is well known that assumptions are made about the concrete
compressive stress distribution, about the form of the stress-strain relationships for the
reinforcement, about the concrete tensile strength, etc. These assumptions usually are conservative.
However, they add a degree of uncertainty to the transition from individual parameters to member
strength. This variability is known variously as the 'modelling' uncertainty or the 'professional factor'.
It does not arise, if statistical properties of a structural member are obtained directly from 'extensive'
experimental observations on the member itself. However, such tests are not always practical and
recourse may have to be made to modelling the member behaviour mathematically and using as input
data information about the material and geometric probabilistic properties.
3.5.2. Methods of analysis
Let R represent the random variable strength of a structural member. It can be expressed in terms of
material and geometric properties as a functional relationship:
R = f ( Rm , P , D )

(3.5)

where Rm is a vector of random variable material strengths, D a vector of random variable

dimensions, cross-sectional areas, etc. (including those due to workmanship) and P is a socalled
'professional' or 'modelling' factor, a random variable which accounts for the accuracy of the model
(expression) used to predict the actual strength from experimental observations, etc. If the
relationship (2.5) is known explicitly and is of simple form, R can be evaluated rather easily using
second-moment techniques. Otherwise simulation might be used to obtain the probability distribution
of R. These approaches are outlined below.
18

3.5.3. Second-moment analysis

In converting from parameter to member statistical properties, second-moment analysis can be used
if the relationship between member strength and parameter properties is simple in form. This is the
case for a number of important resistance properties for steel members. Relationship (2.5) between
test strength R and nominal strength Rn (as determined from a code rule, say) then becomes of a
simple multiplicative form. For a simple steel member it can be expressed in terms of random
variables as /18/:
R = P .M .F .Rn
(3.6)
where P is the professional factor as before but now used to allow for the difference between the
actual strength and the nominal strength, M represents the material properties, such as yield strength,
and F is the so-called 'fabrication' factor, representing sectional properties, including the effect of
fabrication variability. The relationship between R and Rn will depend on how Rn is defined. The
modelling factor P can account for this, but only if the multiplicative form of (2.6) represents reality
reasonably closely. This is likely to be the case, for example, for beam bending but not closely so for
columns subject to bending.
Typically, P, M and F are ratios of actual to nominal values and will have their own distributional
properties. If it is assumed that each can be represented in second-moment format, then it follows
that the estimated mean and coefficient of variation of R are:
R P .M .F .Rn

(3.7)

VR2 VP2 + VM2 + VF2

(3.8)

and

The nominal resistance Rn can be obtained directly from codes of practice, while distributional
properties of M and F have been discussed in the previous sections. It might be noted that the
assumption that a second-moment approach applies is usually not strictly valid for all the properties
discussed earlier.
To apply the simplified approach of expressions (3.7)-(3.8), information is required about the
professional or modelling factor P. For example, for the tensile strength of an element no modelling
error term is needed as this situation corresponds directly to the experimental observations used to
derive the probability distribution for the material strength. On the other hand, for compact beam
sections, with adequate lateral bracing resistance is given by the plastic stress and the modelling
factor. The latter can be obtained directly from tests on beams for which 'simple plastic theory' was
the basis for analysis /19/; thus [in direct correspondence to (3.7)]:
Fy S y
test capacity
Rtest =

Rn
nominal capacity mean Fyn S yn

(3.9)

19

where S is the mean plastic section modulus, F y is the mean yield stress, and S n and Fyn are the
corresponding nominal values. Rn is the nominal plastic moment. Typically F = S / S n = 1.0 ,

M = F y / Fyn = 1.05 , VF = 0.05 and VM = 0.10 .

Beam test results show that resistance depends, among other things, on the moment gradient; typical
values of P can be obtained from the ratio of mean test resistance to nominal resistance as shown in
Table 2.8. The coefficient of variation V p calculated from these ratios are given also in Table 3.8.
The value was obtained using (3.9) with VR known from the scatter in the test results.
Generally similar but rather more complex analyses can be performed for beams laterally
unsupported (for which elastic or inelastic buckling load is critical) for beams-columns, for plate
girders, etc. The models which might be used in conjunction with the present approach to predict
actual strength and the relevant model errors have been described in the literature /19/, /20/. Some
typical values for P and V p are shown in Table 3.9 /1/.
Beam type and moment type

Mean
tests/
resistance

nominal CoV

Number of tests

Determinate; uniform
1.02
0.06
33
Determinate; gradient
1.24
0.10
43
Indeterminate
1.06
0.07
41
(also frames)
Table 3.8. Typical ratios (of test to nominal resistance) for beams in the plastic range /19/

Element type
Tension member
Compact wide flange beams
Uniform moment
Continuous beams
Wide flange beams
Elastic lateral torsional buckling
Inelastic lateral torsional buckling
Beam-columns
Table 3.9. Modelling statistics (Professional factor P) /1/

VP

1.00

0 00

1.02
1.06

0.06
0.07

1.03
1.06
1.02

0.09
0.09
0.10

3.6. Acceptance criteria for existing structures

In setting acceptance criteria for the design of new bridges a target acceptable 0 ' or equivalently, a
target acceptable probability of failure Pf 0 is used (see Deliverable D6 /22/ for details). As noted,
this was based on back-calculation from the interpretation of the acceptability of existing good
practices in structural engineering. The 0 (or Pf 0 ) is then used to calibrate the new rules for
design. The process involved is now widely accepted for the development of code rules for the
structural design of new structures. It is important to recognise that within that process are hidden
certain assumptions. These have to do with the translation of the design to the actual, constructed
structure. The usual design procedure makes allowance, implicitly, for the uncertainties associated
with the documentation, interpretation and the various construction processes necessary to realise
20

the structure. In terms of probability theory, the structure as built is just one realisation of many
possible outcomes. What is important is that once the realisation has occurred, the uncertainties
associated with the processes involved essentially have disappeared. What now replaces these
uncertainties is our limited knowledge of the actual realisation. In principle, given sufficient resources
and ideal measurement and monitoring techniques (see deliverable D6 /21/), this lack of knowledge
can be overcome. In practice this is possible only to a limited extent (as noted already earlier). But it
should be clear that the target probability Pf 0 and corresponding safety index 0 used in the
calibration process cannot be directly translated to existing bridges.
The question now arises as to the values for Pf 0 and 0 which should be acceptable. This master
has been addressed in a simplified probabilistic and semi-probabilistic manners.
3.6.1. Probabilistic format
In the same way that semi-probabilistic safety checking formats for the design of new structures, it
has been proposed that rather similar formats can be developed for the safety assessment of existing
structures. Clearly such formats would need to make allowance also for matters such as the quality
of inspection, extent and quality of in-situ measurements, potential failure modes and possible
consequences. The detail of such an approach is not described in that section but in Deliverable D6
/21/ where probabilistic concepts from the structural reliability theory are explained.
One possible format has been described by Allen /22/ for the Canadian National Building Code. In
this approach the target reliability index is adjusted according to Table 3.10.
3.6.2. Semi-probabilistic format
From the target reliability indexes mentioned above, the standard code calibration processes can be
applied to obtain modified partial load factors (Table 3.11). The resistances for use in the partial
factor format would be taken as those measured inferred for the structure being considered,
modified to provide a longer fractile, conservative result. Where this is impractical, the nominal
material strengths can be used together with measurements of the actuel sizes installed. The
partial factors are taken as in new design, except for some components where the current limit state
design code is known to be excessively conservative, with higher reliability index target values. For
these the partial resistance factors are modified (see Table 3.12 for some typical examples).

21

 = 3.5 (E + S + I + PC ) 2.0
Adjustment for element behaviour
Sudden los of capacity with little or no warning
Sudden failure with little or no warning but retention of post-failure capacity
Gradual failure with probable warning

E
0.0
0.25
0.5

Adjustment for system behaviour

Element failure leads to total collapse
Element failure probably does not lead to total collapse
Element failure leads to local failure only

S
0.0
0.25
0.5

Adjustment for inspection level

Component not inspectable
Component regularly inspectable
Critical component inspected by evaluator

I
-0.25
0.0
0.25

Adjustment for traffic category

All traffic categories except PC
Traffic category PC

PC
0.0
0.6

Table 3.10. Reliability index for bridge assessment (from /21/)

(E + S + I + PC )
-0.4
0.0
0.25
1.00

Dead
factor
1.35
1.25
1.20
1.08

load Live
factor
1.70
1.50
1.40
1.10

load Earthquake
1.40
1.00
0.80
0.40

Combination factor
0.70
0.70
0 70
0 80

Table 3.11. Typical changes to load factors for buildings /22/

Component or condition
Steel bolts
Steel welds
RC compression members
RC shear (no stirrups)

Resistance modification factor

1.5
1.3
1.2
0.84

Table 3.12. Typical resistance modification factors for bridges /22/

22

4. ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC LOADS AND LOAD EFFECTS

4.1. Design codes
Following the above mentioned multi level process of structural assessment, it is suggested to apply
specific traffic load models of actual design codes for the basic level of assessment. The advantage is
that in most cases these load models are simple and practicable. Frequently the results of load effect
calculations from the design stage are in hand. Thereby assessment calculations can be simplified and
shortened. In this way a first orientation value of the existing structural safety can easily be obtained.
The disadvantage of the performance of a design code load model is, that possibly the assumptions
are far to unfavourable for the structure which is in question. Therefore it depends on the assessment
results if more precise load assumptions and refined methods must follow.
Actually in the countries of the BRIME-consortium (with the exception of UK) the load models of
national design codes are usually applied for assessment. Nevertheless in future the main load model
1 of EC1 (refer to figure 4.1) will be standard for design, when the Eurocodes are obligatorily
introduced by the EU-countries in combination with national performance documents. This is the
reason why the above mentioned EC1 load model was taken as a reference model for the valuation
of results in the case of the following investigations. Beside this a comparison of the single national
standards is possible.

Figure 4.1: Main load model 1, EC1

In the frame of the development of EC1 changeable values (boxed values) were introduced for the
loads of the main load model, to allow for national particularities in spite of harmonisation intentions.
The definition of these -values occurs in the national performance documents. In Germany the
values are determined so that the actual safety level is covered and that an economic design is
secured (refer to table 4.1). The adapted EC1 load model was also used as a reference model in the
frame of the present investigations.

23

 Q1
Q2
Q3
qi; i=1,..3

0,8
0,8
0
1

Table 4.1: German boxed values for the EC1 Load model

4.2. UK - Assessment - Code

The UK is the only one of the countries participating in BRIME to have an established procedure for
bridge assessment supported by a comprehensive set of documents. The assessment standards for
each type of structure are based on the corresponding design codes for steel, concrete and
composite bridges. The principles are identical, except that the bridge engineer can expect to be
able to produce a more realistic strength evaluation by taking advantage of information available to
him which was not available at the design stage.
Many conservative measures built into the design codes have been modified for assessment
purposes. Bridge design loading takes account of all possible uses of the bridge, irrespective of local
conditions and includes the effects of impact, lateral bunching of traffic, overloaded vehicles and
various load combinations. It also includes an allowance for future development and an increase in
vehicle weights.
For assessment this allowance is not applied. In addition bridge-specific loading can be used as
defined in BD21 /2/ which allows reductions in loading for low traffic flow and good road surface
condition. To take advantage of this provision, road surface and traffic conditions must be
determined.

24

4.3. Simulation method

4.3.1. General
The next higher level of structural assessment bases on the assumption of a real actual traffic. This
approach can relative simply be performed by using the stochastic simulation method, well known as
Monte Carlo Method or Method of statistic tests. It solves random problems with the help of
statistic methods by evaluation of an artificially produced random test and represents an alternative
to the classic methods which supplies closed or approaching solutions of random problems.
As a rule the stochastic simulation method can always be performed, if the representation of the
present random process by analytical methods fails or causes too much trouble. Especially this is
true for the description of traffic, if great simplifications are to be avoided.
The basic principle of stochastic simulation can be described as follows:
A random variable Z is requested, which depends on given random variables Xi. Their distribution
functions FXi are given.
Z = g(X1,...,Xm)

(4.1)

Random rates xi are produced in a way, that they represent realisations of the random variables Xi.
For a sufficient random test extent frequency distributions formed from xi converge against the
distribution functions FXi. The introduction of xi in (4.1) results in realisations zi of the random
variable Z. The outcome of a reiteration process is a random test, from which the frequency
distribution in combination with their statistic parameters can be derived for the random variable Z.
For a sufficient precision of results, a relatively large random test extent is necessary, which results in
a remarkable numeric calculation amount. E. g. the random test extent has to be increased by
hundredfold if the acuracy shall be increased by tenfold. Nevertheless actual PCs guarantee a
practical calculation time even for larger simulations.
The present evaluation covers the determination of characteristic values due to traffic loading for a
given reference period T (service life of the structure) as a basis of structural assessment. Generally
these are fractiles of distribution of extremes of the traffic loads or load effects which result from
traffic loading. In the case of random variables which change in time, the term mean return period
R is important. As a simplification R represents the period in which a given level (level of load or
load effect) is exceeded once in the mean. Between T and R the following connection can be
formulated:
YN = max(X1,...,XN) shall be the maximum of N events (e. g. vehicle weights or load effects resulting
from HGV) for a reference Period T. The distribution function of YN can be given as FY(x) =
FX(x)N, if the random variable X has the distribution FX(x). By definition of the fractile y in such
a way that P(YN < y) = FX(y)N = 1 - , it can be shown that in the case of N and T --> the
following expression for R is valid:
R

T
T

Ln(1 )

for 0 < <<1

( 4.2)

The fact that this expression is independent of the fractile and of the distribution function FX(x)N
is remarkable.
As an example a 50 year return period R results for an extreme value y for a reference period of
one year and = 0,02 , which means that the extreme value occurs every 50 years as an average.
25

4.3.2. Simulation of load effects

The generation of an artificial traffic, which represents actual conditions with sufficient accuracy, is
necessary as a basis for simulation of load effects. As a principle the following parameters are
needed:
Structural data
Static system
Cross section (Transverse load distribution)
Traffic data
Frequencies of gross weight, axle loads for different truck types
Geometry of vehicles
Composition of traffic
Frequencies of vehicle types
Characteristics of traffic flow
Distances of vehicles
Dynamic Influence
Dynamic parameters of the structure
Mechanic and dynamic parameters of the vehicles
Parameters of uneveness of the pavement
On the basis of the given parameters, the simulation procedure results in a load-time-function which
is evaluated by specific algorithms. In our case the extreme values for a given reference period are of
major interest. The repeated simulation supplies a random test with n extreme values, from which the
parameters of an appropriate frequency distribution can be calculated.
It is well known from the theory of distribution of extremes that for large variables n frequency
distributions of extreme values converge against so-called asymptotic distribution of extremes. The
distribution of extremes belongs to the type I, well known as Gumbel-distribution, if the starting
distributions are of a normal- or exponential type:
FY(x) = exp(-exp(-a(x-u)))

(4.3)

This assumption is justified because the gross weight of vehicles is bi- or trimodal normal distributed
(figure 4.2) respectively it can be approximated by such distributions. Parameters a and u must be
determined by the random test.
With the help of (4.2) it is possible to extrapolate the distribution of extremes according to (4.3) to
longer reference periods T respectively return periods R. Otherwise they must be simulated
separately with a high amount of calculation.

26

0,06000

0,05000

frequency
tri-modal Normal Distribution
1.Normal Distribution

0,04000

2.Normal Distribution
3.Normal Distribution

0,03000

0,02000

0,01000

0,00000
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

gross weight [t]

Figure 4.2: Tri-modal normal distribution of vehicle gross weight

4.3.3. Simulation of characteristic traffic loads

Likewise the method of stochastic simulation can be used to determine distribution of extremes for
gross weight of the individual significant vehicle types. The knowledge of the distribution functions of
gross weight, which can be determined e. g. from data given by weight in motion measurements is
prerequisite. The simulation which can be performed with the help of simple standard calculation
programs results in an artificial random test of extreme values for a given reference period. Because
of the normal distribution of gross weight, the structure of distribution of extremes is type I, which
parameters a and u can be determined according to (4.3) by regression from the random test. The
resulting distribution of extremes can be extrapolated for longer periods with the help of (4.2).
Beside this the distribution function allows the calculation of so called characteristic values of gross
weight for different vehicles, i. e. fractile rates for given niveau. On specific premises these
parameters can be used to estimate characteristic values of load effects, which are necessary for the
proof of stability of the structure.
The most unfavourable case for bridges with small span lengths is the positioning of only one vehicle
in every lane. In the case of superstructures containing only one lane in each direction it is possible to
determine the extreme load effects from the maximum gross weight of vehicles. As a rule for the
case of two-lane superstructures the influence of the second lane must be taken into account. A
simple possibility is to determine the extreme values for each lane separately and subsequently to
superpone them corresponding to the given load distribution. As a simplification it is assumed that
the same (heaviest) vehicle type is positioned in each lane. The extreme value calculated under this
assumptions is an upper boundary.

27

A more realistic extreme value can be recorded by superposing of current values of vehicle gross
weights for the individual lanes. It has to be taken into consideration that the part of heavy traffic
differs for each individual lane. A corresponding simulation can also be performed by simple
calculation programs. For this the random occurance of vehicles in the second lane is produced by
an function t(z) with the values of
t(z)=0
t(z)=1

- not existing and

- existing

with the help of random rates. The probability of occurance of the value 1 exactly corresponds to
the HGV-part in the second lane. If X1 and X2 represent the random gross weights for lanes 1 and
2 of one individual vehicle type according to the starting distribution given in figure 4.2, the current
values result from:
1 * X1 + t(z) * 2 * X2

1, 2 according to cross sectional load distribution.

A corresponding result is presented in chapter 5.3.

While the advantage of this method is the simple performance, which allows to determine extreme
values for any starting distribution in an easy way the most important disadvantage is the applicability
only for short span lengths of less than 30 m.

4.4. Analytical methods

4.4.1. General
Usually stochastic problems are solved by application of analytic methods. Within the frame of
development and creation of a uniform traffic load model for European circumstances, a number of
such methods was examined, adapted respectively redeveloped. These methods, described in /24/,
are determined to solve three main problems:
1. Prediction of maximum axle weights as well as gross weights for different return periods:
Method of half-normal distribution
Method of multi Gumbel- or Gauss distribution
Method of asymptotic distribution of extremes
2. Prediction of maximum traffic loads on a lane for different lengths and return periods:
Method of half-normal distribution
Method of the analytically modified Poisson models
3. Prediction of extreme load effects: bending moments for the single and multi-span beam for
different span lengths and return periods:
Method of half-normal-distribution
Method of Rice formula
Within the frame of the development of a traffic model for structural assessment the applicability of
methods for main problem 1. was analysed. Especially the method of
28

asymptotic distribution of extremes seems to be suitable to solve our problem. In the following this
method is described.
4.4.2. Method of asymptotic distribution of extremes
This method implies that the current frequency distribution (for gross weight) can be approximated
by a bi- or trimodal normal distribution (refer to figure 4.2), that means
f ( x ) = p i * f i ( x) , i = 1, 2 or 3

( 4.4)

with
0 pi 1 ; pi=1
and
f i ( x) =

1 x i 2
1
exp

2 i
2

( 4.5)

In this case the extreme distribution appears as type I (Gumbel) and the parameters can be
calculated by taking into account statistic values of the approximated distribution and the number of
vehicles passing during the given period ni /24/, /25/:

a i, n =

2 Ln( ni )
i

( 4.6)

Ln ( Ln( ni ) + Ln( 4 ))
u i, n = i + i 2 Ln (ni )

2 Ln ( ni )

( 4.7)

n i = pi N

( 4.8)

N represents the total number of vehicles passing during in the given period T
Corresponding to the number of modal values 2 or 3 extreme values occur, whereas the highest
value is authoritative. Normally this value is calculated from the upper part of the initial distribution, if
the deviation is comparatively small.
The functions fi(x), in which the initial distribution f(x) is splitted, can be understood as independent
population of one vehicle type, e. g.
Empty vehicles
Half-loaded vehicles
Completely loaded vehicles
Therefore extreme values can be regarded as absolutely independent from each other.
By taking into account the formulas (4.6) to (4.8) extreme values ( fractile) can easily be
calculated for any reference period T.
The above described analytic method and an exact solution for extreme values of gross weights
are compared in chapter 5.3.

29

4.4.3. Consideration of the second lane in an analytic way

With regard to the application of extreme values of gross weights for calculation of authoritative load
effects, the consideration of the influence of the second lane is required. To solve this problem the
superposition of extreme values, which are determined separately for each lane according to
formulas (4.6) to (4.8) is possible. However this method shows the above mentioned disadvantages.
In a second possibility the sum of both random variables X and Y of the gross weights in both lanes
is considered
Z=X+Y
with

X, Y are stochastically independent and FX(x), FY(y) and fX(x), fY(y) are
distribution and density functions, in this case for extreme distribution of
gross weights.

For x* = z y the result is the distribution function belonging to Z:

z

P( Z < z ) = FZ ( z ) = FX ( z y) f Y ( y ) dy

( 4 .9 )

Unfortunately this integral can not be solved directly, so that only a numeric solution is possible.
Supposed the heavy goods vehicle traffic consist of n types of vehicles, the following relations occur:

Lane 1 :
X
Random variable gross weight
q1
Partion of HGV traffic
n

f X ( x) = p Xi f Xi ( x );

p Xi = 1

i =1
n

i =1

FX ( x) = p Xi Fxi ( x )
i =1

Lane 2 :
Y
Random variable gross weight
q2
Partion of HGV traffic; q1 + q 2 = 1

f Y ( y) =

with the probabilit y of (1 q 2 / q1 )

pYj f Yj ( y)

j =1

with the probabilit y of q 2 / q1

Put into (4.9) results in:

z
q2
q2 n
P( Z < z ) = FZ ( z ) = (1 ) FX ( z ) +
p p F ( z y ) f Yj ( y ) dy
q1
q1 i, j =1 Xi Yj 0 Xi

( 4.10)

30

For relation (4.10) a good approach can be given by taking into account fractile z with =0,02
and P(Z<z) = 1-, if the type of vehicle which shows the highest gross weight (i = j = 1) belongs
distinctly to the highest part of heavy goods vehicle traffic. In this case and for i,j > 1 and FX(z) the
integrals can be estimated to 1. With this relation (4.10) can be transformed into:
z

q2
P( Z < z ) = FZ ( z ) 1
p X 1 pY 1 1 FX 1 ( z y ) f 1 j ( y ) dy
( 4.11)
q1
0

Chapter 5.3 contains evaluations of (4.10) and (4.11) for different scenarios and comparisons of
different simulations.

5. DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADAPTED LOAD MODEL

5.1. Introduction
In the following possibilities for the development of a traffic load model for assessment of existing
structures are given by taking into consideration actual traffic and axle load measurements. Because
of the amount of investigations which have to be performed and the limited time in the frame of this
project only representative static systems and typical cross sections could be taken into account.
Beside this typical compositions of HGV-traffic for highways of France, UK and Germany which
consider actual German distributions of axle loads and gross weight were used.
First of all based on this assumptions distributions of extremes and fractile values of authoritative
load effects are calculated with the help of computer simulation in order to deduce dependencies to
the standard values especially to the EC1-model. At the same time the influence of certain
parameters like traffic density, traffic composition and traffic flow on load effects is investigated with
the objective to generalise the results for the recommendation of a load model.
On the other hand the high calculation amount and specific requirements for the computer software
used for traffic simulation are the ground to search for simplified calculation methods. An
approximation method given in this report leads to aquivalent fractile values of load effects in the
case of lower span length up to 30 m with comparatively low calculation amount. For that method
distributions of extremes of vehicle gross weight are necessary which can be calculated either with
the help of analytical methods or by simple statistic simulation. Subsequently a conventional
calculation of load effects can be performed on the basis of a representative geometry of loads and
static loads which are derived from the above mentioned distribution of extremes.
Finally a conception of a load configuration for structural assessment of existing bridges is
recommended which is based on the results of the performed investigations.

5.2. Basic values and assumptions

5.2.1. Structural Systems
The following static systems are defined for the intended simulations:
One span beam
Two span beam

31

Load effects based on real heavy goods vehicle traffic are calculated for these systems. Former
investigations /24/, /26/ lead to representative load effects:
L=5 ... 30 m

Mf1

L=10 ... 50 m

L=10 ... 50 m

Mf1

Ms

Qs

Figure 5.1: Representative load effects and influence lines

The definition of span lengths bases on evaluations of the bridge stocks for the countries of the
consortium partners /27/. According to that the part of span lengths up to 50 m is between 70 and
85% and up to 100m more than 90%. Normally bridges with a span length in the range of 100 m
are multi-span structures. Therefore a maximum span length of 50 m can be assumed as a basis of
our calculations, taking unique section lengths into account.
The construction types reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete dominate the bridge stocks
with round about 60 to 90%, both for the number and for the deck area. There are no statistic
evaluations of superstructure cross sections, but usually the following types occur:
-

2,0m

Slab and beam bridge (T-beam)

Box-girder
Slab
1,5m
main lane

1,5m

1,5m

1,5m

2,0m

secondary lane

32

Figure 5.2: Reference cross section

As a result of the unfavourable transverse load distribution a 2-span T-beam, 6 m pavement width
(2 lanes), was chosen as the reference cross section (refer to figure 5.2).
For span lengths L=20 and 30m transverse load distribution rates i were calculated by FEManalysis. From this the rates for the remaining span lengths were estimated.
Span length
L [m]

10

20

30

50

Bending
moment

0,90

0,10

0,85

0,15

0,75

0,25

0,70

0,30

0,65

0,35

Shear force

1,0

1,0

0,90

0,10

0,90

0,10

0,90

0,10

Table 5.1: Transverse load distribution rates for different lanes

5.2.2. Traffic data

The used traffic loading is based on actual axle load measurements performed in the German
highway network. They were statistically evaluated for the first quarter of the year 1998. The
following composition of heavy goods vehicle traffic occurs for long distance traffic type:
Vehicle Class

Figure

Frequency [%]

23

33

35

41

13

97

98

40

Table: 5.2: Frequencies of vehicles, long distance, Germany

The composition of heavy goods vehicle traffic for French- and UK-conditions was developed on
the basis of condensed published data /28/, /29/. In the French data-files the different vehicle types
were combined to specific groups. To guarantee comparable conditions, this classification was also
used for the German and the UK data. For each vehicle group a representative vehicle type was
determined. Results for long distance traffic are given in table 5.3.

33

Group1

Group2

Group3

Group4

FRANCE

25

(20-25)

(<5)

65

(65)

10

(10-15)

GERMANY

23

(21)

(4)

47

(46)

30

(29)

UK

35

(32)

(4)

65

(61)

(3)

generalized values

80
60
FRANCE
GERMANY
UK

40
20
0
1

Group

Vehicle Groups
Group1

Group2

Group3

Group4

reprsentativ

Table 5.3: Frequencies of vehicle groups (Highways)

The measured frequency distributions of gross weight were approximated by bi-modal normal
distributions. Statistic parameters (mean value, standard deviation) were determined with the help of
the normal distribution, because the differences between the measured individual frequency
distributions were comparatively small.

34

Vehicle Class
Values
8

33

35

41

97

98

6,59

21,19

23,60

27,45

17,03

24,56

2,00

4,63

6,74

4,91

1,65

7,83

11,45

34,74

40,71

41,25

19,90

40,59

3,17

3,76

4,54

4,28

6,53

3,58

p1

0,84

0,95

0,62

0,69

0,17

0,57

p2

0,16

0,05

0,38

0,31

0,83

0,43

Table 5.4:Statistic parameters of distribution functions for gross weight according to formula (4.4) and
(4.5)

Beside gross weight in the German data files axle loads, axle distances, vehicle distances and
velocities are also given. The following parameters occured as a result of statistical analysis:

Type of vehicle
Axle
8

33

35

41

97

98

44

26

21

21

28

21

56

36

29

25

32

28

20

19

16

20

17

18

16

20

20

17

15

18

100

100

5
Sum

100

100

17
100

100

Table 5.5: Average part of axle load

Type of vehicle
Axle
8

33

35

41

97

98

4,27

4,97

4,72

4,55

3,80

3,67

2-3

5,61

4,54

1,37

6,49

5,57

3-4

4,91

4,43

4,90

1,27

1,30

1,40

4,85

1-2

4-5

1,29

Table 5.6: Average axle distances

35

Two different types of traffic have to be taken into account: flowing traffic and traffic jam. To
determine their influence on load effects, both types were considered separately in the frame of the
simulation procedure.
HGV-distances for flowing traffic are logarithmly normal distributed. As a basis for the simulation a
representative parameter of 554 m, a standard deviation of 1188 m and a lower boundary of 5 m
were used. In the case of traffic jam a vehicle distance of 5 m was assumed.
0,12
0,11
0,10
0,09
0,08

frequency

0,07

log. normal distribution

frequency

0,06

with mx=554m
sx=1188m
xo=5m

0,05
0,04
0,03
0,02
0,01
0,00
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1.000 1.100 1.200 1.300 1.400 1.500 1.600 1.700 1.800 1.900 2.000

Distance of vehicles [m]

Figure 5.3: Distribution function for HGV - distances

5.2.3. Traffic categories

The frequency of heavy vehicles for each lane and direction represent another important parameter.
As it was done for EC1 the following traffic categories were created (250 working days per year):
No.

Traffic categories (TC)

Number of
HGV/a

Average daily
number of HGV

Highways, strong traffic

2,5 *106

10000

Highways and trunk roads, medium traffic

0,5 *106

2500

Main roads, low traffic

0,125*106

500

Secondary roads, low traffic

0,050*106

200

Table 5.7: Definition of traffic categories

36

In table 5.7 traffic categories are given for different road types. But for certain countries they also
can be translated into types of traffic:
(1)
==> long distance traffic
(2)
==> regional or medium distance traffic
(3)
==> short distance traffic
(4)
==> secondary traffic
Beside this special traffic situations occur close to plants, harbours or container terminals. In those
cases the traffic density must be determined separately.
As a first step of the simulations the highest traffic density has been taken into account. Subsequently
dependencies to the parameter HGV which takes into account the reference period T were
investigated.
5.2.4. Dynamic influences
Beside the pure static loading load effects of a bridge are influenced by dynamic loads. As a result of
self-induced vibrations and unevenesses of the bridge deck, a vehicle on a bridge leads to vibrations
of the structure and therefore to increasing loads. The resonance frequency of the structure ( in
dependence on span length) and unevenesses of the bridge deck mainly influence the dynamic
actions. /26/ contains a number of evaluations, which lead to the determination of a dynamic factor.
For the simulation calculations according to a single lane loading was used. If required also
different dynamic factors may be used, e. g. in the case of worse condition, because all vehicle loads
are increased identically.

One loaded lane

1,8

Two and four lanes

1,4

1,7

Moment

1,6

1,3

Shear force

1,5
1,4

1,2

1,3
1,2

1,1

1,1
1

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

span length L [m]

10

20

30 40 50 60 70
span length L [m]

80

90 100

Local Influence

1,4
1,3
1,2
1,1
1
0,9
0

10

20

30 40

50

60 70

80 90 100

span length L [m]

Figure 5.4: Values of

37

5.3. Results
5.3.1. Extreme traffic loads
Characteristic values (extreme values) of gross weight, determined by different methods, shall be
discussed for the example of one individual data file of vehicle group 3 (articulated HGV).
The measured frequency distribution of gross weight is approximated by a tri-modal normal
distribution FX(x) with the following parameters:
i

17,5

2,2

0,098

28,5

7,6

0,591

41,6

3,1

0,311

(refer to chapter 4.3.2, figure 4.2).

The distribution function for extreme values Y results from FY(x)=FX(x)N. Unfortunately a closed
formulation of this function is impossible. The function rates must be determined by numerical
integration.
In the case of N = 1000 HGV / day of vehicle group 3 the numerical integration for the annual
maximum results in the following distribution function:
Figure 5.5: Exemplary distribution function of annual extremes

0,25
Gumbel
Density Distribution

0,2

num.Integration

Simulation

num. Integration
Gumpel
Simulation1
Simulation2

frequency

0,15

0,1

0,05

65,8
65,9

66,2; 66,3

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

gross weight [t]

For functions (4.6) to (4.8) and the above mentioned initial values for the normal distribution as a
parameter for the asymptotic distribution of extremes (Gumbel) the following parameters can be
calculated:
an = 0,64 und un = 61,5.

38

The appropriate density of probability function can be calculated from:

fY(x)=a*(exp(-a(x-u)-exp(-a(x-u))))

gross weight [t]

A comparison of the function with the result of numerical integration shows no remarkable
differences (refer to figure 5.5).

70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50

y = 1,6701x + 54,37
Simulation 1

annual extremes: 65,9

Linear (Simulation 1)

weekly extremes: 59,3

-2

-1

-Ln(-Ln(Fy))

Figure 5.6: Simulation of gross weight

Finally the results of the stochastic simulation are compared with the functions determined
analytically. For the same initial values 50 monthly extreme values for gross weight of an HGV of
group 3 were calculated by two different simulations. The parameters of the distribution of extremes
were estimated by linear regression, as proposed by Gumbel /30/.
The values an=1/m=0,5988 and un=n=54,37 for the simulated monthly extreme values can be
calculated by taking the regression parameters m=1,6701 and n=54,37 into account. It is well
known from theory that extreme values of distribution of extremes show the same type of
distribution. Therefore the distribution of weekly extreme values can be translated into annual values
as follows:
an (year) = an (week) and
un (year) = un (week) + ln(n)/an
with n = number of weeks/year; here n=50 working weeks
an = 0,5988 and un = 54,37 + ln(50)/0,5988 = 60,90

(5.1)

As figure 5.5 shows the two different simulations lead to nearly the same values.
Likewise the comparison of fractiles for =5% shows a good conformity:
39

Method
Period T
Num. Integration

Gumpel Distribution

1.Simulation

2.Simulation

1 week

60,1

60,2

59,3

59,3

1 year

66,3

66,2

65,8

65,9

10 years

69,6

69,3

69,6

69,8

100 years

72,6

72,3

73,4

73,6

5.3.2. Extreme Load Effects

The calculations were performed by the simulation program REB /31/. Assumptions for calculation,
the procedure and the results are documented in a seperate report /32/. The distribution of daily
extreme values was determined from 900 random test respectively with the help of a n adaption to
asymptotic distribution of extremes. Subsequently an extrapolation results in distributions of annual
extreme values. The 98%-fractile (=2%), that is taken as a basis for the following discussions,
represents a return period of 50 years and is used in a lot of codes as characteristic load value.
To limit the amount of simulations at first the influence of different traffic combinations was evaluated.
Therefore the scenarios given in chapter 5.2.2 (Germany 6 resp. 3, France 3 and UK 2 types of
vehicles) were investigated for the bending moment at midspan and the single span beam. From
figure 5.7 to 5.10, which gives histogramms of gross weight for the 4 individual scenarios, it
becomes obvious that the determined maximum load effects (here bending moment at midspan)
should not show any significant differences.

0,07

0,06

0,05

0,04

0,03

0,02

0,01

0,00

gross weight [kN]

Figure 5.7: Distribution density of vehicle gross weight, German highway traffic according to table 5.2

40

0,07

0,06

0,05

0,04

0,03

0,02

0,01

0,00

gross weight [kN]

Figure 5.8: Distribution density of vehicle gross weight, simplified traffic model for German highway
traffic according to table 5.3
0,07

0,06

0,05

0,04

0,03

0,02

0,01

0,00

gross weight [kN]

Figure 5.9: Distribution density of vehicle gross weight, simplified traffic model for French long distance
traffic according to table 5.3

41

0,07

0,06

0,05

0,04

0,03

0,02

0,01

0,00

gross weight [kN]

Figure 5.10: Distribution density of vehicle gross weight, simplified traffic model for UK long distance
traffic according to table 5.3

The simulation procedure results in the following fractile values for a heavy vehicle traffic of 10000
HGV/day:
Szenario

Germany

Germany

France

UK

98%-Quantil
daily extremum

2133

2125

2112

2070

98%-Quantil
annual extremum

2319

2430

2404

2324

Number of vehicle
groups

Table 5.8: Bending moments at midspan [kNm], single span beam

According to these results it can be pointed out, that the traffic composition has no remarkable
influence on the extreme values of load effects. Therefore the following investigations were limited to
the German traffic composition with 3 vehicle groups. The results can be transferred to French and
UK conditions.
The influence of the HGV-frequency was also investigated. It can be criticised by taking into
account the calculated distribution of extremes. The differences in load effects for changing HGVfrequencies results from:

S =

ln( N 1 ) ln( N 2 )
a

(5.2)

With
42

a
- parameter of distribution of extremes for annual extreme values
N1
- total annual number of HGV
N2
- 3,65 106 (annual rate for simulation)
Contrary to the used procedure (365 days/year), the extrapolation of annual extreme values
considers usually 250 (working-) days per year. This results in a difference, e. g. for the bending
moment at midspan, single span beam, of
S=-0,378/a= -3,...,-111 kNm 1%

for L=5,...,50m

The examination of traffic categories (TC) defined in chapter 5.2.3 in view of the influence of HGVfrequencies leads to an approach given in figure 5.11 for reduction of load effects in the case of
flowing traffic. In the case of bending moments at midspan the 10 % decrease is only half as big as it
is for bending moments at the support. Traffic jam, which is important for span lengths of more than
30 m, leads to slightly different reduction values (see Figure 5.12). For Mf1, Mf2 and Qs the values
increase insignificantly, whereas for Ms they decrease up to 50%.
Bending moment at midspan, single span beam

Bending Moment at midspan, two span beam

0
-5
TC1

-10

TC2

D [%]

D [%]

-5

TC1
TC2

-10

TC3

TC3
-15

-15

TC4

-20

TC4

-20
0

10

20
30
span length L [m]

40

50

10

Bending moment at the support, two span beam

50

Shear force at the support, two span beam

-5

-5

TC1
TC2

-10

TC3
-15

D [%]

D [%]

20
30
40
span length L [m]

TC4

TC1
TC2

-10

TC3
TC4

-15

-20

-20
0

10

20
30
span length L [m]

40

50

10

20
30
40
span length L [m]

50

Figure 5.11: Estimation of load effect decrease in dependence on traffic composition (TC), flowing traffic
Bending moment at midspan, sigle span beam

Bending Moment of midspan, two span beam

0
-5

TC1
TC2

-10

TC3
-15

D [%]

D [%]

-5

TC1
TC2

-10

TC3
-15

TC4

-20

TC4

-20
0

10

20
30
40
span length L [m]

50

60

20
30
40
span length L [m]

50

60

Shear force at the support, two span beam

Bending moment at the support, two span beam

0

-5

-5

TC1
TC2

-10

TC3
-15

TC4

-20

D [%]

D [%]

10

TC1
TC2

-10

TC3
-15

TC4

-20
0

10

20
30
40
span length L [m]

50

60

10

20
30
40
span length L [m]

50

60

Figure 5.12: Estimation of load effect decrease in dependence on traffic composition (TC), traffic jam

43

The result of the simulation (98%-fractile of annual extreme values, =2%) are listed in the following
table.
Span length l1
5m
(for two-span beam
l1=l2)
Bending moment at 423 kNm
midspan
(375 kNm)
One span beam,
only flowing traffic
Bending moment at
midspan
One span beam,
only traffic jam
Bending moment at
0,4l1
Two span beam,
only flowing traffic
Bending moment at
0,4l1
Two span beam,
only traffic jam
Bending moment at
the support
Two span beam
Only flowing traffic
Bending moment at
the support
Two span beam
Only traffic jam
Shear force at the
inside support, Two
span beam, only
flowing traffic
Shear force at the
inside support, Two
span beam,
only traffic jam

10m

20m

30m

50m

973 kNm
(838 kNm)

2430 kNm
(2125 kNm)

4479 kNm
(3922 kNm)

8840 kNm
(7591 kNm)

4088 kNm
(3401 kNm)
[3507 kNm]

11139 kNm
(9400 kNm)
[9670 kNm]

3543 kNm
(3100 kNm)

6817 kNm
(5977 kNm)

2778 kNm
(2278 kNm)
[2356 kNm]

7303 kNm
(5992 kNm)
[6196 kNm]

3679 kNm
(2853 kNm)

8436 kNm
(6161 kNm)

3927 kNm
(3366 kNm)
[3453 kNm]

10970 kNm
(9292 kNm)
[9553 kNm]

585 kN
(511 kN)

1033 kN
(778 kN)

849 kN
(680 kN)
[707 kNm]

1469 kN
(1141 kN)
[1192 kNm]

760 kNm
(657 kNm)

754 kNm
(663 kNm)

1898 kNm
(1659 kNm)

2247 kNm
(1636 kNm)

514 kN
(458 kN)

Table 5.9: Load effects (98%-fractiles of annual extremes) from simulation;

values in round parenthesis give the 98%-fractiles of daily extremes;
values in angular parenthesis used for the following comparisons give the
98%-fractiles of annual extremes for a traffic jam probability of one per cent.

The different traffic types flowing traffic and traffic jam are discussed separately, so that for each
traffic type relevant sections of span length can be determined. Nevertheless these sections depend
44

on the considered vibration coefficient. In the present case relative high rates of vibration coefficient
were assumed, which leads to the fact that traffic jam is only authoritative for span length of more
than round about 30 or 40 m. The authoritative span length decreases for lower vibration coefficiant.
The fractiles determined in the presented analysis can easily be converted for other dynamic factors
because the vibration coefficient was used as an increasing factor for entire HGV-traffic.
In order to evaluate the results of the simulation individual comparisons to the results obtained from
application of different codes were performed. For this the proportion between results occuring
from simulation and code is given and shown in dependence on span length. As an example for the
two German codes DIN 1072 and EC1 ( Qi=0,8!) the proportions are given in figure 5.13 in the
case of the bending moment at midspan and a single span beam.

Moment according to Simulation

k:=------------------------------------------------Moment according to Design Code

1,30
Sim_traffic flow/DIN

1,20

Sim_traffic jam/DIN
Sim_traffic flow/EC1_G

1,10

Sim_traffic jam/EC1_G
1,00
0,90
0,80
0,70
0,60
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

span length L [m]

Figure 5.13: Comparison between simulation and German codes for bending moment at midspan, single
span beam

The rates calculated from German codes cover clearly the results obtained from simulation given for
bending moments at midspan in the case of a single span beam with the exception of the case traffic
jam in combination with a span length of more than 40 m by taking DIN 1072 into account.
Whereas for EC1 the proportion rate k is relatively independent of the span length and shows a
constant rate of round about 0,80, k increases to round about 1,0 with increasing span length for
application of DIN 1072 (with the exception of L=5m). This means that in the case of one span
bridges and the assumed transverse load distribution (refer to table 5.1) the load effects as a result
of traffic can be reduced by taking into account the k rates given in figure 5.13 (with the above
mentioned exception).
The comparison between simulation and EC1 ( Qi=1) is given in figure 5.13 for the investigated
load effects. Obviously the code does not cover completely the actual traffic in all cases. Whereas
the moments at mid span show distinct reserves, for bending moments at the support in some cases,
e. g. in the case of traffic jam, the values calculated with the help of EC1 are exceeded by the
simulation results.
45

Bending Moment Mf1

Bending Moment Mf2

1,30

1,30

1,20

Sim_jam/EC1

Sim_flow/EC1

Mf2 according to Simulation

k:=-------------------------------------MF2 according to EC1

Mf1 according to Simulation

k:=--------------------------------------Mf1 according to EC1

Sim_flow/EC1
1,20

Sim_jam/EC1

1,10

1,10

1,00

1,00
0,90

0,90

0,80

0,80

0,70

0,70

0,60

0,60

0,50

0,50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

span length L [m]

Bending Moment Ms

50

60

50

60

Shear Force Qs
1,30

1,30

Sim_flow/EC1

Sim_flow/EC1

1,20

1,20

Sim_jam/EC1

Sim_jam/EC1
Qs according to Simulation
k:=-----------------------------------Qs according to EC1

Ms according to Simulation
k:=-----------------------------------Ms according to EC1

20
30
40
span length L [m]

1,10
1,00
0,90
0,80
0,70

1,10
1,00
0,90
0,80
0,70
0,60

0,60
0,50

0,50
0

10

20
30
40
span length L [m]

50

60

10

20
30
40
span length L [m]

Figure 5.14: Comparison between simulation and EC1

As a result it can be noted that in the case of multi-span beams the assumptions for traffic loads
according to EC1 cover more or less the load effects at the supports due to actual traffic for span
lengths up to 30 m. Above all traffic jam leads to increased load effects for span length of more than
30 m. On the other hand bending moments at midspan as a result of actual traffic for one- as well as
multi-span structures are distinctly smaller as if they were calculated with the help of EC1. These
results relate to a very high traffic density of 10000 HGV/day (traffic composition 1). Although for
less loaded roads a reduction of determined load effects according to figures 5.11 and 5.12 is
possible, the remaining load effects exceed those calculated from EC1 in the case of bending
moments at the support and span lengths of more than 50 m.

46

The shortcoming of the EC1 model can be explained. Due to the shape of the influence lines for the
bending moment at the support a HGV should have been arranged in the first lane in both spans of
the structure. Instead of a second HGV an uniformly distributed load was introduced in EC1, which
is not able to level out the deficit completely.
5.3.3. Approximation for extreme load effects
The basic idea of the approximation method is that for those static systems where only one HGV on
every lane has to be positioned due to the shape of the influence line and the geometric extent the
extreme loading effects can be determined by using the extreme vehicle gross weights. That applies
especially for the bending moment at midspan in the case of the one and multi span beam up to a
span length of 30 m. It is presupposed that HGVs in lane 1 and 2 are of the same type and are
positioned as a vehicle packet. For this a fractile value can be calculated from the sum of vehicle
gross weights by taking into account formulas (4.10) and (4.11) and the distribution of loads in
transverse direction. 10000 HGV/day, a simplified German traffic composition and a 10% propart
of HGV in lane 2 result in the loads according to table 5.10. Beside this table 5.9 gives the fractiles
of gross weight for a single vehicle (group 3).
Span length L [m]

Distribution of loads in 1 2
transverse
direction 0,90 0,10
(bending moment)
98% fractile of gross weight
[kN] vehicle package
98% fractile of gross weight
[kN] single vehicle, lane 1

10

20

30

50

0,85

0,15

0,75

0,25

0,70

0,30

0,65

0,35

612,4
(598)

607,9
(597)

603,4
(594)

601,5
(593)

599,8
(591)

600,3

567,0

500,3

466,9

433,6

Table 5.10: Authoritative extreme values of gross weight [kN] (the parenthesis gives the approximating
value according to formula 11)

By taking into account these rates and the vehicle data according to table 5.4 and 5.5 the bending
moments at midspan and at the support are compared for one and a two span beams and span
length L up to 30 m:

47

Single span beam

Span length [m]

Two span beam

Bending Moment Mf1

Sim_traffic flow Approximation

5
10
20
30

423
973
2430
4479

Bending Moment Mf2

Sim_traffic flow Approximation

434
994
2466
4564

760
1898
3543

786
2032
3703

Mf2 [kNm]
5000

Mf1 [kNm]
5000

754
2247
3679

Sim_traffic flow

Approximation

Approximation

Sim_traffic flow
Approximation

4000

4000

4000

3000

3000

3000

2000

2000

2000

1000

1000

1000

0
0

10

15
20
25
span length L [m]

30

35

807
2308
3820

Ms [kNm]
5000

Sim_traffic flow

Bending Moment Ms
Sim_traffic flow Approximation

10

15

20

25

30

35

span length L [kN]

10

15
20
25
span length L [m]

30

35

Figure 5.15: Comparison of results from simulation and approximation

As a basis to the approximation for bending moments in the case of L = 20 and 30 m it was
assumed that an additional extreme HGV is positioned in the neighbour span of lane 1. The
authoritative weight of a single vehicle results from the multiplication of the transverse distribution
index and the fractile value of the gross weight. The used rates are given in table 5.10. As figure
5.15 shows load effects given from simulation and approximation correspond sufficiently.
For span length up to 30 m the given approximation method makes it possible to calculate load
effects as a result of traffic, which are necessary for structural assessment, without complex
individual simulation, provided that fractile values of vehicle gross weight are well known Depending
on transverse load distribution the 98% - fractile values (=0,02) for gross weight of the vehicle
packet (lane 1 + 2) and a single vehicle in lane 1, which are given in table 5.10, result from the
distribution of gross weight produced for the actual long distance traffic. The load effects have to be
calculated by taking these values into account.
The influence of lower vehicle densities may be considered by formula (5.2). However only the
number of HGV of the authoritative vehicle group has to be used for determining the fractile value of
gross weight. Values aquivalent to those given in table 5.10 can be produced from formulas (4.10)
respectively (4.11) as well as from formulas (4.6) to (4.8), if the distribution of gross weight differ.
5.3.4. Conception of a load model
As shown by the evaluation of results obtained from simulation, it is convenient, to take into account
the two individual traffic situations flowing traffic and traffic jam separately. However this means
for a general concept of presumed traffic loads, which covers both situations, a subdivision into two
separate load models. For this the following assumptions are taken:
A two lane traffic is assumed in principle. Overtaking traffic by HGV in lane 2 shall take place
ocassionally (i.e. 10% probability). In the most unfavourable case two HGV are positioned side by
side as a packet. Only HGV of group 3 according to table 5.3 are used as traffic load, because they
48

produce the highest fractile values of gross weight and show the highest load concentrations. For
flowing traffic only in lane 1 further HGV are positioned in front of and behind the vehicle packet in a
distance of 12 m, which represents round about the vehicle length. The real loading occurs by axle
loads in the case of the vehicle packet and by distributed load for the other vehicles considering a
load distribution of 12 m according to the length of the vehicles. All traffic loads are multiplied with a
dynamic factor according to figure 5.4, if no structure related rates are given.
In the case of traffic jam the chain of vehicles is condensed in lane 1, so that in front of and behind
the vehicle packet a continously distributed load arises in a distance of 0,5 m. Load distribution of
single vehicles occurs at vehicle length plus 2 * 0,5 m 13 m.
lane 2

lane 1

12m

12m

12m

12m

12m

12m

12m

12m

Figure 5.16: Load concept for flowing traffic

lan e 2

lan e 1

13m

13m

13m

1 3m

13m

13m

Figure 5.17: Load concept for traffic jam

Bending moments at midspan for the single span beam and bending moments at the support for the
two span beam were calculated with the help of the above mentioned load concept for span length
of 5 m to 50 m and compared with the results obtained from simulation. The comparison of load
effects given in figure 5.18 shows a good correspondence for span length up to 30 m. For increasing
span length, the bending moments differ for the two situations flowing traffic and traffic jam. The
reason is that gross weights of vehicles and their distances were chosen uniformly, but actually they
are random. However it is guaranteed that for each span length the approximate values are higher
than the simulated rates. For example deficits shown from EC1 model, especially for traffic jam, are
removed. It is obvious that the bending moments at midspan show the same good results in the case
of the two span beam, because there is nearly no difference between the shape of the influence line
for the one span and the two span beam in the authoritative field section. With regard to the
exactness of the method the same assessment can be given for the shear force.

49

The given load concept represents an useful approach for further investigations, in which a number
of parameters must be evaluated, e. g.:
further cross section types
additional load effects
changed distribution of HGV traffic on the individual lanes
distributed loading outside the lanes and on the sidewalk
Additionally it has to be proved if the load configuration can be further simplified.
Bending moment Mf1 at midspan, single span beam
12000
Sim_traffic flow
Sim_traffic jam

10000

Flow-Model
Jam-Model

Mf1 [m]

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

50

60

span length L [m]

Bending moment Ms at the support, two span beam
12000
Sim_traffic flow
10000

Sim_traffic jam
Flow-Model
Jam-Model

Ms [kNm]

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0

10

20

30

40

span length L [m]

Figure 5.18: Comparison of simulation and load conception

50

6. REFINED OBJECT - RELATED ANALYSIS

The quality of load effects calculated from traffic load simulation is in fact influenced by the used
parameters. The statistic distributions of vehicle gross weight for the HGV traffic, which should be
created artificially, are distinctly important. The difficult thing is that these distributions can only be
determined with high expenditure. As a rule weight in motion measurements are carried out at an
prominent position, in most cases at highways. Nowadays weight in motion measurements are able
to provide all necessary information on traffic. Beside data according to gross weight, axle loads,
axle distances, vehicle distances, velocities and frequencies of individual vehicle type can be
recorded. Subsequently the extensive data files must be processed and analysed statistically with
suitable software. Frequency distributions, mean values and standard deviations are the result which
form the input values for stochastic simulation of traffic.
Strictly speaking the above mentioned and described procedure would be necessary for each object
which has to be examined. But it was shown, that this procedure is not convenient, there must be an
alternative.
First of all the statistic distributions of vehicle gross weight have to be taken into account. Certainly
the upper boundary distributions are produced from extremely loaded highways and certainly
highways with strong traffic show upper boundaries of statistic distribution of vehicle gross weight. If
these distributions were also used in the case of roads with less traffic, the result would be
comparatively high fractile values of gross weight. Unfortunately the deviation can not be clarified
within the frame of these investigations, because actually there are no suitable data at our disposal.
Ocassionally it is tried in Literature to modify the statistic parameters (mean value and standard
deviation) in dependence on traffic classes, for example long, medium and short distance traffic. This
seems unsuitable for our investigations, because these modifications are based only on deterministic
methods.
In fact the situation for the parameters vehicle geometry and distribution of axle loads (distribution of
gross weight onto the vehicle axles) is different. Certainly these parameters do not differ significantly
for authoritative European HGVs. This assumption is justified because of the European common
market, which surely covers HGVs as products, and because of the amount of transports crossing
European borders. The determined data can be regarded as a representative random test for the
entire HGV-traffic.
Details of the most frequent and heaviest vehicle types are needed for the determination of traffic
composition. As it was shown by the present investigations that it is sufficient to subdivide the HGVtraffic into 3 different vehicle groups although the part of individual vehicle groups differs. The
calculated fractile values as a result of the simulation for French, UK and German traffic
composition show only insignificant differences (refer to table 5.8). A tolerance of 10 to 15% can
certainly be accepted. If it is needed, the individual parts have to be determined from a random test
of a simple traffic count at the given object.
Furthermore the HGV-frequency is needed, which is determined by the value of the average daily
HGV-traffic (ADT). The HGV-frequency influences the fractile value of loads logarithmly (refer to
(5.2)). Therefore e. g. the difference of the 98%-fractile of annual extremes for bending moments at
midspan and a single span beam, L = 20 m, is round about 3,5% if the ADT decreases from 5000

51

to 1000 or from 500 to 100 vehicles. If no individual traffic count is available, it seems to be
sufficient to use the traffic compositions according to chapter 5.2.2.
Certain effects resulting from the dynamic system vehicle structure have to be taken into account
as important factors. In dependence on the resonance frequency of the structure and the condition of
the pavement surface, they are able to influence the loads occuring from traffic remarkably. Figures
6 shows assumptions for a dynamic factor which represents generalised results of a number of
calculations, given in /26/. These values presuppose a medium pavement condition (uneveness). It is
perfectly possible that the real values can exceed the assumptions due to worse surface condition.
On the other hand essentially lower dynamic effects can be expected, if the pavement shows a lower
value of uneveness as presumed. Therefore the dynamic effects should be measured at the structure
which has to be assessed whenever it is possible.
Then the investigation of authoritative load effects for existing structures resulting from traffic loads
could be performed in the following individual steps:
1.

Providing of structural data

Static system, stiffness, bearing condition etc..

2.

Investigation of assumptions for traffic load

a)

Consideration of statistical distribution of vehicle gross weight from existing

evaluations for highways with strong traffic

b)

Consideration of available vehicle geometries and division of axle loads

c)

Estimation or determination of HGV composition based on a traffic census

(random test)

d)

Assigning the available frequency of HGV to a defined traffic group or

alternatively determination of the ADT.

e)

Determination of the dynamic factor from available documents or by measuring

on site

3.

Determination of load effects

3.1

By simulation
Result: Distribution of extremes and fractile values for authoritative load effects

3.2

By approximation method
Result: Approximation of fractile values for authoritative load effects.

52

7. DETERMINATION OF PARTIAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR

TRAFFIC LOADING
In order to proof the stability of the structure, essentially two methods have to be considered:
1. Ultimate limit state with the help of partial safety factors (conception of Eurocode)
2. Ultimate limit state according to the theory of reliability.

N , Rj

/ Rj Sj X N , Si

( 7.1)

In the case of 1., which represents the standard method, the standard values of load XN,Si are
multiplied by partial safety factors Si and the resistances XN,Rj are subdivided by partial safety
factors Rj. The limit state is kept if the relation is fulfilled.
The values of partial safety factors for the individual basic variables ( e. g. dead load, traffic load,
strength) were estimated for a multitude of different design situations by taking into account the
theory of reliability and were stipulated within the Eurocodes respectively the national Application
Documents.
Function Z = g (...,XRj,...,XSi,...,) in combination with the basic variables XRj for resistances and XSi
for loads shall describe the general case of ultimate state. The basic variable shall be normal
distributed or approximated by normal distributions. It is suitable to linearise the general equation of
limit state by a Taylor series near by the design P* by taking the standardised basic variables into
account.
Yi =

X i m Xi
Xi

( 7 .2 )

*
*
*
g (..., Yi ,...) =
| PY ( y j y j ) + g (..., y j ,...)
j =1

Y j

( 7.3)

y *j =

( 7.4)

Yj

Geometrically the linearised function g describes a n-dimensional hyper plane, which shows a
distance to the origin is represented by the safety index . The coordinates of P* can be calculated
from
Values Xj are called factors of importance. They represent the negative cosinus of direction for the
perpendicular line from the origin to the hyper plane. They can exist in the range of 1 to +1. Values
near by 1 or +1 mean big influence and values near 0 low or no influence on the concerned
parameters on the limit state.
The coordinates of the design point P* in the original system of not standardized basic variables can
be calculated from

53

x *j

= m Xi Xi Xi

with

g
*
| PX
X j

Xi =
n

Xj

Xi

(7 . 5 )

*
| PX Xj

With that the partial safeties of basic variables can be determined. For load effects they result from
the quotient of the design value to the standard value xN,Xj, that means
Xj =

x*j
x N , Xj

mXi Xi Xi
x N , Xj

(7.6)

Therefore partial safety factors j only depend on

1. The niveau of safety index
2. The distribution of basic variables Xj and their parameters mXj, Xj
3. The factor of importance Xj
4. The standard value xN,Xj
A partial safety factor which differs from the determined code-value, can be derived from the above
mentioned relations.
Formulas (7.2) to (7.5) form the basis of a computer based calculation procedure, the so-called
RACKWITZ-FLIELER-ALGORITHMUS, which is realised in the computer program FORM
/33/, /34/. With the help of that program the safety index respectively the probability of failure pf
can be determined taking the reliability theory into account. On the basis of estimated starting values
for the variables and i the design values Xi* are determined and from that and i calculated
once again. If the differences to the preceeding -rate is below a given limit, the solution of the
reliability problem is met.

54

8. CONCLUSIONS
Usefully structural assessment of existing bridges should be performed as a level procedure, in which
the load and strength models and the calculation methods are refined step by step. With that a
limitation of the amount and complexity of evaluations and calculations is possible with regard to
requirement and necessity.
The following scheme shows the individual load and strength models in combination with the
accompanying calculation principles.
Assessment
Level

Strength+load model

Assessment strength
and load according to
design codes
(e.g.Eurocodes)

Refined assessment
strength and load
according to
assessment documents
e.g. BD 21, BD 44, BD 56

Improved characteristic
strength values (in-situ);
simplified consideration
of actual HGV-traffic from
statistical analysis

Calculation of load effects

Type of analysis

Semiprobabilistic Analysis
simple

Ultimate Limit State,

partial safety factors
according to codes
(e.g. Eurocodes)

refined

Strength model acc. to

level 3 or more refined
strength model;
full traffic simulation

Strength model including

probability data for all
variables;
full traffic simulation

Semiprobabilistic Analysis
Ultimate Limit State,
modified partial safety factors

Probabilistic Analysis
Ultimate Limit State,
full reliability analysis

Figure 8.1: Load models and calculation principles

55

In level 1 only load and strength models of design codes ( e. g. EC1) are used. They provide
standard values. For the calculation of ultimate limit strength they are increased by partial safety
factors according to the design code ( e. g. EC1).
Level 2 uses special load and strength models for assessment which are for example contained in the
UK guideline BD 21/97 The Assessment of Highway Bridges and Structures. For the calculation
of ultimate limit strength the partial safety factors at the design code are used.
The load models of the third level consider simplified parameters of actual HGV, like daily HGV
frequency and the composition of HGV traffic. The calculations are performed according to level 1
and 2. The strength models used in level 3 are only reduced to characteristic values issued form insitu tests with use of eventually revised partial safety factors.
In level 4 the actual HGV is reproduced by computer simulation in an object related way. In
dependence on complexity and amount all significant parameters of traffic up to dynamic influences
can be taken into account. The computer simulation provides distribution of extremes and fractile
values of authoritative load effects. The calculation of ultimate limit strength is performed with the
help of modified partial safety factors.
In level 5 the load effects are also calculated by computer simulation, but the calculation of ULS is
performed on the basis of reliability theory. The strength are expressed in terms of statistical
distributions with appropriate statistical parameters.

56

REFERENCES
/1/

Ellingwood, B. Galambos, T.V., Mac Gregor, J.C., Cornell, C.A., Development of a

probability based load criteria for American National Standards A58, NBS Special
Publication, N.577, NBS, Washington D.C., 1980

/2/

Julian, O.G., Synopsis of first progress report on safety factors, Journal of the Structural
division, 83 (ST4), 1316, 1-22, 1957

/3/

Alpsten, G.A., Variations in mechanical and cross-sectional properties of steel, Conf. on

Planning and Design of Tall Buildings, Vol.Ib, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, 775-805, 1972

/4/

Lay, M.G., Implication of probabilistic methods in steel structures, ICASP3, Vol.3, 145156, 1979

/5/

Baker, M.J., Variations in the mechanical properties of structural steel, Symposium on

Concepts of Safety of structures and Methods of Design, IABSE, London, 165-174, 1969

/6/

Galambos, T.V., Ravindra, M.K., Properties of steel used in LRFD, Journal of Structural
Division, 104 (ST9), 67-84, 1978

/7/

Mirza, S.A., Mac Gregor, J.G., Variability in dimensions of reinforced concrete members,
Journal of the Structural Division, 105 (ST4), 751-766, (ST5) 921-937, 1979

/8/

Rackwitz, R., Static properties of reinforced steel, Working Notes, JCSS Probabilistic
Model Code, Part 3: Resistance models, Second Draft, 1996

/9/

Freudenthal, A.M., Safety and the probability of structural failure, Transaction sof the
ASCE, 121, 1337-1397, 1956

/10/ Stewart, M.G., Concrete workmanship and its influence of serviceability reliability, ACI
Materials journal, 94, 6, 1-10, 1997
/11/ Entroy, H.C., The variation of work test cubes, Research report N.10, Cement and concret
Association, UK, 1960
/12/ Murdock, L.J., The control of concrete quality, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., 2, Part. I., 4, 4256453, 1953
/13/ Rusch, H., Sell, R., Rackwitz, R., Statistical analysis of concrete strength, Deutscher
Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, N.206, Berlin, 1969
/14/ Bartlett, F.M., Mac Gregor, J.G., Statistical analysis of the compressive strength of concrete
in structures, ACI Materials Journal, 93, 2, 158-168, 1996
/15/ Stewart, M.G., Workmanship and its influence on probabilistic models of concrete
conpressive strength, ACI Materials Journal, 92, 4 361-372, 1995
57

/16/ Drysdale, R.G., Variations of concrete strength in existing buildings, Mag. Concrete
Research, 25, 85, 201-207, 1973
/17/ Madsen, H.O., Bazant, Z.P., Uncertainty analysis of creep and shrinkage effects in concrete
structures, ACI Journal, 80, 2, 116-127, 1983
/18/ Cornell, C.A., A probability based structural code, Journal of American Concrete Institute,
66, 12, 974-985, 1969
/19/ Yura, J.A., Galambos, T.V., Ravindra, M.K., The bending resistance of steel beams,
Journal of the Structural Division, 104 (ST9), 1355-1370, 1978
/20/ Cooper, P.B., Galambos, T.V., Ravindra, M.K., LRFD criteria for plate girders, Journal of
the Structural Division, 104 (ST9), 1389-1407, 1978
/21/ Deliverable D6, Experimental assessment methods and use of reliability techniques,
BRIME, 1999
/22/ Allen, D.E., Criteria for Structural Evaluation and Upgrading of Existing Buildings, NRCC,
Ottawa, Ontario, 1991
/23/ Melchers, R.E., Structural reliability analysis and prediction, Wiley, 1999.
/24/ Calgaro J.A., ENV 1991-3, Traffic Loads on Bridges, Background Studies,
Report February 1997
/25/ Cramer H., Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton University Press, 1946
/26/ Sedlacek G., Merzenich G., Verkehrslasten auf Brcken, Hindergrundbericht zum
Eurocode 1 Teil 3.2, Aachen 1995
/27/ Kaschner R, Cremona C, Cullington D; Review of current procedures for assessing load
carrying capacity, Deliverable D1, January 1999
/28/ Cremona C, Jacob B, Une Base de Donnees dEnregistrements de Trafic; Un Outil
dAide a la Conception et a la Gestion des Ouvrages Routiers, 1st European Conferenc
on WIM of Road Vehicles, March 1995
/29/ Ricketts N J, Page J, Traffic Data for Highway Bridge Loading, TRL Report 251, 1997
/30/ Plate E J, Statistik und angewandte Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre fr Bauingenieure, Verlag
fr Architektur und technische Wissenschaften Berlin, 1993
/31/ Geiler K, REB - Rechenprogramm zur Restnutzungsdaueranalyse von Bahn- und
Straenbrcken, modifizierte Version mit Bercksichtigung der Extremwertauswertung

58

/32/ Grasse W, Geiler K, Abschtzung der Tragfhigkeit bestehender Brckenbauwerke

bezglich Straenverkehrslasten, Bericht im Auftrag der Bundesanstalt fr Straenwesen,
Bergisch Gladbach 1999
/33/ Fliessler
B,
Das
Programmsystem
FORM
zur
Berechnung
der
Versagenswahrscheinlichkeit von Komponenten von Tragsystemen, Berichte zur
Zuverlssigkeitstheorie der Bauwerke, TU Mnchen, Heft 43, 19979
/34/ RCP GmbH, FORM (First Order Reliability Method), Manual, Mnchen 1988

59