Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TECHNICAL GUIDE
t
iNe
rat
Du
t
iNe
rat
Du
Collection: Manuals
Series: MN 13
t
PART II
iNe
maintenance and structural
assessment
VOL 2
rat
Du
Alan OConnor
Franck Schoefs
Denys Breysse
Sidi Mohammed Elachachi
Vikram Pakrashik
Authors
Alan OConnor
Associate Professor, Trinity College Dublin
Franck Schoefs
Professor, University of Nantes
Denys Breysse
Professor, University of Bordeaux
Sidi Mohammed Elachachi
Professor, University of Bordeaux
Vikram Pakrashi
Lecturer, University College Cork
t
Other contributions
Hugo Patrcio
Structural civil engineer, REFER
Anne Audouin-Dubreuil iNe
Principal engineer, Conseil gnral de la Charente-Maritime
Reviewer
Afonso Pvoa
rat
Senior civil engineer, EP
t
iNe
WG A2 Structures Management
WG Leader:
rat
Allan OConnor
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Partners active members
Country Institution Members
EP Afonso Pvoa,
Portugal
REFER Hugo Patrcio
University of
Denys Breysse, Sidi Mohammed Elachachi
Bordeaux
Du
University of
Franck Schoefs
France Nantes
Conseil gnral de
la Charente- Anne Audouin-Dubreuil
Maritime
TCD Alan OConnor
Ireland
NRA Albert Daly
i
DURATINET project approved by the Atlantic Area Programme and co-financed
by ERDF
CONTRACT N: 2008-1/049
PROJECT TITLE: Durable Transport Infrastructure in the Atlantic
Area Network
ACRONYM: DURATINET
LEADER: Manuela Salta
Laboratrio Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC)
Materials Department
Portugal
t
iNe
rat
Du
ii
GENERAL INDEX
Part II Structures Management
Vol. 1 General guidelines
Structural inspection
Structural testing
Structural condition rating
Archiving and reporting
Vol. 2 Maintenance and structural assessment
Structural assessment
t
Structural response modelling
Load modelling
iNe
Resistance modelling
Reliability analysis (assessment and optimising maintenance)
rat
Du
iii
CONTENTS
Part II - Structures Management: Vol.2
1 Executive summary ......................................................................................1
2 Introduction ...................................................................................................4
3 Structural assessment ................................................................................23
3.1 Global safety factor format .................................................................27
3.2 Partial safety factor format ..................................................................28
3.3 Reliability formats ...............................................................................29
3.4 Socio-economic format .......................................................................30
t
4 Structural response modelling ....................................................................31
4.1 Methods of structural analysis ............................................................31
iNe
4.2 Integration of field data and structural models ...................................32
5 Load modelling ...........................................................................................35
5.1 Time invariant loads............................................................................35
5.2 Time variant loads ..............................................................................35
5.2.1 Statistical modelling ....................................................................... 35
rat
5.2.2 Load monitoring data required for assessment ............................. 37
5.2.3 Assessment of characteristic traffic load effects ........................... 38
5.2.4 Direct simulation ............................................................................ 38
5.2.5 Poisson models ............................................................................. 40
6 Resistance modelling .................................................................................42
Du
iv
7.1 Probabilistic analysis ..........................................................................55
7.1.1 Calculation of the probability of failure (Pf) .................................... 57
7.1.2 Target reliability T ......................................................................... 57
7.2 Probabilistic load modelling ................................................................61
7.2.1 Dead & superimposed load ........................................................... 62
7.2.2 Traffic load ..................................................................................... 62
7.2.3 Probabilistic resistance modelling ................................................. 63
7.3 Incorporation of model uncertainty .....................................................64
7.4 Incorporation of supplementary information .......................................65
t
8 Examples ....................................................................................................68
8.1 Ferrycarrig Bridge, Co. Wexford, Ireland ............................................68
iNe
8.2 Barra Bridge, Aveiro, Portugal ............................................................71
8.3 Steel Wharf, Nantes, France ..............................................................72
9 Conclusions ................................................................................................78
10 References .................................................................................................80
rat
Du
v
Du
rat
iNe
t
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
1 Executive summary
In infrastructure management, decisions regarding maintenance, repairs and
rehabilitation are based on the assessment of the current and future condition of
the structure with respect to certain performance indicators.
Sometimes, additional socio-political or economic markers affect such decisions
over which there is usually little engineering control. The key idea is to ensure
the safety of a network of infrastructure in its entirety above minimum
prescribed levels of service at any given time within its lifespan.
This engineering philosophy is best captured by infrastructure management
through managing risks expressed probabilistically as the reliability of a
structure evolving in time. The probabilistic description of evolving risks takes
t
account of uncertainties in
material properties;
iNe
actions on the structure;
lack of knowledge regarding structural behaviour;
errors related to measurements;
human fallibility.
Within an infrastructure network, risk may be quantified as a sum of the
respective probabilities of failure of each individual structure multiplied by the
rat
1
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
Fig. 1. Infrastructure management.
iNe
Any structure is associated with a reliability index in its as-built condition since
its inception. With time, the reliability index drops closer to the minimum
allowable value due to structural deterioration and the evolution of loads on the
structure. If no intervention takes place, such a degrading structure falls
unacceptably below the minimum allowable safety level after a certain time.
This time is quite often smaller than its intended service life. To increase the
service life, interventions of various degrees and at various frequencies can be
carried out to the structure as illustrated in Fig. 1.
rat
Such interventions improve the reliability index of the structure to various
degrees and the service life is extended as a function of these interventions
along with the ensuing rate of degradation and evolution of load. The
interventions on structure throughout its service life and the related extension of
service life as compared to a non-intervened situation are associated with
various levels of cost. Infrastructure management attempts to recommend the
best intervention option in the form of maximum improvement in reliability index
Du
2
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
2. How to assess structures?
3. When to assess structures?
iNe
4. What to assess in a structure?
5. Who is eligible to assess the structures?
6. Where to intervene?
7. Which structures to manage with priority?
8. How to decide on indicators of performance for this prioritisation?
rat
9. How to intervene?
10. How can we cost-optimise the planning of maintenance?
These questions form the background and the basis to this volume. This volume
attempts to provide some general guidelines to address the issues raised above.
With time, the structural engineering sector has shifted away from design of
macro-scale infrastructure elements to a more multidisciplinary diverse context
and the shift of its centroid towards maintenance and assessments can be felt
Du
3
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
2 Introduction
Our built infrastructure forms lifeline systems for our communities and needs to
cater for an increasing demand in transport capacity. While this demand is
constantly on the rise, a significant number of these built structures have
deteriorated since their inception and are degrading with time [2]. Corrosion,
spalling, excessive deformation, cracks and other signs of visual distress are
often associated with such degradation. As a result, in-service structures
require assessment and a prioritisation of the intervention measures is
necessary to ensure their structural integrity and safety. It is generally accepted
that the use of design standards for assessment is over-conservative and can
lead to unnecessary replacement or strengthening of existing structures with all
the attendant costs of traffic delays. In the design phase, loading conditions are
t
over-estimated and structural strength under-estimated to cater for the inherent
uncertainties associated with in-service conditions. While the cost of providing
iNe
this enhanced level of safety is marginal at the design stage, the same cannot
be said for assessment. Over-conservatism in assessment can lead to
considerable unnecessary expenditure by wrongly identifying a structure to be
underperforming where in reality the performance is within acceptable limits.
The principle of assessment thus lies in establishing the true level of safety of a
structure as faithfully as possible without compromising with acceptable safety
levels. The objective is to associate the performance of a structure with
indicators that faithfully capture the level of safety of a structure in its as-built
condition, allow comparing the safety levels of different structures and lend to
rat
further analyses and interpretations in interpolating or extrapolating the level of
safety based on the behaviour of the structure.
It is important to note here that the indicator/s of the performance of a structure
is/are dependent of what is/are defined as performance criterion/criteria. Usually,
structures are supposed to cater for safety and serviceability criteria. For all
these criteria, it is possible to define limiting conditions related to performance
called limit states. Structural performances are deemed unacceptable when a
Du
limit state is negative while they are acceptable when the limit states are
positive (zero being the limiting condition). Safety limit states relate to very
onerous consequences of the structure and are related directly to an actual
collapse or significant structural distress related to safety. A non-compliance of
these limit states is thus related to great risk. A non-compliance of serviceability
limit states significantly hampers the performance of a structure and often tend
to shorten the service life, but is not usually related directly to collapse or life
risks. Consequently, a structure that has failed under serviceability criteria may
not collapse and still be deemed acceptable under safety criteria. In many
cases, the minimum acceptable performance of an element in built
infrastructure is guided by safety limit states when assessing while a both safety
and serviceability guides a design. Consequently, an appropriate assessment of
a structure allows re-evaluation of its performance and increasing its service life.
There remains a possibility of conflict between the performance criteria
specified by the owner, the manager or the end-user of built infrastructure
networks and that specified by the engineers from safety and serviceability
4
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
Table 1. Some bridge failures in the last 40 Years. [4]
Bridge Cause of Failure
Silver Bridge, USA
iNe
An undetected crack formed in an eye bar during
manufacture had deepened due to corrosion and eventually
1967
the eye bar broke at the eye. Loss of 38 cars and 46 dead.
Milford Haven, UK Buckling of box girder diaphragm during construction. Four
1970 fatalities.
Kempten, West Road bridge centre span collapse as concrete being poured.
Germany 1974 Nine dead. Failure of A Frame falsework supports.
Ship hit unprotected twin tube pier. Arch deck fell into fjord.
Almo, Sweden 1980
Led to tighter regulations for pier protection.
rat
5
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
involve collection of inventory data, inspection, assessment of condition and
strength, repair, strengthening or replacement and prioritizing the allocation of
iNe
funds. The systems are usually made of four significant components relating to
data storage, cost and deterioration models, optimization and analysis models
and updating functions.
[5]
A representative structure of a BMS includes registration and description of
the individual structures, initial determination of their actual condition,
judgement of structures in terms of safety, prediction of their future behaviour
resulting from ageing, definition of specific maintenance strategies (estimation
of maintenance-related costs such as inspection, repair, replacement, etc.),
allocation of the limited budget to specific structures, execution of maintenance
rat
strategies with adequate manpower and means, registration and evaluation of
funding, back coupling with maintenance strategies and design and scenarios
for the replacement of structures for economical, technical or other reasons
(increased traffic, new demands).
Typical modules of BMS are related to administration, inventory, inspection,
maintenance (including cost estimation) and prioritization (optimisation) related
to deterioration models and prioritisation functions. An administration module
Du
6
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
establishment of the nature of improvement and the warranty period are
typically recorded.
INVENTORY INSPECTION
iNe MAINTENANCE PRIORITISATION
MODULE MODULE MODULE MODULE
Fig. 2. Structure and information flow scheme of Bridge Management System. [7]
The prioritisation module is based on information which was collected within the
previously mentioned modules and carried out predictions and analysis. The
module may operate at a project (e.g. bridge) level or at a network level. The
project-level module deals with optimisation and selection of the optimal
strategy for a certain bridge and is often based on life cycle cost analysis. The
network-level module optimizes bridge actions for a group of bridges and
various criteria are taken into consideration rather than only condition and
structural safety.
The planning is carried out in two time horizons at the least (short-term and
long-term). The most common criteria for making decisions include the
condition of the bridge or the network, safety and serviceability, budget limits,
7
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
restrictions to users, state, regional or other programs and priorities and social
and environmental consequences. Prioritisation modules use tools related to
deterioration models, cost analysis during the bridge lifetime, effectiveness
analysis of previous interventions and prediction of traffic growth, etc. Standard
follow-up activities from the output of BMS systems include routine maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, strengthening or upgrading and reconstruction.
A number of European and American projects have investigated the decision
making processes associated with maintenance and reconstruction of bridges.
BRIME, a project funded by the European Commission under the Transport
RTD program of the 4th Framework program, focused on bridge management
processes. The project considered models attributed to Frangopol et al [8],[9] and
Branco and Brito [10]. The Frangopol [8],[9] model proposes a general methodology
for determining the optimum inspection/repair program for new and also for
t
existing bridges by minimizing the expected life-cycle costs while maintaining an
acceptable level of reliability. The method determines the optimum inspection
iNe
technique, number of lifetime inspections, number of lifetime repairs, and the
timing of these inspections/repairs. The expected total life-cycle cost CET
includes the initial cost CT and the cost of preventive maintenance CPM,
inspection CINS, repair CREP and failure CF:
CET =CT +CPM +CINS+CREP +CF (1)
All of them are expected costs and are computed from probability measure of
events like the detection, the false alarm and the failure. In some cases, not
only the expectation but fractiles of the total cost are considered [11]. The
rat
objective is to minimize CET while keeping lifetime reliability of the structure
above a minimum allowable value leading to the optimization problem under
constraint.
Minimize CET subject to Pf,life P*f,life , or (2)
Minimize CET subject to f,life *f,life , where (3)
= -1 (1 Pf) (4)
Du
where P*f,life is the maximum acceptable lifetime failure probability, f,life and
*f,life are the lifetime reliability index and the lifetime target reliability index, is
the standard normal distribution function. The Branco and Brito [10] model also
propose methodology developed to support decision-making on bridge repair
strategies. The decision criteria of this methodology are part of a global
management system which includes a periodic inspection strategy and the
selection of repair works which are performed with a knowledge-based
interactive system. The repair decision module is based on a cost/value
economic analysis which compares repair cost and their subsequent benefits
for the expected remaining service life of the structure for each repair alternative,
helping authorities to reach rational decisions. A global cost function C is
represented here as:
C=C0+CI+CM+CR+CFB (5)
where C0 are the initial costs, CI are the inspection costs, CM are the
maintenance costs, CR are the repair costs, CF are the failure costs and B are
8
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
Bastidas et al [12] suggest a multi-objective optimization with a specific function
iNe
when considering waste generation and CO2 emission. There are two
advantages in this approach. Firstly, the owner keeps in mind the origin of the
cost until the end of the analysis. Secondly, it avoids adding new assumptions
and assessments of the costs.
A multi-objective optimization for bridge management systems [13] report
considers network - and project-level optimization of multiple, user-specified
performance criteria. The network-level model provides a decision making tool
that optimizes bridge actions for multiple performance criteria. The bridge-level
rat
model evaluates the effect of bridge action alternatives on life-cycle cost and
other performance criteria for the purpose of selecting projects that are
consistent with the network goals. Both models use the AASHTO Bridge Ware
database, supplemented with additional data as needed. The bridge-level
model considers recommendations from the network-level model. In addition,
the network-level model can consider projects selected within the bridge-level
model. These models also can operate independently. Both models explicitly
consider the inherent uncertainties of estimated costs and outcomes. The
Du
9
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
and at network-level use-cases may be involved in prepare background inputs,
define program, analyze trade-offs and adjust candidates.
iNe
The assumptions and the assessment methods for each of the procedures
depend on one of two scenarios: the certainty scenario and the risk scenario.
The certainty scenario refers to the case where the consequence of each
alternative in terms of multiple criteria is known with certainty. The risk scenario
refers to the case where the trade-off issue remains (as in a certainty scenario),
but difficulties are compounded because it is not clear what will be the exact
consequences of each of the alternatives. A bridge-level optimization is
conducted by generating and comparing candidates that are alternative life-
cycle activity profiles and resulting performance predictions for a bridge. Each
rat
life-cycle activity profile is modelled as an infinite time series of cash flows
representing various types of annual agency and user costs. Because all of the
costs occur at various times in the future, they are processed in a standard
engineering procedure called the net present value analysis. Each cost item is
discounted by an amount that depends on how far in the future it occurs. The
discount factor represents how much less it matters for each year that it is able
to delay the cost. The essential decision to be optimized in the bridge-level
Du
analysis is the scope and timing of the first intervention. When multiple
candidates are defined for a bridge, they differ in terms of the first intervention.
Timing of the first intervention determines the length of the first waiting period,
which may vary from zero to the full length of the program horizon. Consequent
interventions are forecast for programming and for life-cycle cost analysis, but
are not the subject of the decision making by the bridge maintenance planner.
The preservation model framework in the Bridge-level optimization consists of a
collection of sub-models that work together to serve the life-cycle cost
framework. Some of the models are used in more than one stage of life-cycle
costing. Certain models are adapted directly from Pontis, BMS software, and
are intended to give the same results as Pontis, while others are developed
specifically for project-level analysis. The main models are deterioration
(prediction of the future conditions of elements on a bridge on the basis of the
most recent inspection and possible candidate implemented during the program
horizon), action effectiveness (prediction of the outcome of an intervention on
each element or on the bridge as a whole), cost estimation (computation of the
direct cost of preservation work on the bridge by aggregating over all elements
10
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
using their predicted quantities and units costs, indirect costs are calculated
separately), economic failure (description of the limiting behaviour of element if
deteriorated conditions are not corrected, in the form of unplanned actions) and
long-term cost (estimation of life-cycle costs beyond the end of the program
horizon based on conditions predicted at the end of the horizon). As the primary
cause of preservation needs in a bridge inventory, deterioration is the main
driver of the life-cycle cost analysis in the bridge-level model.
Markovian models are popular in this regard. A Markovian model assumes that
the probability of making a transition from one condition state to another
depends only on the initial state and not on past conditions or any other
information about the element. Thus, the model is expressed as a simple matrix
of probabilities, which can be manipulated by matrix multiplication. Markovian
transition probabilities are used to express the condition immediately following
t
the action, assumed to be at the beginning of the implementation year. These
probabilities are then multiplied by the do-nothing transition probability matrix to
iNe
forecast farther into the future. Because scope items are expressed in terms of
action types applied to multiple elements, action outcomes are expressed in the
same way when performance measures are calculated. Each candidate in the
cost estimation model has an initial cost that is assumed to occur at the
beginning of the implementation year. For the do-nothing candidate, the initial
cost is always zero.
In the Pontis network optimization, the role of the failure concept is to help
develop policies that generally do not permit failure. At the bridge level in the
economic failure model, factors such as constrained funding, the typical rule of
rat
11
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
inventory, subject to any changes made by earlier interventions and the
condition and sufficiency assessments are forecast to the end of the
iNe
intervention year using the element-level Markovian deterioration model and
converted to NBI indicators using the FHWA translator program. Life-cycle costs
are calculated, starting at the beginning of the intervention year and discounted
to that point, using the procedures. Custom performance measures are
envisioned to be defined as formulas with access to any available bridge-related
data so that they are calculated by updating the formulas. A base case
prediction is also made for each performance measure, assuming that no action
is taken that year, or in any future year, until the end of the program horizon.
Interventions taken in any earlier, higher-level recursions are assumed to be the
rat
same for both the intervention outcome and the base case. Benefits are
calculated by subtracting the base results from the intervention outcome for
each performance measure. After calculation of the final utility function value,
the candidate is compared first to other candidates (having different scoping
approaches) for the same year. If it turns out to be the highest-utility candidate
for the year, it is then compared to the best candidates for other years to
determine the optimal candidate.
Du
The NBI condition ratings are based on the evaluation of the materials and the
physical condition of the deck, superstructure, and substructure. These ratings
vary from 0-9 under the current standard where a value equal to 0 indicates a
failed condition and a value equal to 9 indicates excellent condition. Condition
ratings for sub - element like Deck Condition Rating (NBI Item 58),
Superstructure Condition Rating (NBI Item 59) and Substructure Condition
Rating (NBI Item 60) are also applicable.
[14]
Another European project, SAMARIS , funded by the European Commission
under the Transport RTD program of the 5th Framework program investigated
optimised condition assessment and structural safety assessment of highway
structures. The situation of built infrastructure was indicated for 12 countries
through questionnaire surveys. The analysis of the condition assessment
methods used shows that every bridge administrator in every country has
created or adopted a system for managing bridge stock. All systems have
common roots and similar rules. However, the systems are incoherent; they
take similar factors into consideration, but present different outcomes. European
12
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
countries with a huge stock of highway bridges, such as France, Germany, Italy,
Poland and Spain, do not use specific procedures for the safety assessment of
existing highway bridges and, in general, the basis for the assessment is the
same as for the design of new bridges. Some other countries, like the UK,
Denmark, Sweden and Slovenia, but also Canada and USA, have specific
codes or recommendations for the safety assessment of bridges, but the
procedures used, despite being based on the same principles, vary
considerably. A review of condition assessment methods of bridges used in
Europe and the United States showed that there are two main approaches to
the evaluation of the condition of the whole structure based on the condition
assessment of its elements. The first approach is related to cumulative
condition rating, where the most severe damage on each element is summed
for each span of the superstructure, each part of the substructure, the
carriageway and bridge equipment and the second approach is concerned with
t
the highest condition rating of the bridge components as the representative
condition rating for the structure itself.
iNe
Several BMS software are present, of which PONTIS, developed by FHWA and
[15]
six DOTs is a representative candidate. Approximately forty of fifty U.S.
states use or currently own Pontis. Pontis assist an agency with bridge
management from inspection to scheduling MR&R or replacement. "Pontis
supports the complete bridge management cycle, including bridge inspection
and inventory data collection and analysis, recommending an optimal
preservation policy, predicting need and performance measures for bridges,
and developing projects to include in an agency's capital plan" [16]. The
rat
13
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
Pontis Data Interchange files (PDI) are sent from the counties to the districts
and then to the DOT. The data cannot be entered directly into the main server
from either the inspection site or the county.
BRIDGIT, developed under an AASHTO-sponsored National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, makes use of Markovian deterioration. BRIDGIT
inventories up to several thousand bridges and provides specific actions for all
bridges keeping in mind the network-level strategy, costs, benefits, and budget.
Unlike Pontis, it gives project-level MR&R for each bridge [18]. Since BRIDGIT
analyzes from project-level to network level instead of the reverse as Pontis
does, BRIDGIT runs slower for large bridge populations. Nonetheless, this
makes BRIDGIT ideal for smaller bridge populations [17]. BRIDGIT considers
replacement and "do-nothing" actions in addition to MR&R [18]. The main uses of
BRIDGIT include scheduling and tracking MR&R, keeping history of MR&R,
t
estimating the cost of MR&R and creating and maintaining a list of MR&R
actions [18]. BRIDGIT can work in parallel with Pontis to give independent
iNe
analyses and recommended actions. BRIDGIT also has the capability of using
and understanding Pontis inspection data and CoRe (Commonly Recognized)
elements. Further, BRIDGIT can convert NBI, agency defined, and Pontis
element condition ratings to BRIDGIT element condition states [18].
Life Cycle Maintenance and Management Planning System LIFECON LMS, an
European BMS, organizes "planning, construction, maintaining, repairing,
rehabilitation, and replacing structures" while considering "safety, serviceability,
economy, ecology, and other aspects of life-cycle planning [19]. LIFECON LMS
consists of three separate systems: the object-level system (also referred to as
rat
project-level system), the network level system, and the network- and object-
level system. The object-level system targets small organizations with
ownership of "limited number of concrete infrastructures", the network-level
system targets national road administrations and other organizations that are
responsible for upkeep of a large network of concrete infrastructure" and the
network- and object- level system is guided towards collaboration of object-level
work with network-level work. LIFECON LMS does not take into consideration
Du
just the "condition of the structures and the observed urgency of repair" but also
the "life-cycle costs, user costs, delay costs, minimum requirements of structural
performance, structural risks, traffic and other operational requirements,
aesthetics, environmental risks, and ecological pressures. Each need is
assigned a coefficient weight to aid in the decision making process and to
assess priority. The life-cycle and risk analyses "are performed to uncover
possible risks associated with MR&R actions" and "to study the cost-
effectiveness. The object of risk and structural analyses is to find "deficiencies
in the structural load bearing capacity or functional performance". The agency's
administration using LIFECON LMS assigns weights or level of importance
ratings to factors that correlate to the budget categories related to preventive
[19]
maintenance, repair, restoration, rehabilitation and new construction . The
factors or components of a bridge are inspected every 3 to 8 years depending
on the condition and age of the bridge. Although the observed data or state of
the components may not represent the current state of the structure a few years
later, by applying a deterioration model, present-day condition can be estimated
without re-inspection. Thus, within the framework of sustainable development
14
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
the manager may have wider concerns than the single safety level in the form of
resource consumption, environmental factors etc. and these wider issues then
become a part of the generalised user costs or benefits. The minimisation of
costs may be carried out either by minimising an objective function or through a
multi-objective optimisation.
At present, management of networks is more often object oriented, indicating
that the amount of money allocated to each network asset is determined by the
use of object oriented management systems (pavement management systems
(PMS), bridge management systems (BMS), etc.), working independently to
optimise the use of the money allocated. During the last ten years [20] a new
network management philosophy, Asset Management (AM) has emerged,
which puts the customer - the traffic user - into the centre, and, at the same time,
attempts to allocate the optimal socio-economic amount of money to each
t
specific asset (roads, bridges, tunnels, lighting, signs, guard rails, etc.). The
AM-system is to assist the road network administration in the process of
iNe
planning and optimizing the operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and
replacement of the network and its assets (pavement, bridges, tunnels,
equipment, etc.) in the most cost-effective way in the long run, while minimizing
the consequences of traffic disturbances during road works. The AM-system
combines engineering principles with a sound business practice and economic
[20]
realities . The idea of cross-asset management is not a one-stop-shop
solution, but rather a best practice, robust methodology through which the entire
road transportation network may be maintained and operated in a safe and
efficient fashion with an emphasis on cost minimisation. The term cost does
rat
not necessarily mean the liquidity at any point of time and covers a broader
financial aspect. Some specific characteristics of cross-asset management
include high-quality information on asset inventory, the condition of such assets,
the management strategies of such assets and customer perceptions.
Additionally, unlike a standard management system of a certain type of sub-
asset (e.g. a Bridge Management System), cross-asset management explicitly
encourages cost-effective data collection, monitoring and target oriented asset
appraisal. When the complete information on an entire network of assets,
Du
including its sub-assets is not shared or the information are retained within
different clusters, the decision making may either have independent
components, (leading to sub-optimal and non-unique final results) or may be
unreasonable. The equilibrium or the minimisation, in such cases does not
consider all the stakeholders and consequently their expectations and
requirements are not reflected appropriately. Even when some information is
shared and the assessment of assets ranges wider than traditionally considered
objectives, the asset optimization may become a speculators optimisation
problem with different speculators having different requirements, expectations
and possessed information. The stakeholders can be broadly classified as
operators, users, neighbours, society, financing body and owners. The owners
naturally tend to strive for a system optimal equilibrium for which the cross-
asset optimisation may be lucrative as long as the impacts are assessed in
terms of direct investment. On the other hand, the users requirement may often
encompass intangible costs which not only includes the coast to the road user,
but also the cost of the environment, noise pollution or even the cost of comfort.
15
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
Such markers directly affect the perceived level of service and are thus valid
weighing parameters in a cross-asset optimisation process. The neighbours are
expected to have a mix of the previous two requirements. The societal
expectation very strongly reflects the perceived safety and the perceived level
of service of the asset as a whole. The financing bodys expectation, ideally,
forms a long term cost minimised solution where a cost prioritisation is expected
in line with the available cash flow. However, the expectations of the financing
body have increasingly acknowledged the importance of perception of the users
towards the network as a whole. The expectations are usually qualified by
quantitative and qualitative terms and such juxtaposition is acknowledged and
taken into account for cross-asset optimisation. The benefit may be viewed as a
qualitative term with multiple interpretations but in reality, within the asset
management framework it can become a strictly defined output once the
influencing variable, including an agreed definition of the value of the network is
t
accepted. The mobility is another expectation having a strong relationship with
travel time and accessibility of the users within the network. This variable
iNe
implicitly affects the weights of the other variables in this optimisation problem.
It is to be noted here that although each optimisation problem will prove certain
valid solutions the final decision is not unique and may either be multiple or
dependent on the definition and representation of qualitative variables (or both).
Consequently, the planning and conceptual design concepts remain exactly the
same while considering multiple objectives of requirements of different groups
of stakeholders. The value of the asset network comprises of a number of
tangible and intangible combinations of factors. There is no single definition of
this combination, but the perceived level of safety and service, the real cost to
rat
the network, the life-cycle-cost, the environmental cost, the impact on the
society and the economy as a whole. There seems to be a unanimous
agreement on using life cycle costs when considering the cost and the cost to
the road user has gained a significant acceptance in this aspect. The
environmental impact is mostly guided through legislations and is directly
reflected through the specific contractual conditions associated with the lifetime
maintenance management of the network. The benefit, as obtained from cross-
Du
16
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
iNe
rat
Du
17
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
Structures may have several limit states with very different values of reliability
iNe
indices associated to those limit states. Under such a condition, the
maintenance management may become a function of the decision of what is
intended to be achieved. Consequently, a structure violating serviceability limit
state may be important for prioritising decisions on intervention but such a
violation may not be important when the same prioritisation is being considered
for a network of significantly affected structures where the concern is the
avoidance of risk of actual collapse.
Reliability based or full probabilistic approach towards structural assessment
does not associate these risks since it considers uncertainty in its entirety and
rat
does not surrogate the uncertainty with deterministic or semi-deterministic
factors. The safety is a true reflection of the knowledge on the structures, is
unique, comparable and accurate in accepting or rejecting the performance of a
structure. The development of probabilistic and reliability-based assessment
approaches has contributed towards the establishment of more rational
assessment procedures. A number of EU funded research projects in this
regard have focused work packages in this area producing useful deliverables
Du
18
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
engineers, material scientists, end-users and policy makers. In fact, two main
conclusions of the newly published final report of ARCHES state the importance
of developing appropriate tools and procedures to avoid unnecessary
interventions (repair/replacements) in structures and faster, more cost-
effective and longer lasting rehabilitation techniques (repair and strengthening)
of sub-standard and unsafe bridges.
Another important project, FP6 Sustainable Bridges has looked directly into
assessment for future traffic demands and longer lives for bridges. Here, they
have concluded that although bridge assessment is similar to design in many
aspects in terms of basic principles, the philosophy of assessment is in fact
quite different. The conservatism in design has been singled out and
probabilistic and reliabilistic analyses including Bayesian updating has been
recommended.
t
The SAMCO report takes up this approach of reliability based infrastructure
management and attempts to address the issue in detail. The SAMCO report
iNe
presents a multi-level hierarchical assessment of structures, the philosophy of
which is embedded in almost all assessment systems. As per SAMCO report, 5
levels of assessment are defined. A Level 0 assessment is a nor-formative
qualitative assessment. Measurement based determination of load effect and
partial factor based method employing document review form Level 1 and Level
2 assessments respectively. The use of partial factors based on supplementary
investigations form a Level 3 assessment. Level 4 assessment involves
modified target reliability achieving using modification of partial factors. A full
probabilistic assessment qualifies for a Level 5.
rat
19
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
methods, levels of condition rating and assessment of structures are very
important for a rapid, practical but dependable decision making. Significant
works on such aspects are not yet present [31],[34]-[36], possibly due to the lack of
iNe
full-scale and realistic examples. Additionally, there are certain important
consequences of loading, like fatigue, that are yet to be taken up to their full
potential within the context of maintenance management. In terms of condition
updating, Bayesian [37] or Markov [38] based models are becoming popular while
managing risks by limiting load rating on bridges still remain a preferred option.
However, this latter solution tends not to be feasible based on modern minimum
requirements of carrying capacity of a bridge to allow the maintenance and
development of intra and inter-country trade routes. Another identified gap in
rat
successful commercial infrastructure maintenance management is the lack of
real-life examples or case studies for the practising engineers and can act as
benchmarks. There exists no other practical, technical or knowledge based
difficulty in employing a probabilistic maintenance management regime at a
network level. As an example, a probabilistic assessment on eleven bridges in
Denmark consistently increased the maximum allowable load on the bridges
thereby extending their serviceable lifetimes resulted in savings in excess of
[39]
15 million .
Du
This volume details numerical methods for assessing the safety and
serviceability of highway structures. These subjects are targeted at Engineers,
network managers and authorities to assist them in selecting the appropriate
methodology for assessing the safety and serviceability of highway structures.
In line with best practice the approach recommended here is that the level of
assessment should vary primarily according to the requirement of the structure
based on the possible consequences in future based on its as-built performance
indicators and secondarily on the degree of sophistication of the analysis, the
data available from the structure being assessed and the time available to the
Engineer. Higher levels of assessment often require measurements of material
strength and in-service loading conditions, and complex modelling and analysis.
However, a particular emphasis is given on the use of site-specific load and
resistance data.
20
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
iNe
rat
Construction
Du
Bridge
Demolition Construction Maintenance
Cycle
Rehabilitation
21
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
As part of the work performed 3 case studies are presented at the end of this
volume:
Ferrycarrig Bridge;
Barra Bridge;
a wharf in Nantes.
The recommendations contained herein provide considerable potential for
savings in structure repair/replacement costs
The manual is divided into a number of chapters to detail the methodology
employed and focus on the specific aspects of assessment and maintenance
planning of built infrastructure. The organisation of the chapters in this volume
of the TG are summarised in this paragraph. Chapter 1 provides an executive
t
summary to this volume, emphasizing on the requirement, background and the
importance of appropriate maintenance and planning of built infrastructure.
iNe
Chapter 2, introductory chapter, chiefly deals with the broad philosophical
methodology, background and schema in assessing and managing structures
with a definite emphasis on probabilistic and reliability approaches. Chapter 3
formally introduces the various levels of assessment, current practices of
assessment and the relationship of the various forms against the true and
evolving safety of structures in the presence of uncertainty. Response models
of key infrastructure elements are presented in Chapter 4. This chapter, apart
from the standard response models, specifically discusses the conglomeration
of field data and the updating of structural model employed. Chapter 5 presents
rat
load modelling in the presence of uncertainties and acknowledges the evolution
of load patterns with time. Specifically, emphasis has been given on the
importance of extreme value statistics on the oncoming loads and possibility of
stochastically modelling the same through simulations techniques. This chapter
is followed by modelling resistance in the presence of uncertainty in Chapter 6.
The use of tests data and synthesis of such data with existing models for
updating and the handing of uncertainties and model errors are within the scope
of this chapter. The background for reliability analysis, created in Chapters 5
Du
22
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
3 Structural assessment
The purpose of structural assessment is to define the condition of the structure
under consideration with respect to its ability to safely carry the loads to which it
is subjected. Fig. 6, an illustrative variation of the fundamental concepts
covered in Fig.1 and Fig. 2 elaborates on this purpose. Even at a design stage
the structure targets to be well above the minimum safety level prescribed by
current and applied codes, acknowledging that such a change in code
specification is quite natural. In fact, while designing the design loads and
resistances are kept more conservative than the target for the structure in its as-
built state. This conservatism allows for the uncertainty involved during the
actual building process. During the design and construction stage the actual
level of safety cannot be verified and the representative level of safety can be
t
considered to be equal to what is available from design. Once the structure is
built and becomes operational, under usual circumstances, the true level of
iNe
safety of the structure is increased. This happens because the actual load and
resistance combination happens to be less onerous than what is conservatively
considered during design. The discussion related to the safety levels in Fig. 6 is
in fact independent of assessment method and is absolutely general. With time,
due to the evolution in loads and the deterioration of the structure the level of
safety starts to drop away. The target level of safety is usually constant unless
there are specific changes in requirements of codes. The time from the
inception to the point where the true safety of the structure reaches the
allowable limiting level of safety determines the service life of the structure. If
rat
deterioration is more severe than what is planned, the service life of the
structure is compromised from what was posited during design. However, within
the framework of infrastructure maintenance, a reduction of safety level over
time can be pre-designed, reaching which, intervention is to be carried out on
the structure. Such a timely intervention can help improve the safety level of a
structure to an a significantly improved degree in a cost-effective fashion and
under the assumption of a certain range of further rate of degradation, the
Du
structure can extend its service life to a maximum with minimum investment.
This cost-optimised maintenance cannot take place is no intervention is carried
out until the structure reaches or is extremely close to the allowable minimum
safety limit. The same applies for making an intervention too early. It is
observed, that the success of optimisation significantly depends on an accurate
description of the evolution of damage or deterioration rate.
23
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
iNe
Fig. 6. Cost-effective infrastructure maintenance.
rat
The failure, defined is a non-compliance with one or more performance
criterion/criteria may or may not correspond to collapse or significant visual
distress. The limit of compliance may be related to the minimum acceptable
level illustrated in Fig. 6.
Visual inspections or structural monitoring (e.g., measurement of
physical/chemical properties) can often provide an indication of the degree of
Du
24
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
also carried out at this stage, if required. The condition rating and ranking at this
stage are often amenable to further statistical or mathematical updating. Some
iNe
variants of inspection of this stage also include limited but invasive investigation
of the condition of the structure, especially in the case of possible corrosion. At
this stage, most assessments consider the safety and durability aspects of the
super and substructure along with possible stability conditions like evidence of
scour and undermining. Environmental factors are also taken into consideration.
Due to problems in access and the requirement of specialised training,
underwater inspections are considered separately within most bridge
management systems, although this inspection is placed at an approximately
similar hierarchical level along with the detailed inspection. The frequency of
rat
such detailed inspections is usually a function of the as-built rating of the most
current inspection on a structure. Of course, in the presence of further
information from any hierarchical level of the system, the time of revisiting the
structure can be immediately revised at any given time. Within the inspection
and maintenance hierarchy, the next level of inspection involves detailed testing
of the structure and the recording or monitoring of its mechanical, chemical and
electromagnetic properties. These tests can be intrusive, non-intrusive or semi-
Du
intrusive and are guided by the already available information from existing or
archived documents and inspections or ratings from previous or current visits to
the structure. Archived information on the analysis/assessment of the structure
and/or information of the condition of the structure at a previous time are also
invaluable in establishing a realistic evolution of the degradation of the structure.
Usually, the detailed tests attempt to establish the cause, the nature and the
extent or severity of damage in the structure. Some typical tests in this regards
are visual assessment, hammer tapping survey, cover-meter survey, Schmidt
Hammer technique (used sparingly and with caution), half-cell potential testing,
resistivity testing, chemical analyses of concrete dust to establish the
composition, chemical analysis to establish sulphate content, chemical analysis
to form the chloride profiles, carbonation test using phenolphthalein indicator,
petrographic and/or spectroscopic survey of extracted concrete cores,
compressive strength test of concrete cores and scanning electron microscopy.
All of these tests are correlated with each other and with available background
information including calculations and previous tests. Deterministic, semi-
25
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
Level I Assessment: Only simple analysis methods are necessary and
full partial safety factors from the assessment standards are used to
iNe
give a conservative estimate of load capacity.
Level II Assessment: More refined analysis and better structural
idealisation than in Level I is employed. Characteristic strengths for the
structural materials are determined based on existing available data.
Full partial safety factors are again used.
Level III Assessment: Unlike Level II, site-specific loading and/or
material properties are determined from new tests on the structure. Full
rat
partial safety factors are again used.
Level IV Assessment: Lower levels of assessment depend on implicit
levels of safety where reliability is based on the majority of structures of
the type concerned. On the other hand, Level IV takes into account any
additional safety characteristic of the structure being assessed by
allowing modified safety criteria determined through rigorous reliability
analysis or by judgmental changes to the partial safety factors.
Du
26
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
elastic stress analysis and requires:
iNe
rat
Du
Sa = Ra = Rf / g (7)
where S is the applied stress, Ra is the allowable stress, Rf is the failure stress
of the material, g is the global safety factor.
27
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
Thus, the safety principle consists of verifying that the maximum stresses,
calculated in any section of any part of the structure under the worst case of
loading, remain lower than the allowable stress. The global safety factor format,
also referred to as permissible stress design, is not recommended for use in
assessment. The other three methods are reviewed in the following.
t
safety factor format can be described by the following formal limit state:
iNe
Sk S =Rk / R (8)
where Rk is the resistance, Sk is the stress, S, R are partial safety factors. The
reliability of a given structure is ensured by certain requirements for the limit
state, the characteristic values and the partial safety factors. Partial safety
factors are designed to cover a large number of uncertainties and may therefore
not be very representative for evaluating the reliability of a particular structure.
Partial safety factors should be calibrated using probabilistic methods and
idealised reliability formats, but in most of the countries where semi-probabilistic
rat
codes are used, the actual values for the partial safety factors are still
influenced by experience and economic and political considerations. Generically,
the partial factors attempt to describe the uncertainties related to the material
characteristics, load characteristics and model error or human error by
specifying conservative scaling coefficients as single numbers as applied to the
nominal or experimental material strengths and oncoming loads. The factors of
model error or human error are usually present as a multiplicative term along
with the material or load factors. The value of thr factors change dependent on
Du
28
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
structure with regard to the limit state considered:
Pf = P (R-S 0) = P (M 0)
iNe (9)
Partial safety factors are designed to cover a large number of uncertainties and
may therefore not be representative for evaluating the reliability of a particular
structure. The reliability format is also based on Limit States, but unlike the
semi-probabilistic partial safety factor format, it requires the calculation of the
probability of failure with a specified reference period. This calculation involves
the identification of all variables influencing the limit-state criteria, the statistical
description of these variables, the derivation of the probability density and its
moments for each basic variable, the calculation of the probability that the limit-
state criterion is not satisfied, and the comparison of the calculated probability
with a target level. Load demand, S, and capacity to resist load, R, are modelled
as random variables in the formulation of the Limit State. The difference
between demand and capacity is known as the safety margin, M = (R-S). The
safety margin is Normally distributed when the stress, R, and strength, S, are
Normally distributed. The reliability index, , is given by the ratio of the mean to
the standard deviation of the safety margin. In many cases alternative
29
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
format. Thus, preliminary investigation at lower levels will open the way for a full
reliability analysis at Level V, in cases where the results of a partial safety factor
iNe
format are believed to be too conservative.
30
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
model for a structure will be influenced by the assumptions adopted for the
foundation and the soil. If it is ensured that the ground can sustain the loading
iNe
with acceptable displacements or provide adequate stiffness, soil-structure
interaction can be ignored in low-level studies (in bridges, piled foundations
have often been employed to provide relatively rigid foundations and allow an
analysis of the structure in isolation). Reports such as COST 345 review a
number of available techniques to model the structural response according to
Ultimate and Serviceability Limit States. Perspectives are given on a reliability-
based design/assessment approach and on empirical, algebraic and numerical
(e.g., finite element) methods of analysis, the number of dimensions of the
rat
structural model (frame and spatial analysis), the behaviour of the structural
material (elastic or plastic), the magnitude of the displacements with respect to
the original geometry (linear or non-linear), the characteristics of the section
(cracked or uncracked reinforced concrete), the nature of the applied load
(static, dynamic, impact, fatigue) and the definition of the structure (in
deterministic or probabilistic terms).
An assessment at Level I is carried out with traditional methods of structural
Du
31
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
Table 2. Levels of assessment for various types of structures.
iNe
Level of Assessment
Structure Type
1 2 3 4 5
1-, 2- or 3-D
FEM analysis of specific details of the structure being assessed not considered in previous levels
linear or non-
linear;
Not skew
elastic or
Beam plastic;
1-D or 2-D allowing for 2- or 3-D;
linear elastic cracking linear or non-linear;
Not skew (beam theory or
rat
elastic or plastic;
Slab plane frame grillage or FEM
analysis) 2- or 3-D
Not skew (upstand model if
2- or 3-D
linear or non-
Empirical or 2-D linear;
2- or 3-D;
Arch linear elastic elastic or
linear or non-linear;
arch frame plastic;
elastic or plastic;
allowing for
grillage or FEM
cracking
(upstand model if
2- or 3-D
necessary); allowing
linear or non-
2-D linear for soil-structure
linear;
elastic with interaction, cracking,
elastic or
Cable modified and site-specific live
plastic;
Stayed modulus of loading & material
modelling
elasticity for the properties
cable sag
cables
more
accurately
32
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
method of models and site-
walls or elasto-plastic
analysis specific loading &
continuum
material properties
iNe 2- or 3-D FEM of
Empirical soil in combination
models or 2- or 3-D FEM of with existing
Reinforced soil 1-D linear soil structure and site-
elastic specific loading &
material properties
Empirical 3-D non-linear
models or FEM with bedding,
2- or 3-D FEM;
beam-and- fracture planes,
Tunnels spring models
linear or non-linear;
and site-specific
elasto-plastic
rat
Load testing can be used to improve the reliability of structural models for the
Serviceability Limit State through measurement of static/dynamic effects and
other performance measures, including the generation of cracks and the
distribution of load. Such testing must be carried out with caution so as not to
inflict damage to the structure. Thus, the passage of heavily loaded trucks can
be used to determine the in-situ live-load behaviour of the structure and, by
extrapolation, to predict the maximum stresses due to the traffic load. Typically,
forced vibration or ambient vibration methods [46],[47] are used to determine the
33
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
frequencies and mode shapes of vibration of a bridge. As tests at full scale are
expensive and limited [48],[49] scaled physical models using measurements from
tests on the real structure, can also be used for assessment purposes [50],[51].
Measurements can provide more realistic values for support stiffness, joint
condition, restraints, behaviour of the cross-section, elastic properties of the
structural material, behaviour of the foundation, fill and structural material
density and road profile among many other aspects. These characteristics can
then be incorporated into the structural model. Optimisation techniques are
commonly used for adjusting parameters of the structural models to fit with field
measurements. The updated models can be used to more accurately predict
and assess the behaviour of the structure under different static or dynamic
loading conditions. In a structural reliability model, the uncertainties in the
design parameters will be modelled probabilistically. The process of identifying
t
the behaviour of a given structure is described by the ASCE Committee on
structural identification of constructed facilities [52]. It is important to note that
iNe
variabilities and uncertainties are present in inspection and testing and such
effects may have to be taken into account [53]-[55].
rat
Du
34
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
5 Load modelling
An existing bridge has to carry the same type of loads as a new one unless very
specific and new forms of actions or risks (e.g. an explosion) are considered.
From an assessment point of view, these loads can be classified into time
invariant (e.g., dead and superimposed dead load) and time variant (e.g., traffic,
wind, earthquake and temperature loading). Some other loads can be initially
time variant, but asymptotically time invariant at some point (e.g., differential
settlement, earth pressures, creep and shrinkage effects, etc.). From a generic
viewpoint, these can be interpreted as actions on the structure.
t
Time invariant loads are those that may reasonably be expected to remain the
iNe
same for the lifetime of the structure. Compared to the design stage, at
assessment stage these loads may have altered due to the effects of the
construction process and subsequent life of the structure. As a result,
calculations can often be assisted by on-site measurements which allow them
to be determined more accurately (e.g., measurement of the actual thickness of
the asphalt layer). As a result, the load and resistance models can be updated
whilst maintaining the required safety for the structure. Measurement of density
and element size may also justify the use of a lower value of a particular partial
rat
factor for assessment than adopted for design. Additionally, these loads can
also be appropriately used during intervention to improve the reliability of the
structure. For example, a deck improvement might be associated with a
compliant asphalt thickness which is less deep than the existing layer.
Time variant loads are those that can be modelled as stochastic variables.
When assessing a structure, representative records of traffic, wind, earthquake
and tide (if relevant) and temperature records may be available. Hence, the
characteristic load effects (e.g., values of bending moment, shear force, etc.
with specified probability of exceedance), may be predicted more accurately.
For time variant loads, establishment of an appropriate return period of a certain
severity of the action of the load is critical. The stochastic approach, in
combination with monitoring records requires modification where effects of
climate change are to be taken into account.
35
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
loads. The difference in distributions contained within the Gumbel family lies in
their tail behaviour, e.g., whether they are bounded or unbounded in the
iNe
extreme. In modelling measured data for prediction of characteristic extremes,
care should be taken to ensure that the most appropriate distribution is selected.
[56],[57]
The principle of tail equivalence is employed in determining an
appropriate extreme value distribution. The extreme value and parent
distributions, G(x) and F(x) respectively, are considered tail equivalent if:
lim 1 (10)
Where the extreme value distribution G(x) is modelled by either the Gumbel I or
rat
Weibull distribution, given by Equations 11 and 12 respectively.
, 0 (11)
(12)
The threshold, and scaling parameters, and of the Gumbel and Weibull
Du
36
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
6 7
5 6
4 5
3
4
2
3
1
2
0
1
-1
-2 0
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500
kN m)
kNm)
t
Fig. 8. Extreme value approximations for simply supported bridge and
iNe
bending moment at centre of span (total span 20 M). Left: Gumbel
I. Right: Weibull.
For short span lengths e.g., less than 20 m the Weibull distribution is
considered more appropriate as it implicitly recognises a physical upper limit for
the maximum load effect on short spans as a function of the maximum possible
axle and group of axle load [61],[62]. For longer spans e.g., in excess of 20 m span it is
found that either distribution is appropriate. However for medium to long span bridges e.g.,
rat
in excess of 50 m, a convex trend is observed in the right hand tail of the Weibull
distribution. As the tail region is of prime importance in extrapolation, the Gumbel
distribution, which is unbounded in the extreme, is more appropriate.
It is also important to consider the characteristic load effect being determined. It is
found that the choice of either extreme value distribution is dependent not only
upon the span length but also upon the load effect being considered [63].
Du
37
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
0.008
0.007
A1
0.006
A2
0.005 A31
fx(x)
0.004 A6
0.003
0.002
0.001
t
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
GVW [kN]
iNe
Fig. 9. Comparison of gross vehicle weight distributions at various sites on
the French motorway network.
It is clearly desirable to collect as much data as possible, but one or two weeks
of continuously recorded data may be sufficient for the purposes of assessment
[64]
. It is important to attempt to ensure that this data is representative and so, in
scheduling a measurement period, consideration should be given to seasonal
rat
variation patterns.
References do not specify the required accuracy of WIM data. However, some
guidance is given by Jacob [65]. These authors specify the required accuracy
with reference to the COST 323 WIM specification [66] Bridge loading is not
sensitive to WIM system accuracy and a system with accuracy as low as C(15)
is deemed to be sufficient. This corresponds to about 95 % of gross vehicle
weights (the exact percentage depends on test conditions) being within 15 % of
the exact static value [67].
Du
38
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
For Levels III to V assessment, site-specific load modelling is allowed. A
number of approaches can be used to convert basic WIM statistics into
estimates of characteristic load effects [69]. This approach has the advantage
iNe
that few assumptions are necessary about the nature of the data. It is applicable
to short span bridges but, given the relative paucity of data in the tail of the truck
GVW distribution, it requires a considerable amount of data to give repeatable
results. The direct simulation approach is unlikely to include enough examples
of traffic congestion to accurately simulate the loading events that govern long-
span bridges.
An alternative to direct simulation is to form a histogram of GVW and to fit a
distribution to this. The distribution is subsequently used with Monte Carlo
rat
39
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
approximately 50 m in the extreme occur due to (1) meeting events between
ordinary trucks and (2) meeting events involving heavy transports with ordinary
iNe
trucks. In both cases the extreme distribution function of the load effects can be
obtained from the so-called thinned Poisson process [72] e.g. only arrival and
meeting events including the heaviest groups of trucks in the various traffic
situations are considered. Fig. 10 indicates a typical meeting event.
For a two-lane bridge the extreme distribution Fmax of the considered load effect
q can be obtained from:
(13)
rat
L o ad ed
V eh icle
L an e 2
B rid g e
Du
L o ad ed
V eh icle
L an e 2 L an e 1 L an e 1
Fig. 10. Typical meeting event - normal passage situation, heavy transport
+ standard vehicle.
Where 1 and 2 are the intensities of the considered traffic in lane 1 and 2,
respectively. 12 is the intensity of the meeting, e.g. of the considered traffic in
both lanes at the same time. T is the considered reference period for the
extreme distribution (one traffic year). Further the distribution for the load effect
in lane 1, F1(q) lane 2, F2(q), and the distribution of load effects due to
simultaneous traffic load in both lanes, F12(q), must be determined. These three
distributions do in general include modelling of:
40
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
exceptionally difficult and sometimes impossible to design using traditional
iNe
generalised design codes. Reliabilistic design in conjunction with advanced live
loading techniques can ensure optimal structural performance, without
compromising the required level of safety as prescribed by codes, under these
circumstances [75].
The extreme value of traffic loading considered for design is usually more
onerous than extreme value distribution considered for assessment. Extremely
abnormal loads, similar to HB loading within the British Code (BS 5400-4) is
usually not considered during assessment stage (BD 44/95 [76], BD 21/01 [77])
rat
can be the crossing of a 234 ton truck carrying a transformer. These vehicles
cross a bridge under very controlled condition of path and speed and are
escorted appropriately by the police or other authorities. Often, the axle loads of
these trucks can be adjusted and ensured by hydraulic mechanisms.
41
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
6 Resistance modelling
t
examples (from buildings) of systematic (bias) and random (coefficient of
variation) uncertainties found in some engineering material properties.
iNe
In fact, similar descriptions of uncertainty have also been considered for soil as
a structural material. Uncertainties in the form of Table [80] can be extended to
further properties and materials. Uncertainty in soil can be pronounced due to
high spatial variability and due to time-dependent uncertainties like scour.
Additionally, it is mentioned that loads and materials are treated separately
when the soil-structure interaction requires specific attention [81].
Statistical descriptions of material strength through data have been shown to be
rat
achieved for quite some time [82]. Weighing factors have also been specified for
loads on structural members [83]. Probabilistic framework, in terms of load
factors is available for geotechnical engineering [84]. Other works have
successfully incorporated uncertainties in loads [85] and resistance for a wide
range of response [86],[87]. It might be concluded that there are essentially no
realistic technical, computational or knowledge barriers to preclude full
probabilistic assessments within a commercial consulting environment. Even
then, the lack of availability of validated datasets, which may be used for
Du
42
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
(psi)
fc=3000 psi 402 88 402 85
fc=4000 psi 445 97 0.220 445 94 0.210
fc=5000 psi 485
iNe
106 485 102
Splitting Strength
(psi)
fc=3000 psi 306 54 306 52
fc=4000 psi 339 60 0.175 339 58 0.170
fc=5000 psi 369 65 369 63
Modulus of
Elasticity (ksi)
fc=3000 psi 2956 351 2956 310
fc=4000 psi 3260 387 0.120 3260 342 0.105
rat
Grade 270
Ultimate Tensile
281 7 0.025 281 7 0.025
Strength (ksi)
Ultimate Tensile
0.05 0.0035 0.070 0.05 0.0035 0.070
Strain
Modulus of
28400 568 0.020 28400 568 0.020
Elasticity (ksi)
Stress at Transfer
(ksi)
Pretensioned
189 2.8 0.015 189 2.8 0.015
Beams
Post-Tensioned
189 3.8 0.020 189 3.8 0.020
Beams
Post Transfer
Losses (ksi)
Stress-Relieved
36 5.8 0.160 36 5.8 0.160
Strands
Stabilized Strands 26.5 5.3 0.200 26.5 5.3 0.200
43
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
Depth of bottom
prestressing steel -0.19 0.25 +0.12 0.17
(in.)
iNe
Stirrup Spacing
0 0.53 0 0.27
(in.)
Beam spacing and
0 0.69 0 0.34
span (in.)
Deviation of
Column
Dimensions from
Nominal Values
Overall width and
+0.06 0.25 - - -
thickness (in.)
Concrete Cover for
18x18 in column
rat
(in.)
Exterior Bars +0.32 0.17 - - -
Interior Bars +0.04 0.79 - - -
Notes: Yield strength of reinforcing bars was represented by beta distribution, whereas effect of discrete bar
sizes was assumed to follow a modified lognormal distribution with a modification constant of 0.91. All other
variables were assumed to follow normal distributions.
1psi=6895 Pa; 1ksi=6.895 MPa; 1in =25.4 mm
Standard
Parameter Distribution Mean
Deviation
Foundation E Lognormal 2*107 kN/m2 0.2 * Mean
2
G Lognormal 54450 kN/m 0.3 * Mean
Soil, Layer 1 2
max Lognormal 33 kN/m 0.25 * Mean
2
G Lognormal 33800 kN/m 0.3 * Mean
Soil, Layer 2 2
max Lognormal 26 kN/m 0.25 * Mean
2
G Lognormal 61250 kN/m 0.3 * Mean
Soil, Layer 3 2
max Lognormal 35 kN/m 0.25 * Mean
2
G Lognormal 96800 kN/m 0.3 * Mean
Soil, Layer 4 2
max Lognormal 44 kN/m 0.25 * Mean
44
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
value or the distribution itself the underlying uncertainty generally increases as
well with degradation unless identified and quantified clearly through testing.
iNe
Uncertainty related to the model of damage is also a challenge in modelling in
this regard. It is not possible to completely predict the future deterioration and
often conservative estimates are made when considering degradation for the
future. Such estimations can be revisited in the light of new information
available through modelling, testing or monitoring.
45
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
deterioration models for PMS have been employed in the development of bridge
deterioration models in BMS. In a study conducted at the transportation
systems centre (TSC), Busa et al [91] examined the factors affecting the
deterioration of a bridges condition. The study concluded that the top ranking
factors that affect deterioration include age, average daily traffic, the
environment, the bridge design parameters and the quality of the construction
and materials used. A realistic and useful deterioration model needs to use
information concerning the design, construction, materials, climate, environment,
and history of the MR&R of the bridge. Two types of data would need to be
accounted for: static and dynamic data. The static data includes relatively
constant information such as the type of the bridge, the length of the bridge, the
bridge materials, the traffic loads, the climate, the environment, construction of
the bridge, and any anomalies (for example the bridge is constructed on a
skew). The dynamic data information includes significantly changing over time
t
such as the inspection ratings and the history of MR&R of the bridge.
[92]
iNe
According to the FHWAs Bridge Management System report , most studies
of deterioration rates tend to predict slower declines in condition ratings after 15
years. The report included results from a regression analysis of NBI data for the
deterioration of structural conditions (the scale ranges from 9 (Excellent
condition) to 0 (Failed condition)). For example, the results suggest that the
average deck condition rating declines at the rate of 0.104 points per year for
approximately the first 10 years and 0.025 points per year for the remaining
years. In addition, the overall structural condition declines at a value of 0.094
per year for 10 years and 0.025 per year thereafter. These results suggest that
rat
the condition will not fall below 6 until after 60 years, which is not the case in
real life: bridges deteriorate at a much higher rate [92]. In another study [88] the
estimated average deterioration of decks was about 1 point in 8 years and 1
point in 10 years for the superstructure and substructure, respectively. A simple
description of the deterioration process over time for an imperfect bridge in a
hostile environment is given in Fig. 11. The curve from A to B represents the
deterioration of a material, a bridge element, a single bridge or indeed a stock of
bridges. This representation is very close to reliability based maintenance
Du
46
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
iNe
artificial intelligence (AI) models.
uses such models. In addition of being unreliable for the development of BMS, it
is difficult with the use of these models to incorporate the various variables
affecting the deterioration process. Note that the power models given in the
following are very tractable but should be used with care. Their consistency is
more to predict a main trend than to transfer variability in a detailed probabilistic
analysis. They should be replaced as often as possible with models available
from the literature that are more complete and incorporate physical and
meaningful variables.
Notwithstanding the huge number of masonry arch bridges in service, the most
common building material for bridges and structures is, undoubtedly, reinforced
concrete. It is used to form structural elements such as beams, columns, slabs
(both ground and floor), beam and slab, composite beam and slab, foundations
and bridge parapets etc. The (basic) material constituents are cement, sand,
[97]
coarse and fine aggregate, water and steel reinforcing bars . The well-known
phenomena that cause deterioration of concrete are alkali-silicate reaction,
sulfate attack, freezethaw, acid attack, carbonation, and chloride ingress.
47
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
For corrosion damage to occur, carbonation or chlorides + water + oxygen +
low resistivity concrete would have to be present in sufficient quantity and depth.
iNe
According to Browne [102] the penetration rate for carbonation can be determined
from the simple diffusion law:
(14)
Where x is the distance penetrated after time t. (The diffusion constant k is
obtained either from experimental work or from a calibration procedure involving
a regression analysis of past projects.) Equation 14 is based on empirical data
only, and the more general form of the equation to take into account of the
rat
fractal growth of the calcium carbonate within the pores would be:
(15)
Where i is a fractional parameter between 0.5 and 1.0. Both k and i are
obtained from a calibration procedure based on site results.
Modelling the deterioration of a steel bridge involves a three-part process [103]:
The breakdown of the paint system, which has no immediate effect on
Du
48
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
maintenance strategies [106]. The mechanism of the corrosion process for the
superstructure of steel bridges has been developed by Sobanjo [107], Melchers
[108]
, Melchers et al [109], Melchers et al [110]. The following expression predicts
the deterioration:
(16)
where C = average corrosion penetration, t = time in years, and A, B = constants.
In steel and concrete bridges the dominating deteriorating process is corrosion.
For timber it is fungal decay and wood-boring insects which dominate. The main
aim of any timber treatment is to break the egg-laying cycle of the wood-boring
beetle. The species of beetle doing the damage depends greatly on:
The type and condition of the timber playing host to the beetle.
t
The density of the wood heartwood is less susceptible than sapwood.
The degree of existing decay: in decayed wood, the cycle development
iNe
may be faster and repeated more often. Some types of woodborer will
only attack timber which has started to decay.
Resistance to attack is greatly enhanced by the application of a preservative or
an insecticide or a mixture of both, which are capable of preventing infestation
and eradicating existing infestation. There are many commercial products on
the market and so it is advisable to enlist the services of a specialist so that the
most effective product is chosen. Modern preservatives are based on a soluble
borate and exhibit good penetration into damp timber. Application is by brush,
rat
sprays or pressure injection, and is best carried out in the Spring when the
insects come to the surface to mate. Thereafter treatment should continue
annually until attack is terminated.
Timber structures can suffer severe structural damage at the hands of wood
rotting fungi. The spawn (of which the fungus plant is composed) lives in the
wood and feeds on it by releasing enzymes which enable digestion of the wood.
The fungus absorbs the digested material to produce more spawn and
Du
continues until there is no more digestible material in the wood when it dies.
The spawn needs a minimum moisture content of 20 % and a low relative
humidity in which to germinate and thus initiate decay. Generally, if there is no
water present then there will be no decay. Brown Rot is the result of the fungi
feeding on the cellulose wall. It is characterised by wood that is browner than
normal and which cracks across the grain. The wood becomes spongy, lighter
in weight, and is severely weakened. In areas where brown rot has ceased and
become dry, it is often erroneously referred to as dry rot. White Rot feeds on
the wood directly, causing the wood to lose its natural colour and to appear
whiter than normal. The wood gradually loses its strength and, as in brown rot, it
becomes spongy to the touch. Timber bridges are, for the most part, in a totally
exposed environment and subject to mist, fog, rain and ground water. The
vulnerable areas are at connections, bearings and expansion joints which tend
to work lose after a period of time, due to vibration from traffic, leaving a gap (be
it ever so small), between the timber and steel or concrete. Wind-blown fungal
spores can then find their way into the gaps and decay begins. Treatment of
infected areas using preservatives and insecticides is similar to beetle
49
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
infestation, but in addition, the exposed wood surfaces should be coated with a
fungicide and a water repellant finish.
t
6.3.2.1 Straight-line extrapolation
iNe
The simplest condition-prediction model is based on straight-line extrapolation;
this method can be used to predict the material condition rating (MCR) of a
bridge given the assumption that traffic loading and maintenance history follow
a straight line. The method requires only one condition measurement to be
carried out after construction; an initial condition can be assumed at the time of
construction and a second condition is determined at the time of the inspection.
The straight-line extrapolation is used because of its simplicity [90]. Although this
method is accurate enough for predicting short-term conditions, it is not
rat
accurate for long periods of time. In addition, the straight line method cannot
predict the rate of deterioration of a relatively new bridge, or of a bridge that has
undergone some repair or maintenance.
variables. Each variable is described in terms of its mean and variance [90].
Several forms of regression models are presented in the literature, including
linear and non-linear ones. Even if these regression models are based on
statistics, they are, despite everything, regarded as deterministic.
50
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
Markov Decision Process (MDP). This process has been used to develop
stochastic deterioration models for different infrastructure facilities. Markovian
bridge deterioration models are based on the concept of defining states in terms
of bridge condition ratings and obtaining the probabilities of a bridge condition
changing from one state to another [114]-[116]. The inputs to the deterioration
model are the present condition assessment data for the bridge. Based on the
FHWA condition rating for the deterioration in the condition of the Indiana
Department of Highway bridges (IDOH) and Jiang et al [115] have developed a
performance prediction model by using the Markov chain. In this model, a
transition probability matrix was developed for three main bridge components:
the deck, superstructure, and substructure. The transition probability matrices
take into account the type of structure (steel or concrete), the effect of age
(assuming that the rate of deterioration differs with age), and the highway type
(interstate or other). The drawback of this study is that it does not consider other
t
factors affecting the deterioration process such as traffic density and climate.
iNe
In Pontis, Markov chain is utilized in the development of the element
deterioration model. The model incorporates five condition states for each
element. To include the factors that affect the deterioration, Pontis classifies
each element of a bridge into one of four categories of environment: benign, low,
moderate, or severe. Each environment represents a different level of the
impact of the external factors on the performance of the element over time, and
[88]
a deterioration matrix is assigned for each element in each environment . It
should be noted that the transition matrix (and accordingly, the deterioration
behaviour) is greatly affected by the service condition (or the environment) to
rat
51
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
values were with a 15 % prediction error.
iNe
rat
Fig. 12. Multi-layer neural networks. [107]
Du
52
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
other improvement types as well as other bridge elements.
It is observed from the other reports in this project, that the type of repair, the
iNe
extent of repair and the location of repair are not independent elements of
infrastructure maintenance management but are a function of available
information and the evolution of safety of the structure. Consequently,
uncertainties related to degradation model, material strengths and other
epistemic and aleatory factors are always present affecting the improvement of
a structure. Consequently, a high degree of confidence on the performance of
maintenance management, testing of structures and sophisticated damage
models directly affects the performance of repair. Additionally, the performance
rat
53
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
reliability index. Consequently, reliability analysis is intrinsically an iterative
process.
iNe
rat
Du
54
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
G(R, S)>0
Safe region
iNe
Load S
G(R, S)=0
G(R, S)<0
Unsafe region
rat
Resistance R
Fig. 14. Depiction of limit state. [127]
Z= G(R,S) = R S (17)
where Z is the LS margin, G is the LS function, R is the random variable
representing the resistance and S is the random variable representing the
corresponding load effect or action.
R and S may be functions of other variables, deterministic or random. Both R
and/or S may also be functions of time as schematically shown in Fig 15.
Z(t) = R(t) S(t) (18)
55
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
R, S
R(t)
S(t)
t( years)
t
tL
Fig. 15. Schematic representation of time-variant reliability problem. [128]
0 0 iNe
If in the LS functions Z < 0, then the failure state is reached. The probability that
the LS has been violated (Z < 0) is referred to as the probability of failure (Pf),
and can be obtained by solving the following equation [126]:
Where, X is the vector of all relevant basic variables, G(X) is the LS function
(19)
rat
which expresses the relationship between the LS and the basic variables, fx(x)
is the joint PDF for the n-dimensional vector X of basic variables.
In structural reliability, the probability of failure Pf is also represented by the
reliability index (), which is expressed by [126]:
(20)
Where is the joint standard normal distribution function obtained from certain
Du
56
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
iNe
Fig. 16. Joint description of load and resistance variables.
57
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
High 0.5 10-1 10-2 10-3
iNe
Moderate 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4
Low 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5
The target reliability (T) indices specified by the Eurocode are given in Table
6. These values refer to a situation where the LS function is time-variant. Table
7 provides definitions for the reliability classes indicated in Table 6. The T
values are specified for structures with High, Moderate, and Low consequence
for loss of human life. Once the structural probability of failure (or ) is
rat
computed, it can be compared with the T value specified in Table 6 for the
considered LS and the consequence determines compliance or violation.
58
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
The target reliability level is that level of reliability required ensuring the
acceptable safety and serviceability of a structure. The authorities or bridge
owners must specify the target reliability level. These levels can be explicitly or
implicitly specified in a code. The target reliability level for assessment is
different from that appropriate for the design stage due to:
economic considerations, that lead to the use of less conservative
criteria for assessment as the increment in cost of upgrading an existing
structure is much larger than that for increasing safety at the design
stage;
social considerations, such as heritage values and disruption of
occupants and activities caused by an intervention that do not affect the
design of new structures;
t
Sustainability considerations, e.g., reduction of waste and recycling,
more appropriate with the rehabilitation of existing structures.
iNe
Table 8 compares target lifetime reliability levels in various codes and standards
currently in use. The Engineer dealing with the assessment of an existing
structure must decide among the available tables which of the values are most
suited and best applied to the solution of the problem at hand as the estimated
probability of failure associated with a project is very much a function of the
costs as well as an understanding of the issues, modelling the data, etc. In the
ISO 13822:1999 [131] the target reliability levels depend on the type of Limit State
examined as well as on the consequences of failure, and they range from a
rat
reliability index, , of 2.3 for very low consequences of a structural failure to 4.3
for structures whose failure would have very severe consequences. In the
Ultimate Limit State, a value of 4.3 would be suitable for most cases. The value
recommended by ISO 2394:1998 [130] and the JCCS [132], depends on the
consequences of a structural failure as well as the costs of a safety
enhancement measure. The JCCS [132] target reliability index ranges from 3.1 to
4.7. In Eurocode 1 [133], only depends on the type of limit state examined and it
ranges from 1.5 to 4.7, while in the NKB report [134], the failure type and
Du
59
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
cost of safety
measure Moderate consequences of failure = 3.8
iNe
Great consequences of failure = 4.3
Relatively Minor consequences of failure = 3.1
large cost of Moderate consequences of failure = 3.3
safety
measure Large consequences of failure = 3.7
Relatively Minor consequences of failure = 3.7
JCSS [132]
Normal cost of
Ultimate Moderate consequences of failure = 4.2
safety
limit state Large consequences of failure = 4.4
measure
Relatively
rat
Minor consequences of failure = 4.2
small cost of
Moderate consequences of failure = 4.4
safety
measure Large consequences of failure = 4.7
Design working life: bridges 100 years = 1.5
Serviceability
1 year = 3.0
Eurocode
[133] Fatigue Design working life: bridges 100 years = 1.5 - 3.8
1:1993
Design working life: bridges 100 years = 3.8
Du
Ultimate
1 year = 4.7
Less serious failure consequences = 3.1
Ductile w/
extra carrying Serious failure consequences = 3.7
capacity failure
Very serious failure consequences = 4.2
NKB
Report
[134] Less serious failure consequences = 3.7
Ductile w/o
Ultimate extra carrying Serious failure consequences = 4.2
Limit State capacity failure
Very serious failure consequences = 4.7
Less serious failure consequences = 4.2
Brittle failure Serious failure consequences = 4.7
Very serious failure consequences = 5.2
(1)
For Ultimate Limit State analysis revises values. See code.
60
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
Sudden failure no warning retention of
element E = 0.25
post failure capacity
behaviour, E
CSA [135]
iNe Gradual failure probable warning E = 0.5
Element failure leads to total collapse S = 0.0
Ultimate Adjustment of
limit state system Element failure probably does not lead to
S = 0.25
= 3.5 behaviour, S total collapse
(E + S Element failure leads to local failure only S = 0.5
+ I + Component not inspectable I = - 0.25
Adjustment for
PC) Component regularly inspectable I = 0.0
inspection
2.0 Critical component inspected by
level, I I = 0.25
evaluator
rat
In the following the principles for the creation of loading models are given.
In classification, loads are categorized as permanent loads (dead load,
prestressing, etc.) and variable loads (traffic, wind, etc.).
In a reliability analysis the loads are modelled as stochastic variables - a
modelling that for variable loads will often be a function of time.
In the reliability analysis it will often be necessary to combine several load
processes, e.g. load on two or more lanes. With variable loads and
combinations of variable loads a distinction is made between the distribution of
immediate values and extreme values, where the distribution of extreme values
is adjusted to the reference period (here one year) using the definition of the
required safety.
61
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
stochastically independent.
The above shall be evaluated in each case. It is possible to reduce the given
iNe
uncertainties by measurement.
axle weights of vehicles and the correlations (or the lack of it) of high axle loads
leading to the load extremes of a structure in its service life. Rail bridges are
specified with a number of specific rail loadings for a network and are used for
design or assessment. The passage cases producing the maximum effect on a
structure (for example, two heavy trucks crossing each other on two lanes at the
midpoint of a simply supported bridge may produce the maximum effects) are
the critical cases to be taken into consideration. The longitudinal and transverse
positioning of loadings is also important in this regard. Due to the wide number
of possibilities of situations that may give rise to extreme vehicular loading, finite
element based software have become popular nowadays for such modelling.
However, for a full probabilistic modelling or microsimulation modelling the axle
weights are all represented as distributions and the loading on the structure is
ascertained through a large number of simulations and represented as an
output distribution. For an appropriate representation of the load, the tails of the
distributions of the loadings are required to be modelled precisely since they
represent the extreme effect on a structure. Consequently, for high loads, apart
62
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
from the critical crossing locations, the likelihood of such occurrence and
considerations of correlations are required to be modelled with great care. The
dynamic amplification of a bridge may actually go down with increasing weight
on a bridge. However, in most models, the amplification factor is always
represented as a number greater than 1, the excess being modelled as a
probabilistic distribution. Some Coefficient of Variation (CoV) is typically
associated with such dynamic factors to account for local and unknown effects.
The dynamic factor often does not appropriately account for the effect of
lurching and consequently a parameter related to lurching is sometimes
considered and represented as a distribution. The model uncertainty is
represented as a multiplicative term with a distribution.
t
Probabilistic resistance modelling significantly depends on a number of factors
(on their own or combined) including the control of manufacture of the materials,
iNe
assumed degradation models, experimental results at any time on the structure
and engineering judgement on the uncertainty of a number of factors. A wide
range of degradation modelling is possible and the scope of detailed discussion
is within WG A3 and WG A4 of this project. Repair of structures implying green
materials or recycled materials also have a direct impact on the cost over the
lifetime of a structure and have significant influence on the prioritisation and
optimisation of infrastructure maintenance management funds. These are
considered in other reports of this project. Within a full probabilistic format a
rat
63
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
determined from Tables 9 to 11 and VM is the coefficient of variation of the basic
material variable.
VI 0.04
iNe
Table 9 Coefficient of variation and coefficient of correlation for the
accuracy of the computation model.
Good
Accuracy of the computation model, I1
Normal
0.06
Poor
0.09
rat
- 0.3 0.0 0.3
Material Identity, I2
Good Normal Poor
VI 0.04 0.06 0.09
- 0.3 0.0 0.3
64
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
area of the tails of the load and the resistance distribution, thereby affecting the
final safety rating.
iNe
rat
65
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
of the limit state and accurate reformulation of the statistical variables can be
carried out.
iNe
To update the reliability of a structure by taking supplementary information into
account, sufficient documentation for the supplementary information must be
provided to assure appropriate quality control.
Whatever might be the format, a First Order Reliability Method (FORM) or a
Second Order Reliability Method (SORM) may be followed. The limit states are
generally convex within the domain of definition and consequently in most of
such reliability problems, the design point at which the minimum credible safety
measure is obtained remains unique. For Monte Carlo type simulations, often
rat
directional searches or Latin Hypercube simulation are carried out for
computational efficiency.
In the observation of a given material or load variable the distribution
parameters for the variable such as mean value and standard deviation can be
estimated and updated. In estimating and updating parameters the observations
shall be stated. The uncertainty in the measurement shall be stated and taken
into account in the estimation of distribution parameters. Estimation of the
Du
66
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
can be directly combined to form the tails of the extreme value distributions.
Here, the parameter updating becomes dependent on the underlying
assumptions and the nature of the simulation and care should be exercised to
avoid unreasonable or unrealistic statistical descriptions.
Additionally, it is to be remembered that the number of available tests or
information are often limited in structural assessment and at a certain level
some engineering judgement may be required to be applied with care.
The following section presents some examples of structures with respect to the
content of the TG in brief. Three structures are considered the Ferrycarrig
Bridge, Co. Wexford, Ireland, the Barra Bridge, Aveiro, Portugal and a Steel
Wharf, Nantes, France.
t
iNe
rat
Du
67
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
8 Examples
t
iNe
rat
Fig. 18. A photograph of Ferrycarrig Bridge
Fig. 19 shows the Ferrycarrig Bridge cross section. As can be seen in this figure,
each bridge deck span consists of 28 precast, prestressed bridge beams with a
reinforced in-situ concrete infill.
Du
68
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
extend from the crosshead beams to the low water level. The bridge is
continuous over all piers except the middle pier where an expansion joint has
been provided in the deck. There are concrete abutments at both ends of the
bridge structure which are integral with the bridge deck.
In 2002 a routine inspection of Ferrycarrig Bridge highlighted a number of
problems with the bridge, namely:
staining and visible concrete cracking of the crosshead beams;
failure of expansion joints both at the middle support and at the south
abutment;
cracking and staining of South retaining wall and abutment.
These problems lead to a special inspection and structural investigation being
t
carried out in 2004. The special inspection and structural assessment of
Ferrycarrig Bridge, identified a number of issues that affected the long term
iNe
serviceability of the structure. These issues are summarised as follows:
The observed cracking in the pier crosshead beams, ranging from
hairline to 3.5 mm, was considered to be due to a lack of reinforcement
to resist both the applied ultimate limit state torsion moments and the
serviceability limit state stresses (e.g. shrinkage, thermal, creep).
It was anticipated that the cracks would continue to develop, thereby
ultimately compromising the integrity of the piers it was concluded that
pier strengthening works should be carried out.
rat
69
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
(GGBS) as partial replacement (60 % GGBS).
iNe
Crosshead 5: Cem 1 OPC with mixed in corrosion inhibitors.
Crosshead 6: Cem 1 OPC with GGBS as partial replacement (60
percent GGBS, identical to crosshead 4).
Crosshead 7: Cem 1 OPC 50 mm cover (identical to crosshead 1).
The process of chloride-ion ingress and the resultant reinforcement corrosion is
very slow. Consequently, it will be a number of years before any conclusions
can be drawn on the relative efficiencies of the repair methods from Ferrycarrig
rat
Bridge. Investigations are currently on to investigate the repair methods utilised
at Ferrycarrig bridge in the short to medium term through accelerated laboratory
testing.
A probability based analysis of Ferrycarrig Bridge is presented in the Appendix
A of this report. The deterministic analysis, which was carried out on the
structure in 2002 according to BS 5400-4:1990 [137] is also presented in the
appendix. This analysis of Ferrycarrig Bridge is utilised as a practical example
Du
70
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
iNe
Fig. 20. A plan view photograph of Barra Bridge.
rat
A model of the Barra Bridge was created. The actions on the structure and the
resistances were probabilistically treated in order to establish the reliability
before and after repair.
Studies completed by the Portuguese engineers highlighted structurally critical
zones to be at the middle of spans and under a pier designated as pier no8.
For the purpose estimating prestressing forces, as assumption of a uniform loss
Du
CHI
C C
HEM280
71
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
Table 12 and Table 13 present the moment capacity of the bridge at the critical
locations before and after repair as calculated in this project and by a previous
investigation in Portugal respectively.
t
previously.
iNe
Resistance capacity before Resistance capacity after
reparation (kN.m) reparation (kN.m)
Pier 8 -321437 -351667
Mid-Span 21001 24141
less distant from the contour support, inadequate bearing capacity of the curtain
under excessive vertical loads and excessive punching failure of the soil
beneath the base of the curtain and hydraulic instability due to water runoff
associated with height difference between the level of water in the basin and the
water table behind the screen that mainly depend on the length of the strut and
the permeability of soil layers crossed were considered.
During operation of the docks, the frequency of occurrence of such a danger of
instability may rise during an excavation at the foot of the curtain. The
schematic of the structure is presented below (Fig. 22).
Finite element models were performed through CAST3M and PLAXIS. The soil
was represented by a homogeneous material whose behaviour was
represented by a perfect Mohr-Coulomb elastoplastic model. Mindlin beam
theory was used for modelling beams. The modelling approach was validated
on a real instrumented structure (Hochstetten sheet piling) as shown in Fig. 23.
72
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
hc ht hw
hs
hl
hr
lt
H
f
t
iNe
Fig. 22. Schematic of a dock consisting of a sheet pile retaining wall built
and anchor-red at the top by perpendicular passive ties.
rat
Du
73
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
decrease in the bending moment is then observed in its free portion located in
the submerged area. In return, the normal force in the rods increases slightly,
together with the bending moment in the strut part and at the anchors.
Despite the influence of corrosion, the maximum bending moment is still in the
submerged area. Therefore, the area where corrosion is most severe is not
necessarily the area which is put the most under mechanical pressure.
The margin of safety of the structure is impacted when the structure is not or no
longer protected. Three probabilistic approaches were used for coupling with
the deterministic mechanical finite element model involving Monte Carlo
simulations, First Order Reliability Method (FORM) and the Method of Spectral
Stochastic Finite Element (SSFEM).
Corrosion in each exposure zone was modelled through a Gamma probability
t
law. Evolutions of statistical parameters (mean, 5 and 95 percent fractiles) of
the bending stress Sz (c) (absolute value) along quay T-S1 and after different
iNe
exposure times in port environment were obtained.
The limit state related to bending was formed and the safety margin was related
to the designed bending capacity and maximum oncoming bending moment.
The probability of exceeding the design bending stress Szd was then
calculated for the three exposure periods (t = 10, 25 and 50 years). Fig. 24
presents the change of statistical parameters of the bending stress over time.
0 Poutre de couronnement Szd t = 0 ans
rat
-2 ZT Moy. - t = 10 ans
ZL Q05%
-4 Q95%
Profondeur (m)
Moy. - t = 50 ans
-6 Q05%
Q95%
-8
ZI
-10
-12 ZM
-14
Du
ZG
-16
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Contrainte (MPa)
74
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
5.5
Partie libre
4.5
4.0
= 3,8
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Dure d'exposition (annes)
t
Fig. 25. Time evolution of reliability index for the sheet pile wall in the
two areas identified as sensitive.
iNe
The parameter importance measures computed from these factors are
presented next in Fig.26.
Perte paisseur (ZT) Perte paisseur (ZL)
Perte paisseur (ZI) Perte paisseur (ZM)
Masse volumique sol sec Masse volumique sol djaug
Angle de frottement Cohsion
rat
80
70
60
50
40
Du
30
20
10
0
0 10 25 50
Dure d'exposition (annes)
Fig. 26. Important factors of random variables in the free part of the sheet
piling.
At t = 0 year, the most influential random variables are the friction angle
'(54 %), operating overloads q (22 %) and the elastic limit of steel e (11 %),
representing a total of 87 % of the sensitivity of reliability index . Then, for the
3 exposure times of sheet piling in port environment, the effects caused by
corrosion in the submerged zone (Z1) play a leading role on the sensitivity of
the reliability index. It is also interesting to note that the influence of thickness
loss in the submerged area decreases over time (about 70 % after 10 years and
75
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
less than 5.
iNe
FORM method, especially when the problem involves a large number of
random variables (M = 10) and when the failure probabilities are very
small, of the order of 10-6. This method proved to be most effective
against the criteria listed above. The probabilities of failure obtained
using different methods are very close.
The results of finite elements simulations show that corrosion impacts both
stress and structural strength. The effects of resistance to corrosion are
unfavourable since they entail a reduction of the geometrical characteristics of
rat
the piles. In parallel, the loss of steel thickness increases the bending of the
sheet pile wall, causing a decrease in the bending moment in the free part and
a respective increase at the level of anchors.
However, whatever the depth of the retaining wall, the adverse effects
predominate, leading to an increase in stress due to bending moment. The two
areas that appear to be most sensitive to the coupling effect "pathology -
mechanical behaviour are located at the anchor and pulling in the submerged
Du
area, at the maximum bending moment. It is interesting to note that the area of
lowest water in which corrosion is most severe is not the most mechanically
stimulated area, which is beneficial in terms of margins of safety for the
damaged structures.
These trends are confirmed by the results of the mechanical reliability study.
When a building is not effectively protected against corrosion, it is only after
several years of exposure in port environment that its structural reliability no
longer meets regulatory requirements, particularly in the submerged area, at the
maximum bending moment. This area is particularly sensitive to the effects of
corrosion because the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the sheet
pile wall are sized relative to the demands therein. At the anchors, the margin of
safety is more important, which explains that reliability is observed during the
first 20 years of exposure in the case treated. In areas less stressed, the effects
of corrosion on structural reliability are negligible given the large margin of
safety due to the homogeneity of the geometrical and mechanical
characteristics of sheet pile wall along its entire height.
76
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
a better characterization of geotechnical
establishment of a measurement protocol;
parameters for the
iNe
tighter controls on conditions of use of wharves and sensitization of
managers;
characterization of the effects of corrosion over time, especially in the 2
areas identified as sensitive.
rat
Du
77
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
9 Conclusions
This volume addresses the core issues of assessment and maintenance
planning in infrastructure maintenance management. In this regard, a
probabilistic format has been put forward as the most appropriate marker for the
performance of the built infrastructure elements. Consequently, the
management of safety of the infrastructure has been illustrated through the
management of reliability index.
The condition assessment of an as-built infrastructure has been observed to be
an interrelated function of structural inspections, tests (destructive, semi-
destructive and non-destructive), deterministic analyses, semi-probabilistic
analyses and full probabilistic analyses. The importance of inspections and
tests has also emphasized the importance of training of personnel in relation to
t
these works. A computerised management system for the infrastructure
elements has been acknowledged to be a key component towards the
iNe
realisation of cost optimised maintenance management. In this connection, the
requirement of synthesising information from different levels has been observed.
The importance and the availability of more sophisticated cost formats have
also been noted. In this regard, the concept of cross asset management
considering the requirements of multiple stakeholders may be important. The
optimised maintenance management philosophy for infrastructure elements
seems to be moving towards a network optimised format that optimisation for
the sub-elements of the network.
rat
Assessment of structures may be done at a number of levels. The detail, time,
sophistication and cost of such levels become more complex at higher levels.
An extremely detailed assessment, like a full probabilistic assessment is
recommended only when the traditional methods and lower level assessments
methods do not work, but indicate that a higher level of re-analysis is required.
In this regard, the global safety factor, partial safety factor reliability and socio-
economic formats of assessments are discussed.
Du
78
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
iNe
rat
Du
79
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
10 References
[1] DITLEVSEN, O. and H.O. MADSEN. Structural reliability methods.
[Chichester, UK]: John Wiley and Sons. 1996.
t
[5] ERTEKIN, A.O., H.H. NASSIF and K. OZBAY. bAn LCCA algorithm for
bridges: a comprehensive approach. TRB (Transportation Research
iNe
Board), 87th annual meeting, Washington D.C., January 13-17, 2008.
[10] BRANCO, F. A. and J. BRITO. Decision criteria for concrete bridge repair.
Structural engineering international, 1995, Number 2.
80
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
[16] ROBERT, W.E, et al. Pontis bridge management system state of the
practice in implementation and development. Transportation research
board of national academies: 9th International bridge management
conference. [Orlando, Florida, U.S.A], 2003, pp. 49-60.
t
Transportation research circular, 498 - Volume I. [Denver, Colorado
U.S.A], 1999.
iNe
[19] VESIKARI, E. and M. SDERQVIST. Life-cycle management of concrete
infrastructures, for improved sustainability. Transportation research board
of national academies: 9th international bridge management conference.
[Orlando, Florida, U.S.A], 2003, pp.15-28.
[20] PIARC. Technical committee on road bridges and other structures. 2004.
[22] COST 345. Procedures required for assessing highway structures. Joint
report of working groups 2 and 3, methods used in European states to
inspect and assess the condition of highway structures. European
Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research, 2002.
maintenance - Nr. 197, INTERREG IIIB. Atlantic Area, Final Report. 2008.
[27] KHAN, M.A. Bridge and high structure rehabilitation and repair. The
McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., 2010.
81
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
[32] FU, G. and C. FU. Bridge rating practices and policies for overweight
vehicles. A synthesis of highway practice NCHRP synthesis 259.
t
Transportation research board, Washington D.C., 2006.
iNe
[33] STRAUB, D. and M.H FABER. Risk based inspection planning for
structural systems. Structural safety, 2005. Vol. 27, Issue 4, pp. 335-355.
[34] ESTES, A.C and D.M. FRANGOPOL. Updating bridge reliability based on
bridge management systems visual inspection results. ASCE. Journal of
bridge engineering, 2003. Vol. 8, Issue 6, pp. 374-382.
[38] SCHERER, W.T. and D.M. GLAGOLA. Markovian models for bridge
maintenance management. Journal of transportation engineering, 1994.
Vol. 120, Issue 1, pp. 37-51.
[40] BRIME. Final Report - DELIVERABLE D14. 2001. Contract Nr. RO-97-
SC.2220
82
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
iNe
[46] FARRAR, C.R, S.W. DOEBLING and D.A. NIX. Vibration based structural
damage identification. Philosophical transactions of the royal society,
2001. Vol. 359, Issue, 1778, pp. 131-149.
of sound and vibration, 2004. Vol. 274, Issues 3-5, pp. 567-582.
[52] DOEBLING, S.W. and C.R. FARRAR. The state of the art in structural
identification of constructed facilities. ASCE report - Committee on
Structural Identification of Constructed Facilities. 1999.
83
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
[59] GUMBEL, E.J. Statistics of extremes. Columbia University Press. 1958.
iNe
[60] ANG, A.H.S. and W.H. TANG. Probability concepts in engineering
planning and design - Vol. 1, Basic Principles. New York: John Wiley,
1975.
[61] BAILEY, S.F. Basic principles and load models for the structural safety
evaluation of existing road bridges. Ph.D. Thesis Nr. 1467, cole
Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne, Switzerland, 1996.
[64] O BRIEN, E.J et al. Procedures for the assessment of highway structures.
Proceedings of the institute of civil engineers Journal of transport, 2005.
Du
84
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
[70] NOWAK, A. S. Live load model for highway bridges. Journal of structural
safety, 1993. Vol. 13, Issues 1-2, pp. 5366.
t
[72] DITLEVSEN, O. and H.O. MADSEN. Structural reliability methods.
iNe
[Chichester, UK]: John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
85
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
[84] SCOTT, B., B.J. KIM and R. SALGADO. Assessment of current load
factors for use in geotechnical load and resistance factor design. ASCE.
Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 2003. Vol.
129, Issue 4, pp. 287-295.
t
[85] NOWAK, A. S. Load model for bridge design code. Canadian journal of
iNe
civil engineering, 1994. Vol. 21, pp. 36-49.
[90] SHAHIN, M. Pavement management for airports, roads and parking lots.
Chapman & hall, 1994.
86
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
t
[98] BROWNE, R. D. Practical considerations in producing durable concrete.
iNe
Seminar on the improvement of concrete durability, ICE, 1986.
[101] TANG, J.L. and J.N. WANG. Measurement of chloride ion concentration
with long period grating technology. Smart materials and structures, 2007.
Vol. 16, pp. 665-672.
[106] COST 509. Corrosion and protection of metals in contact with concrete,
final report. COX R.N. et al, eds. European Commission, Directorate
General Science, Research and Development, Brussels, EUR 17608.
1997.
87
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
t
Canada. 2000.
iNe
[112] MORCOUS, G., Z. LOUNIS and M. MIRZA. Identification of environmental
categories for Markovian deterioration models of bridge decks. ASCE.
Journal of bridge engineering, 2003. Vol. 8, Issue 6, pp. 353-361.
[115] JIANG, Y., M. SAITO and K. SINHA. Bridge performance prediction model
using Markov chain. Transportation research record, 1988. Vol. 1180, pp.
25-32.
[116] JIANG, Y. and K. SINHA. Bridge service life prediction model using the
Du
88
MAINTENACE AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
[121] LEE, J.H., et al. Improving the reliability of bridge management systems
using a backword prediction model. Journal of automation in construction,
2008. Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp. 758-772.
t
[124] YANEV, B. and C. XIAOMONG. Life cycle performance of the New York
iNe
city bridges. New York department of transportation: New York, NY. 1993.
methods for engineering design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000.
[132] JCSS. Probabilistic model code. The joint committee on structural safety.
2001.
89
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT
[137] BS 5400-4: 1990, Steel, concrete and composite bridges - Part 4: Code of
practice for design of concrete bridges.
t
iNe
rat
Du
90