You are on page 1of 16

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285

The 2nd International Conference on Rehabilitation and Maintenance in Civil Engineering

Time Dependent Reliability Analysis of Steel I Bridge Girder Designed
Based on SNI T-02-2005 and SNI T-3-2005 Subjected to Corrosion
M. Sigit Darmawana*, A. N. Refania, M. Irmawana, R. Bayuajia, and
R. B. Anugrahaa
a

Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Indonesia

Abstract
Steel bridge girder located in the vicinity of the sea cannot escape from corrosion. Over time the
effect of corrosion becomes more significant, especially when there is no interference
performed by bridge authority. This study will present the reliability analysis of steel I bridge
girder designed using SNI T-02-2005 and SNI T-3-2005 subjected to corrosion as a results of
chloride attacks. The corrosion model utilized in this study is taken from previous research
available in the literature. The study will consider 15m and 20m spans of bridge girder located
close to the sea, with a designed service life of 50 years. To consider the uncertainty of all
parameters affecting the performance of steel I bridge girder in corrosive environment,
probability approach using Monte Carlo simulation will be employed. Three performance
indicators of steel bridge girder under dead and live loads will be considered (i.e. bending
strength, shear strength and deflection). The framework developed will allow more accurate
service life prediction of steel bridge structures in a chloride environment.

©
2012The
Published
by Elsevier
Ltd.Ltd.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of
© 2013
Authors. Published
by Elsevier
Selection and peer-review
responsibility
of Department
Civil Engineering, Sebelas Maret University
Department
of Civil under
Engineering,
Sebelas
Maretof University
Keywords: corrosion; reliability analysis; steel structure; chloride; service.

1. Introduction
Steel bridges in Indonesia constitute a significant number of bridge populations. In
some cases, steel bridges are preferred than concrete bridges mainly due to their lighter
self-weight and easy of construction. However, in contrast to concrete bridges, steel

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: msdarmawan@ce.its.ac.id.

1877-7058 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Department of Civil Engineering, Sebelas Maret University
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.03.025

structural framework to predict the performance of steel bridges subjected to corrosion due to chloride attacks is demanded. L BALOK INTERIOR JEMBATAN PELAT LANTAI JEMBATAN d BALOK INTERIOR JEMBATAN Lb Lb Lb Lb Figure 1. which has a span of 15 m and 20 m and a clear roadway width of 8. This study will present the reliability analysis of steel I bridge girder subjected to corrosion. Dead load is the gravity load due to the self-weight of the structure and the non-structural element permanently attached to the structure. The steel bridges are first designed based on SNI T-02-2005 and SNI T-3-2005.M. with a designed service life of 50 years. dead load is divided into three components: 271 . 2. shear strength and deflection).4 m.2 m and a 250 mm thick cast-in-place concrete deck. The bridge consists of five steel I girders (see Figure 1) with equal spacing of 1. especially when they are built close to marine environment and there is no additional protection applied to the steel structures. An-50 mm thick asphalt is used for the wearing surface. Steel Bridge Configuration The girder was designed according to SNI T-02-2005 and SNI T-3-2005. bending strength. Especially in Indonesia. Sigit Darmawan et al. The specified steel yield strength (fy) of the girder is 290 MPa and the specified concrete strength fc 3. whereas live load includes a variety of forces as a result of vehicles moving on the bridge. The study will consider 15m and 20m spans of bridge girder. Structural Bridge Configuration The bridge considered in this study is a typical simple span two lane (one way) slab on steel I girder bridge. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 bridges are more vulnerable to corrosion. The strength and serviceability limit states of the girder under the loads will be considered (i. which are the Indonesian bridge loading code and steel design code respectively.e. Bridge Load Modeling Three types of loads for highway bridges are considered in this study: dead load (DL) and live load (LL). assuming unshored construction and considering composite action between the girder and the cast-in-place slab. where most of its region is surrounded by the sea. Due to the different degrees of variability of structural and non-structural elements and permanent loads.

/ Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 D1 = dead load due to factory made-made element (steel girder) D2 = dead load due to cast-in-place materials (concrete road deck) D3 = dead load due to asphalt overlay The statistical parameters for dead load are given in Table 1 (Nowak et al. whereas the UDL in KN/m2 is dependent on loaded length (L) and can be determined from (1) w = 9 (0. axle spacing and distribution of axle loads are based on the standard SNI T-02-2005 and these will be used to determine the peak flexural actions. Only one truck is considered in the designed lane along the bridge. and the stiffness of structural members Nowak.R (2001). position of the vehicle on the bridge (transverse and longitudinal). live load is determined using either lane load (D) or truck load (T). number of vehicles on the bridge (multiple presence). truck weight.03 Dn 1. The lane load comprises of Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) and Knife Edge Load (KEL) per notional lane. The effect of live load on the bridge are influenced by many factors. And Casas. A. Table 1. Statistical parameters for dead load (Nowak et al. The KEL is taken as 49 KN/m. such as the span length. mainly trucks. axle load and configuration.30 Distribution Normal Normal Normal According to SNI T-02-2005. Park.15+15/L) KPa. which has two components: static and dynamic. For this study. .08 0. Further.. Sigit Darmawan et al. L > 30 m (2) See Figure 2 for the description of lane load. girder spacing. Live load is the weight of vehicles. C. Figure 2. 2001).10 0. Type of dead load D1 D2 D3 Mean 1. 2001). J. Lane Load Configuration The truck load is caused by three-axle design truck as shown in Figure 3.05 Dn 80 mm COV 0.S.272 M. live and dynamic loads are time-dependent random variables. The truck is positioned in a such way to cause the largest effect on the bridge girder. The largest effect of these loads on the bridge will be used in the structural analysis. Dn in Table 1 is the nominal dead load.

8 3 As (cm2) 273. The strength limit states considered are flexural and shear strength whereas serviceability limit states considered is the deflection. Sigit Darmawan et al. Deterministic Analysis To determine steel section to support the bridge loads. Figure 3. From the analysis it is found that the serviceability limit states and not strength limit state determined the final steel section properties.5 1. Steel Section Properties of the Bridge Girders Steel Section I-700x300x15x28 I-800x400x16x30 d (cm) 70 80 b (cm) 30 40 tw (cm) 1.6 tf (cm) 2. Corrosion Model Corrosion model utilized in this study is initially proposed by Komp (1987). The maximum allowable deflection due to live load is L/800. Table 2. Truck Load Configuration 4.273 M. Table 2 shows the steel section properties of the bridge girders. The final steel section used should satisfy both the strength and serviceability limit states. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 As there is no published statistical data for bridge live loads in Indonesia.4 Zx Cm3 7344 11430 Ix Cm4 237000 409950 L (m) 15 20 5. The model is formulated as = where C = average corrosion penetration in μm (3) . a trial and error approach is used. the statistical data from US is utilized.6 358.

Average values for A and B are listed in Table 3 for two types of steel: unprotected carbon steel and weathering steel. Hence. However.50 50. workmanship quality in this country is not as good as in developed countries such as the US. and local environment. Typical Steel Cross Section Due To Corrosion (Kayser 1988) . As there is no well documented corrosion data available in this country. It is assumed that corrosion occurs on the whole web surface and on the top surface of the bottom flange over the entire span of the bridge. In addition. the parameters A and B can be modified accordingly. urban. Table 3. due to these combining factors. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 t = number of years A and B in equation (3) are the parameters determined from the analysis of experimental data.56 Indonesia in general has a relatively higher rainfall. the corrosion parameters proposed by Albrecht and Naeemi (1984) will be used in this study. orientation.274 M.3 0. Sigit Darmawan et al.0 0. Thus. This corrosion damage was obtained from field survey in the US and may not be used directly for corrosion condition in Indonesia. Albrecht and Naeemi (1984) have summarized corrosion test results for three different environments: rural.6 0.59 70. Corrosion Model Parameters Environment Rural Urban Marine Unprotected carbon steel A B 34.65 80. These values were determined from tests of relatively small metal specimens. The values of A and B generally depend on the environment surrounding the bridge. Figure 4. higher humidity and higher average temperature than US. the use of these data in predicting corrosion effect of full-size bridges need to be done cautiously as some error may be introduced as a result of component size variation.79 Weathering steel A B 33. as more relevant corrosion data for Indonesia become available in the future.2 0.2 0. it is expected that steel bridges in Indonesia will corrode faster than steel bridges in the US.57 40.7 0. or marine. The effect of corrosion on steel cross section is described in Figure 4.

the limit state G u (X) 0 when structural failure occurs. This represents a first-passage probability that the strength limit state will take place once during the service life of the structure during the time interval (0. Limit State Formulation As mentioned earlier. As shown in Figure 5.TL).T L) is pf TL =1-Pr GU1 >0 GU2 GUk >0 t 1 <t 2 <. see Figure 5. the cumulative probability of structural failure is dependent on the prior and updated load S(t) and resistance histories R(t). The limit state can be represented as > 0 safe (4) 0 fail (5) If it is assumed that k load events occur within the time interval (0. updated on survival of the previous load events. G u (X) is a function of load S(t) and resistance R(t).<t k TL (6) where G u (X) is the limit state function at times t i. the limit state can be formulated as follows GMi X = Mp t i -Mu t i (7) where Mp(ti) is the nominal flexural moment capacity of steel section at time t i and Mu(ti) is the flexural moment due to ith load effect at time t i.275 M. the corrosion will reduce the structural resistance and so structural resistance is timedependent. First Passage Probability For flexural strength. the limit states considered in this study are flexural and shear strength and serviceability. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 6. Sigit Darmawan et al. Hence. Both Mp(t i) and Mu(ti) is considered in the middle of the span. i i i Figure 5.T L) at times ti structures anytime during the time interval (0. . For steel bridge structural members subjected to corrosion. Clearly.

steel top flange and steel web). Thus. depends on neutral axis position of the steel section considered (i.85 f'c C ts ts Pelat Lantai Beton C' G. the neutral axis falls in the top flange. only this case will be considered here in detail.t2 + d-t1-t2 . t3 is web thickness. C) +( d-t1-t2c . t1 + b. t1 + b. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 Mp(ti) for composite steel can be determined according to Figure 6.e. for the steel section considered herein.85 f ' c (9) C' As fy C (10) ts (11) e=y+ y= 2 1 2 A1 = b. Sigit Darmawan et al.d' = 2= = (12) 2 2 C' (13) fy (14) 1 (15) .t3 (17) Asc= b . C is the .t2+(t3c . t1 A1 d' e fy e' y t3 T d A2 t2 b fy K t Figure 6. B 0.276 M. However. t1 and t2 is top and bottom flange thickness respectively.t3c) (18) t2c=t2-C (19) t3c=t3-2C (20) where As is area of non-corroded steel section. Neutral axis at steel top flange Mp(ti) can be determined from following equation Mp t i = C × e + C' × e' (8) C = B . t s 0. = (16) 2 As= b .N. Asc is the corroded steel section area. at concrete slab.

05 PKEL ta COV 0. Sigit Darmawan et al.66 0. the limit state can be formulated as follows (21) GVi X = Vn t i -Vu t i where Vn(ti) is the nominal shear capacity of steel section at time t i and Vu(ti) is the shear force due to ith load effect at time t i. For corrosion case.6 fy d t3c (23) where Aw is steel web section area.05 0.18 0. Vn(t i) can be determined as Vn (ti) = 0. Both Vn(t i) and Vu(ti) is considered in the support region.05 0.046 0. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 depth of corrosion penetration determined based on Equation (3). t2c and t3c is bottom flange and web thickness after corrosion.6 fy Aw (22) = 0.25 Distribution Lognormal Lognormal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal LogNormal LogNormal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Reference [22] [22] [11] [11] [11] [11] [11] [3] [12] [12] [11] [11] [16] [16] [16] .125 0.01 1. Based on SNI T-02-2005. ta (Asphalt thickness) Mean 290 MPa 30 MPa d b t1 t2 t3 ts 0. replace As with Asc to determine Mp(ti).067 0. qUDL (distributed load) PKEL (Knife Edge Load) Asphalt. The cumulative probability of serviceability failure of service proven structures anytime during the time interval (0.mid (t i ) allow mid (t i) is the deflection in the middle of the span due to ith load effect at time t i updated on survival of the previous load events.05 0. Statistical Parameters Used in the Probability Analysis Variables fy fc d (steel section depth) b (steel section width) t1 (top flange thickness) t2 (bottom flange thickness) t3 (web thickness) ts (concrete slab thickness) Corrosion Parameter A Corrosion Parameter B Model Error for flexure Model Error for shear qD. fc is the concrete compressive strength and fy is the steel yield strength.TL) is therefore ps TL =1-Pr Gs1 >0 Gs2 Gsk >0 t 1 <t 2 <.15 1.15 0.<t k TL (25) Table 4. For shear strength. For the serviceability limit state. the maximum deflection is of interest (i.05 0.05 0. qsw .1 0.789 1.277 M.05 q 1.e. the maximum deflection of a bridge under live load should not exceed 1/800 of its span. midsection deflection) and this limit state can be formulated as GSi X = (24) allow . updated on survival of the previous load events.1 0.02 0.

These parameters have coefficient of variations between 0. after 50 years of corrosion the reduction of flexural moment is not significant as the mean flexural moment capacity only decreases slightly from 212 ton-m to 198 ton-m (7% reduction). 0. The statistical parameters of steel beam used in the probabilistic analysis are given in Table 4. Thus. Therefore.66). However. Monte Carlo simulation will be used to determine the effect of corrosion on flexural. after 50 years of service life no failure due to bending action will be expected as shown in Figure 8.g. Figure 7 shows that corrosion has reduced the flexural moment capacity (Mn).25. Sigit Darmawan et al.00 120 Mn(50) Mn(30) 170 220 270 Mn (T) ton-m Figure 7. Statistical Parameters Probabilistic analysis is used to take into account the uncertainty of parameters influencing the performance of steel bridge girder subjected to corrosion.01 0.05 to 0. For corrosion model parameter (A).278 M. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 7.02 Mn(0) 0. Corrosion effect on flexural moment capacity Mn (T) for L=15 m . this mean flexural moment capacity is greater. shear strength and deflection of steel I beams. 0.03 Probability Density Function (PDF) L=15 m Mn(10) 0. shear strength and deflection determination of steel beams based on deterministic analysis is inaccurate. shear strength and deflection of steel beam have some uncertainty (random variables). flexural. Compare with the moment due to dead and live load (Mu). This table shows that the parameters influencing flexural. 8. Results and Discussions The results of probabilistic analysis of corrosion effect on steel I bridge girder is given in Figure 7 to 10 for bridge span of 15 m. the coefficient of variation is also on the high side (e.

02 Vn(30) 0.04 Mn(10) 0.01 Vn(0) 0. this flexural moment capacity is greater. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 0. Sigit Darmawan et al. Mu vs.08 L=15 m Probability Density Function (PDF) 0. 0.03 Probability Density Function (PDF) L=15 m 0. Corrosion effect on shear capacity Vn(T) for L=15 m 279 . Mn (T) Figure 9 shows the corrosion effect on shear capacity (Vn). After 50 years of corrosion the mean shear capacity decreases from 190 ton to 146 ton (25% reduction). Compare with the shear force due to dead and live load (Vu).M. It shows that corrosion has reduced the shear capacity more significant than flexural moment capacity reduction.06 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.07 Mu (due to load) 0.02 Vn(10) Vn(50) 0.03 Mn(30) 0. after 50 years of service life no failure due to shear action will be expected as shown in Figure 10. Thus.00 25 75 125 175 225 275 325 Vn (T) ton Figure 9.02 Mn(0) Mn(50) 0.05 0.00 70 120 170 220 270 Mn (T) ton-m Figure 8.

For the same period of time.05 0. Sigit Darmawan et al.26 (7% reduction).20 0. .10 Vn(30) Vn(10) Vn(50) Vn(0) 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (Years) Figure 11.00 Flexural moment Shear 7. Safety factor reduction Figure 12 to 16 show the corrosion effect on flexural moment capacity (Mn). Vu vs.00 20 70 120 170 220 270 Vn (T) ton Figure 10. Vn(T) Figure 11 shows the corrosion effect on central safety factor against flexural moment and shear. 9. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 0.00 L=15 m Central Safety Factor 8.00 3. However.2 to 6 (25% reduction). after 50 years of service life no failure will be expected due to either shear or flexural. These show that corrosion has reduced steel I girder shear capacity greater than its flexural moment capacity.43 to 2. the safety factor against flexural moment only reduce from 2.00 5. shear capacity (Vn) and central safety factor.00 6.30 L=15 m Probability Density Function (PDF) 0.00 2.15 0. respectively for bridge span of 20 m. the safety factor decreases from 8.25 Vu (due to load) 0. After 50 years of corrosion.280 M.00 4. It shows that corrosion has reduced the safety factor against shear force more significant than against flexural moment.

05 0. Mu vs. Corrosion effect on flexural moment capacity Mn (T) for L=20 m 0.20 Mn(50) 0. Corrosion effect on shear capacity Vn (T) for L=20 m 281 . / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 0.05 Mn(10) Mn(0) 0.35 0.10 Mn(0) 0.15 Probability Density Function (PDF) L=20 m Vn(30) 0. Mn (T) 0.25 0.30 0.00 100 150 200 250 300 350 Mn(T) ton-m 400 450 500 Figure 13.15 Probability Density Function (PDF) L=20 m Mn(30) 0.M.00 200 250 300 350 400 Mn(T) ton-m 450 500 Figure 12.40 L=20 m Mu (due to load) Probability Density Function (PDF) 0.15 Mn(30) Mn(10) 0.10 Mn(50) 0. Sigit Darmawan et al.10 Vn(10) Vn(50) 0.05 Vn(0) 0.00 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Vn (T) ton Figure 14.

Vu vs.875 for 15 m span and 2.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Vn (T) ton Figure 15.00 6.00 3.00 L=15 m Central Safety Factor 8. After 50 years of service life.5 for 20 m span). especially for 20 m span. Vn(T) 9.00 4. 1. The allowable deflection used herein is L/800 due to live load (i.00 0.00 Flexural moment Shear 7.00 5.50 Vu (due to load) 1. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 2.00 Probability Density Function (PDF) L=20 m 1. These figures show that corrosion has more significant effect on deflection than on strength of steel I girder. limit state for deflection is violated. Safety factor reduction Figure 17 and 18 show the corrosion effect on central deflection for bridge span of 15 m and 20 m. . respectively. Sigit Darmawan et al.00 2.50 Vn(30) Vn(50) Vn(10) Vn(0) 0.282 M.e.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (Years) Figure 16.

0 Deflection (Cm) Figure 17.00 L/800 1.0 2.0 Deflection (Cm) Figure 18. as the bridge span increases from 15 to 20 m.80 0. Bridge deflection due to corrosion for L=20 m 9.0 1.60 Probability Density Function (PDF) L=20 m 1. No failure is observed for corroded steel bridge girder due to flexural moment and shear force caused by dead and live load.5 4.5 2.M.20 T=0 years T=10 years T=30 years T=50 years L/800 0.0 1. Also.00 Probability Density Function (PDF) L=15 m T=0 years T=10 years T=30 years T=50 years 2. corrosion has more significant effect on deflection than on flexural and shear strength of steel I bridge girder.0 3. the probability of deflection of corroded steel I girder exceeds the allowable deflection also rises.5 3.5 2. 283 .00 1.50 1. Conclusion This paper has described the structural framework developed to study the effect corrosion has on steel I bridge designed based on SNI T-02-2005 and SNI T-3-2005.5 3. From the analysis it can be concluded that up to 50 years of service designed life.00 0. Bridge deflection due to corrosion for L=15 m 1. Sigit Darmawan et al. Probabilistic analysis using Monte Carlo simulation is utilized to take into account the uncertainty of parameters affecting strength and deflection of steel girder and corrosion process.0 2. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 3.40 0.00 0.

Vol. Vol. . R. pp. University of Michigan. 2. Kayser JR and Nowak AS. 331-344.V. B. Load model for bridge design code. 29 pg. National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 577. 26(7) : 42-44. 2002.. Ranganathan R. 21: 36 49.. Kayser. Sundararajan. Edited by C. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering. Cheung MS... (2000). and Collins. SNI T. Structural Safety.H.S. Vol. 309. Reliability analysis of prestressed concrete bridge girders: comparison of Eurocode. Komp ME.6. Tata McGraw-Hill. J. Time-variant Reliability Profiles for Steel Girder Bridges. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Nowak A. 1984. Perencanaan Struktur Baja untuk Jembatan. No. J. 147-158.R. Introduction to Safety and Reliability of Structures. Probabilistic Structural Mechanics Handbook. 1958. M. R. 1995. Park. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering.02-2005. Cheung MS. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering.G. US Government Printing Office. pp. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. JR. M. Risk Ayyub..419 424. IABSE. 1988. 1989. (2001). 1984. Reliability Assessment in Highway Bridge Design. Nowak. Vol..S. Nowak. New York.. Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58. Chapman & Hall. T. New York. Calculation and Significance.. Ang and Tang.799 805. Schneider. 2005. Report 272. K. Structural Safety. 1987. Reliability of Structures. Structural Safety. 2001.284 M. A. and Stewart. B. S. 2005. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering.S. Spatial Time-dependent Reliability Analysis of Corroding Pretensioned Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders. II and Reliability.. Vol. and Casas. Plastic Design of Steel Frames. Structural Engineering Documents. Badan Standardisasi Nasional. A. 16-31. Atmospheric Corrosion Ratings of Weathering Steel Material Performance..G. MacGregor. Capacity Loss due to Corrosion in Steel Girder Bridges. 1989. 29. 1990. M. pp.S. Washington DC. Kayser JR and Nowak AS. Michigan.S. 2007. 2008. 49-64. pp.S. John Wiley and Sons. New York. Effect of spatially variable pitting corrosion on structural reliability of prestressed concrete bridge girders.. Darmawan.03-2005. C. and McCuen. 6. Vol. SNI T. 23. The Effect of Corrosion on the Reliability of Steel Girder Bridges. Ellingwood. and Stewart.. 115(6):1525-37.A. Darmawan. Performance of Weathering Steel in Bridge. J. Serviceability Reliability of Corroded Steel Bridges. Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design Vol. Reliability Analysis and Design of Structures. Vol. Vol. Perencanaan Pembebanan untuk Jembatan. Reliability of Corroded Steel Girder Bridges. Pp. 53-63. Washington DC. 1997. 28 pg. M. and Cornell C. Nowak. Toronto. PhD Thesis.M.G. Simulation-based Reliability Method. Spanish Norma IAP and AASHTO LRFD. A. 2006. Structural Safety. pg. ASCE Structural Journal. Beedle L. Dan Li WC. Dan Li WC. A. Galambos. 5. Badan Standardisasi Nasional. New Delhi. and Czarnecki A. Decision. (1980).. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 References Albrecht P and Naeemi AH. Ann Arbor. John Willey & Sons. 1994. Sigit Darmawan et al. 53-69.

. 117(8): 2372-2388. 1991.M. Reliability of highway girder bridges. and Nowak.S. 285 . Sigit Darmawan et al. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. / Procedia Engineering 54 (2013) 270 – 285 Tabsh. S. A.W.