You are on page 1of 8

Reliability Analysis for Serviceability Limit State of Bridges

Concerning Deflection Criteria
Seyed Hooman Ghasemi, Dr, Prof., Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch, Qazvin, Iran;
Andrzej S. Nowak, Chair and Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.
Contact: hooman.ghasemi@auburn.edu
DOI: 10.2749/101686616X14555428758722

Abstract deflection based on the ratio of the 1. Bridges that are meant only for
bridge span length (centre-to-centre vehicular traffic should be designed
Serviceability limit state (SLS) refers bearing or the length between con- based merely on the stress criteria,
to the condition under which a system traflexure points) to the total depth regardless of the deflection.4
(structure) is still considered func- of the superstructure (including the 2. Bridges that are designed in urban
tional and serviceable. The main con- concrete deck, haunch and depth of zones and subjected to pedestrian
tribution of this study is to develop a the steel section). Later, the American traffic and parking application,
procedure to perform the reliability Association of State Highway and should have a stiffness of at least
analysis for steel girder bridge deflec- Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 61 ft.4
tions due to vehicular loading with introduced a limit for the live-load 3. Bridges with fishing benches, etc.
the consideration of the serviceability deflection. Reference [1] tabulates the should satisfy a minimum stiffness
limit state (service level II) according limits of live-load deflection considered of ~200 kips/in with consideration
to the American Association of State in earlier AREA and AASHTO publi- for 7.5% critical damage.4
Highway and Transportation Officials cations under the National Cooperative
(ASSHO) load and resistance factor The study regarding human responses
Research Program (NCHRP) web doc-
design (LRFD) of bridge specifica- and vibration damages was contin-
ument 41 (see Table 1).
tions. In order to achieve this, the sta- ued in Ref. 2. This study revealed that
tistical parameters (mean and standard The Bureau of Public Roads con- vibrations could not cause a consider-
deviation of the bridge deflections) are ducted a research to examine the limits able damage. It was considered that
updated based on the available weigh- of undesired vibration of bridges based although deflection control could
in-motion (WIM) data (from several on human perception, and arrived at not be a reliable criterion to meas-
states across the United States) at a new limitation which was equal to ure human comfortable levels, human
different lifetimes. Two state-of-the- the length of the bridge divided by a reaction played the most pivotal role
art new approaches are introduced constant value. As reported in Refs. [2] in deflection control. Reference [5]
to determine the time-dependent and [3], the agreed limitation was equal claimed that human satisfaction can
statistical parameters; one of them is to L/800 (where L = span length). be an appropriate parameter to estab-
related to the probability papers and Accordingly, a survey regarding the lish a limitation for bridge deflection
the other is related to the probability human response of passengers in vehi- control. Later, a guideline to control
space (which is defined in this paper). cles and pedestrians who experienced bridge deflection based on human
Eventually, by taking advantage of a bridge vibration was conducted to reactions was developed in Refs. [6–8].
the updated statistical parameters of stipulate a limitation for bridge deflec- According to this guideline, several
the bridge deflections, the reliability tion. From 41 states, only 14 states had characteristic parameters such as accel-
analysis is performed to determine the informed of unpleasant vibrations; eration and frequency of the response
target reliability for SLS, which was however, there was no evidence of influence human reaction to bridge
implicitly considered by AASHTO structural deficiency. Therefore, based deflection. In 1996, Nowak and Saraf
LRFD bridge specifications. on the collected data, the bridges were developed a guideline with regard to
classified into three types with respect the load test for several bridges was
Keywords: serviceability limit state; to the allowed limitation for live-load developed.9 Deflection requirements
weigh-in-motion; bridge deflection. deflection: for composite bridges were developed

Introduction
Years Trusses Plate girders Rolled beam
Bridge deflection limitation result- AREA
ing from vehicular loads is a condition
that controls the undesirable vibrations 1905 1/10 1/10 1/12
of a bridge, which does not necessar- 1907, 1911, 1915 1/10 1/12 1/12
ily cause severe damages. However, 1919, 1921, 1950, 1953 1/10 1/12 1/15
live loads can induce vibrations, which 28
cause inconvenience and nervousness AASHO
to the passengers or drivers. In 1905, 1913, 1924 1/10 1/12 1/20
the American Railroad Engineering 1931 1/10 1/15 1/20
Association (AREA) established
1935, 1941, 1949, 1953 1/10 1/25 1/25
a provision for live-load deflection;
this design code limited the bridge 1
Table 1: Deflection limit with respect to the span-to-depth,L/D, ratios

168 Technical Report Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2016

bridge deflection. 14 ft. determine the statistical parameters of nal excitation by vehicles. AASHTO LRFD bridge design for the sible to determine the critical response mine the statistical parameters (mean SLS is calculated. which depends on several param. the ing from vehicular loading. AASHTO LRFD 2015 intro- duced HL-93 loading.t) where wl = 0. Also. which is where. a finite This consideration has been covered most important task is to determine element method (FEM) analysis was by the AASHTO load and resist. Once the bridge is subjected to 1. which means that. [11] to measure (1b) considered the live-load model based the human response to traffic-induced on truck design HL-93. general axle load. However. 2. 2/2016 Technical Report 169 .t) of the area. the first and the of bridges is calculated. Vehicular and pedestrian loads need to update the statistical param- load deflection.14. Hence. where E is the modulus of elasticity and I is the second moment w(x. axle spacing. a bridge is related to the flexural rigid- ity (EI ). Accordingly. the flexural deflection of 14–30 ft. If the live load for the intended lifetime the main frequency of the excitation AASHTO LRFD is a reliability-based of the bridge (design life of the bridge). which is required for consid- tical parameters of the bridge deflec- ering critical excitation analysis. approaches the main frequency of the design specification. (2) w(x. it is required to related to the natural frequency of the subjected to vehicular loading. tion. the intended target reliability of Using critical excitation makes it fea- ability analysis. in 2011. (1): 0. more severe resonance effects resistance factors. bridge depends on the deflection of its tion on vehicles. then the deflection control against the vehicular loading. 1: (a) Design criteria for deflection (i) and (b) design criteria for deflection (ii)17 uted lane load. it is necessary to deter. therefore. vibration. able. the load and the live load for different time periods. Therefore. Vehicular and pedestrian loads on tions in the United States. In this paper. girders. after obtaining the statis- events. it is first required introduce some new approaches to can be seen.18 AASHTO LRFD was developed in Ref. the exter- to deliberate the rational target reli.17 HL-93 loading (b) 8 kips 8 kips 2 kips consists of the distributed lane load 14–30 ft. specifications using SLS II. However. AASHTO deflection of bridges is a random vari. which is Deflection Limit State steel girder bridge deflections result. Structural Engineering International Nr. Vehicular load. the SLS of bridge LRFD17 in 2015 presented four limita. a deflection 3. there is a load to the girders. 14 ft. These data one of which was based on natural cantilever arms were collected by the Federal Highway frequency measures and the other Administration (FHA). The WIM data include informa. and the truck load. 1): data. 4. the traffic system properly distributes the vertical load can change.12 eration of the most updated WIM data.in 2003 based on the limitation of live.64 kips/ft. traffic and ability. During a parallel system. deflection subjected to vehicular load- tions to control bridge deflection as eters such as weigh-in-motion (WIM) ing is arrived at. vehicle traffic vertical loading. Deflection of the follows (Fig. As major bridge fail- with respect to the probability of the ures are due to heavy vehicles such as occurrence. In this research. However. the statistical parameters of load and performed for steel girder bridges. which was deflection. in order to perform the reli. the resistance can be consid- established to assure the safety level of ered as a deterministic value. and so on (Table 2). It is worth on deformation damage. such as type of vehicle. determined by the code. Vehicular load on cantilever arms the statistical parameters of bridge criterion was developed with regard to live loads are determined with consid- the natural frequency of the bridge. (1d) mentioning that the statistical param- it is worth considering the effect of eters of live load are time-dependent the resonance phenomenon. Regarding the struc- (a) 32 kips 32 kips 8 kips tural analysis. To evaluate bridge deflec- tion. if the slab (1a) the design life of the bridge. Lane deflection for simply supported beams can be easily computed based on the Eq. Δ = deflection of the bridge parameters. With regard to another state (SLS) is the bridge deflection form the reliability analysis of the generated sub-code. In reliability analysis for verify the obtained results of deflection. in order to per. determine the statistical parameters of bridge and the excitation frequency. deflection of the girders will represent the total deflec- tion of the bridge.164 kip/ft is the distrib- Fig. in order to consider load and The main objective of this paper is to bridge. trucks. Recently.15 calibrated using the reliability analysis.16 value and coefficient of variation) of the load and resistance. to ance factor design (LRFD) of bridge resistance.10 A numerical method eters of live loads. (1c) Reference [13] proposed two different where the database refers to 15 sta- criteria to control bridge deflection. this research generated a math One of the main concerns for reliability software code to filter trucks from analysis of bridge serviceability limit As mentioned earlier. other vehicles. Therefore. human movement can cause extreme resistance factors can be determined/ Furthermore. the girders perform as volume.

04 0. resistance factor design (LRFD). a MATLAB code was gen.89 0. deflection resulting from the design 208 truck alone. the stiffness of the deflection. for bridges shorter than position is not a simple task and it is 140 ft. In this analysis. were selected based on the structural gram or use a FEM software. 2/2016 . in order to calculate the bridge ity at the supports. This comparison was performed To determine the reliability index of gi = 1. It was observed that is necessary to place a truck on the if the boundary conditions of bridges bridge and calculate the maximum are assumed as simply supported con- (6) deflection. Clearly. (3) code have been verified based on Accordingly. Bridge length (ft) 100 110 120 130 140 150 Deflection resulting from truck (k(lb)ft3 El) −1 424 462 −1 913 112 −2 500 762 −3 196 412 −4 009 062 −4 947 712 Deflection resulting from traffic (k(lb)ft3 El) −833 333 −1 220 100 −1 728 000 −2 380 100 −3 201 300 −4218 750 1/4 truck + lane −1 189 449 −1 698 378 −2353 191 −3 179 203 −4 203 566 −5455 678 Design deflection −1 424 462 −1 913 112 −2 500 762 −3 196 412 −4 203 566 −5455 678 Ratio: truck/HL-93 1. in order to determine the CsiBridge results. 2: Example of bridge deflection modelling. is as those obtained from our generated code. determination of the truck teria. deflection resulting from 25% of the 176 design truck taken together with the 160 design lane load 144 128 where the larger value of those criteria 112 should be considered for controlling 96 the bridge deflection. the live load factor for with length 36. bridge was decreased. Therefore.25 1. in order to recommend the design for. the limit state function where P1 = 8 kip. for bridges longer than 42.57 1. In doing so. AASHTO LRFD considers the from the FEM analysis of bridges Maximum Deflection load factors.6 m length. the ith axel load to the support. the statistical parameters There is a provision in AASHTO LRFD 2015 which specifies two criteria for the E-3 evaluation of bridge deflection:17 224 a. The total deflection of the ditions. and the less the erated. live load factor (4) for other scenarios and the results the structure. Figure 2 shows the FEM deflection (7) results for an ideal (deflection results Since the AASHTO bridge code was have been divided by EI) bridge of established based on the load and where d = deflection of the bridge 36.94 0.g. by decreasing the fix- paper. in this 80 paper the design formula can be writ. The results of the MATLAB stiffness causes more critical deflection. bridge resulting from the truck loading the combination of the lane load and can be formulated using the superposi.45 1. 48 32 16 Fig.3. without any load factor. 25% of the truck load is the design cri- tion law as follows: However. e. simply (5) supported 170 Technical Report Structural Engineering International Nr. it MATLAB code. P2 = P3 = 32 kip L eral bridges with different lengths can be defined as follows: = bridge length bi. however. or 192 b. with bridge length = 36.34 1. in order to determine the proved the validity of the generated maximum deflection of a truck. the HL-93 truck load is the dom- essential to develop a sophisticated inant case. Simply supported beams code such as MATLAB coding pro. reliability index.71 1. is the distance from have been analysed using CsiBridge.17 Bridge length (ft) 160 170 180 190 200 300 3 Deflection resulting from truck (k(lb)ft El) −6 021 362 −7 239 012 −8 609 662 −10 142 312 −11 845 962 −40 267 462 Deflection resulting from traffic (k(lb)ft3 El) −5 461 300 −6 960 100 −8 748 000 −10 860 000 −13 333 333 −67 500 000 1/4 truck + lane −6 966 641 −8 769 853 −10 900 416 −13 395 578 −16 294 824 −77 566 866 Design deflection −6 966 641 −8 769 853 −10 900 416 −13 395 578 −16 294 824 −77 566 866 Ratio: truck/total 1.10 1.98 0.6 m is almost the same for Different Time Periods load combination of SLS II. As can be seen. the results obtained mula.6 m.60 Table 2: Bridges deflection factors resulting from the design criteria17 However.7 m. 64 ten as follows. sev.

Wisconsin US-29 at M. ered.7 m) to determine the bias and coefficient were investigated and their statistical deflection in a certain time period. by plot- ity) behind the deflection design crite.67 Fig. Probability paper represents the Table 4. parameters were determined.62 2 Normal standard variables Arizona 2 I-10 East at M.5 m . Thus. ables for different time periods on a 5000. 39. an MATLAB code was gen.P. the WIM databases for several sites in the United States were consid. Accordingly. ity paper as the maximum mean value refer to the exact maximum mean eters of bridge deflection subjected (Zmax) (see Ref. 2/2016 Technical Report 171 . For Determination of the statistical param- statistical parameters using extrapola.2 Deflection ratio = truck/HT-93truck Tennessee I-40 West at M. is about from vehicular loading. 216. In order to calculate the reliability WIM data refer to the specific time deflection values on a probability index of the bridge deflection resulting paper. [21] which considered The obtained maximum mean value are time-dependent random variables.5 1 Colorado I-76 East at M. the maximum deflec.2 0. weekly and Maximum Deflection monthly extreme deflection ratios for of the bridge deflection resulting from for Different Time Periods Based a bridge with length of 100 ft for the truck load to the bridge deflection as on Previous Studies California station in 2012. 225.8 NewMexico2 Tennessee New Mexico 1 I-25 North at M. 100. 50y = Table 3: Geographical positions and coordinates of the studied stations27 50 years. of variable of bridge deflections. Φ–1 = inverse standard normal data comprise sufficient information distribution function. N = number of including the timestamp of WIM data. Using the updated the different average daily truck traffic weekly or even monthly bridge deflec- WIM data (Table 2). 30.P. then. Several bridges with differ- (ADTT).P. the statistical parameters can The trucks selection process was dem. 52. and standard devia. where. Ratio for Different Time Periods obtained.). nevertheless.6 California SR-99 at M. is a certain safety level (target reliabil- erated to compute the deflection of a daily deflection values.P.5 1 1.1 –5 Virginia Wisconsin New Mexico 2 I-10 East at M.5 m subjected to ADTT of Bridge length = 100 (ft. For example. there is possible to determine the maximum research. In this the data were collected over a year. [22]). which.7 0 Arizona1 Delaware US-113 Southbound North of SR-579 Arizona2 –1 California Illinois I-57 at M. 36. This procedure is applied to of vehicles is also a variable because of of the deflection.9 Illinois Indiana Kansas I-70 West at M. be obtained precisely. 4 shows daily.P.P.2. 1y 6m 2m 1m 2w 1d State Highway 3 Arizona 1 US-93 North at M. 158. observed trucks in the considered time Hence. 12. example. the number easily determined without any extrap- to obtain the statistical parameters olation.5 3 Pennsylvania I-80 at M. 5y = 5 years. the vertical coordinate of the probabil- based on previous studies does not In this section. it Based on the reliability analysis. 108. 1 y = 1 year. Fig.5. The collected ria. ting the CDF of the maximum daily bridge due to truck loads. 32.8 span length = 30.P. and 150 Introducing the Probability Space tistical parameters for given time ft) were investigated and their statisti- periods. per the design criteria.23 this research intends tion only illustrates the maximum ent lengths (18. 189. the WIM tion.(bias factor = the ratio of mean value statistical parameters of the data on New Method to Evaluate to nominal value. as shown in Table 3. the maximum mean ADTT = 5000 100y 75 50yy probability paper was proposed in Ref. (1d = 1 day. it is necessary 12 months. with different lengths (60.P. 50. 3 illustrates the CDF of eters of the bridge deflection from the tions from the cumulative distribution the deflection ratio for bridges with function (CDF) of the random vari. and considering tion data. probability scaled coordinates. presently. [19] and [20]. and 45. length ~30.P.P. To determine the bias factor (8) based on the assumption of the ADTT and standard deviation of the deflec- value. 287.P. CDFs the Maximum Mean Deflection tion) of the load and resistance were of the data were plotted on a probabil. 2w = 2 weeks. these statistical parameters ity paper in Ref.6 Colorado –2 Delaware Indiana US-31 North at M. However. if onstrated in Refs. Fig. 3: CDF of deflection ratio of WIM Virginia US-29 bypass at M. 91. A method to determine the cal parameters were determined. to the design load criteria are deter- as the time period was determined mined.P.P.8 deflection to the design truck deflection.48 –3 Kansas Louisiana Louisiana US-171 at M.4 Minnesota –4 NewMexico1 Minnesota US-2 at M. values of deflection are summarized in 5y [21]. 8. the statistical param. value for the considered time period. and 100y = 100 years time period) Structural Engineering International Nr. 91. period. As an The deflection ratio is defined as a ratio example. in most cases.P.P. Several bridges Reliability analysis requires the sta.5 2 2. the statistical parameters can be period. ADTT as 5000.

10 2. Add a zi column to the matrix from exact number of trucks that correspond step 5.89 2.75 2.64 1.56 Tennessee 1.83 2.94 2.73 2.53 2.91 2.74 2.04 2. in the investi.96 3.55 2. Moreover. length of 30.82 2. x = deflection ratio (truck Fig.93 2.03 3.5 m ables based on the inverse function weekly. 7.79 2.45 2.99 3.10 Colorado 1. developed for weekly.91 2.98 2.66 2.98 3. from an 2 as follows: engineering point of view.90 2.…N}. tions.04 3.89 2. Truck/HL-93 truck Distribution of extreme values – The concept of probability space is observe the relationship between the bridge length = 100 (ft.42 2. However.99 3.93 Wisconsin 2. 2.10 Virginia 2. in Monthly extreme values 3 of truck traffic.69 2.48 2.69 2.95 2.79 2.98 3.86 2. f(x.83 2.91 California 2.48 2. y) = p00 + p10x + p01y + p20x2 gated time period.77 2.02 3. Site 1d 2w 1m 2m 6m 1y 5y 50y 75y 100y Arizona 1 2. 3.05 3.84 2.69 2.03 3.07 3.09 3.53 2. the poly- (DTT).5 2 2. function: –3 6.72 2.72 2.39 2.93 2.82 2.98 3. Deflection ratio (column 1) and For monthly.89 2. –4 + p11xy + p30x3 + p21x2y (11) 0.90 2.67 2.75 2. After plotting the The target reliability is a design con- pute the statistical parameters of bridge data on the 3D probability space.44 2.88 New Mexico 1 2. current AASHTO criteria).89 2.97 Kansas 2.07 3.94 2.61 2.55 2. the probability space for a bridge with 3.75 2. Calculate the deflection ratio. desired time period.12 3. Sort the matrix with respect to the lated using the following polynomial deflection ratio. Create the standard normal vari. a straint that guarantees the required deflection for different time periods. [21] was a tedi.89 2.75 2.08 3.71 2. weekly and –1 4.07 3.85 2.14 2. probability spaces can be formu- –2 5. pij = of the standard normal distribution: constant parameters. Figures 5–7 exhibit 0 deflection.95 2. Find probability value pi based on the number of days. Determine the daily truck traffic Therefore. as in Table 5. this case. span length = 30.28 2. Therefore. weekly and daily fitting sur- where zi is the standard normal vari- justifications and rough extrapolations. able corresponding to pi.14 2.88 2.16 2.33 2. span length = 100 ft. N.77 2. weekly and daily deflec- Daily truck traffic (column 2).64 2.79 2.90 2. the simplest function would be the best option.39 2.94 2.00 3.07 2.75 Indiana 2. y = (daily.89 3.74 2. In the LRFD 172 Technical Report Structural Engineering International Nr.71 2.07 3.63 2. The surface Weekly extreme values coordinate that indicates the volume fitting depends on several factors.08 Table 4: Statistical parameters of the bridge deflection. or monthly) truck traffic.5 1 1. nomial functions are considered as 2.07 3.82 2.31 2.22 2.5 m for daily.45 2.71 2.85 Minnesota 2. the linear pricewise inter- erate a 3D probability plot for daily polation would be the best and most bridge deflection ratio is summarized exact fitting surface. The procedure to gen.04 New Mexico 2 1.93 2. Create a matrix with two columns: monthly deflections.06 3. 4: CDF of deflection ratio of WIM where i = {1.43 2.88 2.09 3.09 2.87 2.10 2.90 2. zi = –Φ–1(pi) (10) box.99 2.69 2.15 Illinois 1.01 3. in this research.07 3. face can be tabulated. which results in two ambiguities: (a) the 8. except that it has one more based on real scenarios. Compute the maximum daily the fitting surface.50 2.5 3 3. it needs several monthly. deflection over deflection based on the deflection to the design truck deflection.83 2.94 Delaware 2.89 2.71 2.86 2. Standard normal variables 1 1. WIM data for different time periods as Using MATLAB fitting surface tool- per the method in Ref. the constant parameters (pij) for ous effort.07 3.80 2.82 2.92 2. monthly or any sional (3D) probability space to com.21 2. 2/2016 . ADTT=5000. ified and (b) the extrapolation method Deflection Criteria as is a debatable procedure.08 3.61 2.02 3.88 2. The aforementioned procedure can be in AASHTO LRFD this research introduces a three-dimen.) similar to the concept of probability maximum mean values and the DTT 4 Daily extreme values paper.71 2. and plot a new matrix with Target Reliability for Current to the maximum mean value is not spec- three columns.96 2.17 Louisiana 2. surface can be fitted over the data to safety level of structures.05 3.5 Deflection ratio = truck/design criteria pi = i/(N + 1) (9) where.92 2.83 2.64 2.83 2.25 2.01 3.86 2.85 2.86 2.10 Arizona 2 1.

serviceability limit state (SLS). (2012). The definition 3. partial or total collapse.0 where. [24] and [25] as: –2 –3 b = –F –1(pF) (12) 6000 5000 4000 3.0 = truck TT n ratio Pf = probability of failure (exceeding ) ectio Defl bridge deflection far from the allow- able deflection). Fatigue limit state is a limit on stress and/or –2 number of load cycles. Fig. For y tr uck 1. Bridge Length = 100 (ft.0 We 2.5 2.). 6: 3D probability space based on maximum weekly deflection.8 are serious consequences (closure of ly t 2. (2012). which was first introduced in Refs. injuries.0 93 truck tra ffic 1.0 ck 93 truck traf 1000 1. curve fitting (ULS). curve fitting consists of a mix of vehicles. excessive vibra- –1 tions or cracking of concrete.0 Mo nth 10 8 2.5 vessel/vehicle collision.2 /HL– ×104 c( 2 2. if there Fig. first it is necessary to 4 consider the required safety level for Standard normal variables 3 the structure.0 0. there is a need to define the load and resistance factors. The target reli- ability can also be different for each –2 limit state as it depends mostly on the consequences of failure. Extreme events –3 include resistance to earthquakes and 3. as the answer is not just one value but Fig. One of the 0 acceptable reliability measurements –1 is the reliability index. the load and resistance 1 factors are then calibrated. Each limit state pro- vides different acceptability criteria.5 what is not can be very subjective.0 of what is acceptable performance and ekl 2. it is possible to develop a CDF of deflection.5 m are no serious consequences. In general. bridge length= 30. fatigue limit state and extreme events limit state.4 traffic. (2012).5 m values of deflection and associated fre- quencies of allowable occurrence. what is the acceptable deflec- ×104 1. 5: 3D probability space based on maximum daily deflection.5 /HL– tion of the standard normal function.).6 ruc 6 2. a lower Structural Engineering International Nr. fic (W 0 1. k tr 93 truck affi 4 2. Extremely heavy trucks can cross relatively infre- quently. 1 column buckling or overall stability of a beam. curve fitting procedure to assure structural per- formance. So there is a need Standard normal variables 2 to select acceptable/tolerable CDF of 1 deflection.0 = truck fatalities).5 3. bridge length = 30. On the other hand. Φ–1 = Da 3000 2. reliability has to be cal- 0 culated separately for each of the –1 considered limit states. Examples of ULS include moment Standard normal variables 2 or shear carrying capacity of a beam.5 ily inverse of the cumulative distribu- tru 2000 2. By measurements and struc- tural analysis. the target reliability has to MT T) n ratio ectio be increased in order to avoid major Defl disaster. Examples of SLS include 0 a limit on deflection.5 truck (W io = tion in a bridge due to traffic load? The TT ) c t i o n rat D efle answer to this question is very difficult. What happens 14 if the limit state is exceeded? If there 12 3. 7: 3D probability space based on maximum monthly deflection.5 /HL– example. Live load representing traffic on the bridge Bridge Length = 100 (ft. Based on the intended 2 safety level. 2/2016 Technical Report 173 .).5 m There are four types of limit states: ultimate (or strength) limit state Bridge Length = 100 (ft. b = reliability index.0 2. bridge length = 30. In order to achieve this.

Based on the reliability analysis. ability space. deviation of deflection for considered Following two new approaches were For future studies based on the cal- lifetime. 2/2016 . with regard to the achieved Conclusions reliability indices. which based on the obser. the CDFs of the bridge deflections were plotted on the prob- reliability level can be tolerated. The daily lifetime this proposed approach. Equation (13) can be interpreted as the level at which vehicular loading. generating a closed- form formula.5 (100) 1. instead of elaborate tables. the Table 6: Target reliability for SLS bridge deflection subjected to the vehicular loading probability space.7 (150) 1. which are explicitly described in about zero. etc.71 0. interpreted as a rational safety level.49e – 05 −9. shear. Consequently.0037 1.07e-05 Weekly −17. The general shape of the fitted surface tends to be a linear function for longer time periods. CDFs of the maximum daily. in this shows the reliability index for bridge the passengers or drivers can feel the research. design for SLS with the considera- in AASHTO LRFD bridge design age.40 3. it would be function. applied to overcome some difficulties culated reliability index in this study.37 2. which is more appropriate for engineering applications. it was perceived This contribution attempts to update that the target reliability for SLS of where L = bridge length.40 1. If an extremely heavy truck ability indices for bridge deflections and monthly deflections on the prob- crosses a bridge causing an excessive of steel girder bridges subjected to the ability space with respect to the truck deflection. 3. the load and resistance factors can be with consideration of the obtained The first approach was to determine calibrated. p11 and p21 denote the influence of the truck traffic on the overall shape of the fitting surface. 174 Technical Report Structural Engineering International Nr. of proposed conventional methods. which based lifetime.48 2. Determining the maximum deflection ratio for different time periods. Table 6 demonstrates the intended deflections with the consideration instead of using the nominal value target reliability for SLS for bridge of different time periods. Furthermore. There are several bridges. was considered as the bridge design feasible to formulate the behaviour life period. 2.39 0. the maximum deflection ratio will be increased as well.46 −0.) index maximum daily.82 9.64 24. which exhibited the example can be a deflection limit state vious section of this article. structural reliability of AASHTO LRFD bridge regard to the design criteria mentioned failure does not lead to structural dam. the reliability vation of past structural failures could Additional objective of this research index considered for SLS subjected be measured as a rational safety level was to determine the assumed target to vehicular loading is computed with for such SLS. Ref. gΔ = bias fac- the statistical parameters of the bridge bridge deflection subjected to vehicu- tor for bridge deflection for intended deflection based on the most recent lar loading is about zero.27 4. And.00 0. And p10. An statistical parameters from the pre. the structural failure in the SLS tion of bridge deflection subjected to (see earlier section).55 21.2 (60) 1.61e – 05 1.03 not require extrapolations for dif- 45.40e – 07 0.00 0. Capability to determine the maximum deflection ratio (which is applicable for moment. which unlike the 18.59 6. (11) Bridge length (ft) Bias Standard Deflection limit Reliability the statistical parameters based on the deviation L/800 (in. Increasing the number of trucks for each specific time period leads to a positive inclination. parameters. which means that if the truck traffic increases. only using a fitting curve.00 0. based on the most updated deflection. In this new method. [21] does 30.39e – 06 Daily −8. (13) Finally. 4.88 0. By taking advantage of to the bridge. the reli. the reliability indices of bridges of different lengths were calculated.00035 −11. of the statistical parameters of bridge To perform the reliability analysis of the structure for bridge deflection. it is necessary to utilize LRFD bridge design considering and taking tedious efforts to predict the statistical parameters of the load the vehicular loading for steel girder statistical parameters.58 0.75 −2. Therefore. In this study. a state-of-the-art second approach.13 ferent time periods. was defined. according to the obtained probability spaces following facts can be deliberated: 1.00 p01. bridge vibrations slightly because of statistical parameters of bridge deflec- vehicle movements. Accordingly.65 0. the probabil- and/or resistance. the obtained ity space can simply and accurately approaches to determine the reliability target reliability for daily lifetime is determine the necessary statistical index. as it can still perform its tabulated in Table 6. which were on past SLS structural failures can be due to HL-93 truck.24 method proposed in Ref. of applied load and the capacity of deflection according to AASHTO instead of using rough extrapolations the structure.90 0. Table 5: Constant parameters in fitting surface using Eq. tions. sΔ = standard collected by the United States FHWA. [26].) with consideration of the actual volume of truck traffic for a specific time period. As can be seen. weekly in bridges.20 In the SLS. p20 and p30 refer to the effects of the deflection ratio (the ratio of the bridge deflection resulting from trucks to the bridge deflection resulting from HL-93 loading).25 0. ΔHL-93 = bridge deflection and available WIM data. there is no critical damage vehicular loading are calculated and traffic volume. Fitting surface p00 p10 p01 p20 p11 p30 p21 Monthly −17. weekly and monthly bridge deflections.50 0.

Struct. 19. USA.C. 2016 Challenges in Design and Construction of an Innovative and Sustainable Infrastructure Early Bird Registration by June 15.. Reliability of struc- M. MI. J. Combinatorial J. J. effects. Ghosen M. September 21-23. supervision of Prof. Schweizer Archiv structures using modified non-stationary criti- Board (No. Auburn.. 30(12): 3808–3819.. Serviceability con.fhwa. Office of High- Arbor. [3] Fountain RS. Development University. [22] Rakoczy P. 2013. [21] Nowak AS. Kim S. Transportation ity criteria for steel girder bridges. Eamon C. (NCHRP web document 46 (Project 20-7 [133]). 1971. Highway Research heitsbegriff von Bauwerken. D. 1970. Standard Specifications for Existing Bridges Part II (Project 97-0245 DIR). [6] Nowak AS. WIM-based live [10] Demitz J. 1969. 1999. Bergman A. Load Testing of safety evaluation based on monitored live load University. Bridge Design. Washington. USA. Eng. Struct. code. 2014. 383–396. Proceedings Publication No. 2015. WIM based load models for Serviceability Limits and Economical Steel bridge serviceability limit states. Eng. Sweden. J. für angewandte Wissenschaft und Technik. cal excitation. Design”. 15(4): 534–537. New York. C. for Collecting and Using Traffic Data in Bridge [13] Barker M. AASHO: Washington. Improved serviceabil- 20-1–20-12.Transportation [2] Walker WH. Deflection cri. 66: 974–985. Barth KE. Ashtari P. 7(6): 859–908. 2013. 2nd edn. of a numerical model for bridge–vehicle inter- USA. Development of a Guide for Evaluation of Officials (AASHO). formerly a Post Doctoral Research Associate in Michigan: Ann Arbor. Sanli AK. Rakoczy P. Barth K. Eng. Phase 2 (Project 98-1219 DIR). Improved ASCE 2003. University of Michigan: Ann Arbor. Auburn Live Load Deflection Criteria for Steel Bridges [11] Moghimi H. Moses F. 1988. 17(3): References requirements for bridges constructed with 568–574. Bridge the Department of Civil Engineering. FHWA-HIF-11-044. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. USA. C. 6th edn. [4] Oehler LT. University of D. [7] Nowak AS.F structures using modified envelope tures. [19] Nowak SA. 2002. Brid. Collins KR. Civil Eng. Research Board: Washington. Nowak AS. Research Board: Washington. 1998. PhD Dissertation. Bull. 2013.O. MI. 1998. Eom J. Kim K. D. Barth K. Development of a Guide functions. ACI J. Grouni HN. [23] Sivkumar B. 1961. teria for steel highway bridges. Target reliability analysis [1] Roeder CW. deflection of steel bridges. ICOSSAR 2013. 18(7): 673–677.. advanced composite materials. questionnaire to state highway departments. for structures. Eom [28] American Association of State Highway USA. Sanli AK. 2013.Acknowledgement: [8] Nowak AS. C. for Evaluation of Existing Bridges Part I (Project [27] United States Department of Transportation 97-0245 DIR). 2011. J. Earthquak. Seismic design of Highway Research Circular. excitation method. Deflection load for bridges. under the Bridges (Research Report UMCEE 96–10).dot. NCHRP Report 683. Auburn. J. Development Resistance and Factor Design: Bridge Design of a Guide for Evaluation of Existing Bridges Specifications. AL 36849. [17] American Association of State Highway Highway Bridges and Incidental Structures. 1931. [15] Ghasemi SH. MI. USA. 2011. Mertz D. Nowak. NCHRP Report 368. Am. KSCE J. [25] Cornell CA. Federal Highway Administration. Bridge vibration – summary of ASCE 2013. Can. 2011. [24] Basler E. 1st University of Michigan: Ann Arbor. Doctoral dissertation. AASHTO: Washington. D. continuous non-stationary critical excitation in [26] Nowak AS. Inst. Gillespie J. Stabler J. – Federal Highway Administration. Ashtari P. 2015.D. CRC Press: New York. Brid. Thunman CE. 8(2): 73–83. Saraf VK. Frangopol DM.C. 19th Congress of IABSE Stockholm. Ghasemi SH. 2000. 1996. [20] Ghasemi SH. Eng. Load edn. Iron Steel [12] Barker MG. Criteria for the vibration. Ronagh HR. and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). J. Civil Eng. Struct. 2016 Organised by The Swedish Group of IABSE In cooperation with: The Swedish Transport Administration The Swedish Professionals for Built Environment Structural Engineering International Nr. Response and resonance concept by critical way Policy Information. Brid.C. 2013. Wright RN. Auburn [9] Nowak AS. www. Andrzej S. J. 2/2016 Technical Report 175 . 1987. New Orleans. Washington. Earthquak. ASCE 2009.gov. D. of the AISC National Engineering Conference D. 107). [18] Liu M. Kim S. MI. Untersuchungen über den Sicher- [14] Ashtari P. USA. “Calibration of LRFD Bridge action and human response to traffic-induced Design Code”. A probability based structural siderations for guideways and bridges. 14(4): 257–269. 4(4): [5] Nowak AS. This research was undertaken by the author. 2008. pp. “Protocols in New Orleans. University of Michigan: Ann [16] Ghasemi SH.