STRUCTURAL

SAFETY

Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31

www.elsevier.com/locate/strusafe

Spatial time-dependent reliability analysis of corroding

pretensioned prestressed concrete bridge girders
a,b a,*
M. Sigit Darmawan , Mark G. Stewart
a
Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle,
Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Surabaya Institute Technology, Indonesia

Received 18 April 2005; received in revised form 31 October 2005; accepted 18 November 2005
Available online 6 March 2006

Abstract

Accelerated pitting corrosion tests have been performed to obtain spatial and temporal maximum pit-depth data for
prestressing wires. This data is then used to develop probabilistic models of pitting corrosion and strength capacity of
7-wire strands. The probabilistic model of pitting corrosion for strands is then combined with a non-linear Finite Element
Analysis and probabilistic models of corrosion initiation and propagation to study the spatial and temporal effects of pit-
ting corrosion on a typical pretensioned prestressed concrete bridge girder. The limit states considered are flexural strength
and serviceability. The spatial time-dependent reliability analysis takes into account the uncertainties and variabilities
related to material properties, dimensions, loads and corrosion parameters as well as the spatial variability of pitting cor-
rosion of prestressing strands. Including the spatial variability of pitting corrosion in the reliability analysis increased both
the probability of strength and serviceability failure when compared with a mid-span sectional analysis.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pitting corrosion; Prestressed concrete; Structural reliability; Deterioration; Stochastic finite element analysis

1. Introduction

Corrosion of reinforcing and prestressing steel due to chloride contamination is one of the primary
causes of deterioration of concrete structures. In general, corrosion is of most concern because of the
associated reduction in steel cross-sectional area, spalling and loss of bond, which over time will lead
to reductions of strength and serviceability. In the case of pretensioned prestressed concrete (PSC) struc-
tures, the corrosion of prestressing strands may trigger structural collapse due to higher stress levels in the
steel.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 4921 6027; fax: +61 2 4921 6991.
E-mail address: mark.stewart@newcastle.edu.au (M.G. Stewart).

0167-4730/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2005.11.002
 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31 17

Clearly, chloride-induced pitting corrosion is a spatial and temporal variable. Therefore, ignoring spatial
variability of pitting corrosion in structural prediction models is not very realistic. However, most studies
to date have modelled the strength and reliability of reinforced concrete (RC) and PSC flexural members
subject to deterioration by focusing on homogeneous material and deterioration properties and sectional
capacities at regions of peak or critical sections (e.g., [22,3,27,35]). However, Stewart [30] has undertaken a
structural reliability analysis of RC structures considering the spatial and temporal effect of pitting corrosion.
This study found that including the spatial variability of pitting corrosion can lead to significant decreases in
structural reliability for flexural RC members.
The present paper considers the effect of temporal and spatial variability of pitting corrosion on the time-
dependent performance and reliability of prestressed concrete beams in flexure with bonded tendons. The
paper describes briefly the development of probabilistic models of pitting corrosion for prestressing wires sub-
ject to pitting corrosion. The probabilistic model of pitting corrosion is developed from maximum pit-depth
data obtained from accelerated pitting corrosion tests in a chloride-contaminated concrete environment. The
probabilistic model of pitting corrosion of strands is then combined with non-linear finite element analysis
(FEA) as well as models of corrosion initiation and propagation to study the effect of pitting corrosion on
the strength and serviceability of prestressed concrete beams. This will allow time to failure and time-depen-
dent structural reliabilities to be calculated. Including the effect of spatial variability allows the analysis to con-
sider failure of strands at any location along the beam, as well as progressive failure of multiple strands as
failure of one strand will increase the stress in remaining strands thus leading to possible rupture of other
highly stressed or corroded strands. Three alternate prestressing strand failure modes are considered: stress
corrosion cracking, brittle fracture and yielding. The proposed method is independent of the pretensioned
PSC structure being considered, but for illustrative purposes a typical PSC bridge girder located at a coastal
environment is selected as the application.

2. Probabilistic model of pitting corrosion

The actual mechanism of pitting corrosion is not yet fully understood. However, the use of extreme
value theory gives promising results when modelling pitting corrosion in aluminium and steel (e.g.,
[5,12,28]).

2.1. Prestressing wires

To obtain data on pitting phenomena, an accelerated corrosion testing regime was carried out at The
University of Newcastle. Corrosion rates of 150–420 lA/cm2 were introduced in steel wires and strands
embedded in chloride-contaminated concrete slab specimens in order to measure pit depths along 1.5 m
lengths of cold-drawn prestressing 7-wire strands (each outer wire of 4.3 mm diameter). The tests consisted
of six concrete slabs of dimensions 1.5 m · 1.0 m · 0.25 m, each with a different corrosion rate and period of
experiment. Nine strands of 100 mm equal spacing were placed in each slab, each with a 70 mm concrete
cover. The experimental set-up is shown in Fig. 1. Load tests on the corroded wires and examination of
the fracture surface reveal that the mode of failure is yielding with reduced ultimate failure strains, and
not ultimate tensile failure, stress corrosion cracking (SCC) or brittle fracture [9]. For the 7-wire strands
the maximum pit-depth was measured using a micrometer gage for each unwound wire was measured
for each 650 mm length (excluding the inner-wire of the strand). To avoid edge effects the end 100 mm
of each wire/strand was excluded from measurements. From visual observation of the pitting corrosion
and the measurement of pit-depths, it was apparent that for the 7-wire strands pitting only formed on
the exposed surface of the wire (approximately half of the total surface of the six outer wires). The Gumbel
(EV-Type I) distribution provided the best fit to maximum pit depth data for prestressing wires. Table 1
shows the statistical parameters obtained from one slab specimen, for an accelerated corrosion rate
of icorr-exp = 186 lA/cm2, period of experiment of T0-exp = 0.038 years (14 days) and wire length
L0-exp = 650 mm. In this case, one strand was removed for further observation and statistical data obtained
from the remaining eight strands.
18 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31

Power Supply &

Current regulator
_ +
+
Wire/Strand 5% Na Cl
Solution

Stainless steel Plate

Fig. 1. Schematic and photo of experimental set-up.

Table 1
Gumbel parameters for maximum pit-depths for a single wire in a strand
T0-exp (years) icorr-exp (lA/cm2) L0-exp (mm) a (mean) (mm) a (COV) l0-exp ao-exp No. of samples
0.03836 186 650 0.91 0.17 0.84 8.10 96

The following assumptions are made in developing a more general probabilistic model for pitting corrosion:

(i) homogeneous environment along the wire under consideration (corrosion rate assumed constant along
wire);
(ii) after an initial period of corrosion, the number of pits formed is assumed constant, length of pit is held
constant and pit depth continues to increase; and
(iii) at any cross-section of the wire only one pit can form.

The predicted Gumbel distribution of maximum pit depth (a in mm) at any time T (years), corrosion rate
icorr(1) in lA/cm2 at start of corrosion propagation and wire length L (mm) is thus [8]:
   
a a l
a a 0:54 l e k0:54
a
fa ðT ; icorr ; LÞ ¼ 0:54 e k e T > Ti ð1Þ
k
where
 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31 19
  n o2 
hþ1
D20 j
 D0  0:0232icorr ð1Þ 1 þ hþ1 ½ðT  T i Þ  1
k¼   n o2  ð2Þ
D20  D0  0:0232icorr ð1Þ 1 þ hþ1 j
½T 0hþ1  1
    
1 ðh þ 1Þ icorr- exp T 0- exp þ ðj  h  1Þðicorr ð1ÞÞ
T 0 ¼ exp ln ð3Þ
ð h þ 1Þ jicorr ð1Þ

1 L
l ¼ l0- exp þ ln a ¼ a0- exp ð4Þ
a0- exp L0- exp
h
icorr ðT  T i Þ ¼ icorr ð1Þ  jðT  T i Þ T  T i P 1 year ð5Þ
and Ti is time to corrosion initiation (years), l0-exp and a0-exp are the parameters of the Gumbel distribution as
obtained from statistical analysis of maximum pit depths recorded from the accelerated corrosion tests (see
Table 1), D0 is the initial diameter of the wire (mm), and j and h are corrosion rate empirical factors. If cor-
rosion rate reduces with time then j = 0.85 and h =  0.29 [35]. Otherwise, if corrosion rate is constant with
time (time-invariant) then j = 1 and h = 0. The geometric model proposed by Val and Melchers [33] is then
used to predict the loss of cross-sectional area for a pit size of depth a, see Fig. 2. Failure of a wire occurs when
the tensile load at the cross-section of maximum pitting exceeds the yield capacity of the cross-section
(although at significantly reduced ductility), which was shown by Darmawan and Stewart [9] to most closely
match tensile test results of corroded wires. Since the distribution of maximum pitting is a random variable
given by Eq. (1) then time to failure of a single wire is a dependent variable as shown, for example, in Fig. 3.
Predictive results (using statistical parameters in Table 1) for other corrosion rates and period of experi-
ments compared favourably with other slab specimen data [8], and so provides some verification of the models
developed herein.

Do

Fig. 2. Pit configuration.

0.10
7-wire Strand
2
i (1) = 1 μA/cm
corr
0.08 L=1m σ = 1000 MPa
Probability Density

0.06

0.04
Wire

0.02

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time to Fail since Corrosion Initiation ( years )

Fig. 3. Distributions of time to wire and strand failure.

20 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31

The pitting corrosion statistical parameters l0-exp and a0-exp are indicative only and increased confidence in
predictions will be obtained if these parameters are based on tests which more closely represent field condi-
tions, i.e., longer T0-exp and lower icorr-exp. Further, the use of extreme value statistics to extrapolate distribu-
tions of maximum pit depths for data significantly different from that used in the tests may not be totally
appropriate, e.g., if wire lengths (L) are extrapolated to very large values.

2.2. Prestressing strands

It is assumed that the outer six wires of a 7-wire strand corrode independently of each other. There is also
redistribution (increase) in wire stress after failure of each successive wire. Failure of a single wire will not nor-
mally result in strand failure since remaining wires will be able to sustain the increased load after redistribution
of stresses. Strand failure will only occur when all wires in the strand fail. This means that strand performance
can be modelled as a ‘‘perfectly brittle’’ parallel system. In general, the strength of such a parallel system com-
prising n elements (wires) is (e.g., [31])
Rstrand ðT Þ ¼ R7 þ max fnR1 ðT Þ; ðn  1ÞR2 ðT Þ; . . . ; 2 Rn1 ðT Þ; Rn ðT Þg R1 < R2 <    < Rn ð6Þ
where R1(T), R2(T), . . . , R6(T) are the strengths of the corroding outer wires at time T, n = 6 and R7 is the strength
of the non-corroding inner wire. The strength of a wire (assuming mode of failure is non-ductile yielding) at time T is
Rn ðT Þ ¼ fpy ½A0  Apit ðT Þ ð7Þ
where fpy is the yield stress, A0 is the initial cross-sectional area of the wire and Apit(T) is the cross-sectional
area of the wire due to pitting.
Fig. 3 shows the distributions of time to failure for a corroding wire and strand, for icorr(1) = 1 lA/cm2,
L = 1 m, r = 1000 MPa in all wires, and a yielding failure criterion of fpy = 1565 MPa. The time to failure
of a single wire is higher than the minimum time to failure of six wires since in six wires there is higher like-
lihood of deeper pitting and so reduced time to first wire failure. Progressive failure of other wires in the strand
is then likely to rapidly occur as a result of stress redistribution (i.e., stress in remaining 5 wires increases to
1200 MPa). Thus, the time to failure for a strand is typically lower than that of a single wire. For further detail
of the experimental results and probabilistic model development see Refs. [8,9].

3. Stochastic finite element analysis

A three dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) of a typical simple span PSC bridge girder is employed in
this study using commercially available software ABAQUS [2]. The model includes eight-node solid elements
for concrete and truss elements for the prestressing steel. The truss elements are embedded in the concrete ele-
ment, which means bond-slip effects are not considered in the analysis. This assumption is reasonable since
pitting corrosion is localised and is less likely to cause the disruption of concrete cover and hence no reduction
of bond strength around the pits [33].
The length of steel elements used to represent prestressing strands is taken as twice the development length
of the strand embedded in concrete (i.e. 2Lp). This approach is based on the assumption that when failure of
prestressing steel occurs, there will be loss of capacity a distance Lp at either side of the rupture (assuming the
rupture occurs in the middle of the element), e.g., [30]. This is an approximate failure criterion since in reality
strand rupture could occur near to an element with higher actions or near to an element with lower actions,
resulting in reduced and increased structural reliabilities, respectively. Nonetheless, it is anticipated that reli-
abilities for non-central strand ruptures will average out producing reliabilities similar to that obtained from
the proposed failure criterion. For prestressing strands with nominal diameter of 12.7 mm and cover of at least
40 mm Lp is approximately 500 mm [10] and so the length of steel elements is L = 1.0 m.
Uniaxial elastic–plastic material models are used for both steel and concrete stress–strain relationships
[7,16]. However, to model more realistically the effect of corrosion the steel stress–strain relationship is mod-
ified which leads to a reduced ultimate strain at failure [8,4], but this has a negligible effect on structural per-
formance for the PSC bridge girder considered herein. For concrete, the linear tension stiffening effect after
cracking is included.
 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31 21

3.1. Structural reliability

The limit states considered are flexural strength and serviceability. In principle, other limit states (such as
shear strength) could also be included if they are a governing design limit state or if deterioration is considered
to produce a governing limit state over the service life of the structure.
The strength limit state is exceeded when actual load effects exceed flexural resistance of the member deter-
mined by the singularity of the global stiffness matrix in which the FEA analysis does not converge. If it is
assumed that k load events takes place at time intervals DT within the time period (0, T) at times ti (i = 1,
2, . . . , k and ti = iDT), the cumulative probability of structural failure of service proven structures anytime dur-
ing the time interval (0, T) is
pf ð0; T Þ ¼ 1  Pr½GU 1 > 0 \ GU 2 \    \ GU k > 0 t1 < t2 <    < tk 6 T ð8Þ
where GU i is the strength limit state function at time ti and GU i > 0 represents convergence of the FEA. This
represents a first passage probability.
For the serviceability limit state, the peak deflection is of interest (i.e. mid-span deflection). The cumulative
probability of serviceability failure during the time interval (0, T) is
ps ð0; T Þ ¼ 1  Pr½GS 1 > 0 \ GS 2 \    \ GS k > 0 t1 < t2 <    < tk 6 T ð9Þ
where GS i ðX Þ ¼ ðDallow  Dmid ðti ÞÞ, Dallow is the allowable deflection and Dmid(ti) is the peak deflection due to
the ith load effect at time ti. It should be noted that deflection predicted by the FEA is monitored up to time
Tf  DT, where Tf is the time to collapse. Hence, in this study ps is defined as the cumulative probability of
serviceability failure prior to collapse.

3.2. Computational procedure

The spatial time-dependent reliability analysis is complicated due to non-linear and non-explicit limit states,
time-dependent random variables, dependent and correlated variables, and more importantly, the inclusion of
temporal and spatial variability of pitting corrosion. Hence, closed form solutions are intractable and so
Monte Carlo event-based simulation is employed as the computational tool.
The Monte–Carlo event-based simulation analysis considers the variability and uncertainty of loads, mate-
rial properties, dimensions and deterioration processes. For each simulation run the time to corrosion initia-
tion and corrosion rate for each layer of strands is calculated. At each time increment (DT), the pit-depth for
each wire in each strand and the peak live load is generated. The cross-sectional area and strength of the wires
are then inferred, and strength of the strands are calculated from Eq. (6). The strand forces are then calculated
from the FEA. If the actual strand force is higher than the strength of strand for any element (which will vary
spatially along the length of the strand and decrease with time due to strand corrosion) then the strand is

st
1 strand failure

2nd strand failure

3rd strand failure

Structuarl Capacity

Corrosion Initiation
Collapse

Time

Fig. 4. Schematic of deterioration process of PSC structures.

22 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31

removed from that element and actions in the remaining strands are recalculated (i.e. stress redistribution).
The event-based process continues for successive time increments, leading to more strand failures until either
the flexural capacity of the bridge girder is exceeded or until its service life is reached, see Fig. 4. If the deflec-
tion exceeds the allowable deflection during simulation, this will be recorded as serviceability failure and the
simulation continues.

4. Illustrative example

4.1. Prestressed concrete (PSC) bridge girder

The bridge considered in this study is a typical simple span PSC bridge, which has a span of 21 m and a
clear roadway width of 8.4 m. The bridge consists of four precast prestressed AASHTO Type IV girders
(see Fig. 5) with equal spacing of 2.3 m and a 200 mm thick cast-in-place concrete deck. The girder was
designed according to the AASHTO LRFD [1] Bridge Design Specifications assuming bonded tendons, unsh-
ored construction and no composite action between the girder and the cast-in-place slab. The specified con-
crete strength F 0c of the girder is 35 MPa and the nominal ultimate tensile strength of the prestressing steel
(fpk) is 1750 MPa. A stress of 65% of fpk is applied to the girder as an initial pre-stress. A total of 26 7-wire
strands (12.7 mm diameter) were required to carry the total design loads. Six centrally located strands (posi-
tioned in three rows) are harped at the third span of the girder and only twenty strands remain horizontal in
two levels of ten strands each. Concrete covers for prestressing strands are 50 mm (level 1) and 100 mm (level
2).
For convenience, the present analysis ignores other sources of spatial variability even though it is recogni-
sed that concrete quality, concrete cover, chloride exposure, etc. do vary spatially (e.g., [11,36]). These spatial
variables, however, will not have as significant an influence on structural reliability of flexural members as pit-
ting corrosion.
Three different components of dead load are considered: precast concrete, cast-in-place deck and 80 mm
asphalt overlay. Axle spacings and distribution of axle loads are calculated based on a US HS-20 truck
and the truck is located on the bridge to cause peak flexural actions. The service life of the structure considered
in this study is taken as 100 years.
The PSC bridge girder is exposed to an atmospheric marine environment on the coastline. The predictive
model for corrosion rate for a relative humidity of 80% is

508

203

152

1371 584

harped strands
level 3 prestressing strands
level 2 prestressing strands
229
level 1 prestressing strands

203 3 x 50

660

Fig. 5. AASHTO type IV bridge girder.

 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31 23

1:64
icorr ð1Þ ¼ 27ð1  wcÞ =C ð10Þ
where C is concrete cover in mm and wc is the water–cement ratio. Fick’s second law of diffusion is used to
predict corrosion initiation and the corrosion rate is assumed constant with time (j = 1.0 and h = 0). The
water–cement ratio, chloride diffusion coefficient and corrosion rate are dependent variables on the concrete
compressive strength. See Ref. [35] for further details of the stochastic deterioration models. Clearly, concrete
durability design specifications such as cover and w/c ratio will influence time to corrosion initiation and cor-
rosion rate. There is a wide range of stochastic deterioration models proposed in the literature, the present
deterioration models are simply used to illustrate the applicability of the novel approach developed herein
to representing the spatial and temporal corrosion damage to PSC structures.
Each longitudinal strand in the 21 m span girder is divided into 21 steel elements since the length of the steel
element is 1 m (see Section 3). The concrete element length is also 1 m. Fig. 6 shows the FEA mesh comprising
294 concrete elements and 546 steel elements. It is assumed that wires in a strand will corrode independently of
each other and pitting between adjacent elements is also statistically independent. It is assumed that each
strand in the same layer (i.e. same concrete cover) has the same time to corrosion initiation and corrosion rate.
The total loss of prestress is estimated based on AASHTO specifications as only long-term behaviour is con-
sidered for this study. The mode of strand failure is yielding (fpy) of the wires. For two lane bridges, the critical
load effect usually occurs when two heavily loaded trucks are side by side and have fully correlated weights
[23]. It is assumed that the number of fully correlated trucks is 600 trucks/year [23]. The extreme value distri-
bution of the weight of the heaviest truck for any time interval is then readily inferred (e.g., [35]). A summary
of statistical parameters representative of PSC bridge girders in the US is given in Table 2. In the results to
follow the time interval (DT) is taken as 2 years.

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Corrosion parameters

The statistical parameters for the time to corrosion initiation Ti and corrosion rate icorr for level 1 prestress-
ing strands obtained from Monte Carlo simulation are given in Table 3. Although the mean time to corrosion
initiation is high, its high variability means that there is a reasonable likelihood of time to corrosion initiation

Fig. 6. FEA mesh and elements.

24 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31

Table 2
Statistical parameters for PSC bridge girder [8]
Parameters Mean COV Distribution Reference
0
fcyl , concrete cylinder strength F 0c a + 7.5 MPa r = 6 MPa Lognormal Stewart [29]
0
ki, in situ concrete strength factor 1.2-0.0082 · meanðfcyl Þ 0.1 Normal Stewart [29]
MEf – concrete tensile strength (ft) 1.0 0.12 Normal Mirza et al. [19]
ME – concrete elastic modulus (Ec) 1.0 0.12 Normal Mirza et al. [19]
fpy, yield strength 0.88 fpkb 0.025 Normal Mirza et al. [21]
Ep, steel elastic modulus 195000 MPa 0.02 Normal Mirza et al. [21]
Total prestress loss kc = 1.0 0.30 Normal JCSS [15]
Cbd, bottom cover Cbnom r = 7.9 mm Normal Mirza and MacGregor [20]
H, beam depth (mm) Hnom + 0.8 r = 3.6 mm Normal Mirza and MacGregor [20]
C0, surface chloride concentration 3.05 kg/m3 0.79 Normal Vu and Stewart [36]
ME – diffusion coeff. (D) 1.0 0.20 Normal Vu and Stewart [35]
Cre, threshold chl. concentration 3.35 kg/m3 0.375 Normal Val and Stewart [34]
ME – corrosion rate (icorr) 1.0 0.20 Normal Vu and Stewart [35]
D1, dead load precast 1.03 Dn 0.08 Normal Nowak et al. [26]
D2, dead load cast-in-place 1.05 Dn 0.10 Normal Nowak et al. [26]
D3, dead load asphalt 80 mm 0.30 Normal Nowak et al. [26]
Single truck load 240 kN 0.40 Normal Nowak and Hong [24]
Impact factor 1.15 0.10 Normal Hwang and Nowak [13]
Girder distribution factor k = 0.93 0.12 Normal Nowak and Grouni [25]
Pitting model l0-exp = 0.84 a0-exp = 8.1 Gumbel Darmawan [8]
a
F 0c ¼ specified ðcharacteristicÞ concrete compressive strength.
b
fpk = characteristic tensile strength of prestressing steel.
c
k = bias factor.
d
Truncated at 10 mm.
e
Truncated at 0.35 kg/m3.
f
Model Error.

Table 3
Statistical parameters for time to corrosion initiation Ti and corrosion rate icorr for level 1 prestressing strands
Parameters Mean COV
Ti time to corrosion initiation (years) 300 1.17
icorr corrosion rate (lA/cm2) 1.76 0.39

being only 20–30 years. It is this high variability of predictions of deterioration processes that can significantly
effect the structural reliability of a corroding structure.

4.2.2. Failed strands

Fig. 7 shows the number and timing of surviving (non-failed) strands in the mid-section of the girder for
typical realisations from three Monte Carlo simulation runs. As seen in this figure, the progressive loss of
all level 1 strands due to pitting corrosion occurs within a short time period of first strand failure (often within
several years due to stress redistribution), and generally leads to instantaneous failure (i.e., in the same time
interval) of the remaining (Level 2) strands causing the sudden collapse of the girder. This observation is sup-
ported by reference to Fig. 8 which shows the distribution of the average number of failed strands that initiates
the collapse of the girder. Fig. 8 also shows that the average number of failed strands decreases toward the
girder supports. This trend is expected since the stress in strands located in the mid-section is higher than that
located close to the supports.

4.2.3. Time to collapse (Tf)

Fig. 9 shows the simulation histogram of time to collapse (Tf) of the girder. Collapse can occur within as
little time as 12 years. From intermediate results [8] it is observed that collapse of the girder generally occurs
due to the combined action of very early time to corrosion initiation (less than 40 years), and slightly above
average corrosion rate and live load. Fig. 10 shows the cumulative probabilities of strength and serviceability
failure.
 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31 25

26

progressive failure
24

Number of Surviving Strands

22
20 level 1 strands
18
16
14
12

instantaneous failure
10
8 level 2 strands
6
4
2
level 3 strands
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time T (years)

Fig. 7. Timing of individual strand failure for PSC bridge girder in the middle of the span.

12
Average Number of Failed Strands

level 1
10 level 2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Position Along the Girder (m)

Fig. 8. Distribution of average number of failed strands along the girder that initiates the collapse of the girder.

Fig. 9. Time to collapse of PSC bridge girder.

Fig. 10 shows that at 100 years the probability of strength failure is 0.096, which is equal to a reliability
index (b) of 1.30. Akgul and Frangopol [3] performed a time-variant reliability analysis of corroding PSC
bridge girders assuming general corrosion and considered only critical (mid-span) section analysis. They found
that for mean icorr = 4.9 lA/cm2 the reliability index of the girders decreased to a value of b = 1.5–2.0 after 75
years. This clearly shows that the structural reliability results obtained herein are, albeit low, comparable to
26 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31

0.10

0.08 strength

Probability of Failure
0.06 serviceability

0.04

0.02

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time T (years)

Fig. 10. Time-dependent probability of failure of PSC bridge girder.

available existing reliability studies. Note that Akgul and Frangopol [3] ignored the spatial aspect of pitting
corrosion in their analysis, which is expected to lead to a lower probability of failure than a spatial analysis,
such as considered herein. The purpose of the reliability analyses is comparative only. The calculated reliabil-
ities should thus be considered as nominal or indicative values rather than being considered as absolute values.

4.2.4. Live load deflection

AASHTO [1] specifies that the maximum deflection of a bridge (Dallow) under live load should not exceed 1/
800 of its span. Fig. 10 shows that the probability of serviceability failure prior to collapse is less than the
probability of strength failure. This trend is caused by the following factors: (i) in the FEA the deflection
can only be measured up to time Tf  DT and (ii) it is assumed that when the girder collapses at time Tf it
is recorded only as a strength failure and not as a serviceability failure. In reality, a strength failure might also
be considered as the serviceability failure (i.e. collapse means a large deflection).
Fig. 11 shows the simulation histogram of deflection due to live load in the middle of the span in the time
increment preceding collapse (Tf  DT) conditional on girder collapse. It shows that approximately 45% of
collapses are not preceded by excessive deflection. This is a likely consequence of the observation that progres-
sive strand failure generally occurs within a short time interval (see Fig. 7) so there is little warning of collapse.
This suggests that deflection monitoring during service life might not always be useful for health monitoring of
PSC pretensioned bridges.

4.2.5. Comparison with mid-section analysis

Most studies model the strength and reliability of structural members subject to deterioration by
focusing on mid-section capacities, regions of peak actions or other critical sections. This conventional, but

0.08
Δ =L /800
allow s

0.06
Probability Density

0.04

0.02

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 25 40 45 50 55
Live Load Deflection (mm)

Fig. 11. Simulation histogram of live load deflection at time Tf  DT conditional on girder collapse.
 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31 27

0.10

Probability of Strength Failure p (0,T)

f
0.08

0.06 spatial mid-section

(pitting corrosion)
mid-section
0.04 (general corrosion)

0.02

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time T (years)

Fig. 12. Probability of strength failure pf for a spatial and a mid-section analysis.

non-conservative approach, is referred to herein as a ‘‘mid-section’’ analysis. In the present paper a mid-sec-
tion analysis will consider only the pitting corrosion of the central 1 m element and the rest of the beam is
assumed not affected by corrosion.
Fig. 12 shows a comparison between a spatial and a mid-section analysis for the strength limit state. It
shows that including the spatial variability of pitting corrosion in the reliability analysis increases the proba-
bility of failure by only 10%. When compared with a mid-section analysis assuming general corrosion, includ-
ing the spatial variability of pitting corrosion leads to a 20% increase in the probability of failure. These small
differences can be explained from Fig. 8, which shows that the number of failed strands is higher in the region
close to the mid-section than in the region close to the supports. This means that even for a spatial analysis the
collapse of the girder is still governed mainly by failure of strands located in the mid-section region as assumed
in a mid-section analysis. Further, the observation made by Stewart [30], for RC beams in flexure, that as the
number of reinforcing bars increases the variability of cross-sectional area reduces leading to increased struc-
tural reliabilities is also pertinent for PSC beams. In this case, the effect of spatial variability of pitting corro-
sion reduces as the number of prestressing strands increase.
Given the extensive computational effort associated with a spatial time-dependent reliability analysis, the
results presented herein suggest that it may be acceptable to ignore spatial variability of non-central sections,
at least for the structural configuration considered herein.
Fig. 13 shows the comparison between a spatial and a mid-section analysis for the serviceability limit state.
It shows that the effect of the spatial variability of pitting corrosion is more significant on the serviceability
limit state. This is expected since the loss of strands due to pitting corrosion will lead to higher tensile stress
Probability of Serviceability Failure p (0,T)

0.08
s

0.06 spatial

0.04

0.02 mid-section (pitting corrosion)

mid-section (general corrosion)

no deterioration
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time T (years)

Fig. 13. Probability of serviceability failure ps for a spatial and a mid-section analysis.
28 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31

in the concrete, which lead to concrete cracking. The formation of cracking will then reduce significantly the
stiffness of the girder. Loss of capacity (and bond) along non-central strands will also affect serviceability per-
formance to a much greater extent than strength performance.

4.2.6. Concrete durability design specifications

To examine the effect of different concrete durability design specifications on the performance of a PSC
bridge girder, three durability design specifications are examined:

(i) Cover = 30 mm; F 0c ¼ 30 MPa

(ii) Cover = 50 mm; F 0c ¼ 35 MPa
(iii) Cover = 70 mm; F 0c ¼ 50 MPa

Fig. 14 shows that concrete durability design specifications influence significantly the probability of
strength failure. For example, an improved durability design specification will increase time to corrosion ini-
tiation and reduce the corrosion rate leading to significantly reduced probabilities of failure.

4.2.7. Modes of prestressing failure

The result obtained from the accelerated pitting corrosion test of prestressing wires in a concrete-chloride
environment is that the mode of failure of corroded cold-drawn prestressing wires under static tensile load is
‘‘non-ductile’’ yielding [9]. However, the possibility of other possible modes of failure (e.g. brittle fracture or
SCC) cannot be ruled out, especially with the old type quenched and tempered wires [18].
Brittle fracture and stress corrosion cracking (SCC) modes of failure can be obtained from a Linear-Elastic
Fracture Mechanics approach where the stress field ahead of a sharp crack can be characterised by a stress
intensity factor KI. When the value of KI reaches a certain threshold level, failure occurs. The stress intensity
factor for the pit configuration shown in Fig. 2 is determined using the theoretical formula [6]:
X 4 X3  i  
a a j pffiffiffiffiffiffi
KI ¼ C ij r pa ð11Þ
i¼0;i6¼1 j¼0
D0 b

where r is the applied stress and the values of the coefficient Cij are obtained from Aztiz [6] and a and b are
defined from Fig. 2. The statistical parameters for threshold values for SCC and brittle fracture are given in
Table 4. These values correspond well with values obtained earlier by Toribio and Lancha [32]. Note that cor-
rosion pits may not be as sharp as cracks, which means that Eq. (11) may over-estimate stress intensity factors.
Hence, Fig. 15 shows the effect of different modes of failure on the reliability of a corroding PSC girder. It
shows that compared with yielding, both brittle fracture and SCC lead to significantly higher probabilities of
strength failure.

0.14
Probability of Strength Failure p (0,T)

0.12
f

'
F = 30 MPa; cover = 30 mm
c
0.10

0.08 '
F = 35 MPa; cover = 50 mm
c

0.06

0.04
'
0.02 F = 50 MPa; cover = 70 mm
c

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time T (years)

Fig. 14. Effect of different concrete durability specifications on probability of strength failure pf.
 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31 29

Table 4
Statistical parameters for stress corrosion cracking and brittle fracture failure modes [14]
Parameters Mean COV Distribution
KSCC (stress corrosion cracking) 43 MPa m0.5 0.10 Lognormal
Kc (brittle fracture) 86 MPa m0.5 0.05 Lognormal

0.15

Probability of Strength Failure p (0,T)

f
SCC
0.10 brittle fracture
yielding

0.05

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time T (years)

Fig. 15. Effect of different modes of failure on probability of strength failure pf.

4.2.8. Correlation of pitting corrosion

In practice, it is expected that there may be some degree of correlation between wires and strands subject to
similar corrosive environments. However, structural reliabilities were not significantly affected by assuming a
correlation coefficient of up to 0.5 for correlations of: (i) pitting of wires within a strand or (ii) pitting between
strands in adjacent elements. The only exception being serviceability reliabilities for correlation of pitting cor-
rosion between adjacent strands. This is not surprising, since this correlation is likely to lead to loss of bond

Table 5
Influence of various parameters on the variability of time to strength and serviceability failures
Parameter Xi Influence (%)
Strength Serviceability
Truck live load 17.93 9.70
Pitting model parameter l0 17.28 15.79
Concrete cover level 1 strands 15.62 32.91
In-situ concrete strength factor (ki) 13.81 1.71
Girder distribution factor 12.05 4.79
Impact factor 4.67 3.94
Concrete cover level 2 strands 4.12 11.61
Prestressing steel elastic modulus (Ep) 2.48 3.82
ME for diffusion coefficient (D) 2.29 2.65
Dead load due to asphalt (D3) 1.64 4.96
Beam depth 1.45 0.00
Prestress loss 1.44 1.53
Yield strength of prestressing steel (fpy) 1.25 0.03
Dead load due to cast-in-place element (D2) 1.06 1.38
Dead load due to precast element (D1) 0.97 0.25
0
Concrete cylinder strength ðfcyl Þ 0.92 4.39
Chloride threshold level (Cr) 0.43 0.27
Surface chloride concentration (C0) 0.30 0.02
ME for concrete elastic modulus (Ec) 0.26 0.02
ME for concrete tensile strength (ft) 0.01 0.00
ME for corrosion rate (icorr) 0.01 0.23
ME = model error.
30 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31

for longer lengths of strand which will most adversely affect serviceability performance. Although not explic-
itly studied herein, it would be expected that correlation of pitting between the 26 strands would significantly
reduce structural reliabilities. This is an area for further study.

4.2.9. Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis is performed to study the relative importance of the variability of each random var-
iable on the calculated response (e.g. time to strength and serviceability failure). In this study, the approach
proposed by Melchers and Ahammed [17] is used.
The sensitivity analysis identified truck live load, pitting model parameters, concrete cover, concrete
strength and girder distribution factor as the most important parameters influencing the time to failure, see
Table 5. These results correspond well to intermediate results which show that the time to corrosion initiation
is the variable that most significantly influences the probability of failure. The time to corrosion initiation is
clearly influenced by both concrete cover and concrete compressive strength. Vu and Stewart [35] have also
identified concrete cover and truck live load as among the most important parameters influencing the reliabil-
ity of corroding RC slab bridges.
Following the results obtained herein, it is expected that structural reliabilities are also most influenced by
these important parameters. Hence, in order to obtain more accurate predictions of structural reliability, more
effort should be directed at improving the accuracy of these parameters, including the pitting model statistical
parameters.
Further details of model development and results are described elsewhere [8].

5. Conclusions

This paper described the development of probabilistic models to predict the spatial distribution of maxi-
mum depths of pitting for prestressing strands subjected to pitting corrosion. The models were then applied
to a stochastic FEA of a typical prestressed concrete bridge girder located at a coastal environment. The influ-
ence of pitting corrosion on structural strength, time to failure and structural reliability were estimated. In
general, including the spatial variability of pitting corrosion in the reliability analysis of a pretensioned
PSC AASHTO bridge girder has increased the probability of strength failure by only 10% when compared
with a mid-section analysis. However, the effect of the spatial variability of pitting corrosion is more significant
on the serviceability limit state. It was also shown that approximately 45% of collapses have not been preceded
by excessive deflection. It was noted that the high variability of predictions of deterioration processes also sig-
nificantly effects the structural reliability of a corroding structure. The probabilistic approach developed in this
study also allows for a more realistic representation of service life prediction.

Acknowledgement

The support of the Australian Research Council under grant DP0451871 is gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specification. Washington DC: AASHTO; 2004.
[2] ABAQUS. ABAQUS 6.3-1 Documentation, Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc., 2003.
[3] Akgul F, Frangopol DM. Lifetime performance analysis of existing prestressed concrete bridge superstructures. J Struct Eng, ASCE
2004;130(12):1889–903.
[4] Almusallam AA, Al-Gahtani AS, Aziz AR, Dakhil FH, Rasheedduzzafar P. Effect of reinforcement corrosion on flexural behaviour
of reinforced concrete slabs. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 1996;8(3):123–7.
[5] Aziz PM. Application of the statistical theory of extreme values to the analysis of maximum pit depth data for aluminium. Corrosion-
NACE 1956;12:35–46.
[6] Aztiz MA. An incompatible singular elastic element for two- and three-dimensional crack problems. Int J Fract
1986;31:105–23.
[7] Collins M, Mitchell D. Prestressed concrete basics. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institute; 1991.
[8] Darmawan MS. Spatial time-dependent reliability analysis of pretensioned prestressed concrete bridge girder subject to pitting
corrosion, PhD Thesis, The University of Newcastle, 2005.
 M.S. Darmawan, M.G. Stewart / Structural Safety 29 (2007) 16–31 31

[9] Darmawan MS, Stewart MG. Spatial variability of pitting corrosion and its effect on the reliability of prestressing wires. In: 9th Int
Conf on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, San Francisco, CD-ROM, 2003.
[10] do Carmo RNF, Lopes SMR. Influence of cover on bond of strands prestressed by pretensioning. Can J Civil Eng 2001;28:938–48.
[11] Faber MH, Rostam S. Durability and service life of concrete structures – the owners’ perspective. In: Proc Int Conf on Safety, Risk
and Reliability – Trends in Engineering, IABSE, 2001, p. 369–74.
[12] Finley HF, Toncre AC. Extreme value statistical analysis in correlation of first leak on submerged pipeline. Mater Protect 1964:29–34.
[13] Hwang E-S, Nowak AS. Simulation of dynamic load for bridges. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1991;117(5):1413–34.
[14] Izquierdo D, Andrade C, Tanner P. Reliability analysis of corrosion in postensional tendon: Case Study. In: Proc Int Conf on Safety,
Risk and Reliability – Trends in Engineering, IABSE, Malta, Zurich, 2001, p. 1001–6.
[15] JCSS. Probabilistic model code. The joint committee of structural safety. Available from: www.jcss.ethz.ch, 2002.
[16] Maes MA, Wei X, Dilger WH. Fatigue reliability of deteriorating prestressed concrete bridge beams due to stress corrosion cracking.
Can J Civil Eng 2001;28:673–83.
[17] Melchers RE, Ahammed MA. Fast approximate methods for parameter sensitivity estimation in Monte-Carlo structural reliability.
Comput Struct 2004;82:55–61.
[18] Mietz J. Investigation on hydrogen-induced embrittlement of quenched and tempered prestressing steels. Mater Corros
2000;51:80–90.
[19] Mirza SA, Hatzinikolas M, MacGregor JG. Statistical description of strength of concrete. J Struct Div, ASCE
1979;105(ST6):1021–37.
[20] Mirza SA, MacGregor JG. Variations in dimensions of reinforced concrete members. J Struct Div, ASCE 1979;105(ST4):751–66.
[21] Mirza SA, Kikuchi DK, MacGregor JG. Flexural strength reduction factor for bonded prestressed concrete beams. ACI J
1980;77(4):237–46.
[22] Mori Y, Ellingwood BR. Maintenance reliability of concrete structures i: role of inspection and repair. J Struct Eng, ASCE
1994;120(8):824–45. See also II: Optimum Inspection and Repair, 120(8): 846-862.
[23] Nowak AS. Live load model for highway bridges. Struct Safety 1993;13(1):53–66.
[24] Nowak AS, Hong YK. Bridge live load models. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1991;117(9):2757–67.
[25] Nowak AS, Grouni HN. Calibration of the OHBDC-1991. Can J Civil Eng 1994;21:2–35.
[26] Nowak AS, Park C, Casas JR. Reliability analysis of prestressed concrete bridge girders: comparison of eurocode, Spanish Norma
IAP and AASHTO LRFD. Struct Safety 2001;23:331–44.
[27] Sarveswaran V, Roberts MB, Ward JA. Reliability assessment of deteriorating reinforced concrete beams. Proc Inst Civil Eng Struct
Build 2000;140:239–47.
[28] Sheikh AK, Boah JK, Hansen DA. Statistical modelling of pitting corrosion and pipeline reliability. Corros – NACE
1990;46(3):190–7.
[29] Stewart MG. Workmanship and its influence on probabilistic models of concrete compressive strength. ACI Mater J
1995;92(4):361–72.
[30] Stewart MG. Effect of spatial variability of pitting corrosion and its influence on structural fragility and reliability of RC beams in
flexure. Struct Safety 2004;26(4):453–70.
[31] Thoft-Christensen P, Baker MJ. Structural reliability theory and its applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1982.
[32] Toribio J, Lancha AM. Effect of cold drawing on environmentally assisted cracking of cold-drawn-steel. J Mater Sci 1996;31:6015–24.
[33] Val DV, Melchers RE. Reliability of deteriorating RC slab bridges. J Struct Eng ASCE 1997;123(12):1638–44.
[34] Val DV, Stewart MG. Life-cycle cost analysis of reinforced concrete structures in marine environments. Struct Safety 2003;25:343–62.
[35] Vu KAT, Stewart MG. Structural reliability of concrete bridges including improved chloride-induced corrosion models. Struct Safety
2000;22(4):313–33.
[36] Vu KAT, Stewart MG. Predicting the likelihood and extent of rc corrosion-induced cracking. J Struct Eng, ASCE
2005;131(11):1681–9.