1 Article

2 Probabilistic estimation of the strength capacity of

3 existing concrete bridges
4 Ionuţ-Radu Răcănel 1*, Vlad Daniel Urdăreanu 1
5 1
Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest; ionut.racanel@utcb.ro
6 * Correspondence: ionut_racanel@yahoo.com; Tel.: +40-729 069 719

7 Received: date; Accepted: date; Published: date

8 Abstract: Gradual changes of weight and geometry of vehicles combined with traffic values
9 sometimes leads to old existing bridges having to be strengthened and retrofitted. The optimal
10 solution to follow is based on the resistance capacity reserves of each structure, on the existing
11 traffic level at the moment of retrofitting works and on the estimated future traffic. Almost all
12 existing road bridges in Romania were designed according to national provisions/standards.
13 Starting with 2010, following the European Community’s decision, the projects should be
14 designed according to the Eurocodes and the existing bridges, must also comply with the new
15 European load models. The process of checking existing bridges for the action of load models
16 described in Eurocodes is a complicated task. However, the process for the evaluation of the
17 bearing capacity reserves can be significantly simplified using a probabilistic approach. The
18 approach presented in this paper is based on the effects, in terms of bending moments and vertical
19 displacements, produced by several types of vehicles on the bridge superstructure. For presenting
20 the use of this proposed methodology, typical bridge superstructures with precast concrete girders
21 of different lengths were analyzed. The proposed methodology allows to establish the
22 “vulnerability” of existing bridges on live loads.

23 Keywords: old bridge; traffic; retrofitting; bending moment; bearing capacity; probabilistic
24 approach
25

26 1. Introduction

27 1.1 Strength capacity

28 The strength capacity of a bridge during service live is determined in the design phase by
29 adopting an efficient and functional solution which depends, among others, on using durable, high
30 performance materials and correct estimation of the loads and behavior of the structure. Designing
31 a structure is generally based on the available data and the level of knowledge at the time but, in
32 the case of bridges, extra measures are taken in order to accommodate for the wide variety of
33 actions (especially traffic) foreseen in the future for the entire estimated lifespan.
34 During the service life of a structure, design standards can change several times to such a
35 degree that it may be necessary to recheck the existing structure in accordance with the new
36 provisions, in order to make sure the safety levels under service are still at an acceptable level.

37 1.2 Romanian road network

38 There are many bridges on the road network of Romania designed using the old national
39 standards that were available at the time of construction. Among these, many are still performing
40 well under service, only requiring regular maintenance works, but there is also a large number of
41 bridges showing significant degradation to different levels, due to lack of maintenance or
42 inappropriate strength capacity.

1 Appl. Sci. 2021, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

2 2 of 11

43 In the year 2010, the need to use the European Norms (Eurocodes) became mandatory in both
44 designing and erecting new structures. The new requirements in durability and loads claim
45 reviewing the existing structures, both the ones with signs of degradation and the ones performing
46 well, in order to check whether or not they satisfy the new demands and keep an acceptable level of
47 safety.

48 1.3 Assessing the safety under service

49 A convenient method for assessing the level of safety under service for an existing bridge
50 within the European context, can be the estimation of strength capacity reserve using a probabilistic
51 approach. Comparing the old norms with the Eurocodes, it can be considered that there are only
52 small changes in the case of permanent loads considered in the design phase.
53 The most significant changes in the internal stress levels are given by the new variable actions.
54 In the case of concrete bridges with the superstructure made up of precast, prestressed concrete
55 girders, staged construction designs were made considering the different phases of erection, with
56 permanent loads and variable traffic loads.
57 The methodology proposed in this paper for estimating the vulnerability of existing concrete
58 bridges implies establishing a law of distribution for the maximum stress levels and determining
59 the strength capacity reserves by comparison with the design stress levels.
60 In order to make a realistic study, it would have been necessary to have information regarding
61 the types of road vehicles frequently transiting these bridges. The information should have
62 contained details about the number, distribution and weight of the axles of each type of vehicle.
63 Sadly however, this type of data does not exist at an administrative level, and collecting it requires
64 significant costs and personnel mobilization. Under these conditions, in order to finish the study,
65 several load models considered to be found more often on Romanian roads were selected from both
66 the old and new design norms, as well as a number of convoys previously used for testing bridge
67 structures under service loads.
68 Maximum stress levels for the service limit state were determined by using finite element
69 models and linear static analyses considering phases of construction and traffic loads of the old
70 bridges and the ones required for retrofitting them. These were then associated to a statistic
71 distribution law. Based on probability density functions and cumulative distribution functions, the
72 probability of exceedance of a critical limit value was determined for each case (old and retrofitted).

73 2. Case study

74 2.1 Description of the structure

75 In order to illustrate the proposed method, a typical 30.00m long bridge superstructure widely
76 used in Romania in the 1980’s was chosen. The superstructure is made up of 4 (four) precast
77 prestressed concrete girders placed at 2.83m apart, an 18cm slab and 3 (three) crossbeams (at each
78 bearing and in the middle of the span) linking them, Figure 1. The girders were made of B500
79 concrete (equivalent C32/40) and the slab of B400 concrete (equivalent C25/30). It supports a 7.80m
80 carriageway and 2 footways of 1.00m each, protected with precast kerbs and pedestrian guardrails.
81 The retrofitting solution chosen for the case study, Figure 2 is removing all the carriageway’s and
82 footway elements (asphalt, slope concrete, kerbs, footways, pedestrian guardrails, etc.), adding a
83 concrete slab of C35/45, widening the superstructure so that H4b barriers can be added to the
84 footways and rebuilding all the carriageway and footway elements.
85 Several analyses were conducted considering the existing bridge and the retrofitted bridge with a
86 variable minimum thickness of the new slab of 10cm, 15cm and 25cm.
87
88
89
 3 3 of 11

90

91 Figure 1. Cross section of existing bridge for the case study

92

93 Figure 2. Cross section of retrofitted bridge for the case study

94 2.2 Approach method

95 The idea of this study is not new, it was inspired by the vulnerability analyses of the structures
96 at the seismic action and such a methodology can be found in some papers back in 2000s [2], [3], [5].
97 The aim of that studies was to obtain reliable fragility functions for the structural response, based
98 on sets of registered or artificially generated accelerograms.
99 The first phase of the proposed method in the paper is based on a distribution of probability of
100 the set of values for normal stresses or vertical displacements calculated in the lateral beam in the
101 middle of the span, considering loads from the Serviceability Limit State (SLS).
102 The second consists in determining the function of density probability and the one for
103 cumulative distribution. Using these two functions, it is possible to determine the value of
104 reliability in terms of probability of exceedance of the of the maximum admissible stress or
105 displacement at the middle of the span.
106 The link between all these three functions can be expressed by the following relationships [6]:
b
107 P ( a<X≤b ) = ∫ f x ( x ) , (1)
a
x
108 F X ( x ) = ∫ f X ( t ) dt , (2)
-∞

109 R X ( x ) =1- F X ( x ) , (3)

110 where P=distribution of probability, a,b=interval of values, f X=probability density function,

111 FX=cumulative distribution function, RX=reliability function.

112 2.3 Finite element models

 4 4 of 11

113 Three finite element models were built up (one for each concrete slab thickness) using beam
114 elements for the precast concrete girders and crossbeams and shell elements for the slab. One of
115 these models in shown in Figure 3 bellow.
116 After determining the internal forces and stresses, but also the displacements in the mid span
117 of the lateral girder due to permanent loads, a number of 51 static moving load analyses were
118 performed considering different load models to simulate traffic conditions during bridge service
119 life.

(a) (b)
120

(c)
121 Figure 3. Finite element model: (a) Discrete view of the finite element model; (b) Extruded view
122 from the top; (c) Extruded view from the bottom

123 The permanent loads taken into consideration are: the dead load of the initial structure’s
124 concrete elements (beams, crossbeams and slab), the dead load of the over slab of the retrofitted
125 structures, the weight of the carriageway’s supporting elements (asphalt layers, kerbs, H4b barriers)
126 and the footways (concrete fillings, pedestrian guardrails, etc.). As for the traffic loads, several
127 design convoys from different regions of the world and real truck loads have been taken into
128 account as follows: the design convoys used in the initial design used in Romania at the time,
129 according to STAS 3221/86 for classes I, II and E, the load models presented in Eurocode SR EN
130 1991-2/2004, a few convoys used in the American AASHTO and 4 real convoys used in the testing
131 of the retrofitting solution used for the Giurgiu-Ruse Bridge over the Danube. The vehicles used to
132 simulate the response were grouped and located in symmetrical and/or nonsymmetrical schemes
133 according with the provisions of their specific norms at the time, in order to get the most
134 unfavorable effects in terms of bending moment in the middle of the span for the lateral beam, as
135 well as maximum vertical displacement of the same element. Several arrangements of the convoys
136 are provided in Figure 4.
 5 5 of 11

137

138 Figure 4. Examples of traffic load models: symmetrical and nonsymmetrical

139 In order to obtain a sufficient number of values required for determining a correct variation for
140 the distribution of probability, 51 combinations were made using the vehicles presented above.
141 With the same configurations for the traffic loads, 51 static analyses were made for each of the 4
142 models, all of them having included the staged construction phases necessary for erection.
143 A comparison between the bending moments was considered irrelevant, as the beams have
144 different sections depending on the construction stage, and thus, a comparison of the normal stress
145 at the bottom fiber was made. The reference for this was considered the one corresponding to load
146 class E and convoy V80 according to the Romanian standard, as this was the norm initially used to
147 design the bridge. As such, all stress values are compared to this, the base line being set at 22.62
148 MPa as 0, positive values meaning more tension in the fiber by that specific amount, and negative
149 meaning more compression. The maximum acceptable limit is only in tension, and was calculated
150 at 3.2 MPa (maximum acceptable tensile stress of the old concrete).
151 Regarding the values for displacement, only the mobile loads were considered as they have the
152 more relevant impact. Just as before, all values are compared to the one corresponding to the V80
153 convoy load case, but in this case, the base line was set at 0. The maximum acceptable limit was the
154 one prescribed by the Romanian norm PD 165-2000, as no more then L/800 = 36.8mm.

155 3. Preliminary results

156 After running all the analyses presented above, extracting the bending moments in the middle
157 of the span for the marginal beam and overlaying them according with the provisions of their
158 norms, a set of 51 variables was obtained for each model. By considering a sufficient number of
159 intervals and choosing the correct size for them, histograms of the relative frequencies and relative
160 cumulative frequencies were determined. Based on these, the distribution of probability for the 51
161 values was calculated. A similar approach was done for the 51 displacements values calculated in
162 the middle. The relative frequency and relative cumulative frequency histograms are presented in
163 Figures 5 and 6 bellow.
30.00% 30.00%
Frequency

Frequency

25.00% Without retrofit 25.00% 10cm slab

20.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00% 15.00%
5.00% 10.00%
0.00% 5.00%
-5.00% 0.00%

Normal stress [MPa] Normal stress [MPa]

 6 6 of 11

(a) (b)
30.00% 30.00%

Frequency
Frequency

25.00% 15cm sclab 25cm slab

25.00%
20.00% 20.00%
15.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00% 10.00%
0.00% 5.00%
-5.00% <- 5 -3 -1 -1 -3 -5 -7 -9 0 0.00%
>1
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
5 3 1 -1 -3 -5 -7 -9 0
<- 4 - 2 - 0 2 4 6 8 >1
- -
Normal stress [MPa] Normal stress [MPa]
(c) (d)
164 Figure 5. Relative frequency histograms

165

166

167

168

100.00% 100.00%
Frequency

10cm slab
Frequency

80.00% Without retrofit 80.00%

60.00% 60.00%
40.00% 40.00%
20.00% 20.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 0
<- 4 - 2 - 0 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - >1 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 0
- - <- 4 - 2 - 0 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - >1
Normal stress [MPa] - -
Normal stress [MPa]
(a)
(b)
100.00% 100.00%
Frequency

Frequency

15cm sclab 25cm slab

80.00% 80.00%
60.00% 60.00%
40.00% 40.00%
20.00% 20.00%
0.00% 0.00%
5 3 0 5 3 1 -1 -3 -5 -7 -9 0
<- 4 - -1 -1 -3 -5 -7 -9 >1 <- 4 - 2 - >1
- -2 0 2 4 6 8 - - 0 2 4 6 8
Normal stress [MPa] Normal stress [MPa]
(c) (b)
169 Figure 6. Cumulative frequency histograms

170 By analyzing the histograms above, it can be considered that the law of distribution of
171 probability is similar to the lognormal distribution for both the bending moments and
172 displacements results. In a lognormal distribution, the density of probability function, respectively
173 the cumulative distribution functions are defined as follows:
2
- ( ln x -μ )
1 2
174 fX (x )= ⋅ e 2 ⋅σ , (4)
x ⋅ √ 2⋅ π ⋅σ
 7 7 of 11

175 F X ( x ) =Φ ( lnσ x -μ ) , (5)

176 where x is the point in which the function is calculated, μ represents the average of the ln x values,
177 σ represents the standard deviation of the ln x values and is the cumulative distribution function
178 for the normal standard distribution which is determined by the following relationship:
1 2
- x
2
179 e (6)
Φ= ,
√2 ⋅π
180 The maximum stress levels according to the characteristic group of the service limit state in the
181 bottom fiber of the marginal girder were calculated in the middle of the span for each, accounting
182 for staged construction and dynamic effects of the convoys. The extreme values, as well as a
183 partition of the values obtained over intervals can be found in table 1 and Figure 7 respectivelly.

184 Table 1. Extreme stress values in the bottom fiber.

Normal stress Without

10cm slab 15 cm slab 25cm slab
[MPa] retrofit
Minimum -3.071 -5.75 -4.78 -2.78
Maximum 12.331 6.52 6.42 6.47
185 1
compression is considered negative, and tension positive

186
187
188
189
70.00%
Without retrofit
60.00% 10cm slab
Frequency

50.00% 15cm sclab

40.00% 25cm slab
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
<-3 -3 - 2 -2 - 2 2-7 >7
Normal stress [MPa]
190

191 Figure 7. Frequency of normal stress in the bottom fiber over intervals

192 The maximum acceptable tension in the concrete for class C32/40 is 3.2MPa, according to
193 Romanian national appendix. Most of the values for the stress are situated between -3 and 2 MPa,
194 so the structure checks out for most load models, but there is a significant percent of values above
195 this limit.
196 The maximum vertical displacements calculated in the middle of the span for the marginal
197 girder were only considered from the actions given by the traffic loads. The extreme values, as well
198 as a partition of the values obtained over intervals can be found in table 2 bellow and Figure 8
199 respectivelly.

200 Table 2. Extreme vertical displacement values.

Vertical Without 10cm slab 15 cm slab 25cm slab

displacement retrofit
 8 8 of 11

[mm]
Minimum 3.001 2.27 2.00 1.66
Maximum 34.181 25.78 22.56 18.61
201 1
positive values indicate lowering of the girder

90.00%
Without retrofit
80.00%
10cm slab
70.00%
Frequency 60.00% 15cm sclab
50.00% 25cm slab
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
<1 1 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 >30
Displacement [mm]
202

203 Figure 8. Frequency of vertical displacements over intervals

204 4. Discussion
205 Following the performed analyses on the considered bridge it can be concluded that the values
206 of the stresses in the bottom extreme fibers of the marginal precast beam based on the bending
207 moments in the middle of the span and the values of the vertical displacements in the same section
208 follow a distribution function close to the lognormal one. Based on the obtained results one can see
209 that in terms of stresses, presented in table 3, the structure is vulnerable if it is not strengthened and
210 shows an acceptable level of safety after the retrofitting process. The values of the reliability are in
211 the range 4.29-8.37%, Figure 10, for the retrofitted structure and the most efficient solution appear to
212 be the one with 10cm thick concrete slab above the precast beams. This result can be explained by
213 the fact that this thickness ensure a balance between the permanent and live loads acting on the
214 structure. By overloading the bridge, during the retrofitting process, by a thicker slab, will decrease
215 the solution efficiency with respect to the live load actions.
20.00% Without
18.00% retrofit
Probability density [%]

10cm slab
16.00%
15cm slab
14.00%
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
-15.00
-12.50
-10.00
-7.50
-5.00
-2.50

10.00
12.50
15.00
0.00
2.50
5.00
7.50

Normal stress [MPa]

216

217 Figure 9. Probability density functions for normal stress in the bottom fiber

218 Table 3. Stress comparison of retrofitting solutions.

Without
10cm slab 15 cm slab 25cm slab
retrofit
 9 9 of 11

Probability of
35.73% 95.71% 95.01% 91.63%
nonexceedence
Reliability 64.27% 4.29% 4.99% 8.27%
219

Probability density/Reliability [%]

100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
Without
60.00% retrofit
10cm slab
50.00% 15cm slab
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
-15.00
-12.50
-10.00

10.00
12.50
15.00
-7.50
-5.00
-2.50
0.00
2.50
5.00
7.50
Normal stress [MPa]
220

221 Figure 10. Cumulative distribution function and reliability for normal stress in the bottom fiber

222 In terms of vertical displacements, the values of reliability are extremely small for the
223 retrofitted bridge, in the range 0.39-1.68%, in this case the solution with a 25cm slab showing a
224 better behavior. This fact is normal assuming a higher value of the bending stiffness of the bridge
225 superstructure. Even the non-retrofitted bridge shows a satisfactory behavior in terms of
226 displacements. A comparison of the values in terms of reliability is shown in table 4 and Figure 12.
227
20.00%
18.00%
Probability density [%]

16.00% Without
retrofit
14.00%
10cm slab
12.00% 15cm slab
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
10.00
12.50
15.00
17.50
20.00
22.50
25.00
27.50
30.00
32.50
35.00
37.50
0.00
2.50
5.00
7.50

Displacement [mm]
228

229 Figure 11. Probability density functions for vertical displacements

230 Table 4. Vertical displacements comparison of retrofitting solutions.

Without
10cm slab 15 cm slab 25cm slab
retrofit
Probability of 92.23% 98.32% 99.05% 99.61%
 10 10 of 11

nonexceedence
Reliability 7.77% 1.68% 0.95% 0.39%

Probability density/Reliability [%]

100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
Without
60.00% retrofit
10cm slab
50.00% 15cm slab
40.00% 25cm slab

30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
10.00
12.50
15.00
17.50
20.00
22.50
25.00
27.50
30.00
32.50
35.00
37.50
0.00
2.50
5.00
7.50

Displacement [mm]
231

232 Figure 12. Cumulative distribution functions and reliability for vertical displacements

233 5. Conclusions
234 The purpose of study presented in this paper was to analyze the vulnerability of existing road
235 bridges in Romania following the action of the actual vehicles/convoys, which are different with
236 respect to those used for the initial design. The study presents for comparison the safety levels of
237 the initial non-retrofitted structure, but also of the retrofitted structure using different values for the
238 thickness of the concrete slab above the prestressed beams. The vulnerability of the analyzed
239 structures was described through the values of the reliability, by considering as response values the
240 values of the stresses in the bottom extreme fibers of the marginal precast beam and the vertical
241 displacements in the middle of the span. The limit values were chosen those obtained in the design
242 stage using the vehicles A30 and V80 both described in the Romanian norms used at that time.
243 For a more realistic study the traffic measurements are necessary and on this base, the values
244 of the reliability for the existing bridges can be established. Following such analyses the necessity of
245 the use of an intervention plan for bringing the bridges at the safety level from the design stage can
246 be established.

247 References
248 1. Lungu, D.; Ghiocel, D., Probabilistic methods in the analysis of structures. Publisher: Technical Publishing
249 House, Bucharest, Romania, 1982.
250 2. Vamvatsikos, D.; Cornell, C.A,. Incremental Dynamic Analysis., Earthquake Engineering and Structural
251 Dynamics EESD-JIAEE, Volume 31 Issue 3, 2002.
252 3. Aviram, A.; Mackie, K.R.; Stojadinović, B., Guidelines for Nonlinear Analysis of Bridges Structures in
253 California. In Peer Report 2008/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Country, 2007,
254 University of California, Berkeley, 2008.
255 4. Annan, C.D.; Youssef, M.A.; El Naggar, M.H., Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Modular Steel Bridges.
256 JEE, Volume 13 Issue 8, 2009.
257 5. Joint Research Centre, Guidelines for deriving seismic fragility functions of elements at risk: buildings, lifelines,
258 transportation networks and critical facilities, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, SYNER-G Reference Report
259 4, 2013.
260 6. Mai, C.V.; Sudret, B.; Mackie, K.R., Stojadinovic B., Konakli K., Non-parametric fragility curves for bridges
261 using recorded ground motions, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics,
262 EURODYN 2014, Porto, Portugal, 30 June - 2 July 2014.
 11 11 of 11

263 7. Moreu, F.; Spencer, B.F. Jr., Framework for consequence-based management and safety of railroad bridge
264 infrastructure using wireless smart sensors (WSS), The Newmark Structural Engineering Laboratory (NSEL)
265 of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois, NSEL Report
266 Series, Report No. NSEL-041, June 2015.
267 8. Shirazi, R.S., Seismic Response and Analytical Fragility Functions for Curved Concrete Box-Girder Bridges,
268 University of Nevada, Reno, December 2015.
269 9. Chen, S.; Chen, L., Earthquake fragility assessment of curved and skewed bridges in mountain West region,
270 Mountain-Plains Consortium, 2016.
271 10. Vitanova, M.; Hristovski, V., Analytical fragility curves for typical bridges in Republic of Macedonia, 4th
272 11. International Conference “Contemporary achievements in civil engineering”, Subotica, SERBIA, 22. April
273 2016.
274 12. Nguyen, D.D.; Lee, T.H., Seismic fragility curves of bridge piers accounting for ground motions in Korea, IOP
275 Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science, CUTE 2018, 2018.
276 13. Dagá, J.; Chamorro, A.; De Solminihac, H.; Echaveguren, T., Development of fragility curves for road bridges
277 exposed to volcanic lahars, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2018.
278 14. Perdomo, C.; Monteiro, R.; Sucuoğlu, H., Development of fragility curves for multi-span RC bridges using
279 generalized pushover analysis, IABSE Symposium 2019, IABSE Symposium Report Volume 114, Guimaraes,
280 Portugal, 27-29 March 2019.
281 15. Praseetha, K.; Sirajuddin, M., Fragility curves in dynamic analysis of bridges under hazardous loading,
282 International journal of current engineering and scientific research, Volume-6, Issue-5, 2019.
283 16. Yuan, L.F.V.; Argyroudis, S.A.; Tubaldi, E.; Pregnolato, M.; Mitoulis, S.A., Fragility of bridges exposed to
284 multiple hazards and impact on transport network resilience, Conference “Earthquake risk and engineering
285 toward a resilient world”, Greenwich, London, 9-10 September 2019.
286 17. Wang, W.; Wu, F.; Wang, Z., Revising seismic vulnerability of bridges based on bayesian updating method to
287 evaluate traffic capacity of bridges, MDPI- Sustainability, 2020.
288 18. Garavaglia, E.; Pavani, R.; Sgambi, L., The use of fragility curves in the life-cycle assessment of deteriorating
289 bridge structures, MDPI-computation, 2021.