Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1408–1416

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Probability based modelling and assessment of an existing post-tensioned

concrete slab bridge
A. O’ Connor a,∗ , Ib Enevoldsen b
a Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
b Ramboll Consulting Engineers, Virum, Denmark

Received 18 December 2006; received in revised form 5 July 2007; accepted 13 July 2007
Available online 10 September 2007

Abstract

This paper presents the application of probabilistic techniques to the load capacity assessment of a post-tensioned concrete slab bridge which
was built in 1959 outside Copenhagen. The bridge failed to demonstrate the required capacity following a deterministic assessment and as such
was deemed to require repair or replacement. Following the Danish Roads Directorates stated policy of performing probabilistic assessment,
where deemed beneficial, prior to repairing or replacing, the structure was probabilistically assessed according to the newly developed Danish
guideline for Reliability Based Classification of the Load Carrying Capacity of Existing Bridges. The paper presents the techniques employed
in modelling the critical limit state, as well as the statistical techniques employed in modelling loads, resistance and associated uncertainties.
Ultimately, the structure was shown to have sufficient load carrying capacity and as such the scenario of expensive repairs or replacement was
avoided, with significant financial benefits to the bridge owner.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bridge; Probabilistic assessment; Traffic modelling; Load effect; Stochastic

1. Introduction deterministic assessment to identify the critical limit state

A common problem among bridge owners/managers is the
need to reduce spending whilst attempting to operate and
maintain an increasingly ageing bridge stock. In response to
this challenge the past decade has seen increased interest
by European bridge owners and managers in the use of
probabilistic methods for the assessment/management of
their bridges. Employed once a deterministic assessment of
a structure has rendered a repair/rehabilitate/replace now
scenario, the methods have been demonstrated to provide
significant cost savings where the required safety of the
structure can be demonstrated by probabilistic methods.
The basic principle is to derive a bridge specific code and
consequently a bridge specific safety rating. This involves
statistical modelling of load and resistance parameters obtained
through on-site measurements and from as-built drawings.
Updating of these models may be performed where additional
information is available. The first stage of the process involves
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 18961822; fax: +353 16773072.
E-mail address: alan.oconnor@tcd.ie (A. O’ Connor).
for the structure. This deterministic assessment is performed
according to the generalised rules and using generalised
partial factors provided by assessment codes. Next a bridge
specific probabilistic assessment free from the aforementioned
generalisations results in the determination of a formal
probability of failure, p f , for the structure at the critical limit
state. Comparison of the calculated p f with that specified
by legal requirements and demonstration that it exceeds these
requirements is deemed sufficient to validate the safety of the
structure. It is important to stress that at no stage is the safety
of the structure compromised rather it is optimised through
the provision of an bridge specific ‘individualised’ safety
rating free from the imposed generalisations of deterministic
assessment codes which must necessarily be conservative in
order to be widely applicable.
The policy of the DRD has for the past number of years been
to perform probability based assessment, where it is deemed
to be beneficial, on any structure which failed to demonstrate
sufficient load carrying capacity by deterministic means. The
policy has proven extremely beneficial financially through

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.023
 A. O’ Connor, I. Enevoldsen / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1408–1416
Table 1
Bridge classification under 4 passage types for case considered
Passage type Class
Normal passage 80
Conditional passage I 150
Conditional passage II 175
Conditional passage III 200
the avoidance of unnecessary repair/replacement of structures
which had been classed deficient following deterministic
assessment but which are demonstrated to have sufficient
capacity in a probabilistic assessment.
The following paper presents through example the use
of the probabilistic techniques in the assessment of a post-
tensioned concrete slab bridge. The structure failed to achieve
the required load rating for the motorway network in a
deterministic assessment and as such was proposed for
probabilistic assessment at the controlling limit state. The
assessment is performed according to DRD guideline for
reliability based classification of the load carrying capacity of
existing bridges.
2. Bridge classification in Denmark
In Denmark in recent years considerable effort has been
put into the development of a rigorous methodology for
the assessment and classification of existing bridges under
the control of the Danish Roads Directorate (DRD). The
assessments are mostly dealing with the passage of heavy
vehicles, where a heavy vehicle is defined as a vehicle with a
weight higher than 48 t which needs special permission from
the police. The classification system [1] is based on a set
of standard vehicles representing vehicles with a total weight
ranging from 20 t to 200 t. Fig. 1 illustrates some of the standard
vehicles defined. In a regular deterministic assessment of the
bridge class, a traffic load combination is applied comprising
a standard vehicle of 50 t with a second special permit heavy
vehicle (weight 50–200 t). The resulting bridge class is equal to
the weight in tons of the heaviest standard vehicle in the load
combination. Further bridge classes are analysed for passages
of heavy vehicles with imposed restrictions such as speed limits
and exclusion of other traffic, Table 1.
In line with the outlined classification system, a special
‘blue’ road network has been defined. Inclusion on the
network requires initially that bridges have been assessed
by applying general deterministic methods with elastic
or plastic analysis according to the Danish guideline for
classification of bridges [1]. Where the obtained bridge class
is insufficient (< class 100), traditionally the alternatives of
expensive rehabilitation or replacement have been considered,
following the traditional decision process illustrated in
Fig. 2 (left). As previously discussed, in recent years the
DRD have consistently considered an alternative decision
process, Fig. 2 (right), i.e. probability based approaches,
before an expensive strengthening or rehabilitation project
is implemented. Probability based assessment will in many
cases be fruitful, especially if the bridge has problems with
1409
Passage type definition
No restrictions on vehicle positions on structure, full dynamic factor applied to vehicles.
Vehicles positioned in traffic lanes on structure, full dynamic factor applied to vehicles.
Vehicles positioned in traffic lanes on structure, dynamic factor applied to one vehicle only.
Only heavy vehicle positioned on structure, no dynamic factor applied.
Fig. 1. Standard vehicle silhouettes.
limit states that are believed to be conservatively modelled
according to the deterministic code. If, however, the probability
based assessment is not sufficient for obtaining the required
classification, the strengthening project can be probability
based, which under normal circumstances proves less costly
than a strengthening project based on traditional assessment
methods [2].
In the probability based analysis approach the uncertainties
of the specific individual bridge and the local traffic situation
can be taken into account consistently. These uncertainties
arise from physical uncertainties in the use and identification
of materials, from the load and truck models, from statistical
sources, and finally from the simplification in the structural
evaluation models. Furthermore, bridge specific traffic loads
and traffic frequency can be taken into account. It is obvious
that the chance of a heavy truck meeting another heavy truck is
lower for a bridge with a relatively low heavy truck frequency
than for a bridge with a high heavy truck frequency. This
modelling of limit states and stochastic variables can be used
directly to determine the formal annual probability of failure,
p f , or the directly related reliability index, β, applying standard
techniques such as First Order Reliability Methods (FORM) [3–
5]. Furthermore, the modelling is the core in all the other
probability based safety management applications such as
safety updating due to new information, inspection and test
planning.
The probability based approach is often combined with
advanced response models to fully optimise capacity. The
results of the probability based assessment have often been
found to considerably raise the bridge class achieved from
deterministic assessment [2,6–9]. In many cases, these analyses
1410 A. O’ Connor, I. Enevoldsen / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1408–1416

Fig. 2. Traditional decision process for upgrading of existing bridges (left) and revised decision process including consideration of the probabilistic based approach
(right).

have resulted in a satisfactory bridge class (i.e. >100) thereby

minimising or avoiding strengthening projects. It is important to
stress that at no stage is the safety of the structure compromised;
rather the bridge specific safety is calculated. Therefore, these
methods have proven to be very beneficial for bridge managers
with large cost savings as results.

3. Deterministic assessment of example bridge

The structure, illustrated in Fig. 3, consists of three spans

of 6.39, 17.72 and 6.39 m, giving a total length of 33.88 m
(including side span overhang of 1.69 m). The overpass bridge,
skewed at 62.67◦ carries 4 lanes of traffic, (2 × carriageways
of 2 lanes each plus an accelerating/merging lane) on the
E47 at Sakskøbing, Fig. 4. The width of the structure is 28
m. Transversely the bridge is supported on 10 columns at
spacings of 3.24 m (centre to centre). The main structure
consists of a 0.5 m deep longitudinally post-tensioned slab. Post
tensioning is provided in groups of 8 tendons, with each tendon
composed of 12 No. 7 mm diameter wires. The tendons have
a parabolic profile longitudinally. Mild steel reinforcement is
provided longitudinally and transversely. Shear reinforcement
is not provided in the slab.
A deterministic load carrying capacity analysis of the
structure was performed according to the guidelines set out by
the Danish Roads Directorate and national standards [1,10,11].
A finite element (FE) model of the structure was developed with
the width of modelled deck corresponding to that supported by
6 columns. This width of the structure was reduced to optimise
solver time for the FE model. It was based upon the required
width for positioning of the vehicles and adequate distribution
of the sectional forces. The slab stiffness was modelled as
orthotropic, with E y = 1/5E x, having been calculated as an
appropriate ratio.
The deterministic assessment investigated the capacity of the
structure in terms of (1) plastic bending capacity assessment of
the slab at the Ultimate Limit State (ULS), where assessment of
the foundation forces and bearing capacity was also performed,
(2) shear capacity of the slab at ULS, including punching shear
Fig. 3. Nystedvej bridge elevation.
assessment, and (3) standard SLS checks on deflection, steel
stresses, crack widths etc. Detailed discussion of the results of
deterministic assessment is not provided here.
In normal passage the structure was found to have
insufficient hogging moment capacity at the outermost
column–slab intersection location (indicated on Fig. 4) to
achieve a Class 100 rating. At this location the classification
of the structure was limited to Class 80, i.e. a Class 80
and a Class 50 vehicle side by side on the structure, see
Fig. 1 for vehicle silhouettes. The plastic capacity of the
section was calculated using typical stress–strain relationships
for the concrete, reinforcement and prestressing steel. The
relationships employed for the reinforcing and prestressing
steels are illustrated in Fig. 5. The characteristic concrete
compressive strength was 27.5 MPa, with the maximum (i.e.
strain corresponding to characteristic compressive strength) and
ultimate compressive strains limited to ε y = 0.20% and εult =
0.35% respectively. The characteristic steel strength, f ytk , was
510 MPa as was the assumed value for the characteristic rupture
tensile stress, f utk . The characteristic tensile yield stress of the
second yield point of the prestressing steel, f ptk , was 1422
 A. O’ Connor, I. Enevoldsen / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1408–1416 1411

Fig. 4. Nystedvej bridge plan.

(a) Mild steel. (b) Prestressing steel.

Fig. 5. Modelled reinforcement stress–strain relationships.

MPa, with the first yield point located at k ∗ f ptk = 70% of
f ptk , and the rupture tensile stress, f utk , was 1618 MPa. The
plastic strain from the second yield point of the steel, ε y0t =
0.1%. The safety factors for concrete, mild and prestressing
steel, rupture tensile stress for mild and prestressed steel and E
modulus for mild and prestressed steel were γc = 1.815, γs =
1.43, γu = 1.43 and γ E = 1.43 respectively [11]. Whereas
full development of plastic sectional forces is permitted by
the Danish codes, plastic re-distribution of sectional forces is
limited to 10%–15% for prestressed concrete where sufficient
rotational capacity could be demonstrated.
The classifications calculated for conditional passage types
I, II and III were 150, 175 and 200 respectively, well in excess
of the required Class 100, Table 1. The difference in these
results is explained by the fact that in Normal Passage the
vehicles may theoretically be placed right at the edge of the
slab (in the area indicated as hard shoulder in Fig. 4) while in
conditional passage the vehicles must remain within the marked
driving lanes. The structure considered is significantly wider
than the marked lanes (Fig. 4) with no kerbs preventing traffic
from travelling close to the edge.
The revised decision process outlined in Fig. 2 (right)
suggests that where a structure fails a traditional assessment
that a probability based assessment should only be carried out
where it is likely to result in a beneficial assessment. In the case
of the structure considered, the capacity is well in excess of the
minimum required in all of the conditional passage cases and
it is only in the Normal Passage case that it fails to achieve
the necessary rating. Considering this fact, in addition to the
restrictive partial safety factors employed in the deterministic
assessment, and that the transition from a Class 80 to Class
100 vehicle implies only a 22% increase in the weight of the
controlling axles of the vehicle (i.e. rear group of axles) it
seems that this structure is a good candidate for probabilistic
assessment.
4. Bridge probability based classification
The procedure for the probability based safety assessment
of an existing bridge according to the DRD guideline [12] is
discussed here:
1412 A. O’ Connor, I. Enevoldsen / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1408–1416
4.1. Formal requirements for safety assessment
The first stage in the process is the selection of the
classification case for which the structure is to be considered
(i.e. normal passage or conditional passage based upon the
result of the deterministic assessment), and by implication the
formal requirements for a specific safety assessment. In the case
of the structure considered the required classification is Class
100 in Normal Passage:
4.2. Determine critical limit state violation from deterministic
analysis
The critical limit state identified by deterministic assessment
is exceedance of the ULS slab plastic hogging moment capacity
at the location of the outermost column support in normal
passage. Mathematically exceedance of the flexure limit state
may be described as:
g≤0 where g = Mcap − Mapplied
with: Mcap the moment capacity of the section and Mapplied the
induced moment.
In the probabilistic assessment the ULS plastic bending
capacity of the post-tensioned slab, Mcap , is determined from
randomly generated values of the modelled resistance variables.
In the example considered the governing random variables of
capacity were identified as the characteristic concrete strength,
f cu , and the prestressing steel characteristic strength, f ptk , i.e.
Mcap f cu , f ptk . Dependent upon the section analysed other


variables such as variations in tendon locations at the critical
cross section may also be considered.
In the deterministic assessment, values of the plastic
capacity are determined for discrete values of the resistance
properties of the cross section. To obtain values of Mcap in
the probabilistic analysis, for randomly generated values of the
modelled stochastic variables, a response surface is required.
A response surface is a closed form and differentiable limit
state surface constructed using a polynomial or other suitable
function fitted to the results obtained from a limited number of
discrete numerical analyses [3].
The applied moment:
Mapplied = MDL + MSDL + MLL + Mpar
where MDL represents the moment due to dead load, MSDL
represents the moment due to superimposed dead load MLL
represents the moment due to live load, and Mpar represents
the parasitic prestress moment induced at the critical location.
Discussion of statistical assessment of MDL , MSDL and Mpar is
contained in subsequent sections.
The magnitude of MLL is a function of the randomly
generated vehicle weights and positions on the structure. To
facilitate evaluation of MLL for these random combinations of
weight and location in the probabilistic assessment an influence
surface (i.e. the 2d equivalent of an influence line) is employed.
5. Probabilistic classification and modelling of loads
The following section outlines the modelling of the input
stochastic variables and deterministic parameters, which were
employed to describe the loading on, and resistance of the
structure. First, consideration is given to the required safety
level of the structure.
5.1. Requirements for safety level
The requirement in the ultimate limit state for structural
safety is specified with reference to failure types and failure
consequences, i.e. safety class with requirements for the formal
yearly probability of failure p f . The definition of the safety
index, β, in this regard is taken from the DRD guideline [12].
The safety index, β, is formally defined in terms of the
probability of failure [3–5]:
β = −Φ −1 p f


(3)
for which Φ −1 (·) is the inverse function of the standardised
normal distribution. The guideline specifies values, according
(1) to the type of failure, for a 1-year reference period. Failure Type
I deals with ductile failures with the requirements that an extra
carrying capacity beyond the defined resistance is available, i.e.
in the form of strain hardening, for which βt ≥ 4.26. Failure
Type II includes ductile failure without any extra carrying
capacity, for which βt ≥ 4.75. Failure Type III includes states
of brittle failure and instability failures, for which βt ≥ 5.20.
The failure classes may be directly related to the target lifetime
(50 year) β values specified for ‘great’ consequence of failure
listed in the ISO standard on General Principles on Reliability
for Structures [13] and in Eurocode EN 1990 — Basis for
Structural Design [14].
For the post-tensioned slab bridge deck considered, the
critical limit state, i.e. flexure, represents a ductile failure
mode. The structure is not required to have remaining capacity
following exceedance of the plastic ULS capacity and as such
Failure Type II — Ductile failure without remaining capacity,
which requires βt ≥ 4.75 is specified.
The probability of failure p f (and by implication β) is
computed using the First Order Reliability Method (FORM).
Computation is performed using the proprietary software
package PROBAN [15].
(2) 5.2. Traffic load modelling
For a two-lane short span (or short influence length) bridge,
in the majority of cases the critical loading events in the extreme
occur due to the meeting events between ordinary trucks or
meeting events involving heavy transports with ordinary trucks.
As such the extreme distribution Fmax of the considered load
effect q can be obtained from [16–18]:
Fmax (q) = exp(−(ν1 − ν12 )T (1 − F1 (q)))
· exp(−(ν2 − ν12 )T (1 − F2 (q)))
· exp(−ν12 T (1 − F12 (q))) (4)
where ν1 and ν2 are the intensities (i.e. number vehicles/day)
of the considered traffic in lane 1 and 2, respectively. ν12 is the
intensity of meeting events, i.e. of the considered traffic in both
lanes at the same time, defined as:
 A. O’ Connor, I. Enevoldsen / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1408–1416
 
L 1 + l1 L 2 + l2
ν12 = ν21 = ν1 ν2 + (5)
V1 V2
where L is the influence length, l is the vehicle length and V the
speed, with index 1 or 2 referring to lanes 1 or 2 respectively.
The influence length L is formally defined as the length of the
structure which when loaded contributes to the magnitude of the
sectional force at a specified location (where relieving zones are
excluded from this length).
In Eq. (4) T is the considered reference period for the
extreme distribution (i.e. one traffic year). The distribution
for the load effect in lane 1, F1 (q), lane 2, F2 (q), and
the distribution of load effects due to simultaneous traffic
load in both lanes, F12 (q), must be determined. These three
distributions do, in general, include modelling of (1) the
number, configuration and weight of trucks, (2) the longitudinal
and transverse appearance in bridge lanes (3) the dynamic
amplification of the static truck load, (4) the mechanical models
for the relation between traffic load and traffic load effects and
(5) the relative importance of load in the actual lanes.
Having determined the overall load on the structures, within
the influence length, the Inverse FORM method is employed
to determine the individual vehicle weights in each lane [12].
The overall sectional forces are then determined using the
aforementioned influence surface.
5.3. Stochastic modelling of the traffic load parameters
In the traffic load model, values are entered for the
following: the traffic load of the vehicles, flow rates and
proportions, vehicles transverse location, dynamic impact
factors and model uncertainty for the vehicle weight.
The traffic loading for the heavy transport vehicles is
modelled with an axle configuration equivalent to the class 100
vehicle illustrated in Fig. 1. Studies have demonstrated that
total vehicle weight is well modelled as a normally distributed
stochastic variable [16,19–21]. The expected value for this class
of vehicle has been determined from background studies of
Danish traffic data [19] as 1072 kN. The ordinary transport
vehicle is composed of 6 axles, has a total weight of 520.9 kN
and a prescribed load distribution to the axles [19]. The total
vehicle weight is modelled as a normally distributed stochastic
variable. The standard deviation of 49.1 kN is chosen for all
classes of vehicle so that the relative uncertainty declines with
increasing class [19]. The value was specified as owners are
required to specify vehicle total weights within +/− 8 t with
90% confidence. As a result the given standard deviations are
expected to be conservative in some cases.
The annual frequency of the heavy transport vehicles is
specified dependent upon the road class and vehicle weight.
The daily frequency of ordinary vehicles is determined from
site specific traffic flow records. The cumulative duration of the
day over which trucks are assumed to use the road network in
modelled deterministically as 15 h, a value which is typical of
European motorways [21].
The speeds of the vehicles have an influence on the
likelihood of a meeting event taking place as evidenced by Eq.
(5). Analysis of site specific traffic records demonstrated that
1413
in free flowing conditions (i.e. normal passage) deterministic
modelling of the speed of the special transport and ordinary
transport as 60 km/h and 80 km/h respectively was
conservative, i.e. producing a higher probability of meeting
events.
The transverse location of the vehicles is modelled as a
normally distributed random variable with an expected value
equivalent to the location of the centre of the lane and a
standard deviation of 0.24 m in accordance with the specified
requirements for normal passage [12]. The longitudinal location
is selected, conservatively, as the most severe longitudinal
locations, l1 and l2 , in the two lanes. These longitudinal
locations are taken from the deterministic analysis. The
conservatism of this assumption is demonstrated by the results
of a sensitivity study performed as part of the probabilistic
analysis (δβ/δ parameter) where moving the vehicles a small
distance away from the critical longitudinal location is seen to
considerably increase the computed value of β.
The dynamic factor is modelled as, K s = 1 + ε, where
ε is the dynamic supplement, which for vehicles in normal
passage is modelled as two independent normally distributed
stochastic variables with N (41.5/W ; 41.5/W ), where W is
the total vehicle weight in kN [12]. Modelling the dynamic
amplification factor in this manner implicitly assumes (a) an
inverse proportionality between the dynamic amplification and
vehicle weight and (b) a reduction in the coefficient of variation
(CoV) with increasing weight, which compare well with the
literature [22–24].
Model uncertainty in the traffic load considers the
uncertainty associated with the definition of load itself and
with uncertainty regarding the transformation of the load to
a load effect. The expected value for model uncertainty in
the traffic load is defined in terms of a judgement factor, I f ,
which is multiplied by the load. I f is modelled as normally
distributed with a mean value equal to 1.0 and a coefficient
of variation, VI f , dependent upon the uncertainty associated
with the load model. VI f is taken as 10%, 15% or 20% for a
level of uncertainty, considering the loading, assumed as small,
medium and large respectively [12,25,26]. The uncertainty of
the load model can as a starting point be taken as small for
conditional passage and for the normal passage situations in
which the relative influence of the ordinary traffic on safety is
minor; as medium for normal passage in usual situations and as
large for passage situations solely involving ordinary traffic and
for unusual normal passage situations (e.g. curved ramp bridges
and bridges sensitive to eccentric load). In the case considered,
normal passage, the uncertainty is taken as VI f = 0.15.
5.4. Stochastic modelling of the permanent and quasi-
permanent load effects
The load effect due to permanent loads is modelled as
normally distributed, with a mean value taken as to 1.0
× Permanent Effect and a CoV of 7.1% (i.e. a CoV of
5% is associated with the permanent action itself while the
CoV of the model uncertainty is taken as 5%, the overall
CoV for the permanent effect is therefore computed as =
1414 A. O’ Connor, I. Enevoldsen / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1408–1416

Table 2 structure) that only small variations can arise, (ii) where
Model uncertainty factors [25] attention has been paid to eccentricities, secondary moments,
Accuracy of the calculation model etc., (iii) where the model has been verified for the bridge
in question, or (iv) where an improved model has resulted
Good Normal Poor
V I1 0.04 0.06 0.09 in a reduction of the uncertainty of an important stochastic
ρ1 −0.3 0.0 0.3 variable; (b) Normal calculation accuracy is used in situations
where computation models are used that are generally accepted
Material property deviations
as being in conformity with normal practice and (c) a Poor
Small Medium Large computation model is one that has been excessively simplified
V I2 0.04 0.06 0.09 and does not meet the requirements for a model of normal
ρ2 −0.3 0.0 0.3
accuracy [25].
Material identity The uncertainty associated with determining material
Good Normal Poor parameters is dependent upon the amount of information
V I3 0.04 0.06 0.09 available on the materials of the structure and on the availability
ρ3 −0.3 0.0 0.3 of test results etc.
For uncertainty factors associated with material identity
√ it should be noted that: (a) Good material identity can be
5%2 + 5%2 ). For the variable loads the mean value is taken as
1.0 × Variable Effect with a coefficient of variation including assumed if the identity of the materials has been verified on the
model uncertainty of 11.2% (i.e. surfacing CoV 10%, model bridge or if the identity of materials used subsequently can be
uncertainty CoV 5%). The parasitic moment induced by the documented, (e.g. “as built” drawings); (b) Normally material
prestress is modelled as normally distributed with mean value identity is assumed when the materials are assigned on the basis
equal to 1.0 × Parasitic Effect and a CoV of 7.1% (i.e. CoV 5% of the project material and there is no reason to doubt that the
associated with the parasitic action itself and model uncertainty bridge in question was not built in accordance with the project
CoV of 5%) [25,26]. material and (c) Poor material identity arises when estimated
values are used or where the project material is dubious or
6. Modelling of capacity incomplete [25].

The two strength parameters which are modelled as
stochastic in the analysis are (1) the concrete compressive
strength, f cu and (2) the strength of the prestressing steel, f ptk .
It is important to consider how the effects of model uncertainty
are included with respect to the resistance parameters.
6.1. Model uncertainty for capacity
The model uncertainty takes account of: (1) the accuracy
of the calculation model, I1 , (2) possible deviations from the
strength of material properties in the structure involved as
compared with that derived from control specimens, I2 , and
(3) the degree of control on site (i.e. materials identity), I3 .
The model uncertainty is taken into account by introducing
judgement factors Im related to the material properties. The
judgement factor Im , which is assumed to be log-normally
distributed with a mean value equal to 1.0 and CoV, VIm , is
introduced by multiplying the basic material variables by Im .
VIm , is calculated as [12]:
q 25% higher than the original 28-day strength if the bridge in
VIm = VI21 + VI22 + VI23 + 2 ρ1 VI1 + ρ2 VI2 + ρ3 VI3 · VM


(6)
where the variation and correlation coefficients, VIi and ρi
respectively, are as specified in Table 2, and VM is the CoV
of the basic material variable.
In considering Table 2, for uncertainty factors associated
with the accuracy of the calculation model it should be noted
that: (a) Good computation models can for example be used
(i) where the model is so simple (corresponding to a simple
6.1.1. Concrete compressive strength f cu
The concrete compressive strength is modelled as a
log-normally distributed variable [25,26]. It is specified in
the original 1959 construction drawings with a 28-day
characteristic cube strength σT = 350 kg/cm2 . In the
1949 code [27] to which the structure was designed the
characteristic concrete strength is said to correspond to the
mean compressive strength [12]. In performing an assessment
of an existing structure, it is vital that original documentation,
including design codes at the time of design are consulted as
relationships such as documented here, between characteristic
and mean parameters, whose definition may have changed
with subsequent codes, can prove extremely important. The
cylinder strength σC = 0.8 ∗ σT = 280 kg/cm2 [12]. The
CoV, V fcu (=VM ), is fixed at 0.18 in the background of the
requirements for concrete testing given in [28]. For intact
concrete structures, a deterministic increase in the compressive
strength of the concrete with time can be assumed in the
absence of contra indications. The strength can be taken as
question is over 5 years old [28]. Thus f cu (and by implication
E[ f cu ]) at 28 days may be increased by 25%, whereby 1.25
E[ f cu ] = 29.4 MPa.
Based upon the discussion of the model uncertainties
presented above, the accuracy of the calculation model is
taken as Normal, the uncertainty of the material properties
in construction is classified as Medium while the material
identity is classified as Normal. Thus the coefficient of variation
including model uncertainty is taken as 19.90%. The resulting
standard deviation is 5.85 MPa.
 A. O’ Connor, I. Enevoldsen / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1408–1416
6.1.2. Strength of the prestressing steel f ptk
The strength of the prestressing steel is modelled as a log-
normally distributed variable [26,27]. Test data regarding the
material properties of the prestressing steel for the bridge is
not available. Information contained on the drawings indicates
7 mm wires were used. The guaranteed strength of such
wires is estimated at the 0.1% fractile. From the structural
drawings the characteristic tensile yield stress of the second
yield point of the prestressing steel, f ptk , was 1422 MPa, and
the rupture tensile stress, f utk , was 1618 MPa. The CoV on the
strands at rupture is specified as 4% (=VM ) [29]. Modelling
the variable using a log-normal distribution this corresponds
to an expected value, E[ f ptk ] = 1490 MPa and a standard
deviation of 59.6 MPa. In determining the model uncertainty
the accuracy of the calculation model was taken as Normal,
the uncertainty for the material resistance in the construction
were assumed as Medium and the material identity as Normal.
The CoV including model uncertainty was thus 11.14%. This is
equivalent to a deviation of 165.92 MPa.
7. Classification from safety index analysis
Safety assessment of the carrying capacity of the bridge was
performed probabilistically, at the governing ULS limit state, in
combination with plastic material response models as outlined
above. The analysis returned a safety index β = 5.06 which is
greater than the required value of (βt =) 4.75. It was therefore
concluded that the bridge can receive the classification CLASS
100 for Normal passage. Thereby the rating of Class 80 for
Normal Passage resulting from the deterministic assessment is
revised.
The main reasons behind this revised classification are
considered to be that: (a) the probabilistic live loading model
is more realistic for the structure under consideration, as it
not only takes account of the weights of the vehicles but also
their frequency of occurrence on the individual structure and
the probability of their position on the structure and (b) the
safety based formulation of capacity assessment reduces the
conservatism inherent in the deterministic approach for the
limit state considered.
8. Conclusion
Following a deterministic assessment it was concluded that
strengthening or rehabilitation of the structure presented was
required if the bridge was to be included on the Danish
Motorway Network for heavy transports. A probabilistic
analysis of the structure at the critical limit state identified
by deterministic assessment demonstrated that it did indeed
have the capacity to be included on the Network. The result
represented a significant saving for the bridge owner both in
terms of the direct replacement cost and of the indirect costs,
which would have been incurred in replacing the structure. It is
important to stress once again that at no stage has the safety
of the structure been compromised, rather a bridge specific
safety assessment, free from the generalisations of deterministic
codes, has resulted in considerable savings for the owner.
1415
The Guideline for Reliability Based Classification of
the Load Carrying Capacity of Existing Bridges may be
downloaded (in English) from the website of the Danish Roads
Directorate at http://www.vd.dk.
References
[1] Vejdirektoratet. Beregningsregler for eksisterende broers bæreevne (In
Danish: Guideline for assessment of the load carrying capacity of bridges)
1996.
[2] Jensen FM, Knudsen A, Enevoldsen I, Stoltzner E. In: Ryall MJ,
Parke GAR, Harding JE, editors. Probabilistic-based bridge management
implemented at Skovdiget west bridge. Bridge management, vol. 4.
Thomas Telford; 2002. p. 223–30.
[3] Melchers R. Structural reliability analysis and prediction. 2nd ed. Wiley;
1999.
[4] Madsen HO, Krenk S, Lind NC. Methods of structural safety. Prentice-
Hall; 1986.
[5] Ditlevsen O, Madsen HO. Structural reliability methods. John Wiley;
1996.
[6] Enevoldsen I. Experience with probabilistic-based assessment of bridges.
Structural Engineering International (SEI) 2001;11(4).
[7] Enevoldsen I, Jensen FM. Safety-based bridge management. In:
Proceedings 16th IABSE congress. 2000.
[8] Enevoldsen I, Jensen FM, Bjerrum J. Implementation of safety-based
maintenance management for the sidewalk at Storstroem bridge. In:
Proceedings, IABMAS 2002. first int. conf. on bridge maintenance, safety
and management. 2002.
[9] O’ Connor AJ, Enevoldsen I, Bjerrum J. Probabilistic-based assessment of
the Klovtofte bridges. In: Proceedings, IABMAS 2004. Second int. conf.
on bridge maintenance, safety and management. 2004.
[10] Vejdirektoratet. Beregningsregler for eksisterende broers bæreevne.
Revision. (In Danish: Guideline for assessment of the load carrying
capacity of bridges - Revision) 2002.
[11] DS411:1999. Norm for betonkonstruktioner, Dansk Standard, 1999. (In
Danish: Design code for concrete structures) 1999.
[12] Vejdirektoratet. Beregningsregler for pålidelighedsbaseret klassificering
for eksistende broer. (In Danish: Guideline for reliability based
classification of the load carrying capacity of existing bridges) 2004.
Download http://www.vd.dk.
[13] ISO 2394. General principles on reliability for structures. 2nd ed. 1998.
[14] EN 1990:2002. Eurocode – Basis for structural design. CEN; 2002.
[15] DNV Software. Veritasvejen 1, PO Box 300, N-1332 Hovik, Norway;
2006 (http://www.dnv.com).
[16] O’ Connor A, O’ Brien E. Mathematical traffic load modelling and factors
influencing the accuracy of predicted extremes. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering 2005;32:270–8.
[17] Ditlevsen O. Traffic loads on large bridges modeled as white noise fields.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1994;120(4):681–94.
[18] Ditlevsen O, Madsen HO. Stochastic vehicle queue load model for large
bridges. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1994;120(9):1829–47.
[19] Vejdirektoratet. Karakteristisk Trafilkast i Danmark, Totalvaegt og
Akseltryk af Koretojer i Danmark. (In Danish: Characteristic traffic loads
in Denmark, total weight and axle weights of vehicles in Denmark) 2001.
[20] Jacob BA. Methods for the prediction of extreme vehicular loads and
load effects on bridges. Report of Subgroup 8, Eurocode 1.3, LCPC Paris.
1991.
[21] O’ Connor AJ. Probabilistic traffic load modelling for highway bridges,
Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, Trinity College Dublin;
2001.
[22] Kirkegaard PH, Nielsen SRK, Enevoldsen I. Heavy vehicles on minor
highway bridges – dynamic modelling of vehicles and bridges. Structural
reliability theory paper no. 171. Aalborg University, ISSN 1395-7953-
R9721. 1997.
[23] Hwang E-S, Nowak AS. Simulation of dynamic loads on bridges. Journal
of Structural Engineering 1991;119(6):853–67.
1416 A. O’ Connor, I. Enevoldsen / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1408–1416
[24] Nassif HH, Nowak AS. Dynamic loads for girder bridges under normal
traffic. Archives of Civil Engineering 1996;XIII(4).
[25] Nordisk Komité for Bygningsbestemmelser. Retningslinier for last-
og sikkerhedsbestemmelser for bærende konstruktioner. NKB-rapport
nr. 35. The Nordic Committee on Building Regulations. (In Danish:
Recommendations for loading- and safety regulations for structural
design) 1978.
[26] Nordisk Komité for Bygningsbestemmelser. Retningslinier for last- og
sikkerhedsbestemmelser for bærende konstruktioner. NKB-rapport nr.
55. The Nordic Committee on Building Regulations. (In Danish:
Recommendations for loading- and safety regulations for structural
design) 1987.
[27] DS411:1949. Norm for betonkonstruktioner, Dansk Standard, 1949. (In
Danish: Design Code for Concrete structures) 1949.
[28] Poulsen PE. Vurdering af betons styrke ved provning af udborende
kerner. Rapport no. 75:64. Ren og Anvendt Mekanik, Danmarks
Ingeniorakademi, Bygningsafdelingen. (In Danish: Evaluation of concrete
strength from core tests) 1975.
[29] Jensen GC, Olsen K. Teknisk Stabi, 14. udgave, Teknisk Forlag. (In
Danish: Technical guideline) 1976.