MULTI-SCALE

RELIABILITY AND
SERVICEABILITY
ASSESSMENT OF
IN-SERVICE LONG-
SPAN BRIDGES
 MULTI-SCALE
RELIABILITY AND
SERVICEABILITY
ASSESSMENT OF
IN-SERVICE LONG-
SPAN BRIDGES

NAIWEI LU AND MOHAMMAD NOORI

MOMENTUM PRESS, LLC, NEW YORK

Multi-scale Reliability and Serviceability Assessment of In-service
Long-span Bridges

Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2018.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—­
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for
brief quotations, not to exceed 400 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.

First published by Momentum Press®, LLC

222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.momentumpress.net

ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-338-7 (print)

ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-339-4 (e-book)

Momentum Press Sustainable Structural Systems Collection

Collection ISSN: 2376-5119 (print)

Collection ISSN: 2376-5127 (electronic)

Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd.,

Chennai, India

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Printed in the United States of America

 Abstract

A large number of long-span bridges are under construction or have been

constructed all over the world. The steady increase in traffic volume and
gross vehicle weight has caused a threat to the serviceability or even safety
of in-service bridges. Therefore, ensuring the safety and serviceability of
these bridges has become a growing concern. In particular, long-span sus-
pension bridges support heavy traffic volumes and experience consider-
able wind loads on the bridge deck on a regular basis. Excessive dynamic
responses may cause large deformation and undesirable vibration of the
stiffening girders. In practice, a bridge suffers from multiple types of
loadings in the lifecycle. In this book, a multiscale reliability method
is presented for the safety assessment of long-span bridges. The multi-
scale failure condition of stiffness girders is the first-passage criteria for
the large-scale model and the fatigue damage criteria for the small-scale
model. It is the objective of this book to provide a more in-depth under-
standing of the vehicle-bridge interaction from the random vibration per-
spective. This book is suitable for adoption as a text book or a reference
book in an advanced structural reliability analysis course. Furthermore,
this book also provides a theoretical foundation for better understand-
ing of the safety assessment, operation management, maintenance and
reinforcement for long-span bridges and motivates further research and
development for more advanced reliability and serviceability assessment
techniques for long-span bridges.

KEYWORDS

bridge engineering, dynamics, fatigue damage, reliability evaluation,

traffic load
 Contents

List of Figures xi

List of Tables xvii

Acknowledgments xix
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Significance 1
1.2 State-of-the-art Review 4
References8
2 Fatigue Reliability Assessment of Welded Steel Bridge
Decks Under Stochastic Truck Loads  13
2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Stochastic Fatigue Truck Load Model 16
2.3 Computational Framework of Probabilistic Modeling 21
2.4 Limit State Function of Fatigue Damage Accumulation 25
2.5 Case Study 27
2.6 Results and Discussion 36
2.7 Conclusions 39
References40
3 First-Passage Probability of the Deflection of a
Cable-Stayed Bridge Under Long-term Site-Specific
Traffic Loading 45
3.1 Introduction 45
3.2 Stochastic Traffic Load Simulation Based on WIM
­Measurements 47
3.3 Methodology 50
viii  •   Contents

3.4  Case Study 54

3.5 Conclusions 60
References61
4 Dynamic Reliability Evaluation of the Serviceability
of Cable-Supported Bridges Under Site-Specific Heavy
Traffic Loads 65
4.1 Introduction 65
4.2 Traffic–Bridge Interaction Formulation 68
4.3 Methodology of Probabilistic Modeling of the Extreme
Traffic Load Effects 70
4.4 Probabilistic Modeling of the Traffic Load Effects on Two
Cable-supported Bridges Using WIM Measurements 74
4.5 Dynamic Reliability Evaluation of the Bridge Deflection
­Serviceability 81
4.6 Conclusions 85
References86
5 Lifetime Deflections of Long-Span Bridges Under
Dynamic and Growing Traffic Load 89
5.1 Introduction 89
5.2 Theoretical Bases of the Traffic-bridge Interaction and
Rice’s Formula 92
5.3 Methodology of Evaluating Maximum Load Effects
­Considering Interval Traffic Growth 95
5.4 A Computational Framework of Extrapolating the
Maximum Load Effect FF Long-Span Bridges 98
5.5 Verification Examples 100
5.6 Case Study 104
5.7 Conclusions 114
References115
6 System Reliability Evaluation of in-Service Cable-Stayed
Bridges Subject to Cable Degradation Via a Machine
Learning Based Tool 119
6.1 Introduction 119
6.2 Formulations of Cable Degradation 121
6.3 Framework of System Reliability Evaluation 124
 Contents   •   ix

6.4 Program Implementation of the Framework 127

6.5 Case Studies 128
6.6 Conclusions 137
References138
About the Authors 141
Index 143
 List of Figures

Figure 1.1.  Suspension bridge collapse caused by the combined

effect of winds and vehicles. 3
Figure 2.1.  Fatigue truck load models in the design specifications:
(a) AASHTO with GVW of 240 kN; (b) Eurocode 1
with GVW of 480 kN. 17
Figure 2.2.   PDFs of: (a) GVW of V6; (b) AW64. 
19
Figure 2.3.  Simulated stochastic fatigue truck loads in:
(a) slow lane; (b) fast lane. 20
Figure 2.4.   Proposed computational framework. 21
Figure 2.5.  Dimensions of a steel box-girder: (a) cross section;
(b) U-rib. 28
Figure 2.6.  Finite element model of a half-segment steel
box-girder.28
Figure 2.7.  Stress influence lines of welded joints in two types
of finite element models. 29
Figure 2.8.  Stress–time histories under the V6 truck loads for the
welded joints of: (a) rib-to-deck joint; (b) butt joint
of U-rib. 30
Figure 2.9.  Response surfaces for the 2rd type of vehicle with the
training sample of: (a) U10; (b) U20. 31
Figure 2.10. Comparison between the SVR predictions
with FEA results. 32
Figure 2.11. PDFs of the equivalent fatigue stress in the
rib-to-deck joints of: (a) slow lane; (b) fast lane. 33
Figure 2.12. PDFs of the equivalent number of daily cycles for:
(a) slow lane; (b) fast lane. 35
Figure 2.13.  Fatigue reliability indices of the rib-to-deck joint. 37
xii  •   List of Figures

Figure 2.14. Fatigue reliability indices taking into account the

linear annul growth factors of: (a) traffic volume;
(b) vehicle weight. 38
Figure 3.1.  Probability densities of the traffic flow: (a) proportions
of vehicle types; (b) the time-variant vehicle density;
(c) ADTT; (d) vehicle spacing of the busy traffic flow. 49
Figure 3.2.  Histograms and PDFs of the 6-axle: (a) axle weight;
and (b) GVW. 50
Figure 3.3.  Simulated stochastic traffic loads: (a) the present case;
and (b) the 100th year. 51
Figure 3.4.   Description of Rice’s level crossing theory. 51
Figure 3.5.  Computational framework for first-passage reliability
evaluation of a long-span bridge under traffic loading. 54
Figure 3.6.   Dimensions of a cable-stayed bridge. 55
Figure 3.7.  Finite element model of the cable-stayed bridge. 55
Figure 3.8.  Displacement influence lines of the critical points
of the bridge. 56
Figure 3.9.  Displacement histories of the critical points of
the bridge. 56
Figure 3.10.  Up-crossing histograms and fittings. 56
Figure 3.11. Tail fittings of the extreme load effects on Gamble
paper.57
Figure 3.12. Extrapolated maximum displacements during the
service period with consideration of (a) growth rate
of ADTT; (b) growth rate of GVW. 58
Figure 3.13. Influence of the traffic growth on the first-passage
probability of failure. 59
Figure 3.14. Influence of the threshold overload ratio on the
probability of failure. 59
Figure 4.1.  Physical model of a 2-axle truck: (a) elevation view;
(b) side view. 69
Figure 4.2.  Basis of Rice’s level-crossing theory: (a) crossings;
(b) fitting to the crossings. 71
Figure 4.3.  Flow chart of the computational framework
computational for extrapolation of maximum traffic
load effects. 73
Figure 4.4.  Histograms and PDFs of the 6-axle truck: (a) vehicle
spacing (b) GVWs. 76
 List of Figures   •   xiii

Figure 4.5.  A critical traffic loading scenario identified from the

stochastic traffic-load model. 76
Figure 4.6.  The first vertical mode shapes and dimensions:
(a) cable-stayed bridge; (b) suspension bridge. 77
Figure 4.7.  Deflection histories of the critical points under
one-hour dense traffic loading: (a) cable stayed bridge;
(b) suspension bridge. 78
Figure 4.8.  Statistical characteristics of the two cable-supported
bridges: (a) the mean value; (b) the standard deviation. 79
Figure 4.9.  Deflection histories of the critical traffic loading on the:
(a) cable-stayed bridge; (b) suspension bridge. 80
Figure 4.10. Histograms and Rice’s fittings of the number of level
crossings.81
Figure 4.11.  Extrapolation of the extreme traffic load deflections. 81
Figure 4.12. Probability of failure of the critical girder duo to
displacement up-crossing. 83
Figure 4.13. Influence of growth rate of ADTT on the probability of
failure.83
Figure 4.14. Influence of the threshold of overloading ratio on the
probability of failure. 84
Figure 5.1.  Physical models of a 2-axle truck: (a) elevation view;
(b) side view. 93
Figure 5.2.  Basic principles of Rice’s formula: (a) level crossings;
(b) fitting to the crossings. 94
Figure 5.3.  An interval traffic growth model: (a) interval ADTTs;
(b) a series system model. 96
Figure 5.4.  Flowchart of the proposed computational framework
for the lifetime maximum traffic load effect
extrapolation.99
Figure 5.5.  Analytical results of the first example: (a) annual
crossing rates; (b) daily maxima and fittings
on Gumbel paper. 102
Figure 5.6.   An idealized long-span bridge and crossing vehicles. 103
Figure 5.7.  Analytical results of the second examples: (a) annual
crossing rates; (b) daily maxima and fittings plotted
on Gumbel paper. 104
Figure 5.8.  Statistics of the WIM measurements: (a) hourly traffic
volume; (b) truck spacing of the busy traffic flow. 106
xiv  •   List of Figures

Figure 5.9.  Finite-element model and dimensions of the

suspension bridge. 107
Figure 5.10.  Deflection histories of critical points of the girder
under a 2-axle truck load. 108
Figure 5.11.  An example of identifying the critical loading scenario:
(a) a daily deflection history; (b) a critical loading
scenario. 109
Figure 5.12. An example to show the different between the numbers
of crossings of static and dynamic histories. 110
Figure 5.13.  Histograms and fittings of the numbers of crossings. 110
Figure 5.14. Extrapolations of the maximum deflections
considering the RRC. 111
Figure 5.15. Time-variant level-crossing rates accounting for
traffic growth. 112
Figure 5.16. Extrapolation of the lifetime maximum deflection
accounting for traffic growth. 112
Figure 5.17. Probabilistic assessment of the bridge deflection
under growing traffic loads: (a) CDFs plotted on
Gamble paper; (b) probability of exceedance. 113
Figure 6.1.   A parallel–series system of a stay cable. 122
Figure 6.2.  Strength coefficients of a stay cable due to fatigue and
corrosion effects. 123
Figure 6.3.   Flowchart of the proposed computational framework. 126
Figure 6.4.  Flowchart of the complex structural reliability analysis
software.127
Figure 6.5.  Dimensions and failure modes of a short-span
cable-stayed bridge. 128
Figure 6.6.  Event trees of the cable-stayed bridge: (a) without
cable degradation; (b) with a cable degradation
coefficient of 20%. 130
Figure 6.7.  System reliability index of the cable-stayed bridge
subject to cable degradation. 132
Figure 6.8.  Dimensions of the long-span cable-stayed bridge:
(a) elevation layout; (b) longitudinal layout. 133
Figure 6.9.  Finite element model of the cable-stayed bridge. 134
Figure 6.10. Response histories of the critical points subject to
sudden rupture of the Cm34 cable: (a) cable forces;
(b) bending moments. 135
 List of Figures   •   xv

Figure 6.11. Response surfaces of the Cm33 cable force due to

Cm34 rupture. 135
Figure 6.12. Event trees of the long-span cable-stayed bridge:
(a) T = 0 year; (b) T = 20 years. 136
Figure 6.13. System reliability indices of the cable stayed bridge
subject to cable degradation. 137
 List of Tables

Table 2.1. Vehicle classifications 18

Table 2.2. Parameters of S-N curves in the Eurocode 3 (2005)
specification 26
Table 2.3. Parameters in the GMMs of Δσre 34
Table 2.4. Statistics of the random variables in the limit state
function36
Table 2.5. Fatigue life predication for the rib-to-deck joint
taking into account traffic growth factors 38
Table 3.1. Overview of the WIM measurements 48
Table 4.1. Overview of WIM measurements 75
Table 4.2. Bridge deflection limits 82
Table 5.1. Overview of the filtered WIM measurements 105
Table 5.2. The first five order mode frequencies of the
suspension bridge 107
Table 6.1. Properties of the fourth longest stay cables 133
 Acknowledgments

This book was supported by the National Basic Research Program

(973 program) of China (Grant 2015CB057705), the National Science
Foundation of China (Grant 51378081), the Hunan Natural Science
­Funding (2018JJ3540), and the funding in Hunan Province Engineering
Laboratory of Bridge Structure (16KD03). The book funding provided for
the Changsha University of Science & Technology and the Construction
Project of Preponderant Discipline of Jiangsu Universities in Southeast
University is highly appreciated.
In addition, the authors would like to sincerely express their appre-
ciation to the following researchers: Dr. Yuan Luo, who has c­ ontributed
to Chapter 2; Dr. Yafei Ma, who has contributed to Chapter 3; and
Dr. Qinyong Wang, who has contributed to Chapter 4; Dr. Fanghuai
Chen, who has contributed to Chapter 5; and Ms. Ying Chen, who has
Contributed to Chapter 6. The help from the authors’ research team is also
highly appreciated.
Finally, the first author would like to appreciate his parameters and
the cute wife for their unconditional love and dedication, and to give the
book as a gift for the forthcoming little baby.
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Bridges are usually subjected to harsh environmental effects and complex

loading conditions. These effects may subsequently result in changes in
the structural behavior, dynamic characteristics and resistance of a bridge
during its life-time. These important changes that need to be better under-
stood are time variant phenomena [1]. For most existing bridges, support-
ing continuous traffic loads is the basic function. However, in addition to
this load, bridges are also exposed to environmental [2], as well as various
other complex loads, that are mostly random in nature, such as earthquake,
flow-included loadings, wind and so on. All these loading conditions need
to be considered and must satisfy the design criteria. In recent years, rapid
growth of urban systems and the sprawling of large cities, have resulted in
significant increase in traffic volume and the corresponding vehicle weight
on bridges. This new phenomenon, which for most part may not have
accounted for when most bridges were originally constructed, has resulted
in a threat to the safety of bridges [3]. The most frequent causes of bridge
failures were attributed to overloading due to vehicles, besides floods and
scouring [4]. The vehicle overloading is the main human factor resulting
in shortening the service life and even directly causing collapse of bridges
in most counties [5]. In addition to the overloading vehicles, dynamic
problems of long-span bridges have become increasingly significant with
the increment in bridge span and flexibility. The sensitivity to dynamic
wind actions increases with the reduction of modal frequencies [6]. As it
can be seen from the earlier literatures, safety problems of existing bridges
caused by vehicle loads due to sustainable growths of traffic volume and
strong winds are becoming serious issues with the fast development of
urban areas. Therefore, the safety assessment of bridges is extremely
important. If more accurate and more reliable safety assessment meth-
odologies can be developed, it facilitates intervention strategies such as
2  •   BRIDGE RELIABILITY AND SERVICEABILITY

maintenance and reinforcement, which could be adopted to maintain the

performance over certain thresholds according to the safety assessment
results. Furthermore, since most bridges are throat of the traffic systems,
their safety assurance is the foundation of economic development and the
safety and reliability of infrastructure systems.
Suspension, as well as cable stayed, bridges, in particular, are widely
used in highways crossing gorges, rivers, and gulfs, due to their supe-
rior advantages such as mechanical properties, large spanning ability,
and appealing aesthetic appearance. The number and the span of the sus-
pension bridges are increasing gradually along with the advancements of
computational capabilities and the construction technology. However, the
safe performance of these long-span suspension bridges are facing numer-
ous threats such as suffering from the incremental gross vehicle loads,
strong winds, and other natural disasters [7]. There are numerous struc-
tural, mechanical and loading characteristic differences between suspen-
sion bridges and other short-span bridges, such as higher traffic volume,
simultaneous presence of multiple vehicles, sensitivity to wind load, and
inherent nonlinearities [8]. The basic load combination methods, that are
based on the currently used design codes and deterministic analysis meth-
ods may not be suitable for the safety assessment of suspension bridges,
since interactions between the bridge, the loadings, and the environ-
mental factors are ignored in the current analysis methods. On the other
hand, the randomness of these loadings is not appropriately considered.
Furthermore, the environmental conditions of suspension bridges during
their life-time are usually harsh which means that, (1) suspension bridges
are normally located in throat position of highways where busy traffic flow
and heavy vehicles usually emerge, (2) the environmental surroundings
of suspension bridges produce strong winds which may cause a harsh
structural vibration [9]. The large deformation and strong vibration caused
by the increasing vehicle load and strong wind load directly threaten the
safety of bridges and comfort of passengers [10]. Two famous suspension
bridges that collapsed as a result of wind and vehicle load are shown in
Figure 1.1. These historical cases demonstrate the root cause of these cata-
strophic failures which was the result of design flaws by ignoring influence
of multiple loads on bridge dynamic responses. Considering that the two
most important and common live loads acting on a bridge, namely the traf-
fic flow and the wind load, that are the main cause of a bridge failure, are
inherently stochastic in nature, demonstrates the random vibration analysis
of suspension bridge girders possesses great significance for better under-
standing the probabilistic dynamic reliability assessment. Random vibra-
tion analysis of suspension bridge girders possesses great significance for
 Introduction   •  3

(a) Tacoma bridge collapse (b) Maitong bridge collapse

Figure 1.1.  Suspension bridge collapse caused by the combined effect of

winds and vehicles.

better understanding the probabilistic dynamic performance of suspension

bridges. Furthermore, the corresponding dynamic reliability assessment
for in service suspension bridges or similar long-span bridges can provide
theoretical foundation for safety evaluation, operations management, and
maintenance of these bridges.
There are interactions among the bridge, the wind, and the vehicle
since they work together as a system. The impact factor pattern may not
replace the bridge real responses considering the previous interaction sys-
tem [11]. There are three main contents for the interaction among wind,
bridge, and the vehicles [12]. First, there are interactions between vehicles
and the bridge which means that the moving vehicles and road roughness
excitation lead to the bridge vibration which changes the vehicle vibration
subsequently. Turbulent wind loads generate buffeting force on bridges,
which directly change the transient vehicle-bridge coupled vibration.
Finally, the vehicle changes the aerodynamic wind speed. In the proba-
bilistic domain, the stochastic traffic flow and wind load possess promi-
nent randomness and correlation. Furthermore, these loads on nonlinear
suspension bridge structure, the interaction system will cause random
vibration. In conclusion, the safety evaluation of suspension bridges under
combined effect of traffic flow and wind contains two contents: Multi-
load and bridge interaction analysis and the dynamic reliability evaluation
based on random vibration.
In addition to violent vibration of large-scale girders, cumulative
fatigue damage of girder details is another important issue that should not
be ignored. Orthotropic plate which is usually used in steel box girders of
suspension bridges possesses a complex structure and is sensitive to weld-
ing residual stress and construction quality. The stiffness and fatigue life
will deteriorate under the long-term live loads such as vehicle loads and
wind loads [13]. In fact, many bridges suffer a “sudden collapse” during
4  •   BRIDGE RELIABILITY AND SERVICEABILITY

the operating period. This phenomenon can be interpreted as the stiffness

and load-carrying capacity degeneration caused by fatigue damage and
the environmental influence. On this basis, internal forces of several key
components reach their limits under extreme events, and then lead to the
collapse. Above all, a comprehensive understanding of fatigue damage
and random vibration for the purpose of evaluating the dynamic reliability
is more realistic.
The overall objective of this book is to introduce the development of
a comprehensive framework for multi-scale dynamic reliability estima-
tion of suspension bridges under stochastic traffic flows and wind loads.
The framework will contain stochastic traffic flows and winds simulation,
finite element modeling, first-passage reliability based on random vibra-
tion, fatigue reliability based on the criterion of accumulative damage.
Authors hope and envision that the concepts and the approaches presented
in this book will provide a better understanding of traffic-wind-bridge
interaction system in probabilistic domain. Furthermore, it can provide a
theoretical foundation for safety assessment, operation management, and
maintenance and reinforcement for long-span bridges.

1.2 STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW

1.2.1 DYNAMIC PERFORMANCE OF LONG-SPAN BRIDGES

UNDER VEHICLE AND WIND LOADS

The literature review related to this important topic, presented in this

section, will provide a necessary and historical background on the devel-
opments of live loads characteristics, vehicle-bridge interaction, and the
wind induced vehicle-bridge interaction.
Compared with short-span bridges, long-span bridges exhibit unique
features such as higher traffic volume, simultaneous presence of multiple
vehicles, and sensitivity to strong wind excitations. Wind loads and vehi-
cle loads are two main continuous variable loads for long-span in-service
bridges. As stated earlier, stochastic traffic flow should be considered in
the analysis of long-span bridges since the random loading caused due
to traffic flow results in a direct and severe vibration of bridges, com-
pared with, and in contrast to, the transient vibration of a single vehicle.
Regarding the probabilistic model of vehicles, the weigh-in-motion (WIM)
technology has been used in the statistical analysis of vehicle character-
istics such as vehicle speed, axle weight, and vehicle type [14]. Usually,
Monte Carlo simulation approach has been adopted to simulate a similar
 Introduction   •  5

stochastic traffic flow with consideration of probability of vehicle type,

axle weight, vehicle distance, and vehicle speed [15]. A comprehensive
Monte Carlo simulation method for free-flowing traffic was presented and
demonstrated by measuring the data of five European highway bridges
[16]. In order to model the vehicle state more realistically, a cellular auto-
mation based traffic flow simulation technique was proposed to simulate
the stochastic live load from traffic for long-span bridges [17].
Research work on the topic of the interaction between vehicles and
bridges originated in the middle of the 20th century. In the beginning, the
vehicle loads were modeled as a constantly moving force, moving mass,
or moving mass-spring. Further progress in this research area led to a fully
computerized approach for assembling equations of motions of coupled
vehicle-bridge, which was proposed by modeling the vehicles as a com-
bination of a number of rigid bodies connected by a series of springs and
dampers [18]. On this basis, a 3-D simulation approach including a 3-D
suspension vehicle model and a 3-D dynamic bridge model was devel-
oped (Shi et al. 2008). The current AASHTO specifications (2010) defined
the dynamic effects duo to moving vehicles by impact factors attributed
to hammering effect and road roughness. The road roughness could be
assumed as a zero-mean stationary Gaussian random process and it could
be generated through an inverse Fourier transformation (Wang and Huang
1992). It was later shown that the foundation settlement and other envi-
ronmental factors would affect the bridge-vehicle interaction due to the
shape of deck [19].
Without considering wind dynamic impacts on the vehicles, the
dynamic wheel load will be underestimated by about 6 to 11 percent [20].
Considering the wind excitations, the vehicle-bridge interaction is more
prominent and complex, and large body of research has been carried out
on vehicle-wind-bridge interaction. A comprehensive framework regard-
ing vehicle-wind-bridge dynamic analysis of coupled 3-D was first pre-
sented by Cai and Chen, [21]. In their framework, a series of vehicles
consisting of different numbers and different types of vehicles driving on
bridges under hurricane-induced strong winds was included. Based on that
framework an equivalent dynamic wheel load (EDWL) approach and the
CA traffic simulation were adopted to analyze the dynamic performance
of long-span bridges under combined loads of stochastic traffic and wind
excitations [22]. A reasonable framework to replicate probabilistic traf-
fic flow, characterize the dynamic interaction and assess the structural
performance under strong wind and heavy traffic was presented to study
the probabilistic dynamic behavior of long-span bridges under extreme
events [23].
6  •   BRIDGE RELIABILITY AND SERVICEABILITY

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, very limited and scarce research
work has been reported in the literature on the probabilistic dynamic anal-
ysis of long-span bridges subjected to combined stochastic traffic and
wind excitations, which is extremely important for the safety of long-span
bridges. Furthermore, most dynamic analyses reported in this area have
focused on time domain analysis, because of the nature of time-varying
differential equations in the interaction system, while very limited devel-
opments have been done in the frequency domain. However, incorporat-
ing the random vibration in the aforementioned coupled system, which
requires and necessitates the use of spectral analysis, is more important
and results in more valuable information in the frequency domain.

1.2.2 FIRST-PASSAGE RELIABILITY THEORY AND

APPLICATIONS TO ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

First-passage principle and fatigue damage principle are two main assump-
tions for structural dynamic reliability evaluation. The first-passage reli-
ability can be described as estimating the probability that a random process
exceeds a prescribed threshold during an interval of time. Knowledge of
this probability is essential for estimating the reliability of a structural
dynamic system whose response is a stochastic process. The fatigue dam-
age criterion should be adopted for the accumulated fatigue damage at
the critical regions of a structure such as connections and joints. This
topic will be discussed in more details in the next section. The classical
first-passage criterion was originally proposed by Rice [24] based on the
random vibration and extreme value distribution theory. Mathematical
formulations for the number of times that the structural responses cross
the limits were also established by Rice. A well-known crossing process
is the Rayleigh distribution as the extreme value distribution of a nar-
row-banded Gaussian stochastic process. The Poisson’s assumption and
the Vanmarcke’s assumption were widely used for general stochastic pro-
cesses in engineering structure [25]. However, these assumptions come
more from intuition or empirical approaches, rather than from theoreti-
cal basis. For this reason, several researchers developed approaches for
the improvement of the assumptions that were based on empirical work.
A joint first-passage probability method was proposed to evaluate the
reliability of linear engineering systems composed of several interdepen-
dent components by Song and Der [26]. For nonlinear dynamic systems,
Cai and Lin [27], investigated the first passage problem using stochastic
averaging. Noori, et al. [28] introduced the first-passage study of a highly
 Introduction   •  7

nonlinear hysteretic system using quasi-conservative stochastic averag-

ing. Bucher and Macke [29], introduced the solutions to the first-passage
problem by importance sampling. A probability density evolution method
which was capable of capturing the instantaneous PDF and its evolution
of the responses was developed by Chen and Li [30].
Applications of first-passage reliability to engineering structures are
very interesting since safety assessment and design can be put forward
to guarantee the structural safety. Park and Ang [31] assessed the prob-
ability of damage for a reinforced concrete structure under the seismic
load. Zhang et al. [32] adopted a pseudo-excitation method and a precise
integration method to compute the non-stationary random response of 3-D
train-bridge systems subjects to lateral horizontal earthquakes. Significant
progress in structural reliability evaluation has been achieved in the last
decades utilizing nonlinear stochastic structural dynamics [33]. Xiang
and Zhao et al. [34] evaluated bridge structural reliability considering the
vehicle-bridge dynamic interaction, where the reliability evaluation method
is the traditional static reliability method which ignores the dynamic ran-
dom vibration of the bridge caused by the road surface roughness and the
bridge-vehicle interaction. Dynamic reliability approach should be consid-
ered to estimate the reliability since a dynamic reliability based analysis
incorporates the random vibration theory and the effect of bridge-vehicle
interactions caused by the random traffic flow are considered.
In bridge engineering, the first-passage reliability method is suit-
able for the safety assessment of existing bridges under vehicle loads.
However, limited work has been done on this issue. Therefore, the pur-
pose of the preset book is to meet this need and fill the gap in this respect.
A framework of evaluating first-passage reliability of long-span suspen-
sion bridges under stochastic traffic flow and wind loads will be presented.

1.2.3 FATIGUE RELIABILITY OF STEEL BOX-GIRDER

BRIDGES

Long-span steel bridges are vulnerable to repeated loads caused by traffic,

wind, gust, and the changing environment. These combined effects can
lead to complex modes of fatigue failure. Fatigue is one of the main forms
of deterioration for structures and can be a typical failure mode due to an
accumulation of damage. Numerous research work has been carried out on
fatigue failure modes, evolution mechanism, and fatigue life assessment
based on numerical simulation, laboratory experiment, and site test. The
two main deterministic analysis methods in this regard are: stress-based
8  •   BRIDGE RELIABILITY AND SERVICEABILITY

approach (S-N curve approach) and linear elastic fracture mechanics

(LEFM) approaches which are applicable to different analyses strategies
[35, 36]. The size effect is considered in the LEFM and is suitable for
structures with initial defects, however, the S-N curve method involves an
abstract model of the fatigue damage, and does not include the analysis
of the crack-tip stress field. Yes, it is widely used in various applications
[37]. Both deterministic and probabilistic procedures have been applied
to estimate the fatigue damage of structures. Since the major load causing
the fatigue of steel bridges is vehicle load, which is a strong stochastic
process, fatigue reliability evaluation has resulted in increasing research
studies in this area. The basic approach utilized in fatigue research stud-
ies of steel bridges under traffic load is to obtain the stress ranges which
are widely used for fatigue analysis of steel bridges. Numerical analy-
sis based on finite element method (FEM) and the condition assessment
method based on the long-term structural health monitoring (SHM) are
commonly used to analyze the structure and obtain the fatigue stress. Chen
[38] assessed fatigue reliability of Tingma Bridge under multi-loadings
based on an SHM system. Zhang et al. 2012 [39, 40, 41], presented a com-
prehensive framework for fatigue reliability estimation of bridges under
combined dynamic loads from vehicles and wind. Guo et al. [42] proposed
an advanced traffic load model taking into account the uncertainties asso-
ciated with the number of axles, axle spacing, and axle weights. Wang et
al. [43] combined the SHM and FEM to assess fatigue reliability of girder
components for long-span cable-stayed bridges. Deng et al. [44] developed
a long-term monitoring data based fatigue reliability assessment method
and applied that to welded details in the steel box girder of Runyang
Yangtze river bridge. Kwon and Frangopol [45] integrated fatigue reliabil-
ity model, crack growth model, and probability of the detection model for
fatigue assessment and management of existing bridges.

REFERENCES

[1] Xie, H., Y. Wang, H. Wu, and Z. Li. 2014. “Condition Assessment of
Existing RC Highway Bridges in China Based on SIE2011.” Journal
of Bridge Engineering 19, no. 12, 04014053. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
BE.1943-5592.0000633
[2] Frangopol, D.M., and M. Soliman. 2015. “Life-cycle of Structural
Systems: Recent Achievements and Future Directions[J].” Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering 12, no. 1, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732
479.2014.999794
 Introduction   •  9

[3] Han, W., J. Wu, C.S. Cai, and S. Chen. 2014. “Characteristics and Dynamic
Impact of Overloaded Extra Heavy Trucks on Typical Highway Bridges[J].”
Journal of Bridge Engineering 20, no. 2, p. 05014011.
[4] Wardhana, K., and F.C. Hadipriono. 2003. “Analysis of Recent Bridge
Failures in the United States[J].” Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities 17, no. 3, pp. 144–50.
[5] Deng, L., W. Wang, and Y. Yu. 2015. “State-of-the-Art Review on the
Causes and Mechanisms of Bridge Collapse[J].” Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities 30, no. 2, p. 04015005.
[6] Xing, C., H. Wang, A. Li, and Y. Xu. 2013. “Study on Wind-induced
Vibration Control of a Long-span Cable-stayed Bridge Using TMD-type
Counterweight [J].” Journal of Bridge Engineering 19, no. 1, pp. 141–48.
[7] Brownjohn, J.M.W. 1997. “Vibration Characteristics of a Suspension
Footbridge[J].” Journal of Sound and Vibration 202, no. 1, pp. 29–46.
[8] Cai, C.S., J. Hu, S. Chen, Y. Han, W. Zhang, and X. Kong. 2015. “A Coupled
Wind-vehicle-bridge System and its Applications: A Review[J].” Wind and
Structures 20, no. 2, pp. 117–42.
[9] Li, Y., P. Hu, C.S. Cai, M. Zhang, and S. Qiang. 2012. “Wind Tunnel Study
of a Sudden Change of Train Wind Loads Due to the Wind Shielding Effects
of Bridge Towers and Passing Trains[J].” Journal of Engineering Mechanics
139, no. 9, pp. 1249–59.
[10] Aktan, A.E., D.N. Farhey, D.L. Brown, V. Dalal, A.J. Helmicki, V.J. Hunt,
and S.J. Shelley. 1996. “Condition Assessment for Bridge Management[J].”
Journal of Infrastructure Systems 2, no. 3, pp. 108–17.
[11] Deng, L., Y. Yu, Q. Zou, and C. Cai. 2015. “State-of-the-Art Review of
Dynamic Impact Factors of Highway Bridges.” Journal of Bridge Engineering
20, no. 5, 04014080. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000672
[12] Chen, S.R., and J. Wu. 2009. “Dynamic Performance Simulation of Long-
span Bridge Under Combined Loads of Stochastic Traffic and Wind[J].”
Journal of Bridge Engineering 15, no. 3, pp. 219–30.
[13] Hao, S. 2009. “I-35W Bridge Collapse[J].” Journal of Bridge Engineering
15, no. 5, pp. 608–14.
[14] Morales-Nápoles, O., and R.D.J.M. Steenbergen. 2015. “Large-Scale Hybrid
Bayesian Network for Traffic Load Modeling from Weigh-in-Motion System
Data[J].” Journal of Bridge Engineering 20, no. 1, pp. 591–99.
[15] Schadschneider, A. 2002. “Traffic Flow: A Statistical Physics Point of
View[J].” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 313, no. 1,
pp. 153–87.
[16] Enright, B., and E.J. O’Brien. 2013. “Monte Carlo Simulation of Extreme
Traffic Loading on Short and Medium Span Bridges[J].” Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering 9, no. 12, pp. 1267–82.
[17] Chen, S.R., and J. Wu. 2011. “Modeling Stochastic Live Load for Long-
span Bridge Based on Microscopic Traffic Flow Simulation[J].” Computers
& Structures 89, no. 9, pp. 813–24.
10   •   BRIDGE RELIABILITY AND SERVICEABILITY

[18] Guo, W.H., and Y.L. Xu. 2001. “Fully Computerized Approach to Study
Cable-stayed Bridge–Vehicle Interaction[J].” Journal of Sound and Vibration
248, no. 4, pp. 745–61.
[19] Ahmari, S., M. Yang, and H. Zhong. 2015. “Dynamic Interaction Between
Vehicle and Bridge Deck Subjected to Support Settlement[J].” Engineering
Structures 84, pp. 172–83.
[20] Chen, S.R., and J. Wu. 2010. “Dynamic Performance Simulation of Long-
span Bridge Under Combined Loads of Stochastic Traffic and Wind[J].”
Journal of Bridge Engineering 15, no. 3, pp. 219–30.
[21] Cai, C.S., and S.R. Chen. 2004. “Framework of Vehicle–bridge–wind
Dynamic Analysis[J].” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 92, no. 7, pp. 579–607.
[22] Chen, S.R., and C.S. Cai. 2007. “Equivalent Wheel Load Approach for
Slender Cable-stayed Bridge Fatigue Assessment Under Traffic and Wind:
Feasibility Study[J].” Journal of Bridge Engineering 12, no. 6, pp. 755–64.
[23] Wu, J., and S.R. Chen. 2011. “Probabilistic Dynamic Behavior of a Long-
span Bridge Under Extreme Events[J].” Engineering Structures 33, no. 5,
pp. 1657–65.
[24] Rice, S.O. 1945. “Mathematical Analysis of Random Noise[J].” Bell System
Technical Journal 24, no. 1, pp. 46–156.
[25] Vanmarcke, E.H. 1975. “On the Distribution of the First-Passage Time for
Normal Stationary Random Process[J].” Journal of Application Mechanics
42, pp. 215–20.
[26] Song, J., and A. Der Kiureghian. 2006. “Joint First-Passage Probability and
Reliability of Systems Under Stochastic Excitation.” Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 132, no. 1, pp. 65–77.
[27] Cai, G.Q., and Y.K. Lin. 1994. “On Statistics of First-passage Failure[J].”
Journal of Applied Mechanics 61, no. 1, pp. 93–99.
[28] Noori, M., M. Dimentberg, Z. Hou, R. Christodoulidou, and A. Alexandrou.
1995. “First-passage Study and Stationary Response Analysis of a
BWB Hysteresis Model Using Quasi-conservative Stochastic Averaging
Method[J].” Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 10, no. 3, pp. 161–70.
[29] Macke, M., and C. Bucher. 2003. “Importance Sampling for Randomly
Excited Dynamical Systems[J].” Journal of Sound and Vibration 268, no.
2, pp. 269–90.
[30] Chen, J.B., and J. Li. 2007. “The Extreme Value Distribution and Dynamic
Reliability Analysis of Nonlinear Structures with Uncertain Parameters[J].”
Structural Safety 29, no. 2, pp. 77–93.
[31] Park, Y.J., and A.H.S. Ang. 1985. “Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model
for Reinforced Concrete[J].” Journal of Structural Engineering 111, no. 4,
pp. 722–39.
[32] Zhang, Z.C., J.H. Lin, Y.H. Zhang, Y. Zhao, W.P. Howson, and F.W. Williams.
2010. “Non-stationary Random Vibration Analysis for Train–bridge Systems
Subjected to Horizontal Earthquakes[J].” Engineering Structures 32, no. 11,
pp. 3571–82.
 Introduction   •   11

[33] Balafas, K., and A.S. Kiremidjian. 2015. “Reliability Assessment of the
Rotation Algorithm for Earthquake Damage Estimation[J].” Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering 11, no. 1, pp. 51–62.
[34] Xiang, T., R. Zhao, and T. Xu. 2007. “Reliability Evaluation of Vehicle–
bridge Dynamic Interaction[J].” Journal of structural Engineering 133,
no. 8, pp. 1092–99.
[35] Guo, T., and Y.W. Chen. 2013. “Fatigue Reliability Analysis of Steel
Bridge Details Based on Field-monitored Data and Linear Elastic Fracture
Mechanics[J].” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 9, no. 5,
pp. 496–505.
[36] Chen, N.Z., G. Wang, and C. Guedes Soares. 2011. “Palmgren–Miner’s
Rule and Fracture Mechanics-Based Inspection Planning[J].” Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 78, no. 18, pp. 3166–82.
[37] Sim, H.B., and C.M. Uang. 2012. “Stress Analyses and Parametric Study on
Full-scale Fatigue Tests of Rib-to-deck Welded Joints in Steel Orthotropic
Decks[J].” Journal of Bridge Engineering 17, no. 5, pp. 765–73.
[38] Chen, Z.W., Y.L. Xu, and X.M. Wang. 2011. “SHMS-based Fatigue
Reliability Analysis of Multiloading Suspension Bridges[J].” Journal of
Structural Engineering 138, no. 3, pp. 299–307.
[39] Zhang, W., C.S. Cai, and F. Pan. 2012. “Fatigue Reliability Assessment
for Long-span Bridges Under Combined Dynamic Loads from Winds and
Vehicles[J].” Journal of Bridge Engineering 18, no. 8, pp. 735–47.
[40] Zhang, W., C.S. Cai, F. Pan, and Y. Zhang. 2014. “Fatigue Life Estimation
of Existing Bridges Under Vehicle and Non-stationary Hurricane Wind[J].”
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 133, pp. 135–45.
[41] Zhang, W., C.S. Cai, and F. Pan. 2013. “Nonlinear Fatigue Damage
Assessment of Existing Bridges Considering Progressively Deteriorated
Road Conditions[J].” Engineering Structures 56, pp. 1922–32.
[42] Guo, T., D.M. Frangopol, and Y. Chen. 2012. “Fatigue Reliability Assessment
of Steel Bridge Details Integrating Weigh-in-motion Data and Probabilistic
Finite Element Analysis[J].” Computers & Structures 112, pp. 245–57.
[43] Wang, Y., Z.X. Li, and A.Q. Li. 2010. “Combined Use of SHMS and Finite
Element Strain Data for Assessing the Fatigue Reliability Index of Girder
Components in Long-span Cable-stayed Bridge[J].” Theoretical and Applied
Fracture Mechanics 54, no. 2, pp. 127–36.
[44] Deng, Y., Y.L. Ding, A.Q. Li, and G. Zhou. 2011. “Fatigue Reliability
Assessment for Bridge Welded Details Using Long-term Monitoring
Data[J].” Science China Technological Sciences 54, no. 12, pp. 3371–81.
[45] Kwon, K., and D.M. Frangopol. 2011. “Bridge Fatigue Assessment and
Management Using Reliability-based Crack Growth and Probability of
Detection Models[J].” Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 26, no. 3,
pp. 471–80.
 Index
A proposed framework, 125–127
Adaptive support vector regression
(ASVR) approach, 120
ADR. See Assessment dynamic
ratio
ADTT. See Average daily truck
traffic (ADTT)
AGR. See Annual growth rate
Annual growth rate (AGR), 95–96
Assessment dynamic ratio (ADR),
66, 90
Average daily truck traffic
(ADTT), 82–84
B traffic load effects, probabilistic
Bridge deflection serviceability,
81–82
C
Cable degradation
description of, 119
formulations
cable strength, 122–123
strength model, parallel wire
cable, 121–122
Cable-stayed bridges
advantages of, 119
definition of, 119
finite element model, 55
long-span, 132–137
mechanical behavior
investigation, 120
short-span, 128–132
structural system characteristics
of, 124–125
CDF. See Cumulative distribution
function
Computational framework
deterministic finite element-
based simulation, 22–23
extrapolating maximum load
effects, 98–100
first-passage probability, 53–54
probabilistic modeling, 23–24
proposed framework, 21–22
modeling, 72–74
Cumulative distribution function
(CDF), 52, 95
D
DAFs. See Dynamic amplification
factors
Deflection extrapolation,
102–104
Deterministic finite element-based
simulation, 22–23
Dynamic amplification factors
(DAFs), 91
Dynamic reliability evaluation
bridge deflection serviceability,
81–82
parametric studies, 82–84
144   •   Index
E results and interpretations,
Engineering structures, first-
passage reliability theory, 6–7
Equivalent dynamic wheel load
(EDWL) approach, 5, 92–93
Extrapolated maximum
displacements, 57–58
Extrapolating maximum load
effects, 98–100
F 48–50
Fatigue damage accumulation,
25–27
Fatigue reliability
case study
hot spot stress simulation,
27–30
probabilistic analysis, 30–36
computational framework
deterministic finite element-
based simulation, 22–23
probabilistic modeling, 23–24
proposed framework, 21–22
results and discussion, 36–39
steel box-girder bridges, 7–8
stochastic fatigue truck load
model
currently used, 16–17
in design specifications,
16–17
proposed, 17–20
simulated, 19–20
Fatigue stress spectrum
finite element analysis, 14
structural health monitoring, 14
FEA. See Finite element analysis
Finite element analysis (FEA), 14
Finite element model, cable-stayed
bridge, 55
First-passage probability
case study
bridge details, 54
probabilistic modeling, traffic
load effects, 54–57
57–60
description of, 45–47
importance of, 52–53
proposed computational
framework, 53–54
Rice’s level crossing theory,
50–52
stochastic traffic load simulation
Monte Carlo simulation,
weigh-in-motion
measurements, 47–48
First-passage reliability theory,
6–7
G
Gaussian mixture models
(GMMs), 19, 24
Gaussian random process, 94
Generalized extreme value (GEV)
theory, 90–91
GMMs. See Gaussian mixture
models
Gross vehicle weight (GVW),
18–19
GVW. See Gross vehicle weight
H
Hot spot stress simulation, 27–30
I
Individual GVW extrapolation,
101–102
Interval traffic growth model
annual growth rate, 95–96
lifetime maximum deflection
assessment, 111–114
Rice’s extrapolation accounting,
96–98
K
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S)
statistics, 94
 Index   •   145

L computational framework,
LEFM. See Linear elastic fracture
mechanics
Lifetime maximum deflection
assessment, 111–114
Limit state function, 25–27, 36
Linear elastic fracture mechanics
(LEFM), 8
Long-span bridges
case study
extreme deflection, dynamic
traffic loads, 106–111
lifetime maximum deflection
assessment, 111–114
weigh-in-motion
measurements, 105–106
deflection extrapolation,
102–104
dynamic performance of, 4–6
serviceability of, 89
traffic loading behavior, 90–91
Long-span cable-stayed bridge,
132–137
M
Monte Carlo simulation
for long-span bridges, 4–5
stochastic traffic load simulation,
48–50
N Simplified traffic-bridge
Nonstationary traffic load effects,
90
P S-N (stress-life) curve approach,
Parallel wire cable strength model,
121–122
Parametric studies, 82–84
PDFs. See Probability density
functions
Probabilistic analysis, 30–36
Probabilistic modeling, 23–24
first-passage probability, 54–57
traffic load effects, 54–57
72–74
Rice’s level-crossing formula,
70–72
on two cable-supported bridges
probabilistic estimation,
77–81
stochastic traffic load
simulation, WIM
measurements, 74–76
Probability density functions
(PDFs), 18, 35
R
Rice formula, 93–95
Rice’s extrapolation accounting,
96–98
Rice’s level-crossing formula,
70–72
Rice’s level crossing theory, 50–52
Road-roughness coefficient (RRC),
93
RRC. See Road-roughness
coefficient
S
SHM. See Structural health
monitoring
Short-span cable-stayed bridge,
128–132
interaction formulation, 69–70
Simulated stochastic fatigue truck
load model, 19–20
25–26
Steel box-girder bridges, 7–8
Steel girders, 13
Stochastic fatigue truck load
model
currently used, 16–17
in design specifications, 16–17
proposed, 17–20
simulated, 19–20
146   •   Index
Stochastic traffic load simulation
Monte Carlo simulation, 48–50
on two cable-supported bridges,
74–76
weigh-in-motion (WIM)
measurements, 47–48
Stress-based approach, 7–8
Structural health monitoring
(SHM)
fatigue stress spectrum, 14
weigh-in-motion (WIM) system,
90
Suspension bridges
case study
hot spot stress simulation,
27–30
probabilistic analysis, 30–36
collapse and sudden collapse,
2–4
description of, 1–2
dynamic reliability assessment,
3 102–104
environmental conditions of, 2
System reliability evaluation
adaptive support vector
regression (ASVR) approach,
120
cable-stayed bridges
proposed framework,
125–127
structural system
characteristics, 124–125
case studies
long-span cable-stayed
bridge, 132–137
short-span cable-stayed
bridge, 128–132
program implementation,
127–128
T
Theoretical formulation
Rice formula, 93–95
traffic-bridge interaction, 92–93
Traffic-bridge interaction, 92–93
Traffic-bridge interaction
formulation
simplified, 69–70
vehicle-bridge interaction (VBI)
system, 68–69
V
Vehicle-bridge interaction (VBI)
system, 68–69
Vehicle loads, 4
Verification examples
deflection extrapolation,
idealized long-span bridge,
individual GVW extrapolation,
101–102
W
Weigh-in-motion (WIM)
measurements
long-span bridges, 105–106
stochastic fatigue truck load
model, 15–16
stochastic traffic load simulation,
47–48
Wind loads, 4
Z
Zero-mean stochastic process, 53