Lee Presentation

Sustainable Development in Bridge
Engineering: Development of Multi- g g p

Hazard Design Guidelines
George C. Lee
SUNY Distinguished Professor
University at Buffalo y
Buffalo, NY 14260
November 29, 2010
Quotation Quotation
Sustainability is a condition of existence
which enables the present generation of which enables the present generation of
humans and other species to enjoy social well
being, a vibrant economy, and a healthy
environment, and to experience fulfillment,
beauty and joy, without compromising the
bilit f f t ti f h d ability of future generations of humans and
other species to enjoy the same.
Sir George Porter August 26 1973 Sir George Porter August 26, 1973
Quotation Quotation
Achieving sustainable development is perhaps
one of the most difficult and one of the most one of the most difficult and one of the most
pressing goals we face. It requires on the part
of all of us commitment, action, partnerships
and, sometimes, sacrifices of our traditional life
pattern and personal interests.
Abraham Lincoln, 1864
Sustainable Development in Bridge
E i i D l t f M lti Engineering: Development of Multi-
Hazard Design Guidelines g
Role of structural engineering Role of structural engineering
in sustainable development is
illustrated by an example example of bridge
engineering research project. g g p j
OOOutline Outline
1 Introduction 1. Introduction
2. Structural Design of Bridges in US 2. Structural Design of Bridges in US
3. Development of Multi-Hazard LRFD
Progress Report
4 Summary 4. Summary
Introduction Introduction
Sustainability An Emerging
Multidisciplinary Field Multidisciplinary Field
A emerging field in science and engineering
To achieve reasonable balance among
economic, environmental and societal
objectives objectives
A significant component of sustainable
development is EDUCATION. development is EDUCATION .
Introduction (contd)
Sustainability and Structural Engineering Sustainability and Structural Engineering
Structural Engineering Emphases
Safety
Serviceability
C t Cost
Other
Sustainability Emphases (examples) Sustainability Emphases (examples)
Environment/ecosystems quality
Natural resources conservation Natural resources conservation
Integrated consideration of present and future
Other
Sustainability and Structural Engineering Sustainability and Structural Engineering
Energy Consumption in US
Buildings 40%
Industry 32%
Transportation 28% Transportation 28%
Construction Waste:
M th 50% i t More than 50% is concrete.
Issues in Design Codes
M ti f t Many over-conservative features
Some unsafe features
Sustainability and Structural Engineering (contd)
I I l i St t l D i I I l i St t l D i Issues Involving Structural Design Issues Involving Structural Design
Demand Capacity p y
Demand involves all types of long term and short
term load effects term load effects.
Capacity involves materials, analysis methods,
failure modes, life cycle cost and sustainability
issues (e.g. reuse, retrofit and reuse, recycle,
construction methods, energy, environmental
quality, etc.) quality, etc.)
Sustainable design requires holistic consideration.
Sustainability and Structural Engineering (contd)
I I l i St t l D i I I l i St t l D i Issues Involving Structural Design Issues Involving Structural Design
Demand Capacity p y
How to set reasonable level of demand,
especially on extreme hazard load effects? especially on extreme hazard load effects?
How to design a structure that fails at a load
level just exceeds the demand ? level just exceeds the demand ?
Is no collapse a reasonable seismic
design criterion from the sustainability design criterion from the sustainability
perspective?
Structural Design of Bridges in US g g
Load and Resistance Factors Design (LRFD)
approach calibrated for non-extreme loads
Individual design guidelines for various g g
extreme hazard loads under development
Recent MCEER initiative to develop all- Recent MCEER initiative to develop all
hazard LRFD to achieve fully reliability-based
design guidelines g g
Structural Design of Bridges in US (contd)
Current LRFD specifications for basic bridge
t t l t (5th Editi 2010) structural components (5th Edition 2010) was
initially adopted by American Association of
Highway and Transportation Officials Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) in 1994.
Fully calibrated for dead load and live load y
only
Since then development of LRFD for other
t f b id t h b aspects of bridge systems have been
initiated.
LRFD (contd)
Significance of AASHTO LRFD Significance of AASHTO LRFD
ASD (LFD) and LRFD have virtually
identical design limit state equation identical design limit state equation
based on load intensities.
|R> E Q |R> E
i
Q
i
where R = resistance | = resistance factor
Q
i
= loads
i
= load factors
LRFD (contd)
Significance of AASHTO LRFD (contd) Significance of AASHTO LRFD (contd)
LRFD provides additional information on
failure probability for more rational failure probability for more rational
decision making.
p = P ( |R E Q) p
failure
= P ( |R E
i
Q
i
)
where
p = probability of failure p
failure
= probability of failure
ff
LRFD (contd)
Probability Distribution of Load and Resistance Probability Distribution of Load and Resistance
Load and Resistance Factors Design (LRFD) (contd) Load and Resistance Factors Design (LRFD) (contd)
Limit state function Z = R Q
Failure occurs when Q > R
I f Z is normal distribution,
Reliability index |
[ ]
F
P P Q R = >
Reliability index |
Z
| =
[ 0] P Z = <
|o
Z
Z
|
o
Probability of failure
Load and Resistance Factors Design (LRFD) (contd) g ( ) ( )
Design limit state = Z = R Q = 0
Probability distribution
of Resistance and load
with respect to the
limit state
LRFD (contd)
Risk and Reliability Assessment Risk and Reliability Assessment
RELIABILITY INDEX RELIABILITY INDEX
4
5
E
X
2
3
B
I
L
I
T
Y

I
N
D
E
3.5
0
1
0 30 60 90 120 200
R
E
L
I
A
LFD
LRFD
SPAN LENGTH (Feet)
Reliability Index and Corresponding Probability Reliability Index and Corresponding Probability
LRFD (contd)
y p g y y p g y
0 1 0 4601722 2
Prob. of Prob. of
exceedance exceedance
Rounded Rounded
reciprocal reciprocal
(approx. 1 (approx. 1--in in--n) n)
0.1 0.4601722 2
0.5 0.3085375 3
1 0.1586553 6
1 5 0 0668072 15 1.5 0.0668072 15
2 0.0227501 50
2.5 0.0062097 200
3 0 0013499 1 000 3 0.0013499 1,000
3.5 0.0002326 5,000
4 3.167E-05 30,000
4 5 3 398E-06 300 000 4.5 3.398E-06 300,000
5 2.867E-07 3,500,000
5.5 1.899E-08 50,000,000
Load and Resistance Factors Design (LRFD) (contd)
Reference:
Kulicki, J. M. (2005). Past, Present and
Future of Load and Resistance Factor
Design, Journal of the TRB.
Current Practice of Bridge Design Against
Extreme Hazard Loads
Various current research efforts are devoted to
bridge component performance and design for
individual extreme hazard load effects (e.g.
earthquake, tidal waves, vessel collision, etc.) q , , , )
Very limited efforts to consider the combinations of
extreme hazard load effects, either on the
t th b id t f components or the bridge as a system of
components.
Extreme Loads in Current Design Extreme Loads in Current Design
Current Practice of Bridge Design (contd)
Extreme Loads in Current Design Extreme Loads in Current Design
Status in AASHTO LRFD
Dead Load Calibrated
Live Load Calibrated
Earthquake Included (Guidespec), but not completely calibrated
Scour Not in LRFD framework
Earthquake Scour
Wind
Integrated in AASHTO LRFD strength limit state,
not completely calibrated
Fire
New giudance information available from NCHRP
study
Storm Surge Wind
Vessel Collision
Structurally consistent with LRFD, but not calibrated
consistently
Vehicular
Collision
Rough estimate based on limited data
S S G id id d i d
Vessel collision Vehicular collision
Storm Surge New Guidespec provide design procedures
Debris Flow Provisions on debris raft (part of WA)
Fire
John Huseby, Caltrans
Landslide/debris flow
Recent Initiative to Develop Reliability Based Recent Initiative to Develop Reliability Based,
All- Hazard LRFD
Many bridge failures due to various extreme hazard
events in recent years
Multi hazard design research project initiated at Multi-hazard design research project initiated at
MCEER in 2008, funded by FHWA
To establish guiding principles for the development g g p p p
of multi-hazard LRFD with emphasis given to
design limit states for collapse failures due to
combinations of non extreme and extreme loads combinations of non-extreme and extreme loads
(Demand emphasis)
Si ifi t Ch ll f D l i Si ifi t Ch ll f D l i
Development of Multi-Hazard LRFD (contd)
Significant Challenge of Developing Significant Challenge of Developing
MH MH--LRFD LRFD
Demand Capacity
To establish
reliable, simple, all-
To design structures
with predictable , p ,
hazard design limit
status considering
p
behavior for highly
unpredictable hazard
non-extreme and
extreme loads.
load effects.
MCEER Research Project
Develop design principles and framework for
MH-LRFD design limit states g
Establish selected design limit state
equations as examples q p
Work closely with AASHTO T5, FHWA and
experienced design professionals p g p
Some Project Challenges
Extreme hazard events are mostly random y
processes.
Methodology to relate and combine the gy
probability distribution functions of bridge
failures due to two or more extreme load
ff t effects
Very limited data on bridge failures due to
t t f f lib ti extreme events for purpose of calibration
Outcome must be simple to use.
Some Project Challenges (contd)
j g ( )
Two (or more) extreme load
p
failure
= P ( |R E
i
Q
i
)
Probability distribution of R developed for LRFD Probability distribution of R developed for LRFD
Example Example: Consider pp
D (dead load), T (truck load) and E (earthquake load)
P = f [ P P P ] P
f
= f [ P
D
, P
T
, P
E
]
Load Combinations
Load Combinations
Example of TL and EL Combinations
DL: Normal distribution.
N i l l i 600 Nominal super-structural mass is 600 ton.
(not used in this example)
TL T i l di t ib ti TL: Triangular distribution.
Max truck mass = 30 ton.
Min truck mass = 1.0 ton.
Max number of trucks passing through the
bridge in 10 seconds is 8.
EL: Vertical component = lognamal
distribution in 75 year period.
Definitions:
CP = Cumulative probability CP Cumulative probability
EDT = Event time interval (seconds)
TSS Total ser ice life of bridge in seconds TSS = Total service life of bridge in seconds
TSY = Total service life of bridge in years
Earth Direct = Max. possible EL in TSY
Example of TL and EL Combinations (contd)
4
4
6
x 10
-4
Probability Mass Curve of Dead Load
a
s
s
0 0 5 1 1 5 2
0
2
P

M
a
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x 10
4
Intensity (KN)
1
Cumulative Probability Mass Curve of Dead Load
0.5
C
P

M
a
s
s
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x 10
4
0
Intensity (KN)
x 10
-3
Probability Mass Curve of Each Passing Truck
4
6
8
x 10
Probability Mass Curve of Each Passing Truck
M
a
s
s
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
2
4
P

M
Intensity (KN)
1
Cumulative Probability Mass Curve of Each Passing Truck
s
0.5
C
P

M
a
s
s
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
Intensity (KN)
x 10
-3
Truck Load Prob. Mass Curve for Varied Num. of Truck
7
8
x 10

1 Truck Passing
2 Truck Passing
3 Truck Passing
4 T k P i
5
6
y

M
a
s
s
4 Truck Passing
5 Truck Passing
6 Truck Passing
7 Truck Passing
8 Truck Passing
3
4
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
8 Truck Passing
1
2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
Intensity (KN)

C bi d P b bilit M f T k L d i EDT
0 5
1
Combined Probability Mass for Truck Load in EDT
i
t
y

M
a
s
s
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
0.5
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
Intensity (KN)
1
Cumulativ Combined Probability Mass for Truck Load in EDT
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
a
s
s
0.95
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
b
a
b
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0.9
Intensity (KN)
C
u
m
u
l
C bi d P b bilit M f T k L d i TSY
0 005
0.01
Combined Probability Mass for Truck Load in TSY
i
t
y

M
a
s
s
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
0.005
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
Intensity (KN)
1
Cumulativ Combined Probability Mass for Truck Load in TSY
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
a
s
s
0.5
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
b
a
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
Intensity (KN)
C
u
m
u
3
P b bilit M f E th k L d i TSY
0 5
1
x 10
-3
Probability Mass for Earthquake Load in TSY
l
i
t
y

M
a
s
s

Original
Re-Estimated
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
0.5
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l

x 10
4
Intensity (KN)
1
Cumulativ Probability Mass for Earthquake Load in TSY
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
a
s
s

Original
R E ti t d
0
0.5
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
b
a
Re-Estimated
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x 10
4
0
Intensity (KN) C
u
m
u

0 8
0.9
1
Cumulative Probability Mass in TSY

0.6
0.7
0.8
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
a
s
s
0 3
0.4
0.5
m
u
l
a
t
i
v

P
r
o
b
a
0.1
0.2
0.3
C
u
m
A--Truck only
B--Earthquake only
C--Truck & Earthquake
D--Truck & Earth.-Direct
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
Intensity (KN)

Progress Report
A major challenge in establishing multi-
hazard LRFD equations is to provide a q p
simple process for the bridge designers.
One important task is to identify significant p y g
design limit status for a region vulnerable to
multiple hazard threat to that region.
A workshop was carried out for this purpose.
Workshop Steering Committee: Harry Capers, p g
John Kulicki, Thomas Murphy (Chair), George Lee
(coordinator), W. Philip Yen
Progress Report (contd)
Questionnaire to all AASHTO bridge
engineers for their opinion (for both typical engineers for their opinion (for both typical
bridges and special bridges)
Followed by workshop participated by Followed by workshop participated by
AASHTO bridge engineers, FHWA officials,
bridge design experts and academic
researchers to consider the survey results.
Formulate regional design limit states in the
US (work in progress).
Progress Report (contd)
Sample Survey Results and Sample Survey Results and
P li i M P li i M Preliminary Messages Preliminary Messages
Rankings for Extreme Loads (standard bridges) Rankings for Extreme Loads (standard bridges)
Rankings for Extreme Loads (standard bridges) Rankings for Extreme Loads (standard bridges)
Pi Ch t Pi Ch t T i l B id T i l B id
Pie Charts Pie Charts Typical Bridges Typical Bridges
1No,0,
0%
2
Maybe,
2,6%
Scour VesselCollision
Earthquake
3
Always,
2,6%
StormSurge
1No,9,
28%
3
Always,
10,31%
1No,7,
22%
2
3
Always,
16,50%
1No,
13,41%
2
Maybe,
3
Always,
30,94%
2
Maybe,
13,41%
3
Fire
30, 94% means: 30
states (94% of
respondent) gave this
answer
Maybe,
9,28%
17,53%
Wind Debris Flow
2
Maybe,
10,31%
Always,
0,0%
answer.
1No,1,
3%
2
Maybe,
10,31%
Wind
1No,5,
15%
3
Always,
5,16%
DebrisFlow
1No,
22,69%
3
Always,
21,66%
2
Maybe,
22,69%
Average Scores for Cascading Events (standard bridges) Average Scores for Cascading Events (standard bridges)
Average Scores for Cascading Events (standard bridges) Average Scores for Cascading Events (standard bridges)
Regional Character: Navigable Waterways and Coastlines Regional Character: Navigable Waterways and Coastlines
Regional Character: Navigable Waterways and Coastlines Regional Character: Navigable Waterways and Coastlines
Combination of Scour and Debris Flow Combination of Scour and Debris Flow
Potential Regional Simplification Potential Regional Simplification
gg
To make it practical in design using the
large set of limit states, a procedure to large set of limit states, a procedure to
choose dominant limit states by region may
be developed.
I II
III
I: High seismicity, non-hurricane
coastal wind
II: Long-term high seismicity,
Low temperature-related
issues
II
V
IV
II: Long term high seismicity,
Inland wind
III: Inland wind
IV: Hurricane zone
region
Special
region
IV
V: Long-term high seismicity,
hurricane zone
Potential Hazards in Each Region Potential Hazards in Each Region
Region I:
Earthquake, non-extreme wind, scour, fire, and vehicular collision.
Vessel collision is possible in some area.
Region II: Region II:
Earthquake (long-term), non-extreme wind, scour, fire, and
vehicular collision.
Region III:
Non-extreme wind scour fire and vehicular collision and vessel Non extreme wind, scour, fire, and vehicular collision, and vessel
collision. Northern central plain: debris flow (ice)
Region IV:
Extreme wind (hurricane), scour, fire, and vehicular collision, and
vessel collision vessel collision.
Region V:
Earthquake (long-term), extreme wind, scour, fire, and vehicular
collision, and vessel collision.
S i l R i (NY NJ NH DE CA ) Special Region (NY, NJ, NH, DE, CA, ):
Earthquake, non-extreme wind, scour, fire, vehicular collision,
vessel collision, and blast.
Preliminary Messages Preliminary Messages
Geographical features and natural hazards
are substantiated.
Importance of cascading events for which
our knowledge for design is extremely
limited limited.
Unique features for NE and CA corridors with
high population density (strong emphasis on high population density (strong emphasis on
consequence)
Significant limit state equations may be Significant limit-state equations may be
formulated for several regions.
Next Step: Next Step:
Continue to address the major challenges
f th d l t f MH LRFD for the development of MH-LRFD.
Continue to refine the regional design
concept and to establish a selected sets
of design limit state equations.
Workshop involving AASHTO, FHWA and
design professionals to establish the
values of the coefficients in the selected values of the coefficients in the selected
sets of design limit state equations.
Development of Multiple Hazards Design Guidelines Development of Multiple Hazards Design Guidelines
Summary Summary Summary Summary
To establish the LRFD guidelines for all-
h d ili t t i bl b id i hazard resilient, sustainable bridges is
complex and intellectually challenging.
R i t i d d l t b Requires sustained development by
multidisciplinary team research efforts.
R i t i d d ti ff t t Requires sustained education effort to
develop new generation engineers and
well informed public well-informed public.
Summary (contd) Summary (contd) y ( ) y ( )
This lecture is only intended to provide
information on emerging technology in information on emerging technology in
bridge engineering under early stage of
development to the students, as an
example of sustainable development in
bridge engineering.
The description of developing regional
design limit states of combined hazards
i h tl i Th is research currently in progress. The
final outcome may be different.
Acknowledgement Acknowledgement
Federal Highway Administration (funding)
Project Research Team Organizations Project Research Team Organizations
Aurora & Associates, FHWA,
University at Buffalo, UC Irvine y ,
UB Research Team
Dr Z Liang Dr J W Song visiting Dr. Z. Liang, Dr. J. W. Song, visiting
scholars and graduate students
Thank you Thank you
gclee@buffalo edu gclee@buffalo.edu
Revi ew Quest i ons
1. Why should bridge design include all hazards in order to satisfy
sustainability in bridge engineering?
2. Why is Education a significant component in sustainable y g p
development?
3. Why are some aspects of current design specifications too
safe? safe ?
4. Do we know how to design a bridge with a capacity equal to or
slightly over the limit states?
5 Wh t i th j diff b t All bl St D i 5. What is the major difference between Allowable Stress Design
(ASD) and Load and Resistance Factors Design (LRFD)?
6. Probability (reliability) based formulation provides answers in
probabilitic terms. Design specifications are given as
deterministic limit state equations. How did this happen?

Lee Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainable Development in Bridge

Engineering: Development of Multi- g g p

You might also like