Fulltext01 PDF

2008:18
L ICE N T IAT E T H E S I S
Anders Stenlund
Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges
LoadofCarrying
Three Case Studies Bridges in Capacity of Bridges
Northern Sweden where Probabilistic
Methods have been
Case used
StudiestoofStudy
Bridges Effects of Sweden
Monitoring and Strengthening
where Probabilistic Methods have been used to Study Effects of Monitoring and Strengthening
Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges Three Case Studies of Bridges in Northern Sweden
Three in Northern where Probabilistic
Methods have been used to Study Effects of Monitoring and Strengthening
Anders Stenlund
Anders Stenlund
Luleå University of Technology

Department
Luleå of Civil and Environmental
University of Technology Engineering
Division of Structural Engineering
Department of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering
2008:18
Universitetstryckeriet, Luleå b: 978-91-85685-13-4|2008:18|:-1757|: -lic -- 08 ⁄18 -- 

LICENTIATE THESIS
Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges

Three Case Studies of Bridges in Northern Sweden where Probabilistic
Methods have been used to Study Effects of Monitoring and Strengthening
Anders Stenlund
Luleå 2008

Department of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering
Luleå University of Technology
SE - 971 87 LULEÅ
Sweden
Preface
Preface
The work presented in this thesis was carried out at the Division of Structural
Engineering at Luleå University of Technology (LTU). It is a postgraduate
project carried out in cooperation with the Swedish Road Administration
(SRA) and VINNOVA´s research consortium “Road/Bridge/Tunnel”. The
work has been financed by LTU, SRA and VINNOVA.
There are some persons that must be named since they have made this work
possible. I will first thank my supervisor, Prof. Lennart Elfgren. His great
engagement and ability to find solutions have been important in my work. He
is with his great knowledge and his manner a source of inspiration.
I am also grateful for the measurements work that people at the Testlab, LTU,
have performed at two of the bridges that I have analysed.
Peter Simonsson, you have been a good friend during this time, thank you. Ola
Enochsson, thank you for your engagement.
To my colleagues at the SRA, Ann-Christine Burman, Margareta Berglund, Per

Andersson, Bo-Lennart Nilsson and Erik Vallin. Thank you for your support
and understanding during this time.
Finally, a special thanks to my family, Linda, Robert and Frida. You are a very
important part of my life. Without your support, patience and understanding
this work has not been possible.
Luleå, May 2008
Anders Stenlund
I
Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges. Three Case Studies of Bridges.
II
Abstract
Abstract
Probabilistic methods are presented for the assessment of bridges. Load

carrying capacity calculations and evaluations of strengthening methods are
carried out for three road bridges in northern Sweden:
1) The E4-bridge over Piteå River – A four span steel beam bridge with a
concrete deck, built in 1969. The capacity of the edge beams are
evaluated with use of calculations and monitoring results.
Strengthening measures are discussed and recommended.
2) Bridge over Kuivajärvi – A one span concrete slab-frame bridge built in

1954. The supports have moved transversally towards each other
causing cracking in the deck. Strains and deflections are monitored and
the capacity is evaluated.
3) Bridge over Åhedån – A one span concrete beam-frame bridge built in

1934. The bridge was to be widened and the load carrying capacity of
an increased cross section is studied.
Monitoring and testing of material properties have given valuable information

of the real behaviour of the studied bridges. Bayesian updating of original data
has been shown to be very useful. Further research work is needed regarding
the uncertainty coefficients for the studied models and parameters in order to
fully take advantage of the possibilities to assess existing bridges with
probabilistic methods.
III
Notation and Abbreviations
Notations and Abbreviations
Explanations in the text of notations or abbreviations in direct conjunction to

their appearance have preference to what is presented here.
Roman upper case letters
A Area, [m2]
Af Area fiber composite, [m2]
As Area reinforcement steel, [m2]
C Model uncertainty, [-]
E Modulus of elasticity, [Pa]
Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete, [Pa]
Ef Modulus of elasticity of CFRP, [Pa]
Es Modulus of elasticity of steel, [Pa]
I Moment of inertia, [m4]
M Bending moment, [Nm]
N Normal force, [N]
Pf Probability of failure, [-]
R Resistance, [-]
S Load effect, [-]
V Shearing force, [N]
V
Roman lower case letters
b width, [m]
bw width, shearing force, [m]
d Effective depth, [m]
fcc Concrete compression strength, [Pa]
fct Concrete tensile strength, [Pa]
fst Steel yield strength, [Pa]
fsv Steel yield strength for shearing force reinforcement, [Pa]
hf Effective depth of fiber composite, [m]
m Mean value, [-]
mbal Balanced mechanical reinforcement ratio, [-]
s Standard deviation, [-]
s Distance between shearing force reinforcement, [m]
z Internal level, [m]
Greek lower case letters
Hs Steel strain, [-]

Hcu Concrete ultimate strain, [-]
P Mean value, [-]
V Stresses, [Pa]
V Standard deviation, [-]
W Shearing stresses, [Pa]
] Size factor shearing capacity, [-]
Abbreviations
CFRP Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymers
COD Crack Opening Displacement
LVDT Linear Voltage Displacement Transducer
SRA Swedish Road Administration
VI
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
PREFACE ............................................................................................................I
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................III
NOTATIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................... V
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................ VII
1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................1
1.2 Objects..............................................................................................2
1.3 Limitations .......................................................................................2
2 PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT – THEORY....................................... 3
2.1 Inspection .........................................................................................3
2.2 Probability ........................................................................................4
2.2.1 The classical theory ..............................................................4
2.2.2 Frequentism ..........................................................................5
2.3 Probabilistic levels ...........................................................................5
2.4 Level 1-method ................................................................................6
2.5 Level 2-method ................................................................................8
2.5.1 Reliability index according to Hazofer and Lind ...............14
2.5.2 Restrictions of the reliability index ȕ .................................17
2.6 Monte Carlo simulation..................................................................18
2.7 System reliability ...........................................................................20
2.8 Uncertainties .................................................................................. 22
2.9 Updating with Bayesian method .................................................... 22
VII
3 RECOMMENDED DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS AND

ASSOCIATED PARAMETERS FOR USED VARIABLES ................. 27
3.1 General........................................................................................... 27
3.2 Recommendations according to JCSS (2001)................................ 28
3.2.1 Resistance........................................................................... 28
3.2.2 Loads .................................................................................. 28
3.3 Recommendation according to Road Directorate (2004) .............. 29
3.3.1 Resistance........................................................................... 29
3.3.2 Loads .................................................................................. 30
3.4 Recommendations for traffic load effect at bridges according to
Carlsson (2006).............................................................................. 32
4 RISK MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 35
4.1 General........................................................................................... 35
4.2 Event Tree Analysis - ETA............................................................ 37
5 RESISTANCE AND STRENGTHENING METHODS ........................ 39
5.1 Resistance ...................................................................................... 39
5.1.1 Bending moment capacity.................................................. 39
5.1.2 Shear capacity .................................................................... 40
5.1.3 Plastic hinges...................................................................... 42
5.2 Strengthening ................................................................................. 45
5.2.1 Strengthening with bonded concrete overlays ................... 45
5.2.2 Strengthening with FRP ( Fibre Reinforced Polymers) ..... 48
6 THE E4 BRIDGE OVER PITEÅ RIVER............................................... 53
6.1 Reinforcement with concrete casting............................................. 53
6.2 Assessment of bearing capacity ..................................................... 55
6.3 Comparison between tests and theory............................................ 59
6.4 Probabilistic analysis ..................................................................... 59
6.4.1 Concrete compression strength .......................................... 60
6.4.2 Dynamic factor................................................................... 62
6.4.3 Moment caused by traffic (heavy loaded vehicle) ............. 63
6.4.4 Model uncertainties............................................................ 65
6.4.5 Result ................................................................................. 66
6.5 Risk Assessment ............................................................................ 66
6.5.1 Risk Analysis ..................................................................... 66
6.5.2 Risk Evaluation .................................................................. 69
6.6 Strengthening of the edge beam..................................................... 69
6.7 Probabilistic approach and safety level.......................................... 70
7 BRIDGE OVER KUIVAJÄRVI ............................................................. 75
VIII
Table of Contents
7.1 Background ....................................................................................75

7.2 Assessment of capacity ..................................................................79
7.3 Probabilistic assessment.................................................................81
7.4 Measurements ................................................................................96
7.5 Updated probabilistic calculation.................................................134
7.6 Risk Assessment...........................................................................142
8 BRIDGE OVER ÅHEDÅN...................................................................147
8.1 Background ..................................................................................147
8.2 Condition......................................................................................150
8.3 Assessment of capacity ................................................................150
8.4 Probabilistic analysis - General....................................................151
8.4.1 Probabilistic analysis - bending moment capacity of the
concrete girder..................................................................151
8.4.2 Probabilistic analysis – Shear force capacity of the concrete
girder ................................................................................165
8.4.3 Probabilistic analysis – Shear stresses in joint between new
and old concrete in main girder........................................173
8.5 Risk Assessment...........................................................................178
9 COMPARISONS OF COSTS ...............................................................179
10 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 183
10.1 Monitoring....................................................................................183
10.2 Strengthening ............................................................................... 184
10.3 Probabilistic Methods...................................................................184
10.4 Need for further research..............................................................185
REFERENCES................................................................................................187
APPENDIX A BRIDGE OVER PITEÅ RIVER ........................................191
APPENDIX B BRIDGE AT THE OUTLET OF KUIVAJÄRVI .............201
APPENDIX C MEASUREMENT AT THE KUIVAJÄRVI BRIDGE.....231
APPENDIX D BRIDGE OVER ÅHEDÅN................................................269
APPENDIX E TEST RESULTS FROM THE ÅHEDÅN BRIDGE .........279
APPENDIX F DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS ........................................281
DOCTORAL AND LICENTIATE THESIS AT DIV. OF STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING ................................................................285
IX
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In Sweden there are about 15000 bridges owned by the Swedish Road
Administration (SRA). Among these nearly 26 % are older than 50 years,
which implies that their technical life span soon will be reached.
Since 1944, when the Swedish Road Administration, took over the
responsibility for the state maintained road network and its bridges, there have
been four classifications of the load carrying capacity of the bridges with
successively increasing allowable loads. It will not stop here. There will always
be situations when someone wants to load an existing bridge with a higher axle
load.
If the load carrying capacity is insufficient, the options are strengthening or

replacement of the bridge. For a bridge that otherwise is in good condition,
strengthening is often an economical choice.
In Sweden there are two bridge codes. Bro 2004 (2004) for building new
bridges respective improvement of existing bridges and a Bridge Assessment
Code, Vägverket (1998) for analysis of the load carrying capacity of existing
bridges. Both codes are based on deterministic rules.
An analysis starts with a deterministic calculation. If the load carrying capacity

can not be met, then the use of a more sophisticated method is an option.
Probabilistic method is one such possibility.
1
Using a probabilistic method implies an object specific analysis of the bridge.

Information of the variation of the loads and the material properties are then
used in the calculations. The method is suitable for finding the real load
carrying capacity of existing bridges.
The result can be that vehicles with higher loads can be allowed to pass the
bridge without any needs of strengthening or that strengthening measures can
be less than planned.
It is therefore very important, for economical reasons, to use more effective

methods for assessment of the strength of existing bridges.
Measurements are used to update and calibrate calculation methods.
1.2 Objects
The object of this thesis is to develop methods to determine the load carrying
capacity of bridges using calculations and measurements. Probabilistic
methods are used parallel to deterministic methods. Strengthening methods are
also analysed.
All assessment methods have some kind of uncertainties and it is important that
the safety level is enough. Therefore one aim with this project is also to study
how the safety against failure is changed for a structure when it is strengthened.
1.3 Limitations
Not within the scope of this thesis:
Degradation modelling
Failure has been modelled with standard code methods and not with any
more sophisticated methods
2
Probabilistic assessment – theory
2 PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT – THEORY
2.1 Inspection
Figure 2-1 A flow chart for assessment of existing bridges according to a

proposal in the EU-project Sustainable Bridges (2007)
The base of the bridge assessment is the routine inspections where inspectors
estimates the importance of found damages based on engineering knowledge,
3
experience and technical facilities. If the damage is estimated to be a risk for

the function and the load carrying capacity of the bridge the next step can be to
make a theoretical analysis of found damage. This is usually performed by a
consultant and the calculation is at this moment based on deterministic rules
according to the Bridge Assessment Code, Vägverket (1998). If the result of
this calculation implies that the strength is insufficient, a more sophisticated
calculation method can be an option. There can be a possibility that the real
capacity of the bridge is enough and that this method can prove it. Otherwise
the alternatives are strengthening or replacement of the bridge. Here can also
these kind of sophisticated methods be useful to reduce the planed measures.
Probabilistic method is one of these improved methods. The principle of the
bridge assessment is illustrated in Figure 2-1 where described course of events
can be found. As an elucidation of this figure, the inspector and the engineer
are, in the Swedish Road Administration, often the same person.
2.2 Probability
In this chapter a short description is given of the theory for probabilistic

calculations. Text books on this subject are e.g. Nowak and Collins (2000),
Thoft-Christensen and Baker (1982) and Schneider (1997).
As an introduction some definitions will be given.
The word probability is often used in different situations. It can be divided into
two main groups: the objective and the subjective probability, depending on
what way of estimation that is used.
While the subjective probability is based on each individual apprehensions and

experiences, the objective probability is more based on facts. Here classical
theory and frequentism represents two different ways of describing this kind of
probability. Common for these two is however that the probability can have
values between 0 and 1.
2.2.1 The classical theory
This theory was created by Blaise Pascal and Pierre the Fermat in 1654 and the
probability, P, of an event is defined as
number of favourable outcomes

P 2-1
number of possible outcomes
4
A condition is that the probability is the same for each outcome.
2.2.2 Frequentism
Here the probability of an event is based on knowledge of the relative

frequency of this event over time. The more information you can get of a
certain event and its frequency, the higher is the quality of the prediction of this
event.
This probability of an event can be illustrated with a statistic version of the

classical formula as following
number of succesful trials

P 2-2
number of made trials
If there is so much information about an event that the uncertainty more or less
can be reduced to zero, the event can be considered as deterministic, it has a
determined, fixed value.
The problem with frequentism is often the lack of knowledge about the number
of made respective successful trials of studied event.
2.3 Probabilistic levels
There are e.g. according to Nowak & Collins (2000) and Thoft-Christensen and
Baker (1999) three different levels for the probabilistic assessment of a
structure
x In level 1 the uncertainties of the stochastic variables are considered

with only one parameter for each variable. The method of partial
coefficient, shortly described below, is an example of a level 1- method.
This level results in predefined fixed levels of loads and resistance
values in the analysis of the strength of a structure. This is called a
deterministic calculation.
x In level 2, on the other hand, there are two parameters, the mean value
and the standard deviation that are used for describing the uncertainties
of each stochastic variable i.e. an independent variable which can
assume different values (Greek stokhasticos, from stokhast = diviner,
from stokhasesthai = to guess at, from stokhos = aim, goal) . Some
approximations and simplifications are used in calculations when it
comes to the choice of probability density functions of variables and the
5
fracture limit surface. Examples of methods of this level are so called

first and second order reliability methods, abbreviated FORM
respective SORM, which are described later in this thesis.
x The assumptions in level 3 are that the statistics of all variables are
known and there are no simplifications and approximations of the
fracture limit surface. The probability of failure can therefore get a
correct value. Monte Carlo analysis can be a method on this level if
used variables are based on a distribution function and associated
parameters that are correct. For more information, see section 2.6. In
general, this level is not used so much because of the lack of necessary
statistic information.
2.4 Level 1-method
When we talk about the safety of structures we often mean a comparison

between the resistance, R, and the load effect, S, in a limit state. The design
rules for structures are based on a statistical treatment of all uncertainties. All
variables can therefore be described as stochastic variables with associated
frequency functions. This can be illustrated with two variables, R and S, see
Figure 2-2.
y
y=fS(s) y=fR(r)
x
mS mR
Figure 2-2 Stochastic variables, R and S, with associated frequency

functions
The risk for failure can be described by the limit state function
M RS 0 2-3
In building codes, characteristic values of the stochastic resistance variables,

RK, and load variables, SK, are often used instead of mean values and standard
deviations. These characteristic values are chosen and based on a certain
6
probability that they will be exceeded, e.g. 2 % for the load effect, or the
chance that they will be lower than e.g. the resistance with 5 %.
The loads can be divided up into two main groups depended on their time
variation
Permanent loads
Variable loads
For the permanent loads, where the value is nearly constant in time, the mean
value is therefore used as the characteristic value.
The variable loads are more difficult to determine. The characteristic value for
traffic load for example, is based on the 98th percentile of a distribution based
on annual maximum, which corresponds to a load with a return period of 50
years, or in another explanation, a probability of 0,02 that this value will be
exceeded some time every year.
A formal risk of failure can then be described as
Rk
J 2-4
Sk
This, J , can then be divided up in ȖS and ȖR corresponding to associated S and R

and Equation 2-4 can therefore be re-written as follows
Rk
J S Sk 2-5
JR
J S and J R are named partial factors and they will illustrate a simplification of
the method named the method of partial factors. A description of it can be
found in e.g. Betonghandboken (1990).
In building codes, values for the partial factors are given based on experience
and a statistical treatment of uncertainties.
7
2.5 Level 2-method
The conditions for a level 2 – method are that all used stochastic variables are
normally distributed, see Figure 2-6, and uncorrelated. The failure surface is
considered as linear.
The limit state of a certain structure can be described as a function of a several

variables, Xi, i = 1 to n. These variables are, as earlier described, stochastic
variables and can be explained with some kind of frequency functions, often
named probability density function, pdf, with associated parameters as mean
values and standard deviations, and since the variable is stochastic, these
parameters are also stochastic. The failure function for these variables,
meaning the difference between resistance and load effect, can be written as
f(X) = f(X1, X2, X3, X4, ……, Xn). This expression is called the safety margin,
M, and is also considered as a stochastic variable.
With the assumption of only two stochastic variables, X1 and X2, here
corresponding to the resistance, R, and the load effect, S, of a structure, the
failure function can be formulated as, f(X) = f(R, S).
The safety margin, M, will in this case be
M RS 2-6
where
RS 0 is the expression for the limit state
R S 0 is the expression for condition of failure
R S t 0 is the expression for condition of not failure
This example is also illustrated in Figure 2-3. The probability density

functions, f(r) and f(s), of the two stochastic variables R and S with associated
mean values, ȝR and ȝS are presented at the two axes.
8
Safe (M > 0)
fRQ
ȝR Limit state function (M = 0)
f(r)
Failure (M < 0)
45˚
ȝQ Q
f(q)
Figure 2-3 Illustration of two stochastic variables f(r) and f(q) with their
density functions and a linear limit state function
This can also be illustrated in a three dimensional presentation, as in Figure

2-4.
fRQ
ȝR
R
ȝQ
Limit state function

(M = 0)
Q
Figure 2-4 A possible joint density function fRQ illustrated in a three-

dimensional system
9
The safety against failure can be described as the shortest distance between the
mean value of the safety margin, ȝM, and zero, expressed in number of standard
deviations, ıM. This specific number is also known as the reliability index ȕ.
This is also described in Figure 2-5, where the probability of failure, Pf(M < 0)
is illustrated as the shaded area.
f(M)
pf(M<0)
M
0 ȝM
EıM
.
Figure 2-5 Probability density function of M, f(M)
The expression of the reliability, according to Equation 2-7, is based on Cornell

1969.
PM PR PS
E 2-7
VM V R2 V S2
The associated probability of failure, Pf(M < 0), is illustrated in Figure 2-5,
with shaded area.
If all used variables are normal distributed and uncorrelated and the limit state
function is linear, the probability of failure can be calculated according to
Equation 2-8.
§ 0 PM ·
p f >M d 0@ )¨¨ ¸¸ ) E 1 )E 2-8
© VM ¹
where ĭ(·) is a symbol of the standard normal distribution function, see

Equation 2-9.
x
1 § 2·
)(x ) ³ exp ¨ x ¸ dx 2-9
f 2S © 2 ¹
10
Associated standard normal density function, ĳ(x), is according to Equation

2-10.
1 § x2 ·
M x exp¨¨ ¸¸ för f x f 2-10
2S © 2 ¹
Both these functions are shown in Figure 2-6.
)(x) ĳ(x)
a) b)
1,0 0,4
0,8 0,3
0,6
)(-x) 0,2
0,4
)(-x) 0,2 0,1
x x
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-x -x
Figure 2-6 Standard normal distribution function ĭ(x) and associated

density function ĳ(x) with mean value ȝ = 0 and standard
deviation ı = 1
With knowledge about the probability of failure, the reliability index can be
calculated according to Equation 2-11.
E ) 1 p f 2-11
where ĭ-1(·) is a symbol of the inverse standard normal distribution function.
This calculating technique for determining the safety against failure can be
illustrated with the following example.
A simply supported slab bridge with one span is loaded by a vehicle with two
axles according to Figure 2-7.
11
P1 P2
a
L/2
MP1 = P1ǜL/4
MP2 = 0.5P2(0.5L-a)
MMax = MP1+MP2
Med P1 = P2 = P
d
As
MMax = 0.5PL(1-a/L)
Figure 2-7 Example with reinforced concrete beam
12
The function of the ultimate limit state can be written as
§ fst As · L § a·
f ( fst , As, d , b, fcc, P, a, L) fst As ¨¨ d ¸¸ P ¨1 ¸ 2-12
© 2 b fcc ¹ 2 © L¹
Among these variables we consider two variables to be stochastic, the effective

height, d, and the point loads, P, here expressed as Xd respective XP. Both
stochastic variables are normal distributed. The other values we assume to be
deterministic, see Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Variables with distribution functions and

associated parameters
Variable Unit Distribution m s V[m/s]

f st MPa Deterministic 420 - -
f cc MPa Deterministic 60 - -
2
As mm Deterministic 2010 - -
d mm Normal 700 17,5 0.025
b mm Deterministic 1000 - -
L m Deterministic 10 - -
a m Deterministic 3 - -
P kN Normal 120 - -
The safety margin
§ 420 2010 · 6
M 420 2010 ¨ X d
f ( X As , , , ) ¸ 10 ...
© 2 500 60 ¹
2-13
X § 3·
... P 10 ¨1 ¸ 0,844 X d 3,5 X P
2 © 10 ¹
This failure function is linear.
PM 0,844P d 3,5 P P 2-14
PM 0,844 700 3,5 120 170,8 2-15
13
2 2
2 ª wf º 2 ª wf º 2
V M « » V d « » V P 0,844 2 V d2 3,5 2 V P2 2-16
¬ wX d ¼ ¬ wX P ¼
0,844 2 17,5 2 3,5 2 12 2 1982,2 2-17
PM 170,8
E 3,83 2-18
VM 1982,2
This corresponds with a probability of failure as
p f >M d 0@ ) 3,83 6.4 10 5
However, this way of calculating E has a limitation. As earlier described, all

variables are supposed to be normal distributed and the failure function must be
linear. Otherwise different but equivalent failure functions will give different
values of the reliability index ȕ, so there is a problem with lack of failure
function invariance. This means that, if the failure function in the example
presented above had not been linear, the reliability index E would change to
another value if the failure function instead was focused on the tension or
strains of the reinforcement.
Therefore this technique to calculate the ȕ-index is not recommended.
2.5.1 Reliability index according to Hazofer and Lind
This is a way of calculating the reliability index that results in a constant value
of the reliability index independent on the failure function description. The
technique was introduced in 1974 by Hazofer and Lind. The difference with
this concept is that an analysis of a limit state function is, as described in
Nowak and Collins (2000), based on a certain design point, not known in the
beginning. This leads to a calculation based on an iteration technique.
The principle of this Hazofer and Lind technique can be formulated in the
following stages
The limit state function is normalized as presented in Equation 2-19.
X i P Xi
Zi 2-19
V Xi
14
where P zii 0 and V zii 1.
The standardized version will therefore be
Xi P Xi V Xi Z i
If the stochastic variables are correlated the failure function is transformed

so that thess variables will be uncorrelated
As earlier described a non linear failure function can be approximated with a

linear failure function as a tangent in a certain point. This is the same for the
two described techniques of calculation the reliability index, but the big
difference is that this certain point is assumed, according to Cornell, to be at
the mean value of the margin safety functions compared with the Hazofer and
Linds reliability index where the point is, as earlier described, a special design
point at the failure surface, not known a priori. This is illustrated in Figure 2-8
and in Figure 2-9. The mean value as certain point is also the reason for the
described invariance problem.
M(Z1,Z2) = 0. Real non-linear z2 f*(z1,z2) = 0. Approximate

limit state function linear limit state function
M(Z1,Z2)< 0
M(Z1,Z2) > 0
(Failure)
(Non-failure)
ȕ
z1
fZ2(z2)
fZ1(z1)
Figure 2-8 Principe of linearization of the limit state function, M
15
z2
f(z1,z2) = 0
f*(z1, z2) = 0
Design point
z2 *
ȕ
z1 * z1
Figure 2-9 Linearization at the design point of the limit state function, M
The definitions of reliability index ȕ according to Hazofer and Lind is the

shortest distance between origin and the failure function in a normalized z-
coordinate system.
The relation between design point z i , illustrated in Figure 2-9, and reliability
index ȕ can be formulated as
z i Di E 2-20
where parameter Į is called the sensitivity factor and can be described as a

parameter that informs how important each variable is for the result of failure
function. The more important variable it is, the higher Į-value. The calculation
of this parameter Į for each variable, i, is illustrated in Equation 2-21
wf

wz i
Di 2-21
n
§ wf ·
¦ ¨¨
k 1 © wz k
¸¸
¹
16
where i 1 n
The perpendicular to the approximated linear limit state function
g ( z1 , z 2 ,...., z n ) 0 2-22
can be formulated as
n
¦ (D )
i 1
i
2
1 2-23
With use of the equations, presented above, the reliability index ȕ is

determined in an iterative calculation procedure. This is not presented here but
can be found in e.g. Nowak and Collins (2000) or Thoft-Christensen and Baker
(1982) where all presented Equations can be found.
This presented method is named First Order Reliability Method, abbreviated

FORM or perhaps more precisely First Order Second Moment method,
abbreviated FOSM since there are two used distribution parameters, the mean
value and the standard deviation, that’s why the word “second” is used.
In this kind of method a non-linear limit state function is approximated with a

linear function in a design point. If the calculation instead is based on a non-
linear limit state function the method is named Second Order Reliability
Method, abbreviated SORM. This method is however not used in this thesis.
2.5.2 Restrictions of the reliability index ȕ
Up to now we have focused on the description of ȕ. The target value, which

shows how much higher the resistance part must be compared with the load
effect, can be found in building standards. This is presented in Table 2-2,
together with the corresponding probability of failure, Pf , and safety class.
17
Table 2-2 Relation between reliability index, probability of failure and

safety class according to Swedish Code, BKR (2003)
Reliability index ȕ 3.7 4.3 4.8

Probability of -4 -5
10 10 10-6
failure, Pf
Safety class 1 2 3
The probability of failure Pf, presented in Table 2-2, relates to one year which
means that for Pf = 10-6 there will only be one among one million structures,
exactly alike, that will fail each year.
2.6 Monte Carlo simulation
This is also a method suitable for reliability analyses of structures. It is based

on a simulation technique for determining the probability of failure, Pf.
The principle of this technique is here illustrated with an arbitrary limit state
function, used for analysing structures safety, and defined as
g( X1, X 2 , X 3 , X n )
where X i are stochastic variables, i 1 n .
Failure of the structure occurs when
g () 0
With use of uniformly distributed random numbers, values xi can be generated

from probability distributions belonging to the stochastic variables Xi. A
calculation of the limit state function can thereafter be done based on these
values. This procedure is repeated a certain number of times, k, and these times
when the event g () 0 occurs are stored, here denoted, m.
The probability of failure can then be expressed as
m
pf 2-24
k
18
The procedure of generating values xi with random numbers is illustrated in

Figure 2-10.
FX i(x i)
1
uik
Random number
between 0 and 1
0.5
xi
0 xik
Figure 2-10 Principle of generating values xi with random numbers.
This method is according to Nowak & Collins (2000) preferable when
1. a closed form solution for the probability distribution of a limit state

function is not possible or extremely difficult to perform.
2. a lot of approximations and simplifications have been done to obtain a

closed form solution of the reliability of a structure.
3. an estimation of performed calculated reliability, based on other

techniques, can be of interest.
If the assumed distribution functions for all used stochastic variables are in
accordance with reality, this Monte Carlo simulation technique corresponds
with level 3 methods. This is on the condition that a sufficient number of
simulations have been performed.
This requirement of number of simulations can, according to Nowak & Collins

(2000), be calculated as equation 2-25. See also Schneider (1997).
19
1 Ptrue
N 2-25
V p2 Ptrue
where Ptrue is the theoretically correct probability and Vp is the coefficient of

variance of the estimated probability P.
With a coefficient of variance set to 0.1 and a requirement of the estimated

probability set to 10-6, the number of simulations, N, must be
1 10 6
N 2 6
| 100 10 6
0.1 10
This implies that a lot of calculations may be needed.
2.7 System reliability
Up to now, the presented theories have been based on the reliability of

individual elements where possible failure modes of a certain limit state have
been analysed and a probability of failure have been estimated. This will not be
correct since most buildings consist of several elements which among
themselves are connected in different ways. This implies that a failure of a
certain element does not necessary mean failure of the system.
There are two different main types of systems, series respective parallel
system. The function of a series system can in principal be described as a chain
with the weakest link, which means that the system fails when a individual
element fails. A failure of a parallel system implies on the contrary failure of
all individual elements.
The probability of failure, Pf, for these two systems can be calculated according
to Nowak & Collins (2000). The following Equations are based on that
Pf for a serials system can be written according to Equation 2-26 and for a
parallel system according to Equation 2-27.
n
Pf 1 >1 Pf i @ 2-26
i 1
n
Pf P
i 1
fi 2-27
20
where Pfi is the probability of failure for an individual element.
Both of these Equations are based on the condition that the strengths of the
elements are statistically independent. The expression for the parallel system,
Equation 2-27, also assumes that the materials in elements are ductile, meaning
that an element can maintain its load carrying capacity even after that the
maximum load has occurred. Since the regulations in bridge codes are based on
ductile elements, an equation for a brittle element is not presented here. For
more information about this characteristics, see Nowak & Collins (2000).
Most buildings cannot be simplified solely with a series or parallel system but
instead of a combination of these, named hybrid systems. In Figure 2-11 a slab
bridge with one span is illustrated, as an example of this kind of system. The
substructure with two support elements can be described as a parallel system
while the whole bridge structure can be described as a combination of these
support elements in series with the superstructure (the bridge deck with end
walls). The failure mode for the two support elements is the bending moment
capacity. All elements are supposed to have ductile characteristics. This
example of hybrid system is not so usual in reality.
Bridge deck (Bd)

Support 1 (S1) Support 2 (S2)
S1
Bd
S2
Figure 2-11 Illustration of a hybrid system at a slab bridge
The probability for this system can be written as
Pfs 1 (1 PfBd )(1 PfS 1, S 2 )
21
2.8 Uncertainties
Besides the risk for human errors, there are two main groups of uncertainties,
in the assessment of the load carrying capacity of bridges. One of the groups is
the uncertainties about the frequency and the magnitude of the loads and the
other group is the model uncertainties. Is the behaviour of the bridge in
accordance with the assumptions in the calculations? Recommendations about
these uncertainties can be found in Chapter 3.
2.9 Updating with Bayesian method
The principle of this method is to use new information and knowledge about
variables of interests to improve earlier known or assumed values. This can be
done by load measurements and/or material tests. The result can imply that
distribution parameters e.g. standard deviation for resistance and load variables
can be decreased or that earlier assumed model uncertainties can be reduced or
even neglected.
The updating calculation, named posterior probability, can be expressed as

follows
P E Ai P ( Ai )
P Ai E n
¦ PE A P( A )
i 1
i i
where Ai is one of n possible events, which describes characteristics of an

arbitrary variable, while parameter, E denotes an event that gives new
information of the variable characteristics, can be according to a test result. The
first term in the numerator describes the probability for the event E, e.g. a
tested value when the real value is Ai, while the remaining term is the prior
probability of event Ai, based on knowledge before the test. The denominator
can simplified be described as the total probability for the event E.
With stochastic variables with continuous probabilistic functions, the

expression for Bayesian updating will instead be according to the following
Equation.
22
LE a f Ac a
f Acca n
i 1
³ LE a f c a da
A
This expression is in principal comparable with the earlier Equation, but the
term LE a can be presented as the likelihood function. The f Ac a is the prior
function. In Figure 2-12 the difference between prior, likelihood and posterior
functions is illustrated.
0.25
Likelihood
Probability Density Func tion
0.2
Posterior
0.15
0.1
Prior
0.05
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Param eter
Figure 2-12 Illustration of the difference between prior, posterior and
likelihood distributions
Since the prior distribution often is based on estimations with rather high
uncertainties the dispersion is significant. The likelihood distribution has a
smaller dispersion since it is based on more knowledge from e.g. test results
with high reliability. The posterior distribution has a dispersion that is between
the two previous curves since the result of a test implies a reduction of the
dispersion of the analysed variable.
In this thesis the Bayesian updating is used in the case studies with a method
described in Sustainable Bridges (2007). Here follows the principle of it.
23
With an assumption that analysed variable is lognormal distributed the

characteristic value is
§ s § 1 · ·¸
xk exp¨ ln m tvd ¨1 ¸
¨ m © n ¹ ¸¹
©
where m and s are the mean value and standard deviation from estimations or
tests while tvd is the coefficient of the Student distribution which depends on
sample size and probability of an occurrence, see Table 2-3.
Table 2-3 Coefficient of the Student distribution, tvd, for normal distributed
variables
Probability Degrees of freedom, Ȟ = n-1

F(-ȕ) 1 2 3 5 7 10 20 50
0.10 3.08 1.89 1.64 1.48 1.42 1.37 1.33 1.30 1.28
0.05 6.31 2.92 2.35 2.02 1.89 1.81 1.72 1.68 1.64
With a high knowledge about the distribution parameters, mean value and
standard deviation, the v = .
A combination of the test results and the assumed prior values give the
equivalent number of tests, n´.
2
ª mV c 1 º
nc « m P c V P c »
¬ ¼
where V(ȝ´) is the coefficient of variance of the prior mean.
The corresponding degrees of freedom, Ȟ´ are
1 1
Qc
2 >V V c@2
The number of real tests and the result of prior knowledge give an equivalent
number of tests, ncc as follows
n cc n nc
24
The updated mean value is
n m nc mP c
mP cc
ncc
with updated degrees of freedom
Q Q c 1 if nc ! 0
Q cc ®
¯Q Q c if n c 0
The updated expected value of standard deviation can then be calculated as
mV cc
>vc mV c 2 2
@ > @
n c mP c Q s 2 n m 2 n cc mP cc
2
Q cc
25
Recommended Distribution functions and associated parameters for used variables
3 RECOMMENDED DISTRIBUTION
FUNCTIONS AND ASSOCIATED
PARAMETERS FOR USED VARIABLES
3.1 General
There are not yet any guidelines for use of probabilistic methods for buildings
in Sweden so it is necessary to use international recommendations.
According to BKR (1998) is it allowed to use probabilistic calculations based

on methods described in ISO 2394-1998. In the Load Classification Code,
Vägverket (1998), the reader is refered to NKB 55 (1987).
Further, the Joint Committee of Structural Safety, JCSS, has developed a

probabilistic model code JCSS (2001) and a publication with focus on existing
structures, named “Probabilistic Assessment of Existing Structures”, JCSS
(2002).
In Denmark there is now a probabilistic code named “Reliability-Based

Classification of the Load Carrying Capacity of Existing Bridges”, Road
Directorate (2004).
Here follows recommended distributions functions with associated parameters

for some variables according to these codes. The form of the most common
distribution functions with associated equations can be seen in Appendix F.
For further information and a description about other codes, see Carlsson,
Jeppson, Thelandersson (2002).
27
3.2 Recommendations according to JCSS (2001)
This probabilistic code gives recommendations for distribution functions and

associated parameters for several stochastic variables. Here follows some of
these variables divided into resistance, loads and model uncertainties.
3.2.1 Resistance
Some resistance variables with recommended distribution function and

distribution parameters (mean value, P , standard deviation, V , and coefficient
of variance, V can be found in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Resistance variables with recommended distribution parameters
Variable Distribution P V V >P V @

Reinforcement area Normal Nom. area - 0.020
Reinforcement yield
Normal Snom.+2ı 30 -
strength
Concrete compression
Lognormal * * *
strength
Nom.
Effective depth Normal 10 -
value
* Description of the calculation for determining the distribution parameters can be found
in part III of the probabilistic model code.
3.2.2 Loads
In Table 3-2 some variables that are considered as permanent loads are
presented together with recommended distribution functions and associated
parameters.
There is no information about traffic load in JCSS (2001).
Table 3-2 Load variables with recommended distribution parameters

Self-weight N Nom. value - 0.04
Pavement N Nom. value - 0.05
28
Model uncertainties
In Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 distribution functions and distribution parameters
are presented for model uncertainties for some resistance and load variables
Table 3-3 Model uncertainties for resistance models concrete

Bending moment
LN 1.2 - 0.15
capacity
Shear capacity LN 1.4 - 0.25
Connection
LN 1.0 - 0.1
capacity
Table 3-4 Model uncertainties for load effect calculation

Self-weight N 1.0 - 0.05
Pavement N 1.0 - 0.05
Shear forces in
LN 1.0 - 0.1
frames
Traffic load N 1.0 - 0.1
3.3 Recommendation according to Road Directorate (2004)
This code gives guidelines for reliability based classification of bridges with
regard to loads (some permanent loads and traffic load) and materials
(concrete, reinforcement, structural steel).
3.3.1 Resistance
Material
See Table 3-5.
29
Table 3-5 Resistance variables with distribution parameters

Reinforcement yield
Lognormal * * *
strength
Lognormal * * *
strength
* Values according to chapter 6 in Road Directorate (2004).
Model uncertainties
The model uncertainty for material capacities, Im, is a lognormal distributed

stochastic variable with a mean value = 1.0 and a coefficient of variation
formulated as
2 2 2
VIm VI 1 VI 2 VI 3 2( U1VI 1 U 2V I 2 U 3VI 3 )
where VIm is the coefficient of variation for the material parameters; VIi for i =
1,2,3 is the coefficient of variation and ȡi is the coefficient of correlation. These
coefficients are representing the uncertainties in the accuracy of the
computation model I1, in determining material parameters I2 respectively in the
identity of materials, I3. For each of these coefficients there are three
uncertainty levels.
In a reliability analysis material variables will be multiplied with the associated

model uncertainty, Im.
3.3.2 Loads
Permanent loads
In Table 3-6 recommended distribution function and associated parameters are

described for some permanent loads.
30
Table 3-6 Permanent load variables with distribution parameters

Self-weight N Nom. value - 0.05
Pavement N Nom. value - 0.1
Variable loads
The traffic load on bridges is assumed to be extreme value distributed, and

constitutes partly of the ordinary traffic, including some overloaded vehicles,
and partly of an administrative determined annual number of standard vehicle.
For more information see chapter 5 in Road Directorate (2004).
Dynamic factor
The dynamic effect at a bridge from traffic load in motion can be described as
the static load increased by a dynamic factor, here denoted, İ (multiplied to the
static load).
H (1 S t )
where St is the dynamic supplement which is assumed to be normal distributed.

The mean value and standard deviation can be calculated as presented in Table
3-7.
Table 3-7 Dynamic supplement St
Influence length, l [m] P V

83 16.6 l 83 16.6 l
< 2.5
W W
41.5 41.5
2.5
W W
The variable, W, is the total vehicle weight in kN.
31
Model uncertainties
In Table 3-8 recommendations are given for permanent and variable loads.
Table 3-8 Model uncertainties for loads with associated distribution

function and distribution parameters

Permanent load N 0 0.051 -
Variable load N 1 - 0.10-0.202
1
0.05 multiplied with the mean value of the permanent load.
2
Depending on the uncertainty in the load model the value can be 0.10, 0.15 or 0.20.
The model uncertainty for permanent loads is considered in a reliability

analysis by addition to the associated variable.
For variable loads, a corresponding method is multiplying the model

uncertainty with the associated variable.
3.4 Recommendations for traffic load effect at bridges according to

Carlsson (2006)
A method is presented for determining the effect of traffic load on bridges.

Based on statistical materials from traffic measurements in 2002 and 2003 at
different locations in Sweden, extreme value distributions for section forces are
determined as a function of traffic intensity.
The result of this method shows that the magnitude of section forces at bridges
with short span depends either on a single heavy vehicle or a meeting between
two heavy vehicles. For continuous bridges, section forces are generated by a
caravan of heavy vehicles passing the bridge or a situation with a traffic queue
at the bridge.
According to Carlsson there is a difference between a load classification of

bridges based on type vehicles according to the Swedish Bridge Assessment
Code, Vägverket (1998) and on a reliability analysis of bridges for real traffic
loads.
32
While section forces caused by real traffic are extreme value distributed, as
earlier described, and have a coefficient of variation, cov, from 0.1 up to 0.2,
the traffic load effect in load classification is suggested to be normal distributed
with a low model uncertainty. Furthermore, the allowed traffic load value
should be based on the mean value of the section forces caused by the traffic
load.
The principal of dynamic effect is, as earlier described in the Road Directorate
(2004), an increase of the static load by multiplying with the dynamic factor İ.
The difference is the calculation of the dynamic supplement, St. Besides the
equation in the Road Directorate for calculation the dynamic effect, the
formula in Bridge Assessment Code, Vägverket (1998) also is used:
7.4
St
20 L
where L is a sort of equivalent span in meter.
This dynamic supplement is assumed to result in a characteristic value. With an

assumption of normal distributed variables the mean and standard deviation
can be calculated as follows
St
P St 1
1 I (0.98)
V St P St
where I 1 is the inverse of the standardized normal distribution.
33
Risk Management
4 RISK MANAGEMENT
4.1 General
In the community it has become more and more important and common to
evaluate risks in different fields of activities in order to decrease failures,
human harms, cost and to improve the safety of production etc. This is also an
important task after performing a probabilistic assessment of the strength of a
structure.
This work is often termed risk management and consists of three parts: risk
analysis, risk evaluation and finally risk reduction and control. The first two
parts are named risk assessment and are the basis for decision-makers in part
three. This is illustrated in Figure 4-1.
In this thesis the risk analysis is performed with use of two methods, First
Order Reliability Method (FORM) and Event Tree Analysis (ETA).
An initially risk identification is the base for a following sensitivity analysis of

all used stochastic variables. This is done with a FORM-calculation, in this
thesis a software named VaP (1997), developed by Schneider (1997) and
Petschacher (1993). This gives the importance of all used stochastic variables
and how they influence the calculated load carrying capacity.
The next part in the risk estimation is the ETA, which is described more in
detail in the next section.
The result of the risk analysis will then be the base for the remaining steps in
the risk assessment.
35
Risk Analysis
Definition of scope of analysis
Risk identification (hazards,

objects of harm, possible
consequences etc.)
Risk estimation (analyze

frequencies, consequences,
scenarios etc.) Risk
Assess-
ment
Risk Evaluation
Risk
Risk tolerability decisions Manage-
ment
Analysis of options (terminate,
transfer, tolerate, treat)
Risk Reduction and Control
Decision making
Implementation of risk reduction

measures
Monitoring of system behaviour

and health
Figure 4-1 The principal of Risk Assessment and Risk Management
36
Risk Management
4.2 Event Tree Analysis - ETA
Event Tree Analysis, abbreviated ETA, is suitable for technical systems and is
an inductive method, which mean that it studies a system to find out possible
states (Ingvarssson & Roos 2003, Becker 2000).
The basis of this analysis can be described with the following two steps
x Identify initial events in the system e.g. component faults or critical

conditions
x Identify possible subsequent events to each initial event and estimate

associated probabilities
The consequences of these initial events are then studied, together with
possible scenarios. The event tree presents a course of subsequent events with
associated probabilities. This is illustrated in Figure 4-2 with only two
subsequent events.
Initial event Subsequent event 1 Subsequent event 2 Consequence
No Outcome
P2 Ptot=P1P2
No
P1
1-P2 Outcome
Yes Ptot=P1(1-P2)
No
P3 Outcome
Ptot=(1-P1)P3
1-P1
Yes
1-P3 Outcome
Yes Ptot=(1-P1)(1-P3)
Figure 4-2 Illustration of an event tree
37
Resistance and strengthening methods
5 RESISTANCE AND STRENGTHENING

METHODS
5.1 Resistance
5.1.1 Bending moment capacity
In the ultimate limit stage the bending moment capacity for a reinforced
concrete beam can be calculated as, see Figure 5-1 and Betonghandboken
(1990).
İc fcc Fc
x 0,8x
d z
As
Fs
İs fst
b
Figure 5-1
Fc f cc 0,8 x b 5-1a
Fs f st As 5-1b
39
Fc Fs 5-1c
M Fs z 5-1d
z d 0,4 x 5-1e
§ f A ·
M f st As ¨¨ d st s ¸¸ 5-2
© 2 f cc b ¹
5.1.2 Shear capacity
As0
bw
Figure 5-2
According to BBK04 (2004)
The shear capacity for a structural part, where the cross section has a constant
construction height and there is no tensile force acting on it, can be formulated
as equation.
Vc bw d f v 5-3
where
fv 0,30] 1 50 U f ct
40
As 0
U d 0,02
bw d
1,4 when d d 0.2 m

°1,6 d when 0.2 m d d 0.5 m
°
] ®
°1,3 0,4d when 0.5 m d d 1.0 m
°¯0,9 when 1.0 m d
An alternative solution, according to EC 2 (2002), is
§ 0,18k 3 ·
V Rdc ¨¨ 100 U f cck 0,15V cm ¸¸ bw d 5-4
© 1,5J n ¹
V Rdc v min 0,15V cp bw d 5-5
v min 0,035 k 3 f ck
where
0,2
k 1 d 2,0
d
As 0
U d 0,02
bw d
In areas without any cracks caused by bending moment, the shear capacity
according to the following equation will be used.
bw I 2
V Rdc f ct V cm f ct 5-6
S
41
5.1.3 Plastic hinges
Principle of plastic hinges
In the upper part of Figure 5-3 an example is shown with plastic hinges in a
frame structure. In the upper part of the Figure the frame structure is loaded
with a uniformly distributed load, denoted q1. Plastic hinges appear near the
frame corners at the horizontal element. The part of the element between these
plastic hinges can thereafter be considered as simply supported with supporting
moment at both ends corresponding to the bending moment capacity at these
sections.
The load can then increases until one more plastic hinge appears between the
other two hinges, as can be seen in the lower part of Figure 5-3. The load can
now be denoted q2 . A mechanism has been developed and the frame structure
will fail. Another failure scenario can occur before this mechanism appears and
that is concrete crushing at one of the plastic hinges, see Figure 5-4. This is
caused by insufficient rotational capacity in these sections. The optimal failure
is based on the mechanism.
q1
Plastic hinges near the frame

corners
q2 (>q1)
A mechanism (with three plastic

hinges) is developed.
Figure 5-3 Illustration of a frame structure with plastic hinges at the

horizontal slab
42
Risk for concrete crushing
Figure 5-4 Illustration of the frame corner with possible concrete crushing
at the lower edge of the horizontal slab
Rotational capacity of plastic hinges
According to the Swedish handbook of concrete design, Betonghandboken

(1990), a method for estimation of the rotational capacity is presented. This
calculation is also shown here.
The rotational capacity, șu, is formulated according to following Equation.
Tu A B C 10 3 5-7
Zs
A 1 0.6 Z v 1.7 Z s´ 1.4 5-8
Z bal
where Z v and Z sc represents shear reinforcement respectively compression

reinforcement which are not of interest for the bridge which will be studied in
Chapter 7. Therefore there will not be any description of the associated
Equations.
As f st
Zs 5-9
bc d f cc
3.5 10 3
Z bal 0.8 5-10
3 f
3.5 10 st
Es
The second coefficient in Equation 5-7 depends on the types of reinforcement

and the form of the reinforcement stress-strain curve according to Table 5-1.
43
Table 5-1 Values for the coefficient B
Type of reinforcement B Max of A·B

Ks600, Ks400, Ss260,
1.0 1.7
Ss260S, Ss220, Ss220S
Ks600S, Ks400S 0.8 1.1
Cold-finished steel with 0.6(1 0.7 H p H g ) 0.5
İg 3 % fstu/fst(0.2) 1.1
The coefficient C depends on the position of the plastic hinge in the structure
and to the load distribution.
Near support:
l0
C 10 d 45 5-11
d
Other sections:
l0
C 7 d 45 5-12
d
where l0 is the distance between the plastic hinge and the chosen moment zero
point.
44
5.2 Strengthening
In this thesis two types of strengthening methods are shortly described since
they are used on the studied bridges in the case studies in Chapter 6-8. One of
these methods is bonded concrete overlays while the other one is FRP
strengthening.
5.2.1 Strengthening with bonded concrete overlays
This is a method that can be used at bridges where the bending moment
capacity and sometimes the shear capacity is insufficient. In Figure 5-5 up to
Figure 5-8 the principle of this strengthening method is shown for a slab frame
bridge where the reinforced concrete layer is cast against the existing
superstructure.
Bonded concrete overlay
Existing structure
Detail A
Figure 5-5 Illustration of a slab frame bridge strengthened with bonded

concrete overlay.
45
Figure 5-6 Detail A, according to Figure 5-5
The load carrying capacity is increased with this reinforced concrete layer, as
shown in Figure 5-6.
In Figure 5-7 a simply reinforced strengthened cross section is loaded with a

bending moment in the ultimate limit state.
Ass İss
Fss
İs
dss Fs
As
ds
x 0.4x 0.8x
İc Fc
b fcc
Figure 5-7 Stress and strain diagram
There are several possible failure modes that can occur. The most typical one is
presented here with the assumption of a normally reinforced strengthened cross
46
section which means that all tensile reinforcement bars reach their yield limit
before the concrete is crushed.
Horizontal equilibrium gives
Fc Fs Fss 5-13
f cc 0.8 x b f y As f ys Ass
and x can be solved as
fy As fys Ass
x 5-14
fcc 0.8 b
Moment equilibrium gives
M f y As (d s 0.4 x) f ys Ass (d ss 0.4 x) 5-15
The strain in the new reinforcement can be checked with use of Equation
§ d ss ·
H ss H cu ¨ 1¸ 5-16
© x ¹
where H cu 3.5 ‰.
The condition is that
f ys
H ss ! 5-17
Es
Bond strength in joint between new and old concrete
This strengthening method needs, as earlier described, interaction between the

new and the existing structure. The condition is that the shear bond capacity in
the joint between the existing and the new concrete is higher than the shear
stresses. This can be reached with or without mechanical bonds.
47
The calculation of shear stresses in joint can be solved with help of Equation 5-
18, compare with Figure 5-8.
Bending moment
curve
ǻM
New
tensile ǻx
reinforcement
Existing
tensile
reinforcement
Construction joint
Figure 5-8 Bending moment variation
'M F new VSdmax Fstnew

W stTotal 5-18
'x z b Fst z b FstTotal
where
Fstnew strength in the new reinforcement
FstTotal strength in both existing and new tensile reinforcement
z the internal level arm
b the width of the considered cross section
5.2.2 Strengthening with FRP ( Fibre Reinforced Polymers)
This is a method that is rather new, at least in the building industry, and
compared with other methods for strengthening existing concrete structures.
The description of this method is in generally based on Täljsten (2006). The
principle of this method is to improve the load carrying capacity or behaviour
48
of a concrete structure with plates or sheets bonded to the structure with an

adhesive. Generally, the plates and sheets are composites consisting of fibres
and a matrix. There are three common types of fibres that can be used, glass,
aramid and carbon. The most common for building structures of concrete is
carbon. The fibres are embedded in the matrix, often consisting of epoxy.
In the building industry this method has been used for strengthening structures
in shear, torsion and bending, even if the most common application of the FRP,
so far, has been to improve insufficient bending capacities of structures.
In this thesis strengthening with FRP is only used to improve the bending
moment capacity of a concrete structure. There are several strengthening
systems that can be used for this purpose but here only laminates and NSMR
(Near Surface Mounted Reinforcement) systems are mentioned.
While the laminates are flat with a typical size of 1.2 x 100 mm bonded at the
surface of the structure, the NSMR (Near Surface Mounted Reinforcement)
system consists of circular or rectangular rods bonded in slots in the concrete
cover of a structural element. An illustration of these two alternatives is shown
in Figure 5-9.
Laminates systems NSMR system
Figure 5-9 Principal of the laminates systems and the NSMR systems
Possible failure modes for bending moment capacity
The following description is according to Björn Täljsten (2006).
In Figure 5-10 the strain and stress fields at a cross section of a beam are
shown.
49
İc
d´s b İc0 ǻİc
fcc fcc Fs´
ȕx Fs´ 0.4x
A´s 0.8x x Fc
Fc
h ds
ǻİs İs0 Įfcc M
As
Fs Fs
Af Ff Ff
bf İf İu0
Figure 5-10 Stress and strain diagram for a cross section of a rectangular
beam
Here follows possible failure types for determining the bending moment
capacity.
Failure type 1: Failure in laminate with yielding in the compression steel

reinforcement
M Asc f yc ( E x d sc ) As f y (d s E x) H f E f A f (h E x) 5-19
Df cc bx Asc f yc As f y H f E f A f
As f y H f E f A f Asc f yc
x 5-20
Df cc b
Failure type 2: Failure in laminate without yielding in the compression steel

reinforcement
x d sc
M (H f H u 0 ) Asc E s ( Ex d sc ) As f y (d s E x) H f E f A f (h Ex) 5-21
hx
50
x d sc
Df cc bx (H f H u 0 ) Asc E s As f y H f E f A f
hx
x can be solved according to following quadratic equation
C1 x 2 C 2 x C 3 0 5-22
where
C1 Df cc b
C2 Df cc bh (H f H u 0 ) Asc E s As f y H f E f A f
C3 (H f H u 0 ) Asc E s d sc ( As f y H f E f A f )h
Failure type 3: Crushing of concrete and yielding in the compression and

tensile steel reinforcement
§hx ·
M Asc f yc ( E x d sc ) As f y (d s E x) ¨ H cu H uo ¸ E f A f (h Ex) 5-23
© x ¹
§hx ·
Df cc bx Asc f yc As f y ¨ H cu H u 0 ¸ E f A f
© x ¹
x can be solved with a quadratic equation as follows
C1 x 2 C 4 x C 5 0 5-24
where
C1 Df cc b
C4 Asc f yc As f y (H cu H u 0 ) E f A f
51
C5 H cu E f A f h
Failure type 4: Crushing of concrete and yielding in the tensile steel

reinforcement
§ x d sc ·
M ¨ H cu ¸ Asc E s ( Ex d sc )
© x ¹
5-25
§hx ·
As f y (d s E x) ¨ H cu H u 0 ¸ E f A f (h Ex)
© x ¹
§ x d sc · §hx ·
Df cc bx ¨ ¸ Asc E s As f y ¨ H cu H u 0 ¸ E f A f
© x ¹ © x ¹
x can be solved with a quadratic equation as follows
C1 x 2 C 6 x C 7 0 5-26
where
C1 Df cc b
C6 H cu Asc E s As f y (H cu H u 0 ) E f A f
C7 H cu ( Asc E s d sc E f A f h)
Shearing strength in joints
The calculation of shearing stresses in the joint between concrete and the FRP
is in principal the same as described for strengthening with bonded concrete
overlays in section 5.2.1. For more details, see Täljsten (2006).
52
The E4 Bridge Over Piteå River
6 THE E4 BRIDGE OVER PITEÅ RIVER
Figure 6-1 Elevation of the E4 bridge over Piteå River in Northern Sweden
6.1 Reinforcement with concrete casting
The bridge is a continuous steel beam bridge with a concrete deck built in
1969. It has four spans (52+70+70+52 m) and a total length of 257 m. The
width is 13 m. There is no structural interaction between the bridge deck and
the steel beams. An elevation and a cross section of the bridge are presented in
Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2. The location of the bridge can be seen in Figure 6-3.
53
Figure 6-2 Cross section of the E4 bridge over Piteå River
Bridge site
Figure 6-3 Location of the bridge site
The allowed values of the axel load (A) and bogie load (B) are A/B = 14/18
tons. These values are not based on a specific calculation of the bridge but
instead on a comparison with calculations of other similar bridges. These low
values imply that heavy loaded vehicles can be allowed to pass the bridge only
54
if they drive in the middle of the bridge with a low velocity and with no other
traffic on the bridge.
6.2 Assessment of bearing capacity
As an effort to increase traffic safety on roads with a high traffic flow, the
Swedish Road Administration (SRA) is changing the roads into 2 +1 lanes with
a parapet in between. This measure is also planned for the Piteå Bridge. It will
give a width of 7.9 m for the two lane part and a width of 5.1 m for the
remaining one lane part. In average about 8000 vehicles pass the bridge per
day. Among these about 15 % are heavy vehicles. Most of the heavy vehicles
can pass the bridge without any limitations but there are some with extra heavy
loads which need a special exemption from SRA as a licence for passing the
bridge. For this bridge it means that the heavy loaded vehicle must pass the
bridge in the middle, with a low speed and with no other traffic on the bridge.
This will no longer be possible with a parapet in the middle of it.
An opening in the parapet just before and after the bridge would be a solution
allowing the heavy loaded vehicles to pass the bridge in the part with two lanes
and close to the middle parapet. However, this would imply a frequent change
of traffic direction on the middle lane which is not a good solution. It would be
much better if heavy traffic could be allowed on all three lanes.
A deterministic calculation made in 2004 and based on the Bridge Assessment

Code, Vägverket (1998), analysed the consequences of a specific heavy loaded
vehicle, according to Figure 6-4, passing the bridge in the part with one lane
and driving close to the outer parapet. The result of this calculation implies that
the moment capacity of the load bearing edge beam is insufficient. The load
effect, MS = -61.4 kNm while the resistance, MR = -46.0 kNm, which imply a
30 % too low top reinforcement. Strengthening would therefore be necessary.
This calculation can be found in Appendix A.
55
Axle loads and distance between axles in longitudinal direction
7.5 2·14 5·12.9 [tons]
4.2 1.35 6.91 4·1.26 [m]
Distance between wheels in transverse direction
2.6
3.4
Figure 6-4 Illustration of axle configuration of the specific heavy load

vehicle
The edge beam with associated geometry and reinforcements are illustrated in
Figure 6-5. As the figure shows, there are only two reinforcement bars in the
top of the edge beam.
56
2Ø 16
Concrete
K40 according to drawings
420 + 30
Reinforcement
397
Ks400 according to drawings
4Ø 16
300
Figure 6-5 Edge beam with reinforcement
In order to find out the real capacity of the edge beam (and perhaps to avoid
strengthening), SRA asked Luleå University of Technology to test the beam. In
the test, measurements were carried out near the fourth support at the northwest
edge beam. Strain gauges were placed in the top and bottom of the edge beam
according to Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7.
Figure 6-6 Edge beam with gauges on the reinforcement bar and on the
concrete surface, c=concrete, s=steel, u=upper, l=lower
57
Figure 6-7 Gauges placed on the reinforcement bar, left picture, and at the
concrete surface, right picture, of the edge beam
A lorry with known axle and bogie loads was then driving at the bridge deck
cantilever near the edge beam, according to Figure 6-8.
Figure 6-8 Load test of the edge beam with a lorry with known loads
The result from one of 13 load tests with strain measurements is presented in
Figure 6-9.
58
250
Steel upper
200 Steel lower
Tension [Pstrain]
150 Conc. upper

Conc. lower
100
50
0
-50
-100
40 50 60 70 80 90
Time [seconds]
Figure 6-9 Measured strains for one of the load cases
6.3 Comparison between tests and theory
A theoretical deterministic analysis of the strains in the reinforcement and the

concrete gives much higher values than the measurements. The calculated
reinforcement strains are of the order of 600 μstrain compared to the measured
values of 120 μstrain. For concrete in compression, the theoretical value is 200
μstrain compared to a measured mean value of 40 μstrain. In both cases the
ratio between theoretical and measured value is about 5. The differences may
partly be due to a better traffic load distribution than assumed in the theoretical
calculations. The concrete cross section is also probably still un-cracked for the
applied load. However, the strains will probably grow when heavy loaded
vehicles pass the bridge near the outer parapet causing the concrete cross
section to crack. Thus, based on the measurements and the analysis, the
recommendation was to strengthen the reinforcement of the edge beam.
6.4 Probabilistic analysis
This analysis is based on the failure mode determined in the deterministic

calculation and will present the effect of a probabilistic approach to this
problem with insufficient moment capacity.
The ultimate limit state function of the bending moment capacity for the edge
beam can be described as in Equation 6-1, with notation according to Table
6-1.
59
§ C fst f st As ·
G C fst fst As ¨ d ¸ C tr 1 S t Mtr 6-1
¨ 2 b C fcc f cc ¸
© ¹
For geometry and other information, see Figure 6-5.
Assumed distribution functions for the different variables are presented in

Table 6-1, together with associated mean values, μ, standard deviations, ı, and
coefficients of variance, in the Table denoted as V.
Table 6-1 Variables and their parameters
Variable Notation Distribution P V V >P V @

Reinforcement area As N 402 mm2 8.04 0.020
Reinforcement yield
f st N 470 MPa 30 0.064
strength
f cc LN 31.2 MPa 4.8 0.153
strength
Effective depth d N 397 mm 10 0.025
Width b D 300 mm - -
Moment, traffic M tr N 38.6 kNm 3.86 0.1
Dynamic factor St N 0.048 0.048 1
Model uncertainty C fst D 1 - -
reinforcement
Model uncertainty C fcc D 1 - -
concrete
Model uncertainty
C tr D 1 - -
traffic
The values and distributions are in generally based on recommendations in

JCSS (2001), Road Directorate (2004), see also Carlsson (2006), and
Enochsson et al (2002). Deviations from these recommendations or
elucidations are presented below.
6.4.1 Concrete compression strength
According to the deterministic calculation the characteristic value of the

concrete compression strength is fcck,just = 30.78 MPa (fcck = 28.5).
60
Since the distribution is assumed to be lognormal, the translation from the

characteristic value fcck to the mean value ȝfcc is according to this formula
§ V fcc ·
P fcc f cck ¨ exp1.64 ¸ 6-2
¨ P fcc ¸
© ¹
According to drawings the quality is K40 corresponding to a demanded cube

compression strength of 40 MPa. As characteristic compression strength we
use the deterministic value fcck,just = 30.78 MPa
§ V c,cyl ·
P c,cyl f cck, just exp¨1.64 ¸ 6-3
¨ P ¸
© c, cyl ¹
The value of V c,cyl is set to 5 MPa according to a suggestion in Eurocode 2 (EN

1992-1-1) 2005.
This leads to a value of P c,cyl = 35.4 MPa
The in-situ strength at 28 days can be estimated as
P c,is P N P c,cyl 6-4
According to EN 13791 (2007), P N can be assumed to be 0.85. JCSS (2001)

suggested that this parameter will have a lognormal distribution with cov N =
0.06.
P c,is 0.85 35.4 30.1 MPa
2
2 2 § 5 · 2
cov c,is cov c,cyl cov N ¨ ¸ 0.06 0.153 6-5
© 35.4 ¹
P c,is,2007 E cc (t ) P c,is 6-6
Here P c,is,2007 is the mean in-situ compression strength in year 2007 and
E cc (t ) can according to CEB-FIB Model Code (1990), be written as
61
ª § § 28 · 0.5 ·º
E cc (t ) exp « s¨1 ¨ ¸ ¸» 6-7
«¬ ¨© © t ¹ ¸¹»¼
where the value of s depends on the type of cement of the concrete. For normal
cement the value is 0.25.
The bridge was built in 1969. The value of t is therefore 38 in 2007.
ª § § 28 · 0.5 ·º
E cc (t ) exp «0.25¨1 ¨ ¸ ¸» 1.036
«¬ ¨ © 38 ¹ ¸»
© ¹¼
P c,is,2007 1.036 30.1 31.2 MPa
The coefficient of variance, cov, of the in-situ compression strength in year

2007 is calculated as:
0.3E cc (t ) 1 0.31.036 1

cov Ecc 0.010 6-8
P Ecc 1.036
cov c,is, 2007 cov c,2 is cov 2Ecc 0.153 2 0.010 2 0.153
The value 0.3 in Equation 6-8 is the coefficient of variance, according to

Thelandersson (2004), for the increase of the concrete strength, ȕcc(t)-1.
So then, the mean value and the cov of the compression strength of the
concrete are assumed to be 31.2 MPa and 0.153 respectively with a lognormal
distribution.
6.4.2 Dynamic factor
According to Road Directorate (2004), see Chapter 3, this factor is described as
H 1 St 6-9
where
S t N P St , V St and is the dynamic supplement.
62
V St P St
These recommendations applied to the Bridge Assessment Code, Vägverket

(1998), gives
180 8v 10
H 1 6-10
10020 L
where v is the velocity and L is the length of the span.
A velocity of 30 km/h and a length of 3.1 m, leads to the value 0.147 for St.
This formula of St, is assumed to be a characteristic value and corresponds to

the 98th percentile. The expression for the mean value is therefore
St
P St 6-11
1 I 1
0.98
0.147
P St 0.048
1 2.054
V St 0.048
6.4.3 Moment caused by traffic (heavy loaded vehicle)
In an earlier chapter the traffic is recommended to be gumbel distributed. In

this case the traffic is assumed to have a normal distribution. The reason for
this choice is the fact that it is a specific heavy loaded vehicle that needs
exemption to pass the bridge, as earlier described. The variation of associated
load effect is therefore more limited than the characteristic value of traffic
corresponding to the 98th percentile of the annual maximum distribution.
The deterministic calculation is based on, as earlier described, the case when a
heavy loaded vehicle drives close to the outer bridge parapet. But in reality it is
more likely that the vehicles position can be described with a probability
density function as shown in Figure 6-10. The position of the load resultant is
described as a distance a from the centre line of the nearest main girder of the
bridge.
63
Load resultant
Propability density
from vehicle
function
Figure 6-10 Probability density function for position of the heavy load
vehicles on the bridge deck cantilever
With a chosen coefficient of variation, 0.1, the maximum value of the lever
arm in Figure 6-10, is calculated. As in the deterministic calculation, the theory
of beam on elastic supports and recommendations in an older concrete code,
named B7 (1968), is used. The stiffness of the elastic supports is the inverted
value of the vertical deflections per unit value of a point load, see Figure 6-11.
1 1
z
y
Figure 6-11 Illustration of the cantilever deformation caused by a point load
The bending moment at the edge beam caused by several point loads can then
be calculated as
P Ex
M x e cos Ex sin Ex 6-12
4E
where
64
x distance between point load and considered section

P point load
E 2r
The parameter, r, is the point load distribution in the longitudinal direction of

the bridge.
For more information about this calculation, see Appendix A.
The result of analysing how near the outer parapet the specific heavy vehicle
can drive without causing failure in the ultimate limit state, give a lever arm, a,
that is 1,25 m. This implies that the distance between the centre of the outer
wheels of the vehicle and the outer parapet is 0.55 m. The corresponding
bending moment is 38.6 kNm.
According to Road Directorate (2004) it can be assumed that the position of the
vehicle is normal distributed with a standard deviation of 0.24 m. In this case
with restriction in velocity and location a maximum deviation in transverse
direction is estimated to be 0.24 m.
With consideration to this the distance between the outer parapet and the
centre of the outer wheels will be increased to 0.79 m.
6.4.4 Model uncertainties
All model uncertainties are assumed to be deterministic. The reason is, with
start with the resistance part of the failure function, that the used model for the
bending moment capacity of a beam has a good conformance with test results.
That’s why model uncertainty for reinforcement is considered as deterministic.
Even if there are uncertainties with concrete compression strength, this variable
is set to be deterministic because it has a low effect on the final result.
There are some uncertainties with the traffic, not so much on the load value but
more on the load effect at the considered beam. The uncertainties are however
assumed to be on the safe side, because the used model for load distribution is
rather rough. The result of the performed load test on the bridge, as earlier
described, is also indicating this.
65
6.4.5 Result
A FORM calculation with VaP (1999) gives the value of safety index ȕ = 4.8,
which is the limit for safety class 3.
This implies further that the analysed heavy loaded vehicle can be allowed to
pass the bridge under the following conditions:
x It drives along a marked line which is at least 2.09 m from the outer
edge of the edge beam. Deviations according to recommendations from
Road Directorate (2004) have then been considered.
x The maximum velocity is 30 km/h
x There is no other traffic on the bridge
As an information, with a coefficient of variation for the traffic set to 0.05

instead for 0.1, the distance between the outer parapet and the centre of the
outer wheels of the vehicle is only 0.35 m.
6.5 Risk Assessment
The risk assessment follows the steps presented in chapter 4.
6.5.1 Risk Analysis
The first part of the risk analysis, risk identification, is here limited to
uncertainties of the resistance and load effect, with variables described in
Equation 6-1.
In the following risk estimation, which is the next part of the risk analysis,
these presented uncertainties respective consequences of deviations from
assumed values are studied. The above presented method, FORM, for
probabilistic calculation of reliability index ȕ, is also describing the importance
of the used stochastic variables with weighting factors, Į. These can be seen in
Table 6-2.
66
Table 6-2 Weighting factors for used stochastic variables
Variable Į
As -0.164
fy -0.638
fcc -0.022
d -0.216
Mtr 0.630
St 0.349
The two stochastic variables that are the most important variables in Equation
6-1 are fy and Mtr which have almost the same Į-value §0.6. It can also be
stated that the concrete compression strength fcc has the lowest importance.
The weighting factors give an initial guidance on which variables that are most
critical for the result and are therefore most important to know.
As presented above there are two important variables to study more about in
this case. If also the variable St is considered, because of its influence on the
traffic impact on the bridge, the load effect caused by traffic is the most
important on the reliability index ȕ. The risk assessment in this case is
therefore continuing with an ETA-analysis with a focus on the traffic load
effect.
The initial event in this ETA-analysis is assumed to be a situation where a

heavy loaded vehicle will pass the bridge with earlier described conditions. The
following events are studied: “velocity, v, higher than 30 km/h” and “deviation
from marked line with about 0.35 m”. The third condition, another vehicle at
the bridge, is not analysed here since this occasion is estimated to have a rather
low probability. In Figure 6-12 an Event Tree with these described events,
associated probabilities and consequences are shown.
67
HLV pass v > 30 km/h Deviation from marked Consequence

the bridge line with more than 0.24 m
but smaller than 0.35 m
No ȕ = 4.8
P = 0.5 P = 0.25
No
P = 0.50
P = 0.5 ȕ = 4.17
Yes P = 0.25
ȕ 40= 4.59
No
ȕ 50= 4.35
P = 0.5
P = 0.25
P = 0.50
Yes
ȕ 40= 3.96
P = 0.5
ȕ 50= 3.75
Yes
P = 0.25
Figure 6-12 Event tree showing some events with associated probabilities
and the consequences
In Figure 6-12 denote ȕ40 and ȕ50 the reliability index ȕ when the velocity is 40
km/h and 50 km/h.
All probabilities are estimated since there have not been any measurements
done on this bridge, but the used values differ presumably not so much from
the real ones. The level of chosen probability for deviation from marked line is
influenced from the lack of will to understand, among conveyors and other
involved, the importance of the conditions that follows with the permission to
pass of the bridge. There is a general attitude among, at least these conveyors,
that bridges have a higher strength than they are declared for. The owners have
also some part in this opinion since the load carrying capacity of bridges has
been updated several times without any physical measures at the bridges e.g.
strengthening. The increased strengths are instead based on more sophisticated
calculations.
68
6.5.2 Risk Evaluation
Based on these estimations Figure 6-12 shows that among all heavy loaded
vehicles with exemption for passing the bridge at a certain marked line, there
are only 25 % that follows the regulations. Even if there are some differences
between estimated and real probabilities for these described events, the same
Figure shows a rather low value for the reliability index ȕ when both described
events occurs, ȕ = 3.75, which corresponds to something between safety class 1
and 2. Comparing these two events with each other gives that the event with
deviation from a certain line has the highest influence on the reliability index ȕ.
The result of these risk assessment methods, FORM and ETA, illustrates and
indicates that strengthening of the edge beam is recommended. The lack of
knowledge of the load effect and resistance imply that the uncertainty and risk
are too high.
6.6 Strengthening of the edge beam
This measure is a result of the risk assessment. The strengthening was made in
the year 2007. It consists of a carbon fibre reinforcement, NSMR system, with
dimensions as presented in Figure 6-13, glued in a grove at the top of the edge
beam, along the whole length and at both sides of the bridge.
100 Sto FRP Plate M25C

2x20 mm
2 Ø16
4 Ø16
Figure 6-13 Edge beam strengthened with CFRP.
Calculation for this strengthening can be found in Appendix A. With this

CFRP the bending moment capacity is increased to the value 62.9 kNm, which
is higher than load effect with MSd = 61.4 kNm.
69
6.7 Probabilistic approach and safety level
A renewed probabilistic calculation but now for the strengthened edge beam
gives an illustration of how an increased load carrying capacity affects the
safety against failure.
The ultimate limit state function is described in Equation 6-13.
G C fy As f y (d s 0.4 x) C f H f E f A f (h f 0.4 x) C tr (1 S t ) M tr 6-13
where
As f y H f E f A f
x 6-14
0.8 f cc b
The variables and their parameters are presented in Table 6-3 and Table 6-4
respectively.
Those variables and associated parameters used in Equation 6-1 for the
probabilistic calculation of the edge beam before strengthening are unchanged
in this calculation.
Table 6-3 Variables with their distribution functions and associated

parameters

2
Tensiled reinf. area As N 402 mm 8.04 0.02
Reinf. yield strength fy N 470 MPa 30 0.064
Steel stiffness Es D 200 GPa - -
Concr. compr. strength f cc LN 34.7 MPa 4.8 0.14
Fiber composite area Af N 40 mm2 0.8 0.02
Mod. of elast. fib comp. Ef N 260 GPa 5.2 0.02
Fibre composite strain Hf D 6‰ - -
70
Table 6-4 Further variables with their distribution parameters

Effective depth, steel ds N 397 mm 10 0.025
Width b D 300 mm - -
Effective depth, fiber hf N 425 mm 10 0.0235
composite
Moment, traffic M tr N 44.6 kNm 4.46 0.1
Dynamic factor St N 0.048 0.048 1
Model uncertainty C fy D 1 - -
reinforcement
Model uncertainty C fcc D 1 - -
concrete
Model uncertainty C Ef D 1 - -
Modulus fiber comp.
Model uncertainty
C tr D 1 - -
traffic
Fiber composite
Since there aren’t any recommendations found in the literature about the
distribution and associated parameters of the fiber composite area. Therefore
the same recommendation is used as for the reinforcement area, JCSS (2001),
see Chapter 3.
The calculation of the fiber composite is not directly based on stresses but
instead of strains and the modulus of elasticity, see Equation 6-13. These
stochastic variables have a small variation why it is reasonably that one of
them is set as deterministic. In this calculation the strain, İf is deterministic and
the modulus of elasticity, Ef is normal distributed with a low value of the
coefficient of variation, cov = 0.02, see Bergström (2006).
The FORM calculation with VAP (1999) gives the value 6.92 of the reliability
index ȕ with associated probability of failure, Pf = 2.29·10-12.
The importance of used stochastic variables is illustrated in Table 6-5 with

associated weighting factors, Į. These factors are also calculated with VAP
(1999).
71
Table 6-5 Weighting factors for used stochastic variables
Variable Į
As -0.134
fy -0.556
fcc -0.037
Af -0.064
Ef -0.064
ds -0.180
hf -0.079
Mtr 0.679
St 0.405
According to Table 6-5 the two most important variables are still the traffic
load effect and the reinforcement yield strength.
The result of the calculation indicates that the extent of performed

strengthening probably could have been smaller. This is illustrated in Figure
6-14 with varying area of fibre composite and the effect on the reliability index
ȕ.
10
8
Reliability index
5
Covtr=0.05
4
Reliability index = 4.8 Covtr=0.07
3
Covtr=0.1
2
0
2 5 10 20 30 40
2
Fibre composite area [mm ]
Figure 6-14 Influence of fibre composite area on the reliability index for
different values of the coefficient of variance for traffic
According to this Figure 6-14 a fibre composite area of 20 mm2 corresponds to

reliability index ȕ-value 4.8. If the coefficient of variance for the traffic is
72
lower than assumed in the above presented calculation, for example 0.07 or
0.05, the requisite fibre composite area will be 12 respectively 8 mm2.
Since there are lack of measurements and therefore knowledge about several
important variables, the presented fibre composite area, are more or less typical
examples of strengthening requirements under these conditions.
73
Bridge over kuivajärvi
7 BRIDGE OVER KUIVAJÄRVI
Figure 7-1 View of the bridge from south
7.1 Background
This is a concrete slab-frame bridge built in 1954 with a span of 6.4 m and a
width of 6.55. The bridge is located at the outlet of Kuivajärvi 5 km northwest
Övertorneå at the road 917, see Figure 7-2. The bridge had earlier a strength
that allowed vehicles with axle and bogie weights up to 18 respective 24 tons,
which corresponds to the highest load class, BK1.
75
Poikkijärvi

Kuivakangas

Bridge site

Road 99

Haapakylä

391

Tureholm

Laksi
ÖvertorneåTurovaara

Matarengi

40 0 m
Since 1997 the load carrying capacity of the bridge is restricted to a level
corresponding to load class 3, which is the lowest class and means for this
bridge that the allowed values for axle load and bogie load are 6 and 8 ton
respectively. The reason for this limit is support movements in the horizontal
direction. The two frame legs have moved towards each other, and a
measurement made in 2006 gave that the east frame leg has moved most,
nearly 0,17 m, compared with the other frame leg with a horizontal movement
of about 0,09 m. Also the four embankment ends have moved out towards the
outlet. This and vertical cracks at the edge beams caused by the support
movements can be seen in Figure 7-3 to Figure 7-6.
76
Figure 7-3 Vertical cracks in the northern edge beam
Figure 7-4 Upward deflection of the southern edge beam caused by support
movements
77
Figure 7-5 Inclination of the western frame leg
West East
0,17 0,09
Figure 7-6 Measured support movement. VV Konsult (2006).
In the year 2005 a study of the bridge was started to see if it was possible to
find the real load carrying capacity of the bridge.
78
The decision for decreasing the allowed traffic load on the bridge was only
based on experience, and not on calculations. Because of this load restriction
only vehicle as cars and light-weighted lorries can pass the bridge. Heavier
vehicles must choose another way to reach the village just west of the bridge.
There are requirements from people in the village to allow busses to pass the
bridge.
7.2 Assessment of capacity
Because of a low traffic flow on the road, existing alternative road to the
village and a low level of the SRA budget for maintenance, there has been no
decision to build a new bridge.
As earlier mentioned there has not been any analysis of the load carrying
capacity, so the first step was therefore to make a load classification calculation
according to the Bridge Assessment Code, based on deterministic rules.
The calculation can be found in Appendix B. The result of this analysis is

summarized in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1 Result of the deterministic analysis
Allowed axle load Allowed bogie load

Limit state Failure mode
[kN] [kN]
Bending moment
Ultimate limit state 110 140
capacity
Ultimate limit state Fatigue 116 143
Serviceability limit
Stresses 116 143
state
According to the load classification rules, the load distribution at the bridge
must be based on the model of elasticity. Since the support movements are so
large, this requirement can not be reached. The load carrying capacity of the
bridge can therefore not completely be explained by the use of the load
classification rules. If the analysis would stop here, the recommendation should
be to replace the bridge.
The values of the axle load and the bogie load, presented in Table 7-1, are
instead based on the theory of plastic hinges, as a way to explain the function
of this bridge today. It seems to be that two plastic hinges have appeared in the
79
bridge deck in sections where some reinforcement bars ø16 end, see Figure
7-7.
Critical sections
Figure 7-7 Section of the bridge with reinforcement
The capacity, according to this theory, is reached when one of these criteria
have occurred.
Rotational capacities of the plastic hinges are insufficient.
A mechanism (more than three plastic hinges) occurs.
Appearance of incremental plastic rupture in sections with plastic hinges
According to the calculations in Appendix B, the rotational capacity is enough,

and the moment capacity is based on a mechanism where the third plastic
hinges can be found in the frame leg, in a section where some reinforcement
bars are ended, see Figure 7-7 and Figure 7-8.
80
The third criteria, appearance of incremental plastic rupture, is discussed more

in section 7.3.
Plastic hinges
Figure 7-8 A sketch showing the frame with a mechanism with three plastic
hinges that is limiting the bending moment capacity of the
bridge
7.3 Probabilistic assessment
This probabilistic assessment implies inspections, measurements, load tests

with a heavy loaded vehicle and calculations.
The measurements of this bridge is focused on
Bridge geometry
Material properties, reinforcement
Strains in reinforcement bars and concrete when the bridge is tested with a
heavy loaded vehicle. The measurement points are at sections where plastic
hinges are located, according to theoretical calculations. This was done to
evaluate the risk of an incremental plastic rupture, and with a view to
evaluate the function of the bridge and to minimize some of the model
uncertainties that are used in the probabilistic calculation.
These calculations are based on a FORM-method with a reliability safety index

ȕ as a safety level estimator. The same failure modes and critical sections that
were of interest in the deterministic calculations are studied here for comparing
the results. The measurements are supposed to give important information
81
about loads and resistance of the bridge, maybe to make it possible to find out
more of the true picture of the load effect at the bridge, decrease some model
uncertainties and increase material characteristic values. The behaviour of the
bridge when it is loaded may lead to an increased load carrying capacity.
Based on the result of the deterministic calculations, see Table 7-1, the
probabilistic calculations are only focus on the bending moment capacity in the
ultimate limit state.
The bending moment capacity
According to the earlier deterministic calculation the critical section is in the

frame leg about 3.6 meters from bottom edge of the base slab where some
reinforcements are finished.
Ft
xTP
h d
Nd Md
Fc
0,8x
b
Figure 7-9 A cross section of a concrete beam with external and internal
section forces
The failure function can be formulated as
f () As f st C fst 0.8 b C fcc f cc

§ ep su § ep
· ·
¨
¨ d 2 ¦ C i M i ¦ C i M i ¨¨ ¦ C i N i ¦ C i N i ¸¸d xtp ¸¸
¨ § d · i sw i tr © i sw ¹ ¸
¨ ¸
¨ 0 .8 © 0 .8 ¹ 0.32 b f cc C fcc ¸
¨¨ ¸¸
© ¹
§ ol su
·
¨ ¦ C i N i ¦ C i N i ¸ 7-1
© i sw i tr ¹
where
82
ep
¦ C
i sw
i M i C sw M sw C p M p C ep M ep
su
¦ C M
i tr
i i C tr M tr C br M br C su M su
The variables in Equation 7-1 together with their parameters, mean value(ȝ),
standard deviation(ı), coefficient of variation(cov) and distribution function
are presented in Table 7-2 and Table 7-3.
These variables and distributions are in generally based on recommendations

and requirements according to JCSS (2001), Road Directorate (2004) and
Carlsson (2006). More specific information is given for some of the variables.
Concrete
According to drawings the quality is K30 corresponding to a demanded cube

compression strength of 30 MPa. As characteristic value we use the
deterministic value fcck = 32 MPa, as fck,cyl, corresponding to K45 which can be
assumed for a good concrete of this age.
§ V c,cyl ·
P c,cyl f ck,cyl exp¨1.64 ¸
¨ P c,cyl ¸¹
©
The value of V c,cyl is set to 5 MPa according to a suggestion in Eurocode 2 (EN

1992-1-1) 2005.
This leads to a value of P c,cyl = 36.7 MPa
The in-situ strength at 28 days can be estimated as ,
P c,is P N P c,cyl
According to EN 13791 (2007), P N can be assumed to be 0.85. JCSS (2001)

suggested that this parameter will have a lognormal distribution with cov N =
0.06.
P c,is 0.85 36.7 31.2 MPa
83
2
2 2 § 5 · 2
cov c,is cov c,cyl cov N ¨ ¸ 0.06 0.148
© 36.7 ¹
P c,is,2007 E cc (t ) P c,is
Here P c,is,2007 is the mean in-situ compression strength in 2007 and E cc (t ) is

according to CEB-FIB Model Code (1990), see following formula:
ª § § 28 · 0.5 ·º
E cc (t ) exp « s¨1 ¨ ¸ ¸»
«¬ ¨© © t ¹ ¸¹»¼
where the value of s is dependent on the type of cement of the concrete. For
normal cement the value is 0.25.
In 2007 the E cc (t ) is 1.272.
P c,is,2007 1.272 31.2 39.7 MPa
The cov of the in-situ compression strength in 2007 is calculated as:
0.3E cc (t ) 1 0.31.272 1

cov c,is,2007 0.064
P Ecc 1.272
cov c,is, 2007 cov c,2 is cov 2Ecc 0.148 2 0.064 2 0.161
The value 0.3 in Equation for calculation the cov c,is,2007 is the coefficient of
variance, according to Thelandersson (2004), for the increase of the concrete
strength, ȕcc(t)-1.
So then, the mean value and the cov of the compression strength of the
concrete are assumed to be 39.7 MPa respective 0.161 with a lognormal
distribution.
The parameters for model uncertainty are based on recommendations from

Road Directorate (2004) and JCSS (2001).
84
Reinforcement
According to drawings the quality is st44 which corresponds to Ss 26 S. This

reinforcement has a characteristic yield strength, f yk = 270 MPa, see BBK 04
(2004). The distribution form and associated mean value and standard
deviation vary between different countries and codes. Here, two different
suggestions are presented. According to JCSS (2001) the yield strength can be
described as normal distributed with a standard deviation, V = 30 MPa and
mean value of f yk 2 V 330 MPa.
An alternative is according to Road Directorate (2004) and Degerman (1981)

where the yield strength is assumed to has a lognormal distribution with
standard deviation V fst = 25 MPa and the mean value as:
§ V ·
P fst f yk exp¨¨1.64 fst ¸¸ 308.4 MPa
© P fst ¹
In the analysis the last presented values have been chosen.
The parameters for model uncertainty are based on recommendations from

Road Directorate (2004).
Width
The superstructure is a slab where the width often differs very little and it is not
of big importance for the result of the bending moment capacity. It is therefore
most convenient to consider the slab as divided into longitudinal strips. The
width of these strips can be set to the deterministic value 1 m.
Section forces caused by support movement
The distribution and the parameters are not based on some recommendations
but instead on assumptions. Even if the movements have been measured the
variable is not considered as deterministic. There can probably be further
movements in the future. Without any found recommendations this variable is
assumed to be normal distributed with a coefficient of variation, cov = 0.1. The
model uncertainty is also assumed to be normal distributed with a mean value
= 0 and a standard deviation = 0.07 ǜ mean value of the section force.
85
Section forces caused by earth pressure
Without any found recommendations about distribution functions and

parameters these section forces are also assumed to be normal distributed with
a coefficient of variance, cov = 0.1. The model uncertainty is also assumed to
be normal distributed with a mean value = 0 and a standard deviation =
0.07ǜmean value of the section force.
Table 7-2 Variables with their distribution functions and distribution

parameters
Variables Notation Distribution ȝ cov ı

Reinforcement
fst Lognormal 308.4 MPa 0.064 25 MPa
tensile strength
2
Reinforcement area As Normal 718 mm 0.02 14.4 mm2
Concr compression
fcc Lognormal 39.7 MPa 0.161 6.4 MPa
strength
Width b Determ. 1000 mm - -
Effective depth d Normal 417 mm 10 mm
Moment self weight Msw Normal 19.9 kNm 0.04 0.8 kNm
Moment pavement Mp Normal 9.2 kNm 0.05 0.46 kNm
Moment support
Msm Normal 49.4 kNm 0.1 4.94 kNm
movement
Moment earth
Mep Normal -74.6 kNm 0.1 7.46 kNm
pressure
Moment traffic Mtr Gumbel 0.406B kNm 0.1 0.0406B kNm
N force self weight Nsw Normal 66.8 kN 0.04 2.7 kN
N force pavement Np Normal 14.8 kN 0.05 0.74 kN
N force support
Nsm Normal 0 kN 0.1 0 kN
movement
N force earth
Nep Normal 0 kN 0.1 0 kN
pressure
N force traffic Ntr Gumbel 0.246B kN 0.1 0.0246B kN
Model uncertainties
Cfst Lognormal 1 0.05 0.05
reinforcement
Model uncertaintis
Cfcc Lognormal 1 0.05 0.05
concrete
Model uncertainties
CMsw Normal 0 1 kNm
self weight, M
Model uncertainties
CMp Normal 0 0.45 kNm
pavement, M
86
Table 7-3 Further variables and their distribution functions and

distribution parameters

Model uncertainties
CMsm Normal 0 3.46 kNm
support movem, M
Model uncertainties
CMep Normal 0 5.22 kNm
earth pressure, M
Model uncertainties
CNsw Normal 0 3.34 kN
self weight, N
Model uncertainties
CNp Normal 0 0.74 kN
pavement, N
Model uncertainties
CNsm Normal 0 0
support movem, N
Model uncertainties
CNep Normal 0 0
earth pressure, N
Model uncertainties
Ctr Normal 1 0.1 0.1
traffic (M and N)
According to the earlier background presentation about the bridge, the

requirement is that the load carrying capacity will correspond to at least load
class 2, which means allowed axle load (A) and bogie load (B) as A/B = 10/16
tons.
Further, the theoretical span is shorter than 15 m which implies, according to

Vägverket (1998) that safety class 2 can be used in calculation. The
corresponding value of the reliability index ȕ = 4.3.
With use of the software VaP (1999), the reliability index ȕ is computed for
Equation 7-1 with distribution and parameters for respective variables,
presented in Table 7-2 and Table 7-3.
The calculation results is a reliability index ȕ = 2.94 and a corresponding

probability of failure Pf = 0.0162. This is far too low in comparison with the
required value, ȕ = 4.3.
It is important to realise that Equation 7-1 is of primary form and based on

recommended distributions and parameter values for the most of the used
variables.
In Table 7-4 Į-values are presented for respective variables. They describe how
important each variable is in the current failure mode.
87
According to these Tables the most important load variable is moment of

traffic Mtr followed by earth pressure Mep, and the model uncertainty for the
traffic load, Ctr. For the resistance part fst is the most important variable
followed by the model uncertainty for the same variable, Cfst.
Table 7-4 Į-value for respective resistance variable
Notation Į Comments
fst -0.322 Important
As -0.080
fcc -0.014
b -
d -0.098
Cfst -0.199 Important
Cfcc -0.004
Msw 0.040
Mp 0.023
Msm 0.246 Important
Mep -0.372 Important
Mtr 0.644 Important
Nsw -0.031
Np -0.008
Nsm -
Nep -
Ntr -0.043
CMsw 0.050
CMp 0.022
CMsm 0.173 Important
CMep -0.249 Important
CNsw -0.038
CNp -0.008
CNsm -
CNep -
Ctr 0.354 Important
In the Figure 7-10 to Figure 7-16 illustrations are given of the sensitivities of
the parameters used for each important variable and the consequence on the
reliability index ȕ.
88
Reliability index 4
3
2
1
0
280 290 300 310 320 330
P fst [Mpa]
Figure 7-10 Reliability index ȕ as a function of the mean value of the

reinforcement yield stress ȝfst with a constant ıfst = 25 MPa
Reliability index
3,1
3
2,9
2,8
2,7
2,6
15 20 25 30 35
V fst [MPa]
Figure 7-11 Reliability index ȕ as a function of ıfst, with a constant ȝfst =

308.4 MPa
89
Reliability index
4
3
2
1
0
0.8 0.9 1.0 1,1 1.2
P Cfst

uncertainty factor for the reinforcement ȝCfst , with a constant
ıCfst = 0.05
Reliability index
3,05
3
2,95
2,9
2,85
2,8
0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07
V Cfst
Figure 7-13 Reliability index ȕ as a function of the standard variation of the

uncertainty factor for the reinforcement ıCfst , with a constant
ȝCfst =1
90
Reliability index 5
4
3
2
1
0
110 120 130 140 150 160
Bogie value [kN]
Figure 7-14 Reliability index ȕ as a function of the traffic load, described as

bogie load, with a constant covtr =0.1
Reliability index
4
3
2
1
0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.2
covtr
Figure 7-15 Reliability index ȕ as a function of the coefficient of variance of

the traffic covtr , with a constant ȝMtr = 0.406B =0.406ǜ160 =65
kNm and a constant ȝNtr = 0.246B = 0.246ǜ160 =39.4 kN
91
Reliability index
3,2
3
2,8
2,6
2,4
0.03 0.05 0.10 0.15
covMep
Figure 7-16 Reliability index ȕ as a function of the coefficient of variation of

the moment of earth pressure covMep , with a constant ȝMep = -
74.6 kN
According to Figure 7-10 to Figure 7-16, the target value of the reliability
index ȕ = 4.3, corresponding to safety class 2, is achieved if, for example, the
traffic load is decreasing to a bogie value = 110 kN. All the other variables
according to Table 7-2 are constant.
The next step in the probabilistic analysis is to use Monte Carlo simulation as a
complement to presented calculation.
Figure 7-17 Monte Carlo Analysis of the bending moment capacity
92
The Monte Carlo Analysis is based on Equation 7-1 with variables and
associated parameters according to Table 7-2. The result of a calculation with
106 samples can be seen in Figure 7-17 as a probability density function of the
limit state with associated mean value and standard deviation equal to 123.8
kN respective 40.4 kN. The probability of failure, Pf, is 0.0185. This can be
compared with earlier calculated value 0.0162, corresponding to the reliability
index equal to 2.94.
Risk of incremental plastic rupture
As earlier described there is some risk in sections with developed plastic

hinges, such as those two in the bridge deck. Each time a variable load, as a
vehicle, passes the bridge gives an increased plastic strain at the reinforcement
until the strain has reached the limit for failure. This phenomenon is illustrated
in Figure 7-18 to Figure 7-20.
In the following text a short explanation of these figures is given. When a

vehicle passes the bridge the behaviour of the structure can be divided into
three parts. In the first part the vehicle approaches the location of the first
plastic hinge, according to Figure 7-18, and the bridge deck is bending down.
This has the result that the top reinforcement in the section with the first plastic
hinge get a reduced tensile force and strain, see Figure 7-20. At the same time
in the section with the other plastic hinge, the condition is the opposite. Here
the bridge deck will bend upwards with the consequence that a deformation
appears at the second plastic hinge which results in increased, plastic strains at
the top reinforcement in this section.
The second part of the structural behaviour is when the vehicle is located near
the middle of the bridge deck and now the whole slab is bending down in a
uniform curvature which means that there are no increased strains at the top
reinforcements in these two sections of the slab.
As the vehicle continues forward along the bridge and approaches the area
containing the section with the second plastic hinge and the end of the bridge,
the third and last part of structural behaviour appears, see Figure 7-19. Now the
opposite situation compared with the first part is occurring. The strains at the
top reinforcements in the slab at the section with the first plastic hinge are now
increasing, as showing in Figure 7-20, represented as ǻİs1. The next vehicle
passing the bridge will be the cause of the next increase of strains, ǻİs2, etc.
93
The tensile force in the

top reinforcement results The tensile force
in increased remaining in the top
(plastic) strains, ǻİs reinforcement is
reduced
Figure 7-18 Principle of the behaviour of the two plastic hinges at the bridge
deck when a vehicle is close to the first plastic hinge
The tensile force in the

top reinforcement results
The tensile force in in increased remaining
the top reinforcement (plastic) strains, ǻİs
is reduced in this
situation
Figure 7-19 Principal of the behaviour of the two plastic hinges at the bridge
deck with a vehicle near the second plastic hinge
94
ıs
fstu
fst ǻİs1 ǻİs2 ǻİs3
Three vehicles have passed the bridge
İs
İsy İg
Plastic range
Figure 7-20 A stress-strain curve with an illustration of a possible

consequence of extended strains at top reinforcement in a
section with a plastic hinge each time a vehicle passes the
bridge
This is something that is hard to calculate. If the structure behaviour is as

earlier described, this is the most critical failure mode and a probabilistic
calculation can not improve the situation.
The argument against this is of course that the bridge is standing there since a
couple a years ago with this condition of support movements, at the same time
as vehicles are passing the bridge. Even if the allowed vehicle weight is
restricted to cars and smaller lorries, the same structural behaviour takes place.
It is therefore necessary to measure the function of these plastic hinges when
the bridge is loaded. Such a load test will be presented later in this chapter.
Fatigue and stresses at serviceability limit state
According to Table 7-1, the most critical failure mode is the bending moment
capacity. Therefore it is not necessary to make any further calculation for some
other failure mode.
95
7.4 Measurements
Before allowing traffic load corresponding to load class BK2, there are some
uncertainties that must be minimized. The measurements are focusing on three
main groups
the function of the plastic hinges in the bridge deck
model uncertainties
reinforcement yield strength and belonging stress-strain curve
The function of plastic hinges
According to the earlier shown calculations there are two plastic hinges in the
bridge deck, because of support movements. These are symmetrically placed
with a position of 1.84 m from the inside of the frame leg.
Since the load effect on the bridge is at a level that brings the bridge to the
ultimate limit state, it is important to know how the plastic hinges function
because of the risk of an incremental plastic rupture.
Measurements are carried out, at a crack near the theoretical section with a
plastic hinge, in order to obtain information about any increase of
reinforcement strains when a heavy loaded vehicle passes the bridge.
Model uncertainties
In the probabilistic calculations we made some assumptions about the model

uncertainties regarding the resistance and the load effect. It is important to
verify these assumptions. Measurements were focused on the following
areas/points when the bridge was test loaded with a heavy loaded vehicle
1. Reinforcement strains in a section of the bridge deck with a crack, near

the theoretical section with a plastic hinge and in a section near the
frame leg. This was done to analyse the load distribution under a heavy
loaded vehicle. It is not possible to measure the level of the total strains
and stresses in these sections but measured strains caused by traffic can
give important information by comparing them with corresponding
values obtained in calculations.
96
2. Concrete strains in a section near the frame leg, as presented above, as a

way to get a better understanding of the strain variation over the
construction height in the analysed cross section.
3. Vertical deflections of the bridge deck with the purpose of getting

information about the stiffness of the cracked superstructure.
4. Horizontal movement of the frame legs.
Measurements regarding points 1-4 respective checking the function of the

plastic hinge were performed when the bridge was loaded with static and
dynamic loads, with a heavy loaded vehicle with a known weight. The dynamic
part of the test loading was also important to get information about the
dynamic impact factor. According to the bridge assessment code and the
assessment of heavy loaded vehicle this factor is depended on the velocity of
the vehicle. It is therefore necessary for the heavy loaded vehicle to pass the
bridge several times with different velocities so a comparison can be done with
the results from the static part of the test.
Reinforcement yield strength and belonging stress-strain curve
Six samples uniformly distributed from the two frame legs were tested
The planed test area on the bridge deck for reinforcement strains is illustrated
in Figure 7-21.
A building contractor was hired to guide the traffic, to remove the pavement at
the test area, to cut out samples from the reinforcement bars at the frame legs,
to supply the heavy loaded vehicle for the test load and finally to restore the
concrete cover and the pavement after the performed test. Luleå University of
Technology (LTU) carried out the measurements.
The working procedure with the test area at the bridge deck was first to remove
the asphalt and gravel, in an area that was predetermined, see Figure 7-22.
Based on the cracks at the surface of the concrete, the next step was to remove
the concrete protective layer and the structural concrete cover in two sections
with cracks, one section near the theoretically determined location of the
plastic hinge and the next section near the frame leg.
97
Edge beam
Test area
*1,45 m *0.5 m
*0,6 m
*1,9 m A
A 6,55 m
N Road 99
* Planed measure
Free span = 6 m
Figure 7-21 Illustration of the position of the test area at the bridge deck
* Planed measure
Asphalt and gravel

§ 150 mm
Water proof layer
Concrete protective layer § 50 mm

Concrete cover § 25 mm
Structural concrete
The length of test area = *1900 mm Reinforcement Ø25 s280
Figure 7-22 Section of the bridge deck
A problem was that no cracks could be found at the surface of the protective
concrete layer. Based on the existing rather large cracks at both edge beams
there definitely should be some cracks in the structural concrete. The test area
was therefore increased both in direction towards the middle of the bridge and
to the middle of the road to be certain of that that there were not any cracks at
the surface of the concrete layer, see Figure 7-23.
98
Figure 7-23 Test area
In Figure 7-24 the location of existing cracks at the edge beams are presented
together with an assumed extension of these cracks at the bridge deck between
the edge beams. To avoid removing all of the protective layer in the test area,
two cracks at the edge beams were chosen to be the most interesting for the
test, these cracks are marked as crack No. 1 and No. 2 where No. 2 is the one
that is nearest to the theoretical position of the plastic hinge.
99
§ 2.4 m Crack No. 1

N
Test area
Line of
cracks Road 99
Figure 7-24 Illustration of the main cracks at the bridge deck
The removal of the concrete protective layer can be seen in Figure 7-25 and
Figure 7-26.
Figure 7-25 Sawing through the concrete protective layer
100
Figure 7-26 A part of the concrete protective layer is removed

with help of a pair of tractor shafts.
After removal of the 50 mm thick concrete protective layer and a underlying

water protective layer of about 1 mm, the surface of the structural concrete was
grinded.
A couple of cracks could now be seen in transversal direction of the bridge.

With help of a concrete cover meter the reinforcement bars that were of interest
were located. Three reinforcement bars were used at the crack that was nearest
to the position of the theoretical plastic hinge compared with two
reinforcement bars at the other crack that was nearest to the frame leg.
Some reinforcement bars and the cracks at the surface of the structural concrete
at the bridge deck can be seen in Figure 7-27 to Figure 7-29
101
Figure 7-27 Reinforcement bars and cracks in transversal

direction at the bridge deck
Figure 7-28 Detail of the bridge deck with crack No 1 at the

surface of the structural concrete
102
Figure 7-29 Crack No 2 in the bridge deck, found at the surface of

the structural concrete
The lack of cracks in the concrete protective layer can probably be explained
by the fact that this layer isn’t directly connected to the structural concrete
because of the water protective layer between these two concrete layers. When
the bridge is affected by traffic load the bridge deck will be bended. But
because of the water protective layer the concrete protective layer can glide.
Strain gauges were glued to the reinforcement bars at estimated crossing points
with the crack. This can be seen in Figure 7-30.
In Figure 7-31 strain gauges are glued to reinforcement bars in a section with
an assumed plastic hinge.
103
Figure 7-30 Strain gauges are glued to five reinforcement bars.
Figure 7-31 Strain gauges mounted at reinforcement bars crossing

crack No 2 corresponding to the section where a plastic
hinge is theoretically located.
104
Up to now only strain gauges at the reinforcement bars have been presented.
These were as earlier described placed at two different sections.
At the underside of the bridge deck two strain gauges were glued to the
concrete surface, see Figure 7-32. The locations of these were below the two
corresponding strain gauges at the upper side of the bridge deck in the section
nearest the western frame leg.
Figure 7-32 Strain gauges at the concrete surface mounted at

the underside of the bridge deck.
The position of all used strain gauges can be seen in Figure 7-33.
105
1.4 m 0.35 m
1.7 m
C1 R3
0.35 m R1 R4
0.30 m
R2 R5
Road 99
Figure 7-33 Position of the strain gauges at the bridge deck
Deflections at the bridge were measured with three level indicators mounted at
the underside of the bridge deck (vertical deflections), see Figure 7-34 and
Figure 7-35 and one at each frame leg (horizontal deflection), Figure 7-36.
The measuring points for vertical deflections were mounted, in the longitudinal
direction of the bridge, at the middle of the span and at the two sections with
assumed plastic hinges, which means about 1.8 meters from the inside of
nearest frame leg. Corresponding locations in transversal direction were about
2.0 meters from the edge side of the north edge beam. The locations of these
indicators can be seen in Figure 7-37.
The locations where reinforcement samples were cut out from the eastern
frame leg can also be seen in Figure 7-34.
106
Figure 7-34 Three vertical level indicators at the underside of

the bridge deck
Figure 7-35 Level indicators at the underside of the bridge

deck for measuring vertical deflections
107
Figure 7-36 Level indicator at the western frame leg for measuring
horizontal deflections
1.77 m 1.23 m 1.22 m 1.78 m
2.06 m
L2 L3 L4
N
Road 99
Figure 7-37 Locations of the level indicators at the bridge deck
108
The location of level indicators mounted at the two frame legs can be seen in
Figure 7-38 and Figure 7-39.
2.5 m
L1
1.75 m
Figure 7-38 Location of the level indicator at the western frame leg
2.5 m
L4
1.78 m
Figure 7-39 Location of the level indicator at the eastern frame leg
109
The bridge was tested with a heavy loaded vehicle with a weight corresponding
to load class 2. Measured axle loads and distance between axles and wheels are
presented in Figure 7-40.

79 kN 2 x 79.25 kN
4.6 m 1.1 m

39.5 kN 39.5 kN Front axle
(39.6) (39.6) Rear axles
2.6 m
Figure 7-40 Illustration of axle configuration of used heavy loaded vehicle
A photo of the vehicle used for the load test can be seen in Figure 7-41.
Figure 7-41 Load test with a vehicle with known axle loads
110
Nine tests were performed where a heavy loaded vehicle passed the bridge in
alternative directions. In test nr 1 and 2 the vehicle started from the west side of
the bridge. When the vehicle had passed the bridge it turned around and then
started from the east side of the bridge.
The nine tests are described below.
Test No 1: The heavy loaded vehicle starts from the west side of the bridge and
stops with the front of the two rear axles at a section 1,8 m from the western
frame leg, which is near the location of the theoretical plastic hinge. This
section is named line west.
Test No 2: The heavy loaded vehicle drives along the bridge and stops with the
last rear axle at a section that is 1,8 m from the eastern frame leg which is near
the location of the other theoretical plastic hinge. This section is named line
east.
Test No 3: The heavy loaded vehicle starts from the east side of the bridge and
drives with the velocity of 10 km/h passing the bridge.
stops with the front of the two rear axles at line east.
Test No 8: In this test there is no traffic load at the bridge.
stops with the front of the two rear axles at line west. After about 7 minutes the
vehicle drives along the bridge and stops with the last rear axle at the line east.
After about 8 minutes the vehicle leaves the bridge.
All results from these tests can be found in Appendix C. In the following
analyses only graphs belonging to tests 4, 6 and 9 are presented and explained.
In these graphs the strain gauges at the reinforcements are denoted R1 to R5
111
while the strain gauge for the concrete is denoted C1. There were as earlier
described two strain gauges, mounted at the concrete surface, but one of them
gave unreasonably values. For deflection measurements the level indicators are
denoted L1 up to L5 where L1 and L5 are the measurement points for the
western respective eastern frame leg. The remaining level indicators are at
measuring points at the bridge deck.
The purpose of the measuring at this bridge was, as earlier described, to

analyse the function of the plastic hinges in the bridge deck and the model
uncertainties.
The function of plastic hinges
The analysis is focused on possible rest strains in the reinforcement bars.

Theoretical positions of the two plastic hinges are as earlier described 1.84 m
from nearest frame leg. In the measurements three strain gauges, denoted R3 -
R5, were installed at a crack that was supposed to constitute the plastic hinge,
about 1.8 m from the western frame leg. The position of this crack at the edge
beam is 1.95 m from the frame leg.
The analysis starts with the test where the heavy loaded vehicle is standing still
at certain marked positions, test No 9. In Figure 7-42, the result from this test is
illustrated. After the vehicle has started from the west side of the bridge it stops
at line west with the front of its two rear axles. Under this stop, which is about
7 minutes, the strain gauges shows that all reinforcement bars are compressed
with a maximum strain value nearly 64 ȝm/m noted at strain gauge R3. A steel
strain of 10 ȝm/m corresponds to a steel stress of ı = Eǜİ = 200ǜ103ǜ10ǜ10-3 = 2
MPa. The concrete at the lower part of the cross section 1.4 m from the west
frame leg, is under this period tensioned as shown at strain gauge C1 where the
value is decreased to a strain value about 6 ȝm/m at the end of this stop. Then
the vehicle is moving to the next stop where its last rear axle is at the line east.
This last stop is about 8 minutes and now all top reinforcements are tensioned
with a maximum strain of 16 ȝm/m, while the concrete is compressed with a
maximum strain value near 14 ȝm/m. Then the vehicle leaves the bridge with
small rest strains, but according to Figure 7-42, both the reinforcements and the
concrete are compressed.
112
40
t = 515 s
t = 28 s
20 Line East
0
0
51
102
153
204
255
306
357
408
459
510
561
612
663
714
765
816
867
918
969
1020
1071
1122
1173
1224
1275
1326
1377
1428
1479
1530
Strain [Pm/m]
-20 C1
§1.4 m §0.35 m Edge beam R1
R2
1.7 m N R3
-40 C1 R3 R4
0.35 m R1
0.30 m R4 R5
R2 R5
-60 C1 is at the under -

side of the bridge
t = 33 s
Plan of the bridge

-80 Line West
Time [s]
Figure 7-42 Reinforcement and concrete strain from test No 9 when used
heavy loaded vehicle is standing still at two positions (after 30
and 510 seconds)
The next step in this analysis is to study the result from tests where the vehicle
passed the bridge with varying velocities. Since test No 9 is based on that the
vehicle starts from the west side of the bridge, we continue to use tests with the
same presumptions. The following analysis is therefore focused on tests No 4
and No 6, where the velocity is 20 km/h respectively 55 km/h. The results can
be seen in Figure 7-43, Figure 7-44 and in Figure 7-45.
Generally for these two tests, there are only small differences between the
initial and final reinforcement strains. When the vehicle is passing the bridge
with a velocity of 20 km/h the maximum value of the rest tensile strain is 0.27
ȝm/m, measured at strain gauge R1 while 0.11 and 0.15 ȝm/m are noted at
strain gauges R4 respective R5. The remaining strain gauges indicate only
compressive strains. In the next test where the velocity of used vehicle is 55
km/h the maximum value of the tensile set has increased to 1,19 ȝm/m and
now recorded at strain gauge R2. Strain gauge R4 indicates a smaller
compressive rest strain while the remaining strain gauges are measuring a
tensile strain between 0.7 and 0.8 ȝm/m.
113
For these two tests with different velocities, the highest tensile strains are noted
at section 1.4 m from the west frame leg and not at the section where the
plastic hinge is located based on theoretical calculation.
A further conclusion is that the measured tensile strains are rather small and in
the test with the lower velocity of 20 km/hit the tensile strains at the end of the
measurement period of 40 seconds approach the initial values with some delay
or slowness in the structural system. The test with a higher velocity of 55 km/h
seems to give a more stabile tensile strain since the last 25 seconds do not show
any tendency of decreasing strains. A conclusion can therefore be that even if
the reinforcement strains caused by the permanent loads probably are in the
plastic range, the effect of a traffic load, corresponding to load class 2, only
results in elastics strains at the reinforcement bars if the velocity is about 30
km/h. With higher velocities the risk for remaining tensile strains is increasing.
25
§1.4 m §0.35 m Edge beam
20 1.7 m N
C1 R3
0.35 m R1
15 0.30 m R4
R2 R5
10
C1 is at the under-
side of the bridge
Strain [Pm/m]
5 C1
R1
Plan of the bridge
R2
0
R3
0
1,35
2,69
4,04
5,39
6,73
8,08
9,43
10,8
12,1
13,5
14,8
16,2
17,5
18,9
20,2
21,5
22,9
24,2
25,6
26,9
28,3
29,6
31
32,3
33,7
35
36,4
37,7
39,1
R4
-5 R5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Time [s]
Figure 7-43 Reinforcement and concrete strains from test No 4 when the
heavy loaded vehicle is passing the bridge from the west side of
the bridge with a velocity of 20 km/h
114
25
20
15
10 Line east
Strain [Pm/m]
C1
5
R1
R2
0
R3
5,60
5,73
5,87
6,00
6,13
6,27
6,40
6,53
6,67
6,80
6,93
7,07
7,20
7,33
7,47
7,60
7,73
7,87
8,00
8,13
8,27
8,40
8,53
8,67
8,80
8,93
9,07
9,20
9,33
R4
-5 R5
Time [s]
-10
-15
-20 Line west
-25 Line west
Figure 7-44 Enlargement of a part of Figure 7-43
25 §1.4 m §0.35 m Edge beam
20 1.7 m N
C1 R3
0.35 m R1
0.30 m R4
15 R2 R5
10 C1 is at the under-
side of the bridge
Strain [Pm/m]
5 C1
Plan of the bridge R1
R2
0
R3
0
1,35
2,69
4,04
5,39
6,73
8,08
9,43
10,8
12,1
13,5
14,8
16,2
17,5
18,9
20,2
21,5
22,9
24,2
25,6
26,9
28,3
29,6
31
32,3
33,7
35
36,4
37,7
39,1
R4
-5 R5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Time [s]
Figure 7-45 Reinforcement and concrete strains from test No 6 when the
heavy loaded vehicle is passing the bridge from the west side of
the bridge with a velocity of 55 km/h
115
The model uncertainties
Up to now the analysis has focused on the function of the assumed plastic
hinges. The next step is to study measured strain levels and compare them with
results of theoretical calculations. The analysis starts with the cross section, 1.4
m from the west frame leg, that are not supposed to have a plastic hinge and
where the concrete strain also is measured. This means that reinforcement bars
with strain gauges R1 and R2 together with strain gauge C1 at the concrete are
of interest.
The highest tensile strain can be found in the cross section with strain gauge
R1, independent of if the vehicle is standing still at the bridge, Figure 7-42, or
if the vehicle passing the bridge with a velocity of 20 km/h, Figure 7-43 and
Figure 7-44, or a velocity of 55 km/h, Figure 7-45. The maximum tensile strain
at, the reinforcement, is about 20 ȝm/m in all three tests. The test where the
vehicle is standing still, gives the highest strain values, both at reinforcement
and concrete. Based on this fact there seems not to be any dynamic effect of
importance, but as earlier results indicate, there can be some relation between
the dynamic effect and the tensile strains at the reinforcements.
Up to now the analysis has focused on reinforcement and concrete strains. An

additional load effect is of course the deflection. In Figure 7-46 to Figure 7-48,
vertical deflections of the bridge deck, caused by the heavy loaded vehicle, are
presented. These deflections, in unit mm, are as earlier described measured in
three sections by level indicators, denoted L2 to L4. The first presented
measurements result is from test No 9, see Figure 7-46, where the vehicle is
standing still at two different sections. The other two Figures show deflections
caused by the vehicle in motion. In Figure 7-47 the vehicle has a velocity of 20
km/h when it passes the bridge, test No 4, and in Figure 7-48 corresponding
velocity is 55 km/h, test No 6.
116
0,3
1.77 1.23 1.22 1.78 m

2.06 m
0,25
N
L2 L3 L4
Vertical deflection [mm]
0,2
Edge beam
0,15
Plan of the bridge L2
L3
L4
0,1
0,05
0
0
52
104
156
208
260
312
364
416
468
520
572
624
676
728
780
832
884
936
988
1040
1092
1144
1196
1248
1300
1352
1404
1456
1508
-0,05
Time [s]
Figure 7-46 Vertical deflections of the bridge deck in three sections, from
test No 9, when the heavy loaded vehicle is standing still, first at
line west and finally at line east
117
0,3
1.77 1.23 1.22 1.78 m

2.06 m
0,25
N
L2 L3 L4
0,2
Edge beam
0,15
L2
Plan of the bridge
L3
L4
0,1
0,05
0
0,00
0,55
1,09
1,64
2,19
2,73
3,28
3,83
4,37
4,92
5,47
6,01
6,56
7,11
7,65
8,20
8,75
9,29
9,84
10,39
10,93
11,48
12,03
12,57
13,12
13,67
14,21
14,76
15,31
15,85
-0,05
Time [s]
test No 4, when the heavy loaded vehicle passes the bridge with
a velocity of 20 km/h
A comparison between deflections caused by a vehicle in motion and

deflections caused by a vehicle standing still at the bridge, give a result with no
obvious increase of deflection when the velocity is 20 km/h compared with a
situation where the vehicle is standing still. In the case where the vehicle is
passing the bridge with a velocity of 55 km/h the deflections will increases at
all three sections, 1.7 % (from 0.229 mm to 0.233 mm) for L2, 8.4 % (from
0.285 mm to 0.309 mm) for L3 and 11.6 % (from 0.216 mm to 0.241 mm) for
L4. For all sections the increase is much lower than the theoretical dynamic
increase of 28 %, see Equation B-7 in Appendix B.
Notable is that the assumed dynamic effect at vertical deflections is higher than
the same effect at reinforcement and concrete strains. For this bridge it seems
therefore to be more adequate to choose the strain effect since the bending
moment capacity is the limitation.
118
0,35
1.77 1.23 1.22 1.78 m

2.06 m
0,3
N
L2 L3 L4
0,25
0,2 Edge beam
Plan of the bridge L2

0,15 L3
L4
0,1
0,05
0
0
0,45
0,91
1,36
1,81
2,27
2,72
3,17
3,63
4,08
4,53
4,99
5,44
5,89
6,35
6,8
7,25
7,71
8,16
8,61
9,07
9,52
9,97
10,4
10,9
11,3
11,8
12,2
12,7
-0,05
Time [s]
test No 6, when the heavy loaded vehicle passes the bridge with
a velocity of 55 km/h
Another important knowledge of the structural behaviour of this bridge is the

possibility of frame legs movement when a vehicle passes the bridge.
As earlier described one level indicator was mounted at each frame leg about
3.2 m from the underside of the bridge deck for measurement the horizontal
deflection or movement. The result presents a maximum value of a remaining
deflection that is 0.2 mm. This value is from test No 9 where the vehicle is
standing still at two different positions at the bridge, see Figure 7-46. An
extrapolation of this value to the level corresponding to the underside of the
base slab gives a value about 0.5 mm.
The other tests, where the heavy loaded vehicle passes the bridge with different
velocities, are not indicating any notable movements of the frame legs. These
test results can be found in Appendix C.
It seems to be that the probability are rather low that heavy loaded vehicles,
with a weight corresponding to load class 2, will stop at the bridge with such a
frequency that the movements of the frame legs can influence the load bearing
capacity of the bridge and therefore the traffic safety.
119
The situation is however that there have been frame leg movements in the past
and they will probably continue in the future because of a mix of some bad
material in the subsoil together with too much unsuitable back fill material.
It is therefore reasonable to put some braze construction between the base slab
if allowed traffic load will be increased to load class 2.
0,08
0,06
Horizontal deflection [mm]
0,04
0,02
L1
L5
0
0
52
104
156
208
260
312
364
416
468
520
572
624
676
728
780
832
884
936
988
1040
1092
1144
1196
1248
1300
1352
1404
1456
1508
-0,02
-0,04
-0,06
Time [s]
Figure 7-49 Horizontal deflection at the two frame legs, from test No 9, when
the heavy loaded vehicle is standing still, first at line west and
finally at line east
Load-strain tests of the reinforcement.
As a way to reduce the model uncertainties for the resistance part of the
probabilistic assessment, 6 samples of the reinforcement bars, Ø25, were cut
out from the two frame legs. The load-strain curves from each of these tests are
presented in Appendix C.
These results are used later in the updated probabilistic assessment.
120
Supplementary crack measurements
Up to now the described load tests with associated measurements and results
are, with regard to reinforcement strains, based on the two cracks at the bridge
deck that were estimated to be most interesting compared with theoretical
calculations. As the results indicate, there seems to be no remaining strains at
measured reinforcement bars after that a heavy loaded vehicle has passed the
bridge if the velocity is lower than 40 km/h. As earlier described there are three
large cracks at the edge beam in the area with gauges, see Figure 7-24. Based
on the presented results, a second load test was arranged to analyse the third
crack at the edge beam, counted from the west frame leg. The purpose with this
additional measurement was of course to ensure that the crack width was not
increased when a heavy loaded vehicle was passing the bridge.
This test was only focused on cracks located in the edge beam. Even if the third
crack was the most interesting, all three mentioned cracks were measured with
COD (crack opening displacement). In Figure 7-50 to Figure 7-52 location and
measurement equipments are shown.
Figure 7-50 Crack nr 1, about 1.4 meters from inside of western

frame leg. The crack width is about 0.9 mm
121

frame leg. The crack width is about 0.5 mm

frame leg. The crack width is about 1.0 mm.
122
The heavy loaded vehicle used for this test was, as earlier, a vehicle with three
axles and a weight corresponding to load class 2, see Figure 7-53 and Figure
7-54.
Figure 7-53 Used heavy load vehicle in load test 2
123

76.9 kN 2 x 79.8 kN
4.6 m 1.1 m
38.5 kN 38.5 kN Front axle

(39.9) (39.9) Rear axles
2.6 m
Figure 7-54 Illustration of axle configuration of used heavy loaded vehicle in

load test 2. The loads differ slightly from the vehicle used in
load test 1, see Figure 7-40
The test started with the vehicle driving as near as possible to measured edge
beam in both directions, with a velocity of 40 km/h. After the vehicle had
passed the bridge four times the vehicle was standing still at the bridge at
marked positions, line west and line east used in the earlier test, under a certain
time.
124
0,09
0,08
0,07 1 2 3
Crack opening [mm]
0,06
0,05 At first the vehicle passes the

MP1
bridge from the west. Then it N Crack line
MP2
turns and passes the bridge from
0,04 MP3
the east.
0,03
0,02
0,01
0
0
7,83
15,7
23,5
31,3
39,1
47
54,8
62,6
70,4
78,3
86,1
93,9
102
110
117
125
133
141
149
157
164
172
180
188
196
203
211
219
227
Time [s]
Figure 7-55 Measurements of the crack opening displacement at the three

cracks at the north edge beam when the vehicle passes the
bridge twice, first from the west and then from the east side of
the bridge. The velocity is 40 km/h.
The results from these measurements are not indicating any crack width
increase when the heavy loaded vehicle passes the bridge. This can be seen in
Figure 7-55, where the crack width for crack No. 1 first is decreased 0.005 mm
as the lorry enters the bridge and causes compression in that part of the beam.
Then as the lorry moves on, the beam is tensioned and the crack open 0.006
mm. When the lorry leaves the bridge the crack width returns to its earlier
value. When the lorry returns from the other direction after some two minutes a
reverse procedure takes place. For crack No. 2 and 3 only small temporary
decreases in the crack widths can be seen. All cracks return to the earlier width
after the vehicle has left the bridge. The total width of these three measured
cracks are however increasing, see the inclination of the lines, but this
increment is dependent on the temperature in the air.
Other measurement results from this load test 2 can be found in Appendix C.
125
Comparisons between measurements and calculations
Up to now the analysis of made measurements have focused on reinforcement

and concrete strains and on the deflections of the bridge deck and the frame
legs. The variations for performed tests with regard to maximum but also
remaining strains and deflection values have been studied. The object of the
analyses was to evaluate the function of the assumed plastic hinges and the
model uncertainties.
The next step in the analysis is to compare the measured values to the
calculated ones as a way to understand the behaviour of the bridge.
The first study is a comparison between measured strain variations in concrete

and reinforcement, when the vehicle passes the bridge, and theoretical
influence lines for bending moment at the bridge deck caused by vertical point
loads, see Figure 7-56 and Figure 7-57. The influence lines are based on a slab-
frame structure without any plastic hinges. It must be emphasized that these
influence lines only describes the moment and strain caused by point loads, e.g.
a vehicle, but not the total strain. This implies that the reinforcement can be in
tension in reality, if all other loads could be considered, even if the vehicle is
causing a compression strain according to the influence lines.
Measured strains can be seen in Figure 7-42 to Figure 7-45, where maximum
reinforcement strain is about 20 ȝm/m. The analyses are limited to test No. 4,
Figure 7-43 and Figure 7-44, where the heavy loaded vehicle is passing the
bridge with a velocity of 20 km/h, respective to test No. 9, Figure 7-42, where
the vehicle is standing still at two positions at the bridge. Measured strains in
test No. 6, Figure 7-45, corresponding with a velocity of 55 km/h, are in
principal the same as presented in test No. 4 why it is not necessary to include
this test in the analyses.
126
-0,3
-0,2
-0,1
0 0,8 1,6 2,4 3,2 4 4,8 5,6 6,4
0
Influence values
Section [m]
0,1
0,2 Rotational Free frame

restraint
0,3 Free frame-restraint
Fixed frame
0,4
Fixed frame-restraint
0,5 1.6 m
0,6
0,7 W E
6.4 m
Figure 7-56 Influence lines for moment in the bridge deck, section 1.6 m
from a theoretical support line at the western frame leg, caused
by vertical point loads
The comparison starts with test No. 4 and measured reinforcement strain at the
strain gauge, denoted R1, which corresponds to the influence lines in section
1.6 m counted from the support line of the western frame leg, see Figure 7-56.
The heavy loaded vehicle was started from the west side of the bridge, and as
soon as the front axle reached the bridge deck the reinforcement was beginning
to be compressed. The maximum strain value was about –7.5 ȝm/m. The
influence lines give the principal explanation of this behaviour. The bending
moment has a positive value when a point load, e.g. a front axle, is placed
somewhere between section 0 m up to about section 3.1 m. This implies that
the concrete and the reinforcement in the top of the bridge deck in section 1.6
m are compressed. The maximum value is of course at section 1.6 m.
The vehicle was moving further and the reinforcement strain changed from
compression to tension with a maximum value of about 5.4 ȝm/m. According
to the influence lines, bending moment with negative values, meaning
tensioned top reinforcement in section 1.6 m, appears when a point load is
placed between section 3.1 m and section 6.4 m.
127
As the vehicle was approaching the east frame leg, the rear axles begins to load
the bridge deck, which have the result that the analysed reinforcement got
compressed again with a maximum value of -13.9 ȝm/m. This is also in
conformity with the influence lines since the point loads at sections up to about
3.1 m counted from the west frame leg results in, as earlier described,
compression at the top reinforcement in section 1.6 m.
Just before the heavy loaded vehicle left the bridge, the reinforcement got
tensioned again and this time with a maximum strain value of about 18.2
ȝm/m.
This is also in accordance with influence values for bending moment in section
1.6 m when point loads are placed in this part of the bridge.
So then, the measured variation, however not the magnitudes, of reinforcement

strains at strain gauge, R1, can be explained by theoretical influence lines for
bending moment when the heavy loaded vehicle passes the bridge with a
certain velocity. The same conclusion can be stated if strains in strain gauges
R3 to R5 are compared with influence lines in Figure 7-57, corresponding to
bending moment in the associated section for these strain gauges, which is
about 2.0 m counted from the support line of the western frame leg.
-0,2
-0,1
0 0,8 1,6 2 2,4 3,2 4 4,8 5,6 6,4
0
Section [m]
0,1
Influence values
0,2 Free frame

Free frame-restraint
0,3
Fixed frame
0,4 Fixed frame-restraint
0,5
0,6
0,7
Figure 7-57 Influence lines for moment in section 2.0 m caused by vertical
point loads
128
The next step is to analyse if the same conditions are valid for the situation
when the vehicle was standing still at the bridge, why the next test of interest is
No. 9. The measured strains in the concrete and the reinforcement can be seen
in Figure 7-42. The vehicle started from the west side of the bridge and stopped
with the front of the two rear axles at line west, which was at about the same
section as the position for strain gauges R3 to R5, as earlier described.
The first reinforcement strains to analyse are however from strain gage R1. At
first the reinforcement is tensioned with a maximum value of about 7.3 ȝm/m.
The influence lines don’t give any explanation for this event but since the
vehicle at this moment probably was standing at the embankment just before
the frame leg, these strains can be the effect from the traffic load at the backfill.
The strain was thereafter changed into negative value which means compressed
reinforcement. After the stop at line west the vehicle was standing still about 7
minutes. The strain value at R1 was under that time about -15.2 ȝm/m. This
can be explained by the influence lines in Figure 7-56 since the bending
moment has positive values for these vehicle positions. This means that
concrete and reinforcement in the top of the bridge deck at the analysed section
are compressed. This explanation is also valid in principle for the strains
recorded at the other strain gauges. However, measured strain values at strain
gauges R3 (about 64 ȝm/m) up to R5 (about 44 ȝm/m) are more difficult to
explain since the strains were so much higher compared with the other tests
and also compared with strain values at R1 and R2. There were two tests where
the vehicle was standing still, test No. 1, see Appendix C, and No. 9. It is
therefore of interest to study the differences between these two tests and
perhaps also more easy to give an explanation to this large deviation.
While the vehicle was standing still about 26 seconds in test No. 1, the
corresponding time in test No. 9 was about 420 seconds. The following
comparison is therefore based on the time for measurement in test No. 1. In
Figure 7-58 reinforcement strains at strain gauges R3 to R5 are presented from
these two tests during a period of 35 seconds. This Figure shows that the
vehicle velocity was different in the two tests. In test No. 1 the vehicle reached
the line west after 9 seconds and the break was then resulting in some strain
variation during about 5 seconds. The retardation of the vehicle was more
softly in test No. 9 compared with test No. 1 since the velocity was lower. The
stop came after 10 seconds with a following strain level variation during 4
seconds. After a period of 20 seconds, measured strain at strain gauge R3 up to
R5 in test No. 9 were about 15 ȝm/m (R3) respective 10 ȝm/m (R4, R5) higher
then corresponding strains in test No. 1. The strain deviations between these
129
two tests are consequently not only depending on different load durability.
Therefore there must be some other difference between these two tests. Perhaps
the vehicle was closer to gauge R3 in test No. 9 than in test No. 1. The time
between these tests was about 2 hours so there could be some temperature
differences that have caused these differences. But if this would be the case,
the same strain deviations should have been measured at the other strain
gauges. This effect was not recorded.
10
0
0
2
3
5
6
8
9
11
12
14
15
17
18
20
21
23
24
26
27
29
30
32
33
35
-10 Line West
Test 9
Strain [Pm/m]
R3(1)
-20 R4(1)
R5(1)
R3(9)
-30 R4(9)
R5(9)
-40
-50
Line West
Test 1
-60
Time [s]
Figure 7-58 Measured reinforcement strains in gauges R3 to R5 in test No. 1

and No. 9
The comparison between measured strains in test No. 9 and influence lines will
now continue from the time when the heavy loaded vehicle was moving again.
The corresponding strain variations can be studied in Figure 7-42 between 450
and 494 seconds. The idea was to stop with the last of the two rear axles at line
east but a misunderstanding was leading to a stop directly after the bridge and
that is why there are recorded high tensile strain values at R1 under a few
seconds, with a maximum value about 22.4 ȝm/m, and then decreased to about
2.7 ȝm/m. During the same time, strains at R2 followed the same pattern as
described for R1, but not to the same tensile magnitude, and the compressing
strains at R3 to R5 were also decreasing but didn’t change into tensile.
130
The strain variation at all strain gauges can partly be explained by influence
lines since the two rear axles were at a part of the bridge that results in tensile
in the top reinforcement at the associated section. But even if the strains at R3
up to R5 were approaching zero values, the strains were still recorded as
compressed about 40 seconds after the vehicle had left the bridge, e.g. about -9
ȝm/m at R3, see Figure 7-42 and Figure 7-59. During the same period it was a
remaining deflection at this section, see Figure 7-46, level indicator, L2. The
measured deflection was very small, about 0.007 mm, but caused probably
internal forces in the structure anyway. This is probably also the reason why it
was a remaining tensile strain at R1 during this period. This phenomenon
together with earlier presented high compression strains at R3 up to R5 can be
an indication of that the bridge section has a plastic hinge.
30
20
10
0
450
459
467
476
484
493
501
510
518
527
535
544
552
561
569
578
586
595
603
612
620
629
637
646
654
Strain [Pm/m]
C1
-10
R1
R2
-20
R3
R4
-30
R5
-40
-50
-60
-70
Time [s]
Figure 7-59 Enlargement of Figure 7-54 in the period between 450 to 660
seconds
The vehicle was then reversing to the right position. This leads to increasing
tensile strains at all strain gauges at the reinforcement, see Figure 7-42. The
stop was about 8 minutes, period from 510 to 1020 seconds. Measured strain
values were between 10 and 16 ȝm/m and seemed therefore to be in conformity
with the corresponding values in earlier tests. These tensile strains at the
reinforcement can easily be explained by the influence lines since the position
131
of the vehicles rear axles should only give positive bending moment, meaning
compressed top reinforcement at analysed cross section of the bridge deck.
The vehicle was then moving again and left the bridge and about 90 seconds
later, no remaining tensile strains were measured in the reinforcement bars. In
fact, all measured strains were compressed, even so for the concrete. At the end
of this last period, about 8.5 minutes after the vehicle had left the bridge,
measured strains values at R1 and R2 were approximately zero. While the
concrete strain, strain gauge C1, was indicating a decreasing tendency,
measured strains at R3 up to R5 were instead showing a rather stable
compressed strain level. The natural is of course, apart from the temperature
effect, that strains are decreased to zero when the bridge is unloaded again.
This is not valid in this case.
A summary of this comparison between measured strain variation and

calculations is that the behaviour of the bridge can in principle be explained by
influence lines corresponding to a frame structure without any plastic hinges.
However, the strain variation and also the remaining strain level at gauges R3
to R5, in a situation where a heavy loaded vehicle is standing still at the bridge
during a longer period, leads to the conclusion that the assumed plastic hinge in
the section with the mentioned strain gauges, most likely exists. It is probably
the same situation for the other assumed plastic hinge at the bridge deck.
Earlier analysis has also given the same indication but than it was a situation
where the heavy loaded vehicle had a velocity of 55 km/h. There are however a
difference in the result between these two situations, standing still at the bridge
respective passing the bridge with a velocity higher than a level about 30 km
/h. In the first situation the remaining reinforcement strains at the plastic hinge
are compressed while the other situation results in strains that are tensioned.
The next analysis is comparing measured and calculated strain levels.
As İstr
h
İctr
b
Figure 7-60 Illustration of a cross section with a theoretical strain model
132
In Figure 7-60 a cross section of the bridge deck is illustrated together with a
theoretical strain model where plain surfaces remains plain after bending. The
reinforcement and concrete strains are here denoted as İstr and İctr respectively.
The other symbols are reinforcement area, As, structural height, h, and finally
used structural width, b.
A suitable cross section for analysing the conformance between measurement

results and calculation of strains is in the section 1.4 m from the west frame leg
where both reinforcement and concrete strains have been measured with strain
gauges R1, R2 and C1.
The calculation, which can be found in Appendix C, is based on the geometry

and weight of the used vehicle and assumptions of linear elastics strains, which
seems to be reasonable when the velocity is not higher than 30 km/h. The strain
calculations are therefore based on the theory for the serviceability limit state.
The load distribution calculation at the slab-frame is based on the analysis of

two different bridge structural models, with or without plastic hinges at the
bridge deck. Other assumptions are measured support movements and no
restraint between base slabs and subsoil. An alternative with some restraint at
the subsoil is not described in this thesis since it does not give any notable
differences.
The comparison between measured and calculated reinforcement strains

respective between measured and calculated deflections of the bridge deck give
that the real traffic effect at the bridge deck is much lower than assumed. This
is probably caused by a much stiffer structure in reality than in the calculations.
Further information from the comparison is that the bridge structural model
without plastic hinges seems to be in best accordance with reality. The
difference in stiffness is probably caused by the two wing walls that can be
seen in Figure 7-61.
133
Figure 7-61 Elevation of the bridge according to a drawing
Based on these comparisons the load distribution width from the heavy loaded
vehicle can be increased to 6.5 m, which corresponds approximately to the
width of the bridge deck, except the two edge beams.
7.5 Updated probabilistic calculation
Based on presented measurement results, the distribution parameters of used

stochastic variables are updated according to Table 7-5.
134
Table 7-5 Updated values based on measurement results. Changes in

respect to the values in Table 7-2 and 7-3 are written in bold.

Reinforcement
fst Lognormal 306.4 MPa 0.064 24.1 MPa
tensile strength
2
Concr compression
fcc Lognormal 39.7 MPa 0.161 6.4 MPa
strength
Effective depth d Normal 417 mm 10 mm
Moment support
Msm Normal 49.4 kNm 0.1 4.94 kNm
movement
Moment earth
Mep Normal -74.6 kNm 0.1 7.46 kNm
pressure
Moment traffic Mtr Gumbel 0.146B kNm 0.15 0.022B kNm
N force self weight Nsw Normal 66.8 kN 0.04 2.7 kN
N force pavement Np Normal 14.8 kN 0.05 0.74 kN
N force support
Nsm Normal 0 kN 0.1 0 kN
movement
N force earth
Nep Normal 0 kN 0.1 0 kN
pressure
N force traffic Ntr Gumbel 0.089B kN 0.15 0.013B kN
Model uncertainties
reinforcement
Model uncertaintis
concrete
Model uncertainties
CMsw Normal 0 0
self weight, M
Model uncertainties
CMp Normal 0 0
pavement, M
Model uncertainties
CMsm Normal 0 3.46 kNm
support movem, M
Model uncertainties
CMep Normal 0 5.22 kNm
earth pressure, M
Model uncertainties
CNsw Normal 0 0
self weight, N
Model uncertainties
CNp Normal 0 0
pavement, N
Model uncertainties
CNsm Normal 0 0
support movem, N
Model uncertainties
CNep Normal 0 0
earth pressure, N
Model uncertainties
traffic (M and N)
135
The variables are updated with the following conditions.
Resistance
As earlier described an amount of 6 samples were taken from different

reinforcement bars, Ø25, from both of the frame legs, with the purpose to
estimate the material quality by tensile tests.
In Appendix C, load-strain curves are presented together with a calculation of

the mean value and standard deviation for the tensile yield limit.
The mean value of these samples is, mfst = 305.5 MPa and the associated
standard deviation, sfst, is 15.7 MPa.
These values are only based on 6 samples and can therefore not be used
directly in a probabilistic calculation. This is however information that can be
used for updating the stochastic variable, fst.
Here follows an example of a method used for updating the stochastic variable,
fst. It is in accordance with the Bayesian updating method, and can be found in
Sustainable bridges (2007).
Since the number of tests, n = 6, the degrees of freedom, Ȟ = 5 (n-1).
Based on no prior information about the mean value and the standard
deviation, used recommended values in earlier calculation, see Table 7-2, are
used as prior values, which implies that ȝ´= 308.4 MPa and ı´ = 25 MPa. Since
both of these prior values are assumed to be rather consistent the coefficient of
variance is limited to 0.05 for the mean value, ȝ´ and 0.1 for the standard
deviation, ı´.
Since the concrete compression strength is lognormal distributed the mean

value and standard deviation also are assumed to be lognormal distributed.
equivalent number of tests, n´.
2 2
ª mV c 1 º ª 25 1 º
nc « mP c V P c » «¬ 308.4 0.05 »¼ 2.63
¬ ¼
136
1 1 1 1
Qc 50
2 >V V c@2 2 0.12
n cc n nc 6 2.63 8.63
The updated mean value is
n m n c m P c 6 305.5 2.63 308.4

mP cc 306.4 MPa
ncc 8.63
The updated degrees of freedom are
Q Q c 1 if nc ! 0
Q cc ®
¯Q Q c if n c 0
Q cc 5 50 1 56
The updated expected value of standard deviation can be calculated as
mV cc
>vc mV c 2 2
@ > @
nc mP c Q s 2 n m 2 ncc mP cc
2
Q cc
mV cc
>50 25 2
@ > @
2.63 308.4 2 5 15.7 2 6 305.5 2 8.63 306.4 2
56
24.1 MPa
Load effect
Based on the analysis of the measurement results it seems to be reasonable to

limit the allowed velocity at the bridge to 30 km/h, since there were some
indications of remaining reinforcement strains for higher velocities.
The comparison between measurements and calculations give the possibility to

adjust the earlier used traffic load effect. The traffic load distribution in
transversal direction, btr, is changed from 3 m to 6.5 m. The coefficient of
137
variation for the traffic load is however increased from 0.1 to 0.15, since there
are some uncertainties of the traffic load.
Besides that, it seems to be reasonable to neglect the dynamic effect, İ (28 % in

earlier calculation). This is based on the measurement results and the suggested
allowed velocity.
The updated mean value and standard deviation of the traffic load effect is as
follows
uppd b tr 3
P Mtr P Mtr uppd
0.406 B 0.146 B
b tr H 6.5 1.28
uppd
V Mtr cov uppd
tr
uppd
P Mtr 0.2 0.146 B 0.029 B
uppd b
tr 3
P Ntr P Ntr uppd
0.246 B 0.089 B
b
tr H 6.5 1.28
uppd
V Ntr cov uppd
tr
uppd
P Mtr 0.2 0.089 B 0.018B
The assumption is, as earlier described, that the heavy loaded vehicle is alone
at the bridge.
Model uncertainties
Based on the test results of the reinforcement bars the coefficient of variation
for the model uncertainty, Cfst, is decreased to 0.02.
Since the function and behaviour of the bridge are studied in the load tests, the
model uncertainties, Csw and Cp are neglected in the following calculation.
There are however still some uncertainties about the traffic load effect and the
behaviour of the plastic hinges in the bridge deck, why the model uncertainty
for traffic, CMtr is here updated from 0.1 to 0.2.
The result of the calculation
The result of a probabilistic calculation based on updated values and a bogie

load of 160 kN leads to a reliability index ȕ equal to 5.4. This value is higher
than ȕtarget = 4.3, and even higher than the target value corresponding to safety
class 3. The associated probability of failure is 3.27ǜ10-8.
138
System Reliability
Even if the analysis, up to now, has focused on the reliability of individual

structural members, the failure of the system has been considered in the
calculation, a mechanism with three plastic hinges (two in the bridge deck and
the third in one of the frame legs). The next step is to estimate the probability
of failure for the system, including all structure members of the bridge.
The bridge is divided up in three structure members, two frame legs and a
bridge deck. An illustration of the system can be seen in Figure 7-62. The
system can be described as a serial system since the failure of the system
occurs irrespective of which structure member that fails. Critical failure mode
is the same for both of the frame legs, i.e. insufficient bending moment
capacity. The corresponding failure mode of the bridge deck is assumed to be
the rotational capacity of one of the two plastic hinges. The analysis is based
on the result of made measurements. The distribution width of the traffic load
is assumed to be the same at the two frame legs. For the bridge deck element it
is rather difficult to estimate the real rotation. Therefore it is more convenient
to adjust theoretical calculations with a calibrating factor that is based on the
quote between the measured and the theoretical values of the reinforcement
strain in the section of the assumed plastic hinge of the bridge deck. Based on
the result that can be found in Appendix C, the calibrating factor can be set to
0.360 (3/(6.5ǜ1.28)). This is also described in this section.
Bridge deck (BD)

Frame leg 1 (FL1) Frame leg 2 (FL2)
FL1 BD FL2
Figure 7-62 Illustration of the assumed serial system
139
The other frame leg element
The earlier made probabilistic calculation is based on a critical section in one

of the two frame legs. With the same traffic load position as earlier the bending
moment in the corresponding section at the other frame leg is 21 %
(100ǜ140/657) which can be seen in Appendix B and is based on the ratio
between allowed bogie load value at the two frame legs. The traffic load
position is the same for these values. The big difference between the bogie
loads is because the traffic load is standing nearer the first analysed frame leg.
upd
P Mtr 0.406 B (1 0.21) 0.360 0.115B
upd
V Mtr 0.15 0.115 B 0.017 B
upd
P Ntr 0.246 B(1 0.21) 0.360 0.070 B
upd
V Ntr 0.15 0.070 B 0.010 B
A probabilistic calculation with VaP (1999) gives a reliability index ȕ = 6.05

which corresponds to a probability of failure equal to 7.11ǜ10-10.
The bridge deck element
The limit state function can be formulated as
M Tu Ms 7-2
This can be reformulated according to Section 5.1.3 as
ª As f st § f · º
Tu «1 1.4 ¨¨ H cu st ¸¸ B C » 10 3 M M 7-3
¬ b d f cc 0.8 H cu © Es ¹ ¼
B 1 (This is not the same meaning as in the traffic load effect where B
denotes bogie load)
The parameter C is a function of the distance between the plastic hinge and
chosen moment zero. This parameter can, according to Appendix B, be
considered as a constant with value 45.
140
M M is the rotation caused by horizontal support movement and has the value
27 mrad, see Appendix B.
According to the made calculations, the maximum rotation, caused by a vehicle

with axle loads equal to 10 kN, is equal to 0.18 mrad. The axle loads used in
the deterministic calculations, see Appendix B, is equal to 0.39B kN. With an
assumption of a load distribution width = 3 m and the same adjustments as
earlier for the moment of inertia and the modulus of elasticity, the rotation can
be recalculated and updated in accordance with the earlier made update.
0.18 0.39 B 104.8

Ms 0.360 0.0050 B mrad
10 3 17.7
where EIuncrack = 104.8 MNm2 and EIcrack = 17.8 MNm2.
The limit state function can now be formulated as
As f st C fst § f C fst ·
M 18 63 ¨¨ H cu st ¸¸ M s CMs 7-4
b d f cc C fcc 0.8 H cu © Es ¹
Used variables, distribution functions and associated parameters can be found

in Table 7-6
Table 7-6 Variables with associated distribution functions and distribution

parameters

Reinforcement tensile
fst Lognormal 306.4 MPa - 24.1 MPa
strength
Modulus of
Es Deterministic 200 GPa - -
elasticity,reinforcement
Ultimate limit concrete
İsu Deterministic 3.5 ‰ - -
strain
2
fcc Lognormal 33.7 MPa 0.183 6.2
strength
Effective depth d Normal 291 mm - 10 mm
Rotation ĳs Normal 0.0023B mrad 0.15 0.00046B
Model uncert. reinf. Cfst Lognormal 1 0.02 0.02
Model uncert. concrete Cfcc Lognormal 1 0.05 0.05
Model uncert. rotation Cĳs Normal 1 0.2 0.2
141
A calculation with VaP (1999) gives a reliability index ȕ =10.3
The corresponding probability of failure = 5.6ǜ10-25
Now the probability of failure for the system can be calculated as
Pfs 1 (1 PfBD )(1 PfFL1 )(1 PfFL 2 ) 7-5
Pfs 1 (1 5.6 10 25 )(1 3.27 10 8 )(1 7.11 10 10 ) 3.3 10 8
This implies that the probability of failure for the system is rather low when the
traffic load corresponds to load class 2, meaning an allowed axle load/bogie
load = 100/160 kN.
In Carlsson (2006) a proposal is given that the traffic load can be normal
distributed if the load is based on the typical vehicles described in the Bridge
Assessment Code, Vägverket (1998). This implies for this bridge that the
reliability index ȕ = 5.95 compared with earlier 5.4.
7.6 Risk Assessment
Risk Analysis
The conditions for allowing a heavy loaded vehicle (HLV), corresponding to

load class 2, to pass the bridge is that it is alone on the bridge and has a
maximum velocity (v) of 30 km/h. These conditions are the risks that will be
estimated in an event tree analysis, presented in Figure 7-63.
The probability for passing the bridge with higher velocity than allowed is
based on existing statistical material from a study of the frequency of
exceeding allowed speed limits, see Vägverket (2005). It is based on statistical
studies from several measurement occasions at different places in Sweden from
the years 2003 and 2004.
Used probabilities for meetings at the bridge at least once each year are based
on traffic measurements during two periods in 2006 and an estimation that
meeting frequency between heavy load vehicles (HLV) is 1 per 50 years, even
if this type of meetings didn’t occur.
142
HLV pass v > 30 km/h A meeting at Meeting a Consequence

the bridge the bridge HLV
No No failure
P§0 P§0
No No No failure
P = 0.45 P = 0.94 P = 0.42
P§1
Yes
P = 0.06 Failure
Yes P § 0.03
No Decreased
P=§0 technical
life span
P=§0
P = 0.55
Yes No Decreased
P = 0.94 technical
P=§1 life span
Yes P = 0.52
P = 0.06 Failure
Yes P § 0.03
Figure 7-63 Event tree analysis of several events during a period of a year
and their consequences for the load carrying capacity of the
bridge
The result of the event tree study illustrates an important event. Even if the
meetings between HLV not will occur during these 15 years, the technical life
span probably will be decreased since there will be too many vehicles that pass
the bridge with too high velocity.
143
The effect of too high velocities
Since the real value of the reinforcement strain caused by a horizontal support
movement of about 0.17 m, here denoted İsm, is unknown, the calculated value,
5.3 ‰, in the deterministic analysis is used instead.
As earlier described it seems to be a relation between the reinforcement strain

and the velocity of heavy loaded vehicles. A rest strain, İr about 1.2 ȝm/m will,
according to measurement results, be the effect when a HLV, corresponding to
load class 2, passes the bridge with a velocity of 55 km/h. Since there is an
uncertainty about the effect for higher velocities, the rest strain is set to be 1.6
ȝm/m.
Performed traffic measurements described in Appendix C, gave that

approximately 27 % of the category busses or lorries that passed the bridge had
a velocity of 55 km/h or higher. With an assumption of linearly this means 840
vehicles each year.
According to the traffic measurement, see Appendix C, the number of lorries or

busses that passed the bridge during two periods in 2006 was about 10 each
day. This value is not used in this thesis since this category lorries busses
corresponds to the load class 3. An assumption is therefore that the frequency
of heavy loaded vehicles corresponding to load class 2 is according to results
of traffic measurements before 1997, meaning 6 vehicles in average each day
during a year, here denoted nold. This implies, with an assumption of linearly
that 591 vehicles of this load class passes the bridge with a velocity of 55 km/h
or higher every year in average. The number of vehicles is denoted n55.
Based on made load strain tests of the reinforcement, the plastic range İu is
estimated to be about 20 ‰. This implies that the number of heavy loaded
vehicle, nHLV, that can pass the bridge, until the end of plastic range is reached,
are 9188 as shown in Equation 7-6.
H u H sm 20 5.3
n HLV 12250 7-6
Hr 1.2 10 3
This means that the number of years that corresponds with nHLV, in Equation
above, is 20.7 (12250/591).
The problem is now to estimate the remaining technical life span. The support
movement was discovered during an inspection in 1997. After that the load
144
carrying capacity has been restricted to load class 3, meaning that allowed axle
and bogie load are 6 and 8 tons respectively. When exactly the support
movement was started and how many heavy loaded vehicles, corresponding to
load class 2 and higher, that have passed the bridge since that time are very
difficult to estimate.
In the worst scenario the support movement was started 6 years (corresponding
to a main inspection interval) before the described discovery after which an
unknown numbers of heavy loaded vehicles with load class higher than 3 have
passed the bridge. This period of 6 year is here denoted told.
In a more realistic scenario the support movement was started as assumed in

the first scenario but the vehicles that have passed the bridge since that time
have, at least after 1997, more or less followed the described load restrictions.
The consequence of the traffic load before 1997 is not considered here. We
don’t know anything about the support movement at that time. It was probably
smaller than today.
With an assumption that there haven’t been any heavy loaded vehicles
corresponding to load class 2 or higher that have passed the bridge after 1997,
the remaining technical life span, t, can be estimated as follows
n HLV n55 t old 12250 591 6

t 14.7 years 7-7
n55 591
According to results from performed WIM-measurements during 2004-2005,

about 40 % of all measured lorries were overloaded. The maximum overload
was about 20 %. The worst scenario for this bridge is that 40 % of the vehicles
that have passed the bridge during this period since 1997 have been overloaded
with 20 %, meaning an axle and bogie weight of 7 and 10 tons respectively.
However, these higher weights does not change the estimated technical life
span, 9.5 years since these weights belong to load class 3.
Today, the allowed velocity at the bridge is 50 km/h. During the two described
measuring periods in 2006, the maximum velocity for busses and lorries that
passed the bridge was 76 km/h. This means 52 % higher than allowed. If the
velocity should be restricted to 30 km/h in the future the number of heavy
loaded vehicles that passes the bridge with a velocity of 55 km/h or higher
should probably be decreased. An assumption of the same relationship between
maximum and allowed value as above, implies that the maximum value will be
about 46 km/h. Even if this assumption not will be fulfilled completely, a
145
decreasing of the velocity with 20 km/h will probably result in a lower velocity
and therefore also lower impact on the bridge.
If the maximum velocity of these heavy loaded vehicles will be 46 km/h the
rest strain is estimated to be 1.0 ȝm/m (46ǜ1.2/55). New values in Equations 7-
6 and 7-7 gives the number of heavy load vehicles that can pass the bridge until
the end of plastic range is reached, Equation 7-8, and the remaining technical
life span, Equation 7-9.
20 5.3
n HLV | 14700 heavy loaded vehicles 7-8
1.0 10 3
14700 591 6
t | 19 years 7-9
591
Risk Evaluation
Based on these Equations the risk analysis leads to the estimation that this
bridge probably has a load carrying capacity corresponding to load class 2
during a period of 15 years, which is assumed to be the remaining technical life
span. The conditions for these estimations must however be as follows
x Allowed velocity at the bridge is set to 30 km/h
x A support construction between the base slabs, to prevent further

movements
x Bridge inspection each year where crack widths at the edge beams are
measured. Maximum allowed crack width must correspond to the end
of the plastic range of the reinforcements.
146
Bridge over åhedån
8 BRIDGE OVER ÅHEDÅN
Figure 8-1 Photo of the east side of the bridge over Åhedån
8.1 Background
The bridge is a 3-joint slab and beam-frame bridge with a theoretical span of
12.6 m and a width of 6 m. The bridge was built in 1934. The bridge is located
147
about 20 km south of Umeå on road 522, see Figure 8-2. Allowed traffic load
was set to A/B = 100/160 kN.
Brännland
36
Umeå Ersboda
Kåddis E12
Baggböle 3
Klabböle
Degersjön Röbäck
E1
2
E4
Skravelsjö Alvik
Bjännsjö Stöcksjö Bergsboda
Djäkneböle Degernäs
Bösta
Bösta Stöcke
E12
Ansmark
Mölle
Ström
Stugunäs Bussjön
Obbola
E4
Bridge site Strömbäck
Sörmjöle
Åheden
Sörböle
Norrmjöle
15 33 m
As an effort to increase the traffic safety and the load carrying capacity, a
decision was made to increase the width to 7 m and strengthening the
superstructure so that allowed values for axle load(A)/bogie load(B), are
130/200 kN. This was done in 2002.
In Figure 8-3 an elevation of the bridge before strengthening is presented.

Performed improvements at the bridge are illustrated in Figure 8-4 to Figure
8-5 where a cross section of the superstructure and a cross section of the main
girder with belonging reinforcement are presented.
148
CL joint
1155 849 630

497 455
1500 1500 1500 1500

4605
Free span 12000
Theoretical span 12600
[mm]
600
3600 800 1000
Figure 8-3 Elevation of the bridge before strengthening
CL
Bridge
2.5 %
New layer of structural concrete
Old edge beam h

[mm]
400 1405 440 1580
Figure 8-4 Cross section of the bridge showing the old and new part of the
superstructure
149
Ø16
Ø10 s 300
Ø24 Original slab of

New layer of structural concrete
structural concrete
Ø16 s 480
Ø16 s 480
Ø24
Figure 8-5 Cross section of a main girder with associated reinforcement
8.2 Condition
According to reports from earlier inspections there were no damages on the

bridge before its improvement.
8.3 Assessment of capacity
Parts of the calculations for this bridge are presented in Appendix D, for further
information see Vägverket konsult (2001). The calculations are based on the
Swedish Bridge Design Code, Bro94 (1994). The deterministic analysis in
Appendix D is restricted to the ultimate limit state. It deals with the bending
moment and the shear force capacity of the main girder and the shearing stress
capacity in the joint between the new and the old concrete in the main girder.
The principle of the calculation for the bending moment capacity can shortly be
described as follows. The need of new reinforcement is based on section forces
from the new wider cross section as shown in Figure 8-4. In the analysis the
main beam is calculated as a rectangular cross section instead of a T-section
where the effect of the flanges is considered. The difference between needed
and existing reinforcement is then placed in the reinforced concrete slab that is
150
cast on the top of existing concrete. This implies that the new reinforcement is
based on the same effective depth as the existing reinforcement, which is a
simplification in the calculation and of course give results on the safety side.
Even if these original calculations do not follow the presented principal of

calculations in Chapter 5, it is important that the same assumptions are made in
a comparative probabilistic analysis.
The differences in results between a probabilistic and deterministic calculation

are presented in the next section.
8.4 Probabilistic analysis - General
As the theoretical span is shorter than 15 m, safety class 2 can be used with the
corresponding value of the reliability index ȕ = 4.3. The deterministic
calculation is however based on safety class 3, which implies that the reliability
index ȕ = 4.8. Since there are of interest to compare the results of this
deterministic calculation and a probabilistic calculation the safety class must be
the same, which means in this case, safety class 3.
8.4.1 Probabilistic analysis - bending moment capacity of the concrete

girder
Asnew fstnew
İsnew Ftnew
İsold Ftold
Asold fstold Ni
d Mi
x xtp
0.8x
Fc
İcu fcc
b
Figure 8-6 Stress and strain diagram for a cross section of a rectangular
beam
The failure function of the concrete girder, illustrated in Figure 8-6, can be
expressed as equilibrium between tensile reinforcement yielding forces and
compressive forces from concrete crushing, with notation according to Table
8-1. This can be written as:
151
f () Asold f stold C fstold Asnew f stnew C fstnew 0.8 b C fcc fcc
§ ep su § ep · ·
¨
¨ d 2 ¦ C i M i ¦ C i M i ¨
¨ ¦ C i N i ¦ C i N ¸
i ¸ d x tp ¸
¸
§ d · i sw i tr © i sw ¹ ¸
¨ ¨ ¸
¨ 0.8 © 0.8 ¹ 0.32 b f cc C fcc ¸
¨¨ ¸¸
© ¹
§ ol su
·
¨ ¦ C i N i ¦ C i N i ¸ 8-1
© i sw i tr ¹
where
ep
¦ C
i sw
i M i C sw M sw C p M p C ep M ep
su
¦ C M
i tr
i i C tr M tr C br M br C su M su
The bending moment capacity of the concrete girder is analysed in section

3.000 (0 meters from the frame leg).
The variables with distribution functions and associated parameters are

presented in Table 8-1.
152
Table 8-1 Variables with associated distribution functions and parameters

in section 3.000 (0 m from the nearest frame leg)
Variable Notation Distribution ȝ cov ı

Reinf. area, old Asold Determ. 8239 mm2 - -
Reinf. area, new Asnew Determ. 1143 mm2 - -
Reinf. tensile str., old fstold Normal 330 MPa 30 MPa
Reinf. tensile str., new fstnew Normal 560 MPa 30 MPa
Distance to centre of
xtp Normal 1044 mm 0.01 8.3 mm
gravity
Concr. compr. strength fcc Lognormal 79.9 0.13 10.7 MPa
Moment earth pressure Mep Normal -4.4 kNm 0.05 0.2 kNm
Moment traffic Mtr Gumbel 1216.4 KNm 0.1 121.6 kNm
Moment brake Mbr Beta 0 kNm 0.1 55.4 kNm
Moment surcharge Msu Normal 68.9 KNm 0.1 6.9 kNm
Normal force self weight Nsw Normal 31.7 kN 0.04 1.3 kN
Normal force pavement Np Normal 15.7 kN 0.05 0.8 kN
Normal force earth
Nep Normal 23.8 kN 0.05 1.2 kN
pressure
Normal force traffic Ntr Gumbel 279.0 kN 0.1 27.9 kN
Normal force brake Nbr Beta - - -
Normal force surcharge Nsu Normal 15.8 kN 0.1 1.6 kN
Model uncertainties
reinforcement
Model uncertainties
reinforcement
Model uncertainties
traffic
Model uncertainties
Cbr Normal 1 0.1 0.1
break
Model uncertainties
Csu Normal 1 0.1 0.1
surcharges
The presented parameters and distribution functions for each variable, except
concrete compression strength and reinforcement area, are based on earlier
described recommendations presented in Chapter 3.
Concrete
For the concrete compression strength, the given parameters are based on the
following description.
153
Deterministic calculation
In the deterministic calculation, used concrete quality is K45.
Updating with use of results from similar bridges
According to a supplement to the Swedish bridge assessment code, Vägverket

(2003), the strength of concrete in an existing bridge can be estimated based on
an evaluation of results of tested cores from a number of bridges, built between
1947 and 1960.
The new estimated value depends on what strength the concrete was supposed
to have according to the drawings. In this case the concrete quality was given
as strength class K25. This will result in that the bridge now can be assumed to
have a concrete quality equivalent to strength class K40.
Test of drilled out cores
Several core samples have been taken from the existing bridge structure and
the result is presented in Appendix E. In BBK04 (2004), Appendix A, a
method is described for the estimation of the concrete quality based on samples
drilled out from the structure. An evaluation can be done by the following
equations:
m t f KK k1
x t f KK 4
where
m is the mean value, in MPa, of a series of n samples

fKK is the required characteristic value = 1.14fcck in MPa
k1 is a coefficient depending on the number of samples n
k1 = 6 if n = 3 – 6
k1 = 5 if n = 7 – 9
k1 = 4 if n = 10 – 14
x is the strength value of a specific sample
At this bridge twelve samples were drilled out from the wing walls, the frame
legs and the deck, see Appendix E. Eleven samples were used since the
pressure area of one of the samples was reduced.
154
Based on the 11 values we obtain with
m 79.9 MPa
x 61.7 MPa minimum value
79.9 4 75.9 MPa

f KK min ®
¯61.7 4 65.7 MPa
65.7
f cck 57.6 MPa
1.14
This result gives that the concrete is estimated to have a quality better than the
strength class C 60/75, which is higher than what has been used in the
calculations.
With the assumption that the new concrete will also give the same strength
class, C 60/75, we will have an improvement compared to earlier calculations.
The problem is to estimate the parameters that will be used in the probabilistic
analysis. The characteristic value of the concrete compression strength and the
corresponding fractile is stated in the codes for the concrete quality, but the
mean value and the standard deviation are missing. There are of course these
tests results from core samples but they are only based on a limited part of the
concrete.
Bayesian updating
A method that can be used for estimating these parameters is based on

Bayesian updating probabilities.
Here follows an example of this method for updating the stochastic variable,
fcc. The method can be found in Sustainable bridges (2007), see also section
2.8.
The standard deviation, s is calculated as
¦ X m
2
i
s 13.5 MPa
n 1
155
Since the concrete compression strength is assumed to be lognormal

distributed, the mean value and the standard deviation also are assumed to be
lognormal distributed.
Since the number of tests, n = 11, the degrees of freedom, Ȟ = 10 (n-1).
The characteristic value above corresponds to the percentile of 5 %. Based on

these conditions the coefficient of the Student distribution, tȞd is according to
Table 2-3, can be found in Sustainable Bridges (2007)
t vd 1.81
and a characteristic value of
s § 1· 13.5 § 1·
ln x k ln m t vd ¨1 ¸ ln 79.9 1.81 ¨1 ¸ 4.06
m © n¹ 79.9 © 11 ¹
xk e 4.06 58.0 MPa
There is lack of prior information about the quality of this bridge but according
to the investigation about the concrete compression strength for several
existing bridges, which was leading to earlier described addition to the bridge
assessment code, Vägverket (1998), a reasonably value of the standard
deviation could be 10 MPa. With the assumption that this value is rather
constant the coefficient of variation can be set to 0.1.
The mean value is estimated to be 80.5 MPa with a coefficient of variation set
to 10, which is very high.
The summary of made assumptions for prior values is
mP c 80.5 MPa
V P c 10
mV c 10 MPa
V V c 0.1
equivalent number of tests, n´
156
2 2
ª mV c 1 º ª 10 1 º
nc « mP c V P c » «¬ 80.5 10 »¼ | 0
¬ ¼
1 1 1 1
Qc 50
2 >V V c@2 2 0.12
n cc n n c 11 0 11
Updated mean value is
n m nc mP c 11 79.9 0 80.5
mP cc 79.9 MPa
ncc 11
Updated degrees of freedom can be calculated as
Q Q c 1 if n c ! 0
Q cc ®
¯Q Q c if n c 0
Q c 10 50 60
According to Table 2-3
t vd # 1.68
The updated expected value of standard deviation can be calculated as
mV cc
>vc mV c 2 2
@ > @
nc mP c Q s 2 n m 2 ncc mP cc
2
Q cc
mV cc
>50 10 2
@ > @
0 80.5 2 10 13.5 2 11 79.9 2 11 79.9 2
10.7 MPa
60
157
New characteristic value is
m(V cc) § 1· 10.7 § 1·

ln x k ln m t vd ¨1 ¸ ln 79.9 1.68 ¨1 ¸ 4.146
m( P cc) © ncc ¹ 79.9 © 11 ¹
xk e 4.146 63.2 MPa
The concrete strength evaluation is summarized in Table 8-2.
Table 8-2 A summary of the concrete strength evaluation
Rev. Bayesian
Cores
Parameters Original Ass. Deterministic
n=11 Prior Updated
Rules
K 25 40 45
ȝ - - - 79.5 80.5 79.9
ı - - - 13.5 10 10.7
xk - - - 58.0 - 63.2
fcck - - - 57.6 - -
V(ȝ) - - - - 10 -
V(ı) - - - - 0.1 -
Reinforcement
The reinforcement area is here assumed to be deterministic and the distribution

function and associated parameters for the reinforcement tensile strength are
based on recommendations in JCSS (2001).
Section forces caused by braking
The distribution function Beta is chosen because it is more suitable then

another distribution to describe this force.
The probability density function and associated parameters of this Beta-

distribution is described in the following equations, Schneider (1997), see also
Appendix F.
*r t x a b x
r 1 t 1
f x
*r *t b a r t 1
158
r
m a b a
r 1
ba r t
s
r t r t 1
f
*r ³x
r 1 x
e dx
0
a d x d b, a z b, r , t t 1
According to the deterministic calculations the value of the moment caused by

braking is 82.7 kNm.
If the parameters are chosen to have the following values
a 298
b 298
r t 6
it results in a mean value, ȝ = 0 kNm and standard deviation, ı = 82.7 kNm

and the form of the probability density function, pdf is long and wide, see
Figure 8-7.
Figure 8-7 Illustration of the form of the distribution

function with ı = 82.7 kNm
159
If these parameters instead have the following values
a 100
b 100
r t 6
the form of the pdf is changed into a higher and narrower function and the
standard deviation gets value ı = 41.3 kNm, while the mean value is
unchanged, ȝ = 0 kNm. This can be seen in Figure 8-8.
Figure 8-8 Illustration of the form of the distribution

function with ı = 41.3 kNm
Both of these alternatives are tested in the probabilistic analysis.
Results of the calculation
With use of the software VaP (1999), the reliability index ȕ is computed for
Equation 8-1 with distributions and parameters for respective variables,
presented in Table 8-1.
The calculation result is ȕ = 4.97 which is higher than target value 4.8. The
alternative shape of the pdf for the moment caused by braking with a lower
value of the standard deviation results in ȕ = 5.01.
The Į-values for respective variables are presented in Table 8-3. They describe
how important each variable is in the current failure mode.
160
According to Table 8-3 the most important load variable is moment of traffic
Mtr and the model uncertainty of the traffic load, Ctr. For the resistance part the
reinforcement tensile strength fstold is the most important variable followed by
the model uncertainty of the concrete compression strength Cfcc and the model
uncertainty of the reinforcement tensile strength, Cfst.
Table 8-3 Į-value for respective variable
d -0.042
fcc -0.027
fstold -0.425 Important
fstnew -0.059
xtp -0.007
Msw 0.045
Mp 0.012
Msu 0.012
Mep -0.0003
Mtr 0.744 Important
Nsw -0.002
Np -0.001
Nep -0.002
Nsu -0.002
Ntr -0.041
Cfcc 0.279 Important
Cfst 0.243 Important
Ctr 0.309 Important
Cbr 0.013
Csu 0.010
In the Figure 8-9 to Figure 8-14 illustrations are given for the sensitivities of
the parameters used for each important variable and the consequence on the
161
Reliability index
5,5
5
4,5
4
310 320 330 340 350
P fst [Mpa]
Figure 8-9 Reliability index ȕ as a function of the mean value of the old
reinforcement tensile strength ȝfstold with a constant standard
deviation of the old reinforcement ıfst = 30 MPa
Reliability index
5,5
5
4,5
4
20 25 30 35 40
V fstold [MPa]
Figure 8-10 Reliability index ȕ as a function of the standard deviation of the

old reinforcement tensile strength ıfstold, with a constant mean
value of the old reinforcement ȝfstold = 330 MPa
162
Reliability index 8
6
4
2
0
0.8 0.9 1.0 1,1 1.2
P Cfst
Figure 8-11 Reliability index ȕ as a function of the mean value of the model
uncertainty for the reinforcement tensile strength ȝCfst , with a
constant standard deviation ıCfst = 0.05
Reliability index
5,2
5,1
5
4,9
4,8
4,7
4,6
0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07
V Cfst

model uncertainty for the reinforcement tensile strength ıCfst ,
with a constant ȝCfst =1
163
Reliability index
5,5
5
4,5
4
180 190 200 210 220
Bogie value [kN]

Reliability index
8
6
4
2
0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.2
covtr
Figure 8-14 Reliability index ȕ as a function of the coefficient of variance for

the traffic moment covMtr and the traffic normal force covNtr with
a constant ȝMtr =1216.4 kNm and a constant ȝNtr =279 kN
According to Figure 8-13, the traffic load can be increased to a bogie value =
210 kN, which corresponds to the target value ȕ = 4.8. The coefficient of
variation of the traffic load, covtr, has a big influence on allowed bogie load
value, see Figure 8-14. A covtr = 0.05 corresponds to a bogie load = 260 kN.
This is based on the alternative where the breaking force has the higher value
of the standard deviation.
allowed bogie load, B is increased to 240 kN if covtr = 0.1.
164
8.4.2 Probabilistic analysis – Shear force capacity of the concrete girder
d As0
Asv1
bw Asv2
Figure 8-15 Illustration of a transversal and longitudinal cross section of the

concrete girder
Based on BBK04 (2004), the failure function of the concrete girder, see Figure
8-15, can be expressed as
f bw , d ,... R1 R2 S 8-2
where
§ A ·
R1 bw d 0,30 9 ¨¨1 50 s 0 ¸¸ f ct C fct 1.012
© bw d ¹
0,9 d
R2 Asv1 f sv1 C fsv Asv 2 f sv 2 C fsv sin 45 Vi V p
s
S Vsw C sw V pav C pav Vep C ep Vsu C su Vbr C br Vtr Ctr

The value 1.012 in the equation above implies an increase of the shearing force
capacity by the effect of the vicinity to the support. This value is from the
deterministic calculation.
The critical section, that will be analysed, is section 3.250, 1.58 meters from
the centre of the frame leg.
Used variables with distribution functions and associated parameters are

described in Table 8-4
165
Table 8-4 Variables with corresponding distribution functions and

parameters in section 3.25
Variable Notation Distribution ȝ COV ı

Reinf. area, bending As0 Normal 9096 mm2 0.02 181.9 mm2
Reinf. area, shear Asv1 Normal 157 mm2 0.02 3.1 mm2
Reinf. area, shear Asv2 Normal 905 mm2 0.02 18.1 mm2
Reinf. tensile str. fsv1 Normal 330 MPa 30 MPa
Reinf. tensile str. fsv2 Normal 330 MPa 30 MPa
Distance, shear reinf s Normal 300 mm - 10 mm
Width bw Determ. 440 mm - -
Size factor ȗ Determ. 0,9108 - -
Concr. tensile str. fct Lognormal 4.2 MPa 0.13 0.56 MPa
Shearing force effect
Vi Normal 71.4 kN 0.07 5
var. effective depth
Shear force effect
Vp Normal 28.2 kN 0.07 2
compressive force
Shear force self
Vsw Normal 158.4 kN 0.05 7.9
weight
Shear force pav. Vpav Normal 34.7 kN 0.06 2.1
Shear force earth
Vep Normal 0 0.04 0
pressure
Shear force traffic Vtr Gumbel 379.6 kN 0.1 37.9 kN
Shear force brake Vbr Beta 0 kN 13.1 kN
Shear force surch. Vsu Normal 11.4 kN 0.1 1.1 kN
Model uncert. reinf. Cfsv Lognormal 1 0.05 0.05
Model uncert. concr. Cfct Lognormal 1 0.05 0.05

Model uncert. self
Csw Normal 0 - 0
weight
Model uncert. pav. Cpav Normal 0 - 0
Model uncert. earth
Cep Normal 0 - 0
pressure
Model uncert. traffic Ctr Normal 1 0.1 0.1
Model uncert. brake Cbr Normal 1 0.1 0.1
Model uncert. surch. Csu Normal 1 0.1 0.1
166
The most of associated parameters and distribution functions are according to

described recommendations presented in chapter 3. Some of the presented
variables in the table above are described more in detail below.
Reinforcement
The reinforcement area is and the reinforcement tensile strengths, fsv and fsw,
are in this calculation assumed to be in accordance with recommendations in
JCSS (2001), see Chapter 3.
Concrete
Based on earlier estimated parameters of the concrete compression strength,

the mean value and standard deviation of the tensile strength are weighted from
these estimated values.
The updated characteristic value of the concrete compression was earlier

calculated to 63.2 MPa. According to BBK04 (2004), the value for the highest
presented concrete quality, C 60/75, is 57.0 MPa. The corresponding value of
the tensile strength for this class is 2.95 MPa. Now, an updated characteristic
value of the tensile strength can be calculated as
63.2
xk 2.95 3.3 MPa
57
The mean value and standard deviation are weighted compared to compression
strength as
3.3
P cc 79.9 4.2 MPa
63.2
3.3
V cc 10.7 0.56 MPa
63.2
Shearing force effect
The shearing force effect of variable effective depth, Vi and of compressive

force, Vp are considered to be normal distributed with a coefficient of variation,
cov = 0.07.
167
Variables with deterministic values
The width of the beam is assumed to be deterministic. This choice has a very
small effect on the result.
As a simplification, the size effect, factor ȟ is considered to be deterministic.

The assumption is that this simplification has a smaller effect on the result.
Shearing force caused by braking
As earlier named, the distribution function Beta is chosen because it is assumed

to be more suitable then another distribution to describe this force.
According to the deterministic calculations the value of the shearing force

caused by braking is 13.1 kN.
If the following parameters are chosen
a 57.1
b 57.1
r t 9
it results in a mean value, ȝ = 0 kN and standard deviation, ı = 13.1 kNm and

the shape of the pdf is long and wide. If the parameters instead are chosen to
the following values
a 28.5
b 28.5
r t 9
the shape of the pdf is changed into a higher and more narrow function and the
standard deviation gets value ı = 6.5 kNm, while the mean value is unchanged,
ȝ = 0 kN.
Both of these alternatives are tested in the probabilistic analysis.
Calculations of the reliability index ȕ are performed with use of the software
VaP (1999) and based on the Equation 8-2 with distribution and parameters for
the variables, according to Table 8-4. The result is a reliability index ȕ = 5.84.
168
According to Table 8-5 the most important load variable is the shearing force
of traffic Vtr and the model uncertainty of the traffic load, Ctr. For the resistance
part the concrete tensile strength fct is the most important variable.
As0 -0.033
Asv1 -0.013
Asv2 -0.018
fsv1 -0.059
fsv2 -0.007
d -0.023
s 0.022
fct -0.425 Important
Vi -0.023
Vp -0.009
Vsw 0.036
Vpav 0.010
Vtr 0.802 Important
Vbr 0.068
Vsu 0.005
Cfsv -0.078
Cfct -0.160
Ctr 0.351 Important
Cbr 0.004
Csu 0.005
In Figure 8-16 to Figure 8-21 illustrations are given for the sensitivities of the
parameters used for each important variable and the consequence on the
169
Reliability index
8
6
4
2
0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5
P fct [Mpa]

concrete tensile strength ȝfct with a constant standard deviation
ıfct = 0.56 MPa
Reliability index
6,5
6
5,5
5
4,5
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
V fct [MPa]

concrete tensile strength ıfct, with a constant mean value ȝfct =
4.2 MPa
170
Reliability index 5,2

5
4,8
4,6
4,4
4,2
245 255 265 275
Bogie value [kN]

Reliability index
8
6
4
2
0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.2
covtr

the traffic load covtr with a constant mean value ȝVtr =379.6 kN
171
Reliability index
8
6
4
2
0
0.8 0.9 1.0 1,1 1.2
P Ctr
Figure 8-20 Reliability index ȕ as a function of the mean value of the model
uncertainty for the traffic ȝCtr , with a constant mean value ıCtr
= 0.1
Reliability index
8
6
4
2
0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
V Ctr

model uncertainty for the traffic ıCtr , with a constant mean
value ȝCtr =1
According to Figure 8-18 the allowed bogie load, B, can be increased to 255
kN, in safety class 3, which corresponds to the target value ȕ = 4.8. This is
based on the alternative where the breaking force has the higher value of the
standard deviation.
The result of the deterministic calculation gave B = 214 kN (this calculation is

not described in this thesis). This implies that the probabilistic calculation give
a 19 % higher value than the deterministic calculation. However, used shearing
forces in the probabilistic calculation have not been adjusted for the load within
the length of 0.9d from the analysed section, which means that the probabilistic
172
calculation give more than 20 % higher bogie load value compared with the
result of the deterministic calculation.
As earlier described the, covtr, has a big influence on allowed bogie load value,
see Figure 8-19. A covtr = 0.05 corresponds to a reliability index ȕ = 7.27 with
a bogie load = 200 kN. With the target value ȕ = 4.8 the allowed bogie load is
313 kN.
allowed bogie load, B could be increased to 295 kN if covtr = 0.1.
8.4.3 Probabilistic analysis – Shear stresses in joint between new and old
concrete in main girder
The deterministic calculation, in Appendix D, gave that the allowed shear

stress in the joint were exceeded in two sections. The consequence of this was
to put mechanical bolts, in form of reinforcing bars through the joint, in these
critical sections.
The first step will therefore be to analyse if a probabilistic calculation can

avoid the requirement of these bolts.
The failure function for this situation can be expressed as
f W R ,W S , f st W R W S
With
'M F new Vdmax Fstnew

WS sttot
'x z b Fst z b Fsttot
z d 0.4 x
Fstnew f stnew Asnew
Fsttot f stold Asold f stnew Asnew
gives
173
ol
¦V i
f stnew C fst Asnew
f W R ,W S , f st W R i sw
8-3
b z f stold C fst Asold f stnew C fst Asnew
The highest value of ĲS (0.467 MPa), according to deterministic calculation in

Appendix D, can be found in section 3.375 (2.36 m from the frame leg). This
section is therefore studied here.
Variables in Equation 8-3 are presented in Table 8-6 with associated

distribution functions and parameters.
Table 8-6 Variables (strength) with corresponding distribution functions

and parameters in section 3.375
Variable Notation Distribution ȝ cov ı

old 2
Reinf. area, old A s Normal 6424 mm 0.02 128.5 mm2
Reinf. area, new Asnew Normal 1608 mm2 0.02 32.2 mm2
Reinf. tensile str., old f stold Normal 330 MPa 30 MPa
new
Reinf. tensile str., new f st Normal 560 MPa 30 MPa
Allowed shear stress ĲR Lognormal 0.78 0.05 0.039
Internal level z Normal. 775 mm 10
Shear force self weight Vsw Normal 72.8 kN 0.05 3.6 kN
Shear force pavement Vpav Normal 11.3 kN 0.06 0.7 kN
Shear force surcharge Vsu Normal 11.4 kN 0.1 1.1 kN
Shear force br. force Vbr Beta 0 kN 13.1 kN
Shear force traffic Vtr Gumbel 304.7 kN 0.1 30.5 kN
Model uncert. reinf. Cfst Lognormal 1 0.05 0.05
Model uncert. brake Cbr Normal 1 0.1 0.1
Model uncert. surch. Csu Normal 1 0.1 0.1
Model uncert. traffic Ctr Normal 1 0.1 0.1
The most of associated parameters and distribution functions are according to

described recommendations presented in Chapter 3. Here follows a shorter
description.
174
Allowed shear stress
In the bridge design code BRO 94 (1994), the value of ĲR is limited to 0.4 MPa.
This is assumed to be a characteristic value, corresponding to the 5th percentiles
and reduced with some partial coefficients. Based on the assumption that this
variable can be described with a lognormal distribution, the mean value and the
standard deviation can be calculated as
PW W Rk exp1.64 covW
Assume that covĲ = 0.05 and that the partial coefficients are in accordance with
BBK 04 (2004), section 2.3.1
KJ m 1.5
J n 1.2
PW 0.4 1.5 1.2 exp1.64 0.05 0.78 MPa
VW covW PW
VW 0.05 0.78 0.039 MPa
Reinforcement
The area and the tensile strength of the reinforcement are in accordance with
recommendations in JCSS (2001).
Internal level
The mean value and the standard deviation are assumed to be in accordance
with recommendations of the effective depth in JCSS (2001).
Variables with deterministic values
The width of the beam is, as earlier mentioned, assumed to have a little
variation and therefore also a little effect on the result.
Shearing force caused by braking
As earlier named, the distribution function Beta is chosen because it is assumed

to be more suitable then another distribution to describe this force.
175
Chosen parameters are the same as the calculations for the shearing force
capacity.
a 57.1
b 57.1
r t 9
Calculations of the reliability index ȕ are performed with use of the software
VaP (1999), and based on Equation 8-3 with distribution and parameters for
respective variables, presented in Table 8-6.
The reliability index ȕ = 4.84 which is higher than the target value, 4.8
corresponding to safety class 3.
According to Table 8-7 the most important load variable is the shearing force
of traffic Vtr and the model uncertainty of the traffic load, Ctr. For the resistance
part the reinforcement tensile strength fstold and the allowed shear stress ĲR is the
most important variable.
Asold -0.066
Asnew 0.065
fstold -0.351 Important
fstnew 0.168
b -0.007
ĲR -0.250 Important
z -0.065
Vsw 0.025
Vpav 0.005
Vtr 0.794 Important
Vbr 0.103
Vsu 0.008
Cfst 0.000
Ctr 0.363 Important
Cbr 0.006
Csu 0.008
176
In Figure 8-22 and Figure 8-23 illustrations are given for the sensitivities of the
parameters used for each important variable and the consequence on the
Reliability index
8
6
4
2
0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.2
covtr

the traffic load covtr with a constant mean value ȝVtr =304.7 kN
Reliability index
6
4
2
0
0.03 0.05 0.10 0.15
covW

the allowed stress covĲ with a constant mean value ȝĲ =0.78
MPa
reliability index ȕ = 5.7.
177
8.5 Risk Assessment
Risk evaluation
For respective failure mode the most important stochastic variables have been
identified. Risk estimations have then been performed where the consequences
of deviations from assumed values have been studied.
The bending moment capacity and the capacity of shear stresses in joint
between new and old concrete capacity are the two failure modes that are the
limitations. Before an increase of the bogie load can be a reality, measurements
must be performed at the bridge.
178
Comparisons of costs
9 COMPARISONS OF COSTS
The choice of what action to take for an existing structure, for example a
bridge, can sometimes be difficult to make. If the load carrying capacity is
estimated to be insufficient, strengthening or replacement is often the main
options. The problem is however inadequate knowledge about the real strength
of the bridge and its remaining technical life span. This means that the chosen
measures can be both incorrect and unnecessary. The real load carrying
capacity can perhaps be enough or the size of the strengthening can be too
high.
In this thesis, three case studies have been presented where one of them, the
bridge at the outlet of Kuivajärvi, is a structure where a complete probabilistic
assessment has been performed. Based on the costs for measurements and
analyses in this assessment, an economical calculation can now be made
afterwards to analyse if this assessment and associated result is a correct choice
from an economical point of view.
The economical calculation is here based on the present value method.
Equation 9-1, describes recalculation of costs for investment and following

maintenance at a time, t = zero, i.e. the present value, denoted PV.
N
Ct
PV ¦ (1 i)
t 0
t
9-1
179
i is the rate of interest
t is point of time
Ct is payments at different point of times, t
The two alternatives that will be compared here are
1. Replace the bridge this year
2. Support constructions are installed between the base slabs of existing

bridge. The load carrying capacity is updated corresponding to load
class 2. The remaining life span is estimated to be 15 years, with an
inspection each year, which is more frequent than usual. After this
period the bridge is replaced.
Common for both alternatives is that the new bridge is a slab frame bridge with
a total length of 16 meters (between the ends of wing walls) and a free width of
7 meters. As a simplification the investment cost for a new bridge is the same
in both alternatives, 2 800 000 kr.
The Swedish road administration is using i = 4 % as the rate of interest in all

economical analyses of planned road and bridge projects.
Alternative 1: Replace the bridge now, t = 0
Investment cost is 2 800 000 kr.
Alternative 2: Existing bridge will be used during 15 years.
The economical consequence of this alternative is presented in Table 9-1. The

costs of measurements are based on real payments while the costs for
performed analyses are based on a hourly cost of 850 kr.
The cost for the support construction and inspection is estimated.
During the period of 15 years, the number of inspection occasions will be 15

compared with 5 according to normal routines.
180
Comparisons of costs
Table 9-1 Specification of measures and costs
t Ct PV
Measure
[year] [kr] [kr]
Deterministic
0 130 000 130 000
calculation
Probabilistic analyses 0 100 000 100 000
Geometrical
0 20 000 20 000
measurement
Traffic measurements 0 70000 70 000
Strain and deflection
0 142000 142 000
measurements
Support construction 0 100 000 100 000
2,3,5,6,8,9,
Additional inspection 5600/inspection 40689
11,12,14,15
Replace the bridge 16 2 800 000 1 494 943
Sum total: 2 097 632
Based on these two alternative calculations it seems to be economical

advantageous to use the existing bridge 15 years and then replace it, even if a
lot of analyses and measurements have been performed and a support
construction must be installed.
181
Conclusions
10 CONCLUSIONS
10.1 Monitoring
In this thesis the load carrying capacity of three bridges in the northern Sweden
has been analysed. Material tests and short-term monitoring have been carried
out at two of the bridges. The monitoring has consisted of measurements of
the concrete and reinforcement strains with use of strain gauges
the behaviour of cracks width use of COD (crack opening displacement)

sensors
the deflection of the bridge deck and frame legs with use of LVDT (Linearly
Varying Displacement Transducer)
All these measurements were performed at the bridge at the outlet of

Kuivajärvi 5 km northwest Övertorneå, while only strain gauges were used at
the E4 bridge over Piteå River.
The results of all performed strain and deflection measurements have given
much lower values than corresponding standard analytical calculations. At the
bridge near Övertorneå, the quote between the measured reinforcement strain
and the calculated was about 16 (calculated 0.23 ‰ / measured 0.014 %). The
corresponding quote at the bridge over Piteå River was about 5. There is
however some uncertainties regarding the measurement results. A possibility is
that some of the strain gauges were not placed directly at the cracks and then
they do not register much smaller values than the maximum ones.
183
10.2 Strengthening
Two of the analysed bridges in this thesis have been strengthened. One of them
is a continuous steel beam bridge with a concrete deck (E4-bridge over Piteå
River). Because of insufficient bending moment capacity of the load bearing
edge beams of the bridge deck these were strengthened with CFRP, system
NSMR (Near Surface Mounted Reinforcement), as a top reinforcement in
2007.
The other bridge is a 3-joint slab and beam-frame bridge with a theoretical
span of 12.6 m. The strengthening was made in 2002 and was based on an
older method consisting of a bonded concrete owerlay at the existing bridge
deck. After the strengthening the allowed values for axle load/bogie load, are
130/200 kN
10.3 Probabilistic Methods
The probabilistic calculations performed in this thesis are based on First Order
Reliability Method abbreviated FORM, or perhaps more correctly described,
First Order Second Moment method, abbreviated FOSM. The distribution
function and its two parameters, the mean value and standard deviation, are for
used variables in general based on recommendations from JCSS (2001), Road
Directorate (2004) and Carlsson (2006).
The result of material tests and monitoring of the behaviour of the studied
bridge is then used for updating the distribution parameters of some variables.
The updating of material variables is according to the Bayesian method
described in Sustainable Bridges (2007) while the other updated variables are
based on the monitoring results.
A complete probabilistic assessment has been made for the bridge at the outlet
of Kuivajärvi. An initial probabilistic calculation gave a reliability index ȕ =
2.94, which is too low compared with the target value 4.3 corresponding to
safety class 2. The second, updated probabilistic calculation gave an increase
of the reliability index ȕ to 5.4. The traffic load in both calculations
corresponds to a bogie load of 160 kN.
It is important to realize that the results of performed probabilistic calculations

are based on stochastic variables with more or less uncertainties. It is therefore
necessary with a risk assessment of the result.
184
Conclusions
The FORM-calculation gives also the importance of used stochastic variables

with weighting factors, Į.
A sensitivity analysis of the most important variables, where the consequences

of deviations from assumed parameter values are studied, give information that
can be used for evaluate the reliability of the result.
Jointly for all made probabilistic calculations is that the most important
variables are the traffic load and the model uncertainties.
A method that also has been used in this thesis for the sensitivity analysis is the
Event Tree Analysis (ETA).
10.4 Need for further research
Probabilistic methods are very useful for assessment of the strength of existing
bridges since the information of loads and resistance variables at the studied
bridge can be used in a more easy way compared with deterministic rules.
Further research work is however needed regarding the uncertainty coefficients

for the studied models and parameters in order to fully take advantage of the
possibilities to assess existing bridges with probabilistic methods
185
References
References
B7 (1968): Bestämmelser för betongkonstruktioner. Allmänna

konstruktionsbestämmelser. Svensk Byggtjänst, Stockholm 1969, 91 sid.
BBK 94 (1994): Boverkets handbok om Betongkonstruktioner, Band 1 Konstruktion.
Boverket, Karlskrona 1994, 185 sid. ISBN 91-7332-686-0. Band 2 Material,
Utförande och Kontroll. Boverket, Karlskrona 1994, 116 sid. ISBN 91-7332-687-9.
BBK 04 (2004): Boverkets handbok om betongkonstruktioner, BBK 04. (Swedish
concrete design code, in Swedish). Vällingby, ISBN 91-7147-816-7.
Becker P. (2000): Metod för riskbaserad dimensionering genom beräkning. Lund:
Lunds Tekniska Högskola.
Bergström M. (2006): Life cycle behaviour of concrete structures – Laboratory test
and probabilistic evaluation. Licentiate Thesis 2006:59, December 2006, ISSN 1402-
1757, 173 p.
Betonghandbok – Konstruktion, utgåva 2 (1990): (Concrete handbook – Construction,
edition 2). Edited by Cederwall, K.; Lorentzen, M.; and Östlund, L. Solna, Sweden:
AB Svensk Byggtjänst och Cementa AB. (In Swedish). ISBN 91-7332-533-3
Betonghandbok – Material (1994): Betonghandbok - Material. Utgåva 2. Redigerad av
by Christer Ljungkrantz, Göran Möller och Nils Petersons, Svensk Byggtjänst,
Stockholm 1994, 1127 sid. ISBN 91-7332-709-3.
BKR (2003), Boverkets konstruktionsregler. Boverket, ISBN: 91-7147-740-3.
Bro 94 (1994): Allmän teknisk beskrivning för broar. Vägverket, Publ. 1994:1-9,
Borlänge 1994.
Bro 2004 (2004): Vägverkets allmänna tekniska beskrivning för nybyggande och
förbättring av broar. Pub.2004:56, ISSN: 1401-9612.
187
CEB-FIB Model Code (1990). Bulletin D information, No 203, CEB, Lausanne.
Carlsson F. (2006): Modelling of traffic loads on bridges. Lund University, Lund
Institute of Technology, Division of Structural Engineering. Report TVBK-1032.
ISSN:0349-4969
Carlsson F., Jeppsson J., Thelandersson S. (2002): Sannolikhetsbaserad utvärdering
av bärförmåga hos befintliga broar. Lunds Tekniska Högskola, Avdelning för
Konstruktionsteknik. Report TVBK-7063 – preliminär version.
EN 13791 (2007): Assessment of concrete compressive strength in structures. CEN,
Brussels.
EN 1992-1 (2005): Design of concrete structures. Part 1: General rules for buildings.
CEN, Brussels.
Enochsson O., Hejl A., Nilsson M., Thun H., Olofsson T. and Elfgren L. (2002):
Bridge over Luossajokk – Calculation with the use of safety index method – Moment
capacity in the upper part of the short span (In Swedish). Luleå University of
technology, Division of structural mechanics, Technical report 2002:06.
Ingvarsson J., Roos A. (2003): Metoder för risk- och sårbarhetsanalys. Lunds
Tekniska Högskola, Avdelning för brandteknik. Report 5113.
ISO 2394 (1999) Basis for design of structures – General principles on

reliability of structures.
JCSS (2001): Probabilistic model code. Internet print outs from

http://www.jcss.ethz.ch.
JCSS (2002): Probabilistic assessment of existing structures. ISBN 2-912143-24-1.
NKB 36 (1978): Recommendations for loading- and safety regulations for structural
design. NKB-Report No 36. Reproset, Köpenhamn. ISBN 87-503-2953-3.
NKB 55 (1987): Riktningslinier for last- og sikkerhedsbestemmelser for baerende
konstruktioner. (Recommendations for loading and safety regulations for structural
design, in Swedish). NKB-skrift Nr. 55. Visoprint as, Köpenhamn. ISBN 87-509-
6991-1.
Nowak A. S. and Collins K. R. (2000): Reliability of structures. ISBN 0-07-116354-
9.
Petschacher M. (1993): Zuverlässigkeit technisher systeme – Computorunterstutzte
Verarbeitung von stochastichen Grössen mit dem Program VaP. Zurich: Institute fur
Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH; Bericht Nr 199.
188
References
Road Directorate (2004): Reliability-based classification of the load carrying capacity

of existing bridges. Road Directorate, Report 291, ISBN 87-7923-773-8.
Schneider J. (1997): Introduction to safety reliability of structures. Structural
engineering documents. IABSE Pub. ISBN 3-85748-093-6.
Sustainable Bridges (2007): Sustainable Bridges – Assessment for future traffic
demands and longer lives, a project within the EU 6th framework program for research,
TIP-CT-2003-00165. Four guidelines have been prepared:
- Inspection and condition assessment for railway bridges (SB-ICA),
259 pp;
- Load and resistance assessment of railway bridges (SB-LRA), 428
pp.
- Guideline for monitoring of railway bridges (SB-MON), 93 pp; and
- Guide for use of repair and strengthening methods for railway
bridges (SB-STR), 139 pp.
Background documents with state-of-art reports, analytical and numerical analyses,
and test results can also be downloaded from the home page
www.sustainablebridges.net [30 April 2008].
Thelandersson (2004): Assessment of material property data for structural analysis of
nuclear containments. Lund University, Lund Institute of Technology, Division of
Structural Engineering. Report TVBK-3501. ISSN:0349-4969.
Thoft-Christensen P., Baker M. J. (1982). Structural reliability theory and its
applications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York.
Täljsten, Björn (2006): FRP Strengthening of Existing Concrete Structures. Design
Guidelines. Division of Structural Engineering, Luleå University of Technology,
Luleå 2006, 228 pp. ISBN 91-89580-03-6.
VaP (1999): VaP 1.6. Variables Processor. Datorprogram för Windows och manual
utvecklad av Jörg Schneider (1997) och medarbetare vid Institute of Structural
Engineering, ETH, Zurich, 13 sid. Se även Petschacher, Markus (1993) och
http://www.ibk.baug.ethz.ch/proserv/vap.html
Vägverket (1998): Allmän teknisk beskrivning för klassningsberäkning av broar.
(Road bridge assessment code, In Swedish). Pub. 1998:78, ISSN:1401-9612.
Vägverket konsult (2001): Bärighetsutredning av bro över Åhedån. Utfört av
Vägverket konsult 2001-06-18.
189
Vägverket (2003): Ändring av Pub. 1998:78 ATB Klassningsberäkning vägbroar
beträffande hållfasthetsklass för betong, daterad 2003-01-10.
Vägverket (2005): Regeringsuppdrag om hastighetsgränserna på vägarna. Rapport
Augusti 2005. Pub. 2005:100.
190
Appendix A
Appendix A BRIDGE OVER PITEÅ RIVER
A.1 Deterministic calculation of the edge beam
The following calculation is a part of a calculation made by Vägverket Konsult

in 2004, which is based on the Bridge Assessment Code, Vägverket (1998).
A.1.1 Material quality
Concrete
According to drawings the concrete quality is corresponding to K40.
This implies that important characteristic values are
f cck 28.5 MPa

f cck , just 30.78 MPa
f ctk 1.95 MPa
f ctk , just 2.05 MPa
E ck 32.0 GPa
E ck , just 32.65 GPa
The adjusted values are according to the bridge assessment code, Vägverket
(1998), with consideration to age and levels of fractile.
With safety class 3, design values are
f cck , just 30.78

f cc 17.1 MPa
KJ m J n 1.5 1.2
f ctk , just 2.05

f cc 1.138 MPa
KJ m J n 1.5 1.2
191
E ck , just 32.65
Ed 22.67 GPa
KJ m J n 1.2 1.2
Reinforcement
The reinforcement quality corresponds, according to drawings, to Ks 40.
Associated characteristic values are
f yk 410 MPa I d 16
f yk 390 MPa I ! 16
Design values used in the calculations are
f yk 410
f yd 297 MPa
KJ m J n 1.15 1.2
f yk 390
f yd 283 MPa
KJ m J n 1.15 1.2
A.1.2 Geometry of the edge beam
2600 155
345*
30
160
450 200 308
150
300 1550 1100 400
[mm]
* Distance between parapet and the centre of the wheel
Figure A-1 Cross section of the cantilever of the bridge deck
192
Appendix A
2Ø 16
420 + 30
d = 397
4Ø 16
b = 300
Figure A-2 Edge beam with associated reinforcement bars
A.1.3 Loads
The edge beam is assumed to be loaded only with traffic load. In this case
traffic load consist of a specific heavy loaded vehicle with a total weight of 100
tons and a length of 17.7 m. An illustration of this vehicle is presented in
Figure A-3.
Axle loads and distance between them in longitudinal direction
7.5 2·14 5·12.9 [tons]
4.2 1.35 6.91 4·1.26 [m]
2.6 [m]
Figure A-3 Axle configuration of the heavy load vehicle
193
Dynamic amplification factor, İ
According to SRA this factor can be calculated as a function of the velocity, v,

and the length of the span, L, as follows
180 8v 10
H [%] A-1
20 L
With a velocity of the vehicle limited to 30 km/h and the length of the
cantilever set to 3.1 m, gives
180 830 10
H 14.7 %
20 3.1
A.1.4 Bending moment capacity of the edge beam
The edge beam has the same reinforcement along the bridge. As Figure A-2
shows there are two and four reinforcement bars in the top and in the bottom of
the edge beam respectively.
This implies that the reinforcement area is
S d2 S 16 2
As 2 2 402 mm 2
4 4
in the top of the edge beam and
S d2 S 16 2
As 2 4 804 mm 2
4 4
in the bottom of the edge beam.
The effective depth, 397 mm, and the width, 300 mm, are also shown in Figure
A-2.
The bending moment capacity with respect to top reinforcement is
§ f yd As · 297 402 § 297 402 ·

MR f yd As ¨¨ d ¸ ¨ 397 ¸ 46.0 kNm
© 2 f cc b ¸¹ 10 6
© 2 17.1 300 ¹
and with respect to bottom reinforcement
194
Appendix A
§ f yd As · 297 804 § 297 804 ·

MR f yd As ¨¨ d ¸ ¨ 397 ¸ 89.2 kNm
© 2 f cc b ¸¹ 10 6
© 2 17.1 300 ¹
The load effect is based on the theory of elasticity, and the moment caused by
traffic is according to rules from an older code, named B7 (1968), which was a
regulation for concrete structures.
According to this code the edge beam can be analysed for a bending moment
caused by a point load as follows
P
M (tension at the bottom of the edge beam) A-2
4n
P
M (tension at the top of the edge beam) A-3
19 n
where
c
n 4 A-4
4Ec I1
E c is the modulus of elasticity of concrete

I 1 is moment of inertia of the edge beam and a part of the cantilever,
see Figure A - 4
c is a kind of stiffness. Its meaning is presented below.
For a beam loaded with several point loads along the beam the calculation is
based on the theory of beam on elastic supports. In Figure A-4 the principal of
the calculation for the stiffness of these elastic supports is illustrated. The
stiffness of the elastic supports is the inverted value of the deformations, z, per
unit value of a point load.
195
P1 P2
1 1
z
y
Figure A-4 Cross section of the cantilever of the bridge deck
The expression of the bending moment of the edge beam, caused by several
point loads P, with position in parallel with the edge beam, can now be
formulated as
P Ex
M x e cos Ex sin Ex A-5
4E
where
2
E A-6
r
r is the length, in longitudinal direction of the bridge, in where the point load is
distributed, and can be calculated as
2
r A-7
n
The coefficient c, in Equation A-4 can be expressed as the stiffness of the

elastic supports
P
c A-8
z
If the point load, corresponding to the wheel that is nearest the outer parapet,
has a load value of P1 = 1 kN, an associated deformation, z, is calculated to be
220 .6 10 6 m.
196
Appendix A
The corresponding value of r, is
2 2 2
r 5.191
n c 1
4 4
4 EI 1 4 22.67 10 22.68 10 4 220.6 10 6
6
If then the other point load, the wheel nearest the steel girder, has a load value
of P2 = 1 kN, it results in a deformation of 2.3 10 8 m. The variable r, is
calculated as follows
2 2 2
r 0.643
n c 1
4 4
4 EI 1 4 22.67 10 51.8 10 4 2.3 10 8
6
Now ȕ in Equation A-6 can be solved for the two point loads
2 2
E1 0.385
r1 5.191
2 2
E2 3.110
r2 0.643
The Equation A-5 can then be formulated for the two point loads respectively
as follows
P1
M P1 x e 0.385 x cos 0.385 x sin 0.385 x
4 0.385
P2
M P 2 x e 3.110 x cos 3.110 x sin 3.110 x
4 3.110
M x M P1 x M P 2 x
The result of made calculations of the bending moments are
M Max 78.7 kNm (tension at the bottom of the edge beam)
M Min 61.4 kNm (tension at the top of the edge beam)
197
The bending moment capacity is according to earlier calculation, 89.2 kNm
and 46.0 kNm at the bottom and at the top of the edge beam.
This implies that the bending moment capacity of the edge beam is insufficient
with regard to moment that causes tension at the top reinforcement. About 30
% too low reinforcement.
A.2 Strengthening of the edge beam
The following calculation is part of the calculation performed by the

consultant.
Sto FRP Plate M25C Af = 40 mm2
2 Ø16 As = 402 mm2
hf = 425 mm ds = 395 mm
4 Ø16 A´s = 804 mm2
d´s = 35 mm b = 300 mm
Figure A-5 Edge beam. Geometry and reinforcement
The FRP plate shown in Figure A-5 has the following characteristic value of
the modulus of elasticity
E fk 260 GPa
With safety class 3, design value E f 180 GPa.
Material properties for concrete and reinforcement can be found in the

beginning of this Appendix.
198
Appendix A
The failure strain, İf, for this composite is 11 ‰. In the following calculation
the strain of the CFRP is however limited to 6 ‰.
Fc Fs F f
which can be written as
0.8 f cc bx As f y H f E f A f
As f y H f E f A f 402 297 6 10 3 180 10 3 40

x 39.6
0.8 f cc b 0.8 17.1 300
The concrete compression strain is calculated to be
H f H u0 (6 0.4) 10 3
Hc 0.66 10 3
§ hf · § 425 ·
¨¨ 1¸¸ ¨ 1¸
© x ¹ © 39.6 ¹
Since
H c H cu 3.5 10 3
there is no risk for crushing failure of the concrete.
The strain in the tensile reinforcement is
§ ds · § 395 · f yd
Hs Hc¨ 1¸ 0.66 10 3 ¨ 1¸ 5.9 10 3 ! 1.5 10 3 OK
© x ¹ © 39.6 ¹ Es
The bending moment capacity can now be calculated as
M As f y (d s 0.4 x) H f E f A f (h f 0.4 x)
>402 297(395 0.4 39.6) 6 10 3
@
180 10 3 40(425 0.4 39.6) 10 6
62.9 kNm
This is enough compared with the load effect, 61.4 kNm.
199
200
Appendix B
Appendix B BRIDGE OVER THE OUTLET OF

KUIVAJÄRVI AT ROAD 917
The load classification calculation is based on the Bridge Assessment Code,

Vägverket (1998), which implies a deterministic calculation.
B.1 Material quality

Concrete
Quality: K30 according to drawings.
The following parameters corresponds however to K45 due to increased

strength by age.
f cck 32MPa
32
f cc 19,4 MPa
1,5 1,1
f ctk 2,10 MPa
2,1
f ct 1,27 MPa
1,5 1,1
E ck 33,0 GPa
33,0
Ec 25 GPa
1,2 1,1
Reinforcement
Quality: St 44 N, which corresponds to Ss26S.
201
f yk 260 MPa
260
f st 205,5 MPa
1,15 1,1
E sk 200 GPa
200
Es 173,2 GPa
1,2 1,1
Back filling
According to drawings there is some sort of gravel material as back filling.
Foundation
According to drawings, the underwater concrete base slab rests on a soil with
stony sand and moraine with filling of clay.
B.2 Load distribution analysis

Calculation of the load distribution at the bridge has been performed with use
of the software VV540, which is especially suitable for slab frame bridges.
According to the rules in the Bride Assessment Code, Vägverket (1998), the
analysis is based on the theory of elasticity.
Because of the uncertainty of the behaviour of the bridge, the frame is analysed
with two different degrees of restraints between base slab and foundation: (a) a
frame with no restraint and (b) a frame with a rotational stiffness calculated
according to Bro 2004 (2004).
Ek B 2 L 40000 2 6.95
K Mk 222400 kNm/rad
5 5
where
Ek is the modulus of settlement. Used value is estimated.
B is the width of the base slab
L is the length of the base slab
202
Appendix B
Since the calculation of the frame is based on a width of 1 m used rotational

stiffness is
222400
K Ik 32000 kNm/rad
6.95
For the two types of restraint, three different load distribution calculations is
made.
The first load distribution calculation
x The distribution of the load support movement at the frame is based on

measured support displacements.
Second load distribution calculation
x The distribution of other permanent loads are based on a frame with

measured geometry.
The third load distribution calculation
x The distribution of the variable loads are based on a frame with

measured geometry and estimated function. This is explained later in
this Appendix.
203
B.3 Geometry and reinforcement
0,726 0,726
0,685 0,685
2 4
0,48 0,48
0,324 0,34 0,324
0,32 0,32
0,55 0,55
4,41 4,41
0,4 0,4
1,4 1,4
1 3
1,167 1,167
0,2 1,4 3,2 1,4 0,2
6,14 (measured)
Distance between points 1 and 3.
Figure B-1 Geometry of the frame
204
Appendix B
Ø16 s 280 Ø25 s 280
Section 2.319 Section 2.681

Ø25 s 240 Ø25 s 240
Figure B-2 Main reinforcement in the bridge deck. Section 2.319 and 2.681.
Ø25 s280
Section 1.575
Ø25 s270
Ø16 s280 Section 1.222
Figure B-3 Main reinforcement in the frame legs. Section 1.222 and 1.575
205
B.4 Ultimate limit state
B.4.1 Bending moment capacity
The first step is to analyse the effect of measured support movements. Since
both frame legs have moved towards each other and the superstructure has bent
upwards, it is only of interest to study the bending moment that gives a tension
at the embankment side of the frame legs and at the top of the bridge deck. The
section forces can be found in the load distribution calculation. The main
reinforcement in bridge deck and in the frame legs are described in Figures B-2
and B-3.
In Tables B-1 to B-4 a comparison between moment caused by support

movement, Msm, and moment capacity in ultimate limit state, MRd, is presented.
As the tables shows there are a rather big difference between load and allowed
value both in frame legs and in the superstructure. Based on the theory of
elasticity the moment capacity of this bridge is too low compared with
permanent loads only. Even if there is a load restriction at the bridge as today,
it should not be possible for a vehicle to pass the bridge since the bridge has
too small capacity. But vehicles are passing the bridge neglecting the load
regulations.
Table B-1 Comparison between bending moment caused by support

movement Msm and moment carrying capacity of the frame leg,
MRd. No restraint between base slab and the subsoil.
M sm M Rd
Section M sm / M Rd Comments
[kNm/m] [kNm/m]
1,000 0 0 -
1,125 -47,6 - - *
1,222 -84,5 37,1 2,276
1,375 -142,7 57,7 2,472
1,575 -218,1 63,9 3,423 Critical
1,625 -237,8 118,0 2,015
1,750 -285,4 232,0 1,230
1,875 -333,0 245,7 1,355
1,924 -351,6 251,3 1,399
2,000 -380,5 340,7 1,117
* This section, in the base slab, is not the most critical section why the
calculation is not shown in this thesis.
206
Appendix B

movement Msm and moment carrying capacity of the frame leg
MRd. Restraint between base slab and the subsoil.
M SM M Rd
Section M SM / M Rd Comments
[kNm/m] [kNm/m]
1,000 -326.8 - - *
1,125 -233.3 - - *
1,222 -160.7 37.1 4.331 Critical
1,375 -46.2 57.7 0.800
1,575 -103.5 63.9 1.618
1,625 -140.9 118.0 1.194
1,750 -234.4 232.0 1.010
1,875 -328.,8 245.7 1.335
1,924 -364.6 251.3 1.451
2,000 -421.5 340.7 1.237
* This section, in the base slab, is not the most critical section why the
calculation is not shown in this thesis.

movement Msm and moment carrying capacity of the bridge deck
MRd. No restraint between base slab and the subsoil.
M SM M Rd
[kNm/m] [kNm/m]
2.000 -380.5 322.4 1.180
2.031 -380.5 289.4 1.315
2.125 -380.5 224.9 1.692
2.250 -380.5 131.9 2.886
2.319 -380.5 101.5 3.749 Critical
2.375 -380.5 102.9 3.697
2.438 -380.5 104.4 3.646
2.500 -380.5 74.7 5.091 Critical
207
movement Msm and moment carrying capacity of the bridge deck
MRd. Restraint between base slab and the subsoil.
M SM M Rd
[kNm/m] [kNm/m]
2.000 -421.5 322.4 1.307
2.031 -421.5 289.4 1.456
2.125 -421.5 224.9 1.874
2.250 -421.5 131.9 3.197
2.319 -421.5 101.5 4.153 Critical
2.375 -421.5 102.9 4.095
2.438 -421.5 104.4 4.038
2.500 -421.5 74.7 5.639 Critical*
* Even if MSM/MRd is higher than in section 2.319, this alternative is not the
most critical. This calculation is therefore not shown in this thesis.
Based on the result of this comparison there must be another load distribution
model than the assumed. There are a lot of cracks at both edge beams, and
there can be the same for some part of the frame legs, but this it is not so easy
to inspect since it is at the embankment side. According to Tables B-1 to B-4,
the reinforcements have started to yield in some of presented critical section in
the frame legs and the slab.
The following calculation is therefore based on the theory of plastic hinges, as

a way to explain the function of the bridge today.
The first steps are a more accurate study of the above presented critical
sections when other permanent loads also are considered as well as associated
normal forces.
No restraint between base slabs and the subsoil
Some of the sections 1.575 and 2.319, see Figure B-2 to B-3, reach its ultimate
limit state first and generate a plastic hinge.
Section 1.575 (in the frame leg)
M Sdperm \J sw M sw \J p M p \J ep M ep
M Sdperm 1.0 ( 19.9) 1.2 ( 9.2) 1.0 74.6 43.7 kNm/m
208
Appendix B
N Sdperm \J sw N sw \J p N p \J ep N ep \J sm N sm
N Sdperm 1.0 ( 66.8) 1.2 ( 14.8) 1.0 0.5 1.0 0 - 84.1 kN/m
Section 2.319 (in the bridge deck)
M Sdperm \J s- w M s- w \J p M p \J ep M ep
M Sdperm 1.0 8.0 1.2 4.4 1.0 ( 28.9) - 15.6 kNm/m
N Sdperm 1.0 ( 3.1) 1.2 ( 2.2) 1.0 ( 47.7) 1.0 (60.3) - 113.7 kN/m
Suppose now that the horizontal support movements begin. According to the
2.319
load distribution calculation based on the theory of elasticity, M sm 380.5
kNm/m when the displacement has reached the maximum value, ǻx,max = 0,17
m.
The yield strength of the reinforcement is reached in section 2.319 when the
support displacement is
'x ' x max

'x ( M sm M Sdperm )
M sm
'x
This bending moment, M sm is based on a comparison between needed and
available tensile force at the reinforcement. The principle of the calculation is
according to the following Equations.
209
0,8x Fc
xTP
h d
Nd Md
Ft
b
Figure B-4 Stress and strain diagram for a cross section of a rectangular
beam
Equilibrium equation with consideration of the force at right angles to

considered cross section.
Fc Ft N d give Ft Fc N d B-1
Ms Fc (d 0,4 x) B-2
Fc 0,8 x b f cc B-3
Ms M d N d (d xTP ) B-4
Equations B-2 to B-4 gives
0,8 x b f cc (d 0,4 x) M d N d (d xTP )
d M N d (d xTP )
x2 x d 0
0,4 0,8 b f cc 0,4
2
d § d · M N d (d xTP )
x r ¨ ¸ d B-5
0,8 © 0,8 ¹ 0,32 b f cc
Equations B-1 and B-3 gives
Ft 0,8 x b f cc N d B-6
which is the needed tensile force at the reinforcement.
210
Appendix B
In section 2.319 the available tensile force at the reinforcement is 360 kN.
The result of calculation gives that

'x
M sm 95.1 kNm/m
Equation B-3 gives
0.17
'x (95.1 15.6) 0.049 m
380.5
'x
Associated N sm 15.1 kN/m
The corresponding bending moment in section 1.575 will then be
'x
M 'x,1.575 M sm,1.575
' x,max
0.049
M 'x,1.575 218.8 63.1 kNm/m
0.17
The total bending moment and normal force caused by permanent loads is
1.575
M Sdperm 43.7 63.1 19.4 kNm/m
1.575
N Sdperm 84.1 kN/m
A calculation based on Equations B-5 and B-6 gives the needed tensile
reinforcement
Ft 1.2 kN/m
The available tensile force is 147.6 kNm/m.
This implies that a plastic hinge is reached first in section 2.319 and of course
in section 2.681 because of symmetry. After that there will be no higher
moment caused by support movement, only increased reinforcement strains in
the described two sections.
211
Corresponding values of the bending moment caused by permanent loads in
section 2.0 and 2.5, see Figure B-1, will be
2.0 'x
M Sdperm \J s-w M s- w \J p M p \J ep M ep \J sm M sm
2.0
M Sdperm 1.0 (32.1) 1.2 (16.1) 1.0 (28.9) 1.0 (95.1)
175.4 kNm/m
2.0 'x
N Sdperm \J s- w N s-w \J p N p \J ep N ep \J sm N sm
2.0
N Sdperm 1.0 (3.1) 1.2 (2.2) 1.0 (47.7) 1.0 (15.1) 68.5 kN/m
2.5 'x
2.5
M Sdperm 1.0 15.1 1.2 8.1 1.0 (28.9) 1.0 (95.1) 99.2 kNm/m
2.5 'x
2.5
N Sdperm 1.0 (3.1) 1.2 (2.2) 1.0 (47.7) 1.0 (15.1) 68.5 kN/m
The calculated bending moments are illustrated in Figure B-5.
MSdperm,2.319 = -110.7 MSdperm,2.500 = -99.2

MSdperm,2.681 = -110.7
MSdperm,2.000 = -175.4
MSdperm,4.000 = -175.4
MSdpem,1,575 = -19.4
[kNm/m]
MSdperm,3,575 = -19.4
Figure B-5 Sketch of the frame with distribution of the bending moment at
some sections, caused by permanent loads. No restraint.
212
Appendix B
When the bridge is loaded with variable loads, two different types of
mechanism can occur, see Figure B-6.
Plastic hinge
Figure B-6 Two sketches of the frame with two different types of
mechanism
A mechanism in the bridge deck
The limit where a plastic hinge appears in the middle of the span between the
other two plastic hinges, corresponds to a traffic load with an axle load, A, and
bogie load, B, as A/B = 665/1333 kN. The result is based on a comparison
between available and needed tensile force at the reinforcement, see also
Equations B-5 and B-6. This calculation is not shown here because of the high
values.
A mechanism with two plastic hinges in the bridge deck and a third in the
frame leg
In this alternative allowed traffic load is depended on a situation where the

plastic hinge in one of the frame legs occurs and a mechanism is a fact.
The critical cross section in the frame leg is, as earlier described, in section
1.575 and the corresponding bending moment caused by traffic is as follows,
and is based on axle, MA, and bogie load, MB.
MA 0.5A kNm/m
NA 0.245A kN/m
213
MB 0.406B kNm/m
NB 0.246B kN/m
These values are based on type vehicles in the Bridge Assessment Code,
Vägverket (1998) and increased with a dynamic factor, İ, according to
Equation B-7 and divided with the traffic load distribution in transverse
direction, 3.0 m according to Vägverket (1998).
740
H >%@ B-7
20 L
where L = span of the bridge.
For this bridge with a span of 6.4 m, this dynamic factor will be
740
H 28%.
20 6.4
Allowed values of the axle- and bogie load can then be calculated as
FR Ft 0
Where
FR is the available tensile force at the reinforcement
Ft is the needed tensile force at the reinforcement, based on Equation B-6
Ft 0,8 x b f cc ( N dperm N dtr )
The calculation of x is based on Equation B-5
2
d § d · M dperm \J tr M dtr ( N dperm \J tr N dtr ) (d xTP )
x r ¨ ¸
0,8 © 0,8 ¹ 0,32 b f cc
The traffic load, Mdtr, Ndtr, is the only variable load that is assumed to have any
effect at this section because of the assumed plastic hinges at the bridge deck
and a low traffic flow.
214
Appendix B
\J tr 1.3 according to Bridge Assessment Code, Vägverket (1998).
Calculations of allowed axle and bogie load based on above presented

Equations and Tables B-5 and B-6 can then be performed.
Table B-5 Variables for calculation of the allowed axle load
FR d b xTP fcc Mdperm Ndperm Mdtr Ndtr

[kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] [MPa] [kNm] [kN] [kNm] [kNm]
147.6 437 1000 239 19.4 -19.4 -84.1 -0.5A -0.245A
Table B-6 Variables for calculation of the allowed bogie load

147.6 437 1000 239 19.4 -19.4 -84.1 -0.406B -0.246B
Assume that allowed axle load is 110 kN
N dA 84.1 1.3 0.245 110 119.1 kN (\J tr 1.3)
M dA 19.4 1.3 0.5 110 90.9 kNm
2
437 § 437 · 90.9 10 6 119.1 10 3 (437 239)
x ¨ ¸ 17.2 mm
0 .8 © 0 .8 ¹ 0.32 1000 19.4
Ft 0,8 17.2 1000 19.4 119.1 10 3 147.8 kN
Ft | FR
Assume that allowed bogie load is 140 kN
N dA 84.1 1.3 0.246 140.1 128.9 kN
M dA 19.4 1.3 0.406 140.1 93.34 kNm
215
2
437 § 437 · 93.34 10 6 128.9 10 3 (437 239)
x ¨ ¸ 17.8 mm
0 .8 © 0 .8 ¹ 0.32 1000 19.4
Ft 0,8 17.8 1000 19.4 128.9 103 147.6 kN
Ft | FR
The result of made calculations is
A = 110 kN
B = 140 kN
Allowed values for the axle and bogie loads at the corresponding section in the
other frame leg are, with the same traffic load position as earlier, as follows
A >> 110 kN
B = 657 kN
This calculation is not shown in this thesis.
Restraint between the two base slabs and the subsoil
Some of the sections 1.222 and 2.319, see Figure B-2 to B-3, reach its ultimate
limit state first and generate a plastic hinge.
Section 1.222 (in the frame leg)
M Sdperm \J sw M sw \J p M p \J ep M ep
M Sdperm 1.0 ( 5.1) 1.2 ( 2.3) 1.0 54.9 47.14 kNm/m
N Sdperm 1.0 ( 89.7) 1.2 ( 14.8) 1.0 ( 0.9) 1.0 0 - 108.4 kN/m
216
Appendix B
Section 2.319 (in the bridge deck)
M Sdperm \J s- w M s- w \J p M p \J ep M ep
M Sdperm 1.0 7.9 1.2 4.3 1.0 ( 26.1) - 13.0 kNm/m
N Sdperm 1.0 ( 3.7) 1.2 ( 2.4) 1.0 ( 44.6) 1.0 ( 118.9) - 170.1 kN/m
Suppose now that the horizontal support movements begin. According to the
2.319
load distribution calculation based on the theory of elasticity, M sm 421.5
kNm/m when the displacement has reached the maximum value, ǻx,max = 0,17
m.
The yield strength of the reinforcement is reached in section 2.319 when the
support displacement is
'x ' x max

'x ( M sm M Sdperm )
M sm
'x
This bending moment, M sm is based on a comparison between needed and
available tensile forces in the reinforcement. The principle of the calculation is
according to Equations B-1 to B-6.
The available tensile force at the reinforcement in section 2.319 is as earlier

described 360 kN.
The result of the calculation gives that

'x
M sm 99.9 kNm/m
0.17
'x (99.9 13.0) 0.045 m
421.5
'x
Associated N sm 28.2 kN/m
217
The corresponding bending moment in section 1.222 will then be
'x
M 'x,1.222 M sm,1.222
' x, max
0.045
M 'x,1.575 160.7 42.5 kNm/m
0.17
The total bending moment and normal force caused by permanent loads is
1.222
M Sdperm 47.1 42.5 4.6 kNm/m
1.222
N Sdperm 108.4 kN/m
These values mean that the studied reinforcement (nearest the road
embankment) is compressed.
This implies that a plastic hinge is reached first in section 2.319 and of course
in section 2.681 because of symmetry. After that there will be no higher
moment caused by support movement, only increased reinforcement strains in
described two sections.
The corresponding values of the bending moment caused by permanent loads

in section 2.0 and 2.5, see Figure B-1, will be
2.0 'x
2. 0
M Sdperm 1.0 (31.5) 1.2 (16.1) 1.0 (20.2) 1.0 (99.9)
170.9 kNm/m
2.0 'x
2.0
N Sdperm 1.0 (3.7) 1.2 (2.4) 1.0 (44.6) 1.0 (28.2) 79.4 kN/m
2.5 'x
2.5
M Sdperm 1.0 14.7 1.2 7.9 1.0 (20.1) 1.0 (99.9) 95.8 kNm/m
218
Appendix B
2.5 'x
2.5
N Sdperm 1.0 (3.7) 1.2 (2.4) 1.0 (44.6) 1.0 (28.2) 79.4 kN/m
The calculated bending moments are illustrated in Figure B-7.
MSdperm,2.319 = -112.9 MSdperm,2.500 = -95.8

MSdperm,2.681 = -112.9
MSdperm,2.000 = -170.9
MSdperm,4.000 = -170.9
[kNm/m]
MSdpem,1,222 = 4.6 MSdperm,3,222 = 4.6
Figure B-7 Sketch of the frame with distribution of the bending moment at
some sections, caused by permanent loads. Restraint.
When the bridge is loaded with variable loads, two different types of
mechanism can occur, see Figure B-6.
A mechanism in the bridge deck.
The limit where a plastic hinge appears in the middle of the span between the
other two plastic hinges, corresponds to a traffic load with an axle load, A, and
bogie load, B, as A/B = 654/1312 kN. The result is based on a comparison
between available and needed tensile force at the reinforcement, see also
Equations B-5 and B-6. This calculation is not shown here because of the high
values.
219
A mechanism with two plastic hinges in the slab and a third in the frame
leg.
In this alternative the allowed traffic load is depended on a situation where the
plastic hinge in one of the frame legs occurs and a mechanism is a fact.
The critical cross section in the frame leg is, as earlier described, in section
1.222 and corresponding bending moment caused by traffic is as follows, and
is based on axle, MA, and bogie load, MB.
MA 0.193A kNm/m
NA 0.095A kN/m
MB 0.157B kNm/m
NB 0.095B kN/m
These values are, as earlier described, based on type vehicles in the Bridge
Assessment Code, Vägverket (1998) and increased with a dynamic factor, İ,
according to Equation here below and divided with the traffic load distribution
in transverse direction, 3.0 m according to Vägverket (1998).
740
H >%@
20 L
where L = span of the bridge.
For this bridge with a span of 6.4 m, this dynamic factor will be
740
H 28%.
20 6.4
Allowed values of the axle- and bogie load can then be calculated as
FR Ft 0
Where
FR is the available tensile force at the reinforcement
220
Appendix B
Ft is the needed tensile force at the reinforcement, based on Equation B-6
Ft 0,8 x b f cc ( N dperm N dtr )
The calculation of x is based on Equation B-5
2
d § d · M dperm \J tr M dtr ( N dperm \J tr N dtr ) (d xTP )
x r ¨ ¸
0,8 © 0,8 ¹ 0,32 b f cc
The traffic load, Mdtr, Ndtr, is the only variable load that is assumed to have any
effect at this section because of the assumed plastic hinges at the bridge deck
and a low traffic flow.
\J tr 1.3 according to Bridge Assessment Code, Vägverket (1998).
Calculations of allowed axle and bogie load based on above presented

Equations and Tables B-7 and B-8 can then be performed.
Table B-7 Variables for calculation allowed axle load

103.2 362 1000 200 19.4 4.6 -108.4 -0.193A -0.095A
Table B-8 Variables for calculation allowed bogie load

103.2 362 1000 200 19.4 4.6 -108.4 -0.157B -0.095B
The result of made calculations is
A = 275 kN
B = 345 kN
Since these values are much higher than in section 1,575 no further calculation
is made at the other frame leg.
221
B.4.2 Rotational capacity of the plastic hinges
These results can only be possible if the presented plastic hinges have enough
rotational capacities.
According to the Swedish handbook of concrete design, the following method

for estimation the rotational capacity can be used.
The rotational capacity, șu, is formulated according to the following Equation.
Tu A B C 10 3 B-8
where the first coefficient, A, can be calculated as
Zs
A 1 0.6 Z v 1.7 Z s´ 1.4 B-9
Z bal
where Z v and Z sc represent contributions from shear and compression

reinforcement which are not of interest for the present bridge.
As f st
Zs B-10
bc d f cc
3.5 10 3
Z bal 0 .8 B-11
3 f
3.5 10 st
Es
The second coefficient in Equation B-8, B, depends on the types of

reinforcement and the form of the reinforcement stress-strain curve according
to Table B-9.
222
Appendix B
Table B-9 Values for the coefficient B
Type of reinforcement B Max of A·B

Ks600, Ks400, Ss260,
1.0 1.7
Ss260S, Ss220, Ss220S
Ks600S, Ks400S 0.8 1.1
Cold-finished steel with 0.6(1 0.7 H p H g ) 0.5
İg 3 % fstu/fst(0.2) 1.1
The coefficient C depends on the position of the plastic hinge in the structure
and to the load distribution.
Near support:
l0
C 10 d 45 B-12
d
Other sections:
l0
C 7 d 45 B-13
d
where l0 is the distance between the plastic hinge and the chosen moment zero
point.
For this bridge the critical mechanism consist of a plastic hinge in one of the
frame legs and two earlier appeared plastic hinges in the bridge deck. Based on
information found in drawings, the rotational capacity is calculated for the
most loaded plastic hinge, which is placed in the bridge deck.
Plastic hinge in section 2.319
As = 1753 mm2/m
fst = 205.5 MPa
Es = 173 GPa
bc = 1000 mm
223
d =291 mm
fcc = 19.4 MPa
Ec = 25 GPa
ĳe = 0
1753 205.5
Zs 0.064
1000 291 19.4
3.5 10 3
Z bal 0 .8 0.597
205.5
3.5 10 3
173 10 3
0.064
A 1 0 .6 0 1 .7 0 1 .4 0.850
0.597
With a reinforcement quality of Ss260, coefficient B will have the value 1.0
according to Table B-9.
The position of the analysed plastic hinge is supposed to correspond to a

section that can not be considered as near a support.
The maximum value of coefficient C, according to Equation B-8, is 45 which

corresponds to a situation where l0 is 45 0.291 / 7 1.87 m. This is a lower
value than the calculated distance between the moment zero point which
implies that the coefficient C will get value 45.
Tu 0.850 1.0 45 10 3 38.3 mrad
Based on measurements of the frame leg movements the maximum value is

estimated to be 0.17 m at the level corresponding to the underside of the base
slab.
With a height of the frame leg according to the drawings, 6.29 m, the
corresponding rotation, ĳM, at the top of the frame leg will be
0.17
MM 27 mrad
6.29
224
Appendix B
With the assumption of linearity the remaining rotational capacity will be 38.3
– 27 = 11.3 mrad.
Required rotational capacity
x ª 2 º
D U « 1 1 » B-14
d ¬ D U ¼
As
D U Es 1 M e B-15
Ec b d
§ x·
EI E s As d x ¨ d ¸ B-16
© 3¹
1753
D U 1730001 0 0.0417
25000 1000 291
x ª 2 º
0.0417 « 1 1 » 0.25
d ¬ 0.0417 ¼
x 0.25 291 72.8 mm
§ 72.8 ·
EI crack 173000 1753291 72.8¨ 291 ¸ 17.7 MNm
2
© 3 ¹
The next step is to study the rotation of a plastic hinge when a heavy loaded
vehicle passes the bridge.
A load distribution calculation for the frame structure with two plastic hinges at
the bridge deck, results in a maximum rotation, ǻĳ, of 0.18 mrad at one of the
plastic hinges. This value is based on a vehicle with axle loads = 10 kN and a
modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec, = 32 GPa.
This rotation value will be adjusted according to the following calculations, so

it corresponds to a correct value of the axle loads and Ec.
Based on a construction height of 0.34 m, which corresponds to the cross

section at the middle of the bridge, the moment of inertia, Ic = 0.00328 m4.
225
The stiffness Ec·Ic will therefore be 104.8 MNm2 for an uncracked bridge deck.
With an assumption that the bogie load = 180 kN, which corresponds to the
highest load class, and a load distribution in transversal direction, btr = 3.0 m,
the adjusted value of the ǻĳ will be as follows
'M 0.39 B Ec I c
'M adjust \J tr H B-17
btr 10 EI crack
0.18 0.39 180 104.8

'M adjust 1.3 1.28 4.2 mrad
3 10 17.7
The value 0.39 belongs to used typical vehicle in Vägverket (1998).
According to earlier calculation the rotational capacity is 11.3 mrad.
The conclusion is that the plastic hinges at the bridge has enough rotational
capacity even for a heavy loaded vehicle with a bogie load that is at least 180
kN.
B.5 Serviceability limit state

According to earlier presented calculations for determination of the bending
moment capacity of this bridge, plastic hinges seems to occur in two cross
section of the bridge deck, in sections 2.319 and 2.681. As the permanent loads
are so large in these two cross sections the condition for serviceability limit
state is reached before variable loads are included, accordingly the
reinforcement strains caused by permanent loads are higher then the tensile
yield limit.
The analysis of serviceability limit state is therefore limited to section 1.575, in

the frame leg. This is as earlier shown a critical section when there is no
restraint between the base slab and the subsoil.
Es = 200 GPa
Ec = 33 GPa
As = 718.1 mm2
d = 437 mm
226
Appendix B
b = 1000 mm
ĳe = 0
Es 1 M e
D B-18
Ec
2001 0
D 6.1
33
2
D As § D As · 2 D As d
x ¨ ¸ B-19
b © b ¹ b
2
6.1 718.1 § 6.1 718.1 · 2 6.1 718.1 437
x ¨ ¸ 57.5 mm
1000 © 1000 ¹ 1000
b x3 b x3
D As d x
2
I B-20
12 4
1000 57.5 3 1000 57.5 3

6.1 718.1437 57.5
2
I 6.90 10 8 mm 4
12 4
M Sperm - 19.4 kNm/m
With a dynamic factor of 1.28 and a distribution width of 3,0 m (corresponding

to the width of one traffic lane), the bending moment of traffic with regard to
axle and bogie load is
M trA 0.5A
M trB 0.406B
M Svar \J tr M tr
M Sd M Sperm M Svar
227
The other variable loads are not included in above presented calculations
because they have insignificant influence of the result. The calculation is also
made without normal forces. The result will therefore be on the safe side.
M Sd
Vc x B-21
I
Vc f cc f ck B-22
M Sd
Vs D d x B-23
I
Vs f st f yk B-24
Combination of equations gives
1 ª f yk I º 106 ª 260 6.90 108 º

AVs d « M Sperm » « 19.4 106 » 116.2 kN
\J tr M trA ¬ D d x ¼ 1.0 0.5 ¬ 6.1437 57.5 ¼
1 ª f yk I º 106 ª 260 6.90 108 º

BVs d « M Sperm » « 19.4 106 » 143.1 kN
\J tr M trB ¬D d x ¼ 1.0 0.406 ¬ 6.1437 57.5 ¼
1 ª f ck I º 10 6 ª 260 6.90 10 8 º

AVcs d « M Sperm » « 19.4 10 6 » 6201 kN
\J tr M trA ¬ x ¼ 1.0 0.5 ¬ 57.5 ¼
1 ª f ck I º 10 6 ª 260 6.90 10 8 º

BVcs d « M Sperm » « 5.7 10 6 » 7638 kN
\J tr M trB ¬ x ¼ 1.0 0.406 ¬ 57.5 ¼
The result of this calculation is that the allowed value of the axle load (A) and
the bogie load (B) is
A / B 116 / 143 kN
228
Appendix B
B.6 Fatigue
According to Bridge Assessment Code, Vägverket (1998), the bridge will be
loaded with only one traffic lane. The fatigue load is assumed to represent an
equivalent load spectrum with the spectrum parameter = 1.0.
This analysis will only focus on section 1.575 (in the frame leg), and without
normal forces. The result will therefore be on the safe side.
Section 1.575
MA 19.4 0.5A >kNm/m@

MB 19.4 0.406B >kNm/m@
With following assumptions
A 101.8 kN
B 125.4 kN
Based on Equations B-21 and B-24 and the values of geometrical and material
parameters described in Chapter B-5, the stresses in the concrete and at the
reinforcement can be calculated as follows
19.4 10 6
V cmin 57.5 1.6 MPa
6.9 10 8
(19.4 0.406 143) 10 6

V cmax 57.5 6.4 MPa
6.9 10 8
19.4 10 6
V smin 6.1 437 57.5 65.1 MPa
6.9 10 8
(19.4 0.406 143) 10 6

V smax 6.1 437 57.5 260 MPa
6.9 10 8
229
'f st
V1 V 2 d B-25
Jn
260
260 65.1 194.9 d
1.1
Based on this result there is no problem with fatigue in this cross section under
the assumption that the maximum value for axle and bogie load is 116/143 kN.
B.7 Base slabs and foundation

An analysis of the bending moment capacity and shearing force capacity of the
base slab give that the capacities are sufficiently.
The bearing capacity of the foundation is insufficient for horizontal forces. If a

support construction is mounted between the two base slabs the capacity will
be enough.
These calculations are not shown in this thesis.
230
Appendix C
Appendix C MEASUREMENT AT THE

KUIVAJÄRVI BRIDGE
C.1 Measurements
The performed measurements at this bridge can be divided in four parts
x Measurements of the geometry of the bridge
x Traffic measurements
x Load test 1
x Load test 2
x Load-strain test of the reinforcement
C.1.1 Measurements of the geometry of the bridge
In 2006 the both edge beams and the two frame legs were measured. The result
was that the western frame leg has moved about 0.17 m while the eastern frame
leg has moved 0.09 m.
231
0,07
0,06
0,05
Vertical level [m]
0,04
Drawing
0,03
Measured
A section with presented
level value. The other two
0,02
positions with presented
level values are at the both § section for the
§ section for the
0,01 wing wall ends. centre of the
centre of the
western frame
east frame leg.
leg.
0
0
0,51
1,01
1,52
2,02
2,52
2,99
3,5
3,99
4,5
5,06
5,54
6,05
6,54
-0,01
Section [m]
Figure C-1 Vertical level of the north edge beam according to drawings and
measuring results from 2006
0,06
0,04
§ section for the

Vertical level [m]
centre of the
0,02
western frame leg.
Drawing
Measured
0
0,000
0,513
0,995
1,404
1,990
2,505
3,011
3,498
4,027
4,492
4,957
5,473
5,962
6,481
-0,02
A section with presented

§ section for the centre level value. The other two
of the eastern frame positions with presented
leg. level values are at the both
wing wall ends.
-0,04
Section [m]
Figure C-2 Vertical level of the south edge beam according to drawings and
measuring results from 2006
232
Appendix C
C.1.2 Traffic measurement
The object with these measurements was to find out the meeting frequancy at
the bridge of different vehicles in general and specially between two heavy
loaded vehicles. During two periods in 2006, traffic measurements were
performed at this bridge, 13 days in June and 11 days in September.
During these two periods 5439 vehicles passed the bridge, of which 3352 in
June and 2087 in September. This implies a mean value of 243 vehicles at each
day where of 10 were lorries or busses. Among this category of busses or
lorries, there were 27 % that had a velocity of 55 km/h or higher when they
passed the bridge. There were only 16 meetings during these measurement
occasions, 6 in June and 10 in September. Most of these meetings were
between cars, only 1 meeting between a car and a buss or a lorry. None of these
measured meetings were between two busses or two lorries or between a bus
and a lorry.
With the assumption that the number of meetings between vehicles during a
period are Poisson distributed, the probability for these situations can be
expressed as follows
Ot n
P( N n in time t ) e Ot
n!
P(N=n in time t) = (Ȝt)n·e- Ȝt/n!
where
t = considered time
n = the number of meetings during the considered time
Ȝ = the average frequency of meetings each year
The measurements were performed, as earlier described, during a time of 24

days. The critical situation is of course a meeting between two heavy load
vehicles. The problem is however to estimate the probability of these meetings
because the result of made measurements are based on a limited time interval.
The risk of failure in the ultimate limit state increases each time two heavy load
vehicles meets at the bridge. This implies that the probability of these meetings
must be very low.
233
In the following example the load carrying capacity is insufficient after 1
occasion with the described type of meeting. With an assumption that the the
return period for these kind of meetings is about one meeting every fifty year, Ȝ
= 0.02. The probability that this meeting will occur during the assumed
remaining technical life span of 15 years is illustrated in following formula
0.02 15 0.0215
P( N 1 in time 15) e 0.22
1!
C.1.3 Load test 1
Measurement results from the 9 test are presented.
In the presented graphs the strain gauges at the reinforcements are denoted R1
to R5 while the strain gauge at the concrete is denoted C1. For deflection
measurements the level indicators are denoted L1 to L5 where L1 and L5 are
the measurement points for the western and the eastern frame leg. The
remaining level indicators are at measurement points at the bridge deck.
Test nr 1
The lorry starts from the west side of the bridge and stops with the front of the
two rear axles at a section 1,8 m from the western frame leg, which is near the
location of the theoretical plastic hinge. This section is named line west.
234
Strain [Pm/m]
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
0
Figure C-3
1,6
3,2
4,8
6,4
8
9,6
11,2
12,8
14,4
16
17,6
19,2
20,8
Time [s]
22,4
24
Concrete and reinforcement strain

25,6
27,2
28,8
30,4
32
33,6
35,2
36,8
38,4
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1
C1
235
Appendix C
236
Horizontal deflection [mm] Vertical deflection [mm]
-0,05
-0,04
-0,03
-0,02
-0,01
0
0,01
0,02
-0,05
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0 0
Figure C-4
Figure C-5
1,61 1,61
3,23 3,23
4,84 4,84
6,45 6,45
8,07 8,07
9,68 9,68
11,3 11,3
12,9 12,9
14,5 14,5
16,1 16,1
17,7 17,7
19,4 19,4
21 21
Time [s]
Time [s]
22,6 22,6
24,2 24,2
25,8 Vertical deflection of the bridge deck 25,8
27,4 27,4
29 29
Horizontal deflection of the two frame legs

30,7 30,7
32,3 32,3
33,9 33,9
35,5 35,5
37,1 37,1
38,7 38,7
L5
L1
L4
L3
L2
Appendix C
Test nr 2
The lorry drives along the bridge and stops with the last rear axle at a section
that is 1,8 m from the eastern frame leg which is near the location of the other
theoretical plastic hinge. This section is named line east.
20
15
10
Strain [Pm/m]
C1
5 R1
R2
R3
0 R4
0
1,6
3,2
4,8
6,4
8
9,6
11,2
12,8
14,4
16
17,6
19,2
20,8
22,4
24
25,6
27,2
28,8
30,4
32
33,6
35,2
36,8
38,4
R5
-5
-10
-15
Time [s]
Figure C-6 Concrete and reinforcement strain
237
238
-0,05
-0,04
-0,03
-0,02
-0,01
0
0,01
0,02
0,03
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0 0
Figure C-7
Figure C-8
1,36
1,6
2,72
3,2
4,08
5,44 4,8
6,8 6,4
8,16 8
9,52 9,6
10,9
11,2
12,2
12,8
13,6
15 14,4
16,3 16
17,7 17,6
19 19,2
20,4
20,8
Time [s]
21,8 Time [s] 22,4
23,1
24,5
24
25,8 25,6
Vertical deflection of the bridge deck
27,2 27,2
28,6 28,8
Horizontal deflection of the two frame legs

29,9
30,4
31,3
32
32,6
33,6
34
35,4 35,2
36,7 36,8
38,1 38,4
39,4
L4
L3
L2
L5
L1
Appendix C
Test nr 3
The heavy loaded vehicle starts from the east side of the bridge and drives with
the velocity of 10 km/h passing the bridge.
25
20
15
10
Strain [Pm/m]
C1
5
R1
R2
0
R3
0
1,6
3,2
4,8
6,4
8
9,6
11,2
12,8
14,4
16
17,6
19,2
20,8
22,4
24
25,6
27,2
28,8
30,4
32
33,6
35,2
36,8
38,4
R4
-5
R5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Time[s]
239
240
-0,05
-0,04
-0,03
-0,02
-0,01
0
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
-0,05
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0 0,00
1,61 0,65
3,23 1,31
4,84 1,96
6,45 2,61
8,07 3,27
9,68 3,92
11,3 4,57
12,9 5,23
14,5 5,88
16,1 6,53
17,7 7,19
19,4 7,84
21 8,49
Time [s]
Time [s]
22,6 9,15
24,2 9,80
25,8 Figure C-10 Vertical deflection of the bridge deck 10,45
27,4 11,11
29 11,76
Figure C-11 Horizontal deflection of the two frame legs

30,7 12,41
32,3 13,07
33,9 13,72
35,5 14,37
37,1 15,03
38,7 15,68
L5
L1
L4
L3
L2
Appendix C
Test nr 4
The heavy loaded vehicle starts from the west side of the bridge and drives
with the velocity of 20 km/h passing the bridge.
25 §1.4 m §0.35 m Edge beam
20 1.7 m N
C1 R3
0.35 m R1
15 0.30 m R4
R2 R5
Strain [Pm/m]
side of the bridge C1

5
R1
0
R3
0
1,6
3,2
4,8
6,4
8
9,6
11,2
12,8
14,4
16
17,6
19,2
20,8
22,4
24
25,6
27,2
28,8
30,4
32
33,6
35,2
36,8
38,4
R4
-5
R5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Time [s]
241
242
-0,05
-0,04
-0,03
-0,02
-0,01
0
0,01
0,02
0,03
-0,05
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0 0,00
1,61 0,65
3,23 1,31
4,84 1,96
6,45 2,61
8,07 3,27
9,68 3,92
11,3 4,57
12,9 5,23
14,5 5,88
16,1 6,53
17,7 7,19
19,4 7,84
21 8,49
Time [s]
Time [s]
22,6 9,15
24,2 9,80
2.06 m

N
27,4 11,11
29 11,76

L2
30,7
Plan of the
12,41
32,3
L3
13,07
33,9 13,72
L4
35,5
1.77 1.23 1.22 1.78
14,37
Edge beam
37,1 15,03
38,7 15,68
L5
L1
L4
L3
L2
Appendix C
Test nr 5
The heavy loaded vehicle starts from the east side of the bridge and drives with
the velocity of 40 km/h passing the bridge.
20
§1.4 m §0.35 m Edge beam
15 1.7 m N
C1 R
0.35 m R1
0.30 m R4
R2 R5
10
C1 is at the under
Strain [Pm/m]
5 edge of the bridge C1

R1
Plan of the R2
0
R3
0
1,6
3,2
4,8
6,4
8
9,6
11,2
12,8
14,4
16
17,6
19,2
20,8
22,4
24
25,6
27,2
28,8
30,4
32
33,6
35,2
36,8
38,4
R4
-5 R5
-10
-15
-20
Time [s]
243
244
-0,06
-0,05
-0,04
-0,03
-0,02
-0,01
0
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
-0,05
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0 28,00
1,61 28,29
2.06 m
3,23 28,59
N
4,84 28,88
6,45 29,17
8,07
L2
29,47
Plan of the
9,68 29,76
L3
11,3 30,05
12,9
L4
30,35
1.77 1.23 1.22 1.78
Edge beam
14,5
30,64
16,1
30,93
17,7
31,23
19,4
31,52
21
31,81
Time [s]
Time [s]
22,6
32,11
24,2
32,40
27,4
32,99
29

33,28
30,7
32,3 33,57
33,9 33,87
35,5 34,16
37,1 34,45
38,7 34,75
L5
L1
L4
L3
L2
Appendix C
Test nr 6
The heavy loaded vehicle starts from the west side of the bridge and drives
with the velocity of 55 km/h passing the bridge.
25 §1.4 m §0.35 m Edge beam
20 1.7 m N
C1 R3
0.35 m R1
0.30 m R4
15 R2 R5
side of the bridge
Strain [Pm/m]
C1
5
R2
0
R3
0
1,6
3,2
4,8
6,4
8
9,6
11,2
12,8
14,4
16
17,6
19,2
20,8
22,4
24
25,6
27,2
28,8
30,4
32
33,6
35,2
36,8
38,4
R4
-5
R5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Time [s]
245
0,35
1.77 1.23 1.22 1.78

2.06 m
0,3
N
L2 L3 L4
0,25
0,2 Edge beam
Plan of the L2
0,15 L3
L4
0,1
0,05
0
0
0,53
1,07
1,6
2,13
2,67
3,2
3,73
4,27
4,8
5,33
5,87
6,4
6,93
7,47
8
8,53
9,07
9,6
10,1
10,7
11,2
11,7
12,3
12,8
-0,05
Time [s]
Figure C-19 Vertical deflection of the bridge deck
0,06
0,04
0,02
L1
0
L5
0
1,61
3,23
4,84
6,45
8,07
9,68
11,3
12,9
14,5
16,1
17,7
19,4
21
22,6
24,2
25,8
27,4
29
30,7
32,3
33,9
35,5
37,1
38,7
-0,02
-0,04
-0,06
Time [s]
246
Appendix C
Test nr 7
The heavy loaded vehicle starts from the east side of the bridge and stops with
the front of the two rear axles at line west.
30
25
20
15
Strain [Pm/m]
10 C1
R1
5
R2
0 R3
R4
0
4,37
8,75
13,1
17,5
21,9
26,2
30,6
35
39,4
43,7
48,1
52,5
56,9
61,2
65,6
70
74,3
78,7
83,1
87,5
91,8
96,2
101
105
109
-5 R5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Time [s]
247
248
-0,04
-0,03
-0,02
-0,01
0
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
-0,05
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0 0
4,44 4,44
8,88 8,88
13,3 13,3
17,8 17,8
22,2 22,2
26,6 26,6
31,1 31,1
35,5 35,5
40 40
44,4 44,4
48,8 48,8
53,3 53,3
57,7 57,7
Time [s]
Time [s]
62,2 62,2
66,6 66,6
71 Figure C-22 Vertical deflection of the bridge deck 71
75,5 75,5
79,9 79,9

84,4 84,4
88,8 88,8
93,2 93,2
97,7 97,7
102 102
107 107
L5
L1
L4
L3
L2
Appendix C
Test nr 8
In this test there is no traffic load at the bridge.
1,5
1
Strain [Pm/m]
C1
0,5 R1
R2
R3
0 R4
0
5,32
10,6
16
21,3
26,6
31,9
37,2
42,6
47,9
53,2
58,5
63,8
69,2
74,5
79,8
85,1
90,4
95,8
101
106
112
117
122
128
R5
-0,5
-1
-1,5
Time [s]
249
0,001
0
5,44
10,9
16,3
21,8
27,2
32,6
38,1
43,5
49
54,4
59,8
65,3
70,7
76,2
81,6
87
92,5
97,9
103
109
114
120
125
131
-0,001
-0,002
L2
-0,003 L3
L4
-0,004
-0,005
-0,006
-0,007
Time [s]
0,01
0,008
0,006
0,004
L1
0,002
L5
0
0
5,44
10,9
16,3
21,8
27,2
32,6
38,1
43,5
49
54,4
59,8
65,3
70,7
76,2
81,6
87
92,5
97,9
103
109
114
120
125
131
-0,002
-0,004
-0,006
Time [s]
250
Appendix C
Test nr 9
The heavy loaded vehicle starts from the west side of the bridge and stops with
the front of the two rear axles at line west. After 7 minutes the vehicle drives
along the bridge and stops with the last rear axle at the line east. After 8
minutes the vehicle leaves the bridge.
40
t = 515 s
t = 28 s
20 Line East
0
Strain [Pm/m]
0
59,5
119
179
238
298
357
417
476
536
595
655
714
774
833
893
952
1012
1071
1131
1190
1250
1309
1369
1428
1488
C1
-20
§1.4 m §0.35 m R1
Edge beam
R2
1.7 m N R3
-40 C1 R3
0.35 m R1 R4
R4
0.30 m
R2 R5 R5
-60 C1 is at the under -

t = 33 s side of the bridge
Plan of the
-80 Line West
Time [s]
251
0,3
1.77 1.23 1.22 1.78

2.06 m
0,25
N
L2 L3 L4
0,2
Edge beam
0,15
Plan of the L2
L3
0,1 L4
0,05
0
0
62
124
186
248
310
372
434
496
558
620
682
744
806
868
930
992
1054
1116
1178
1240
1302
1364
1426
1488
-0,05
Time [s]
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
L1
L5
0
0
62
124
186
248
310
372
434
496
558
620
682
744
806
868
930
992
1054
1116
1178
1240
1302
1364
1426
1488
-0,02
-0,04
-0,06
Time [s]
252
Appendix C
C.1.4 Load test 2
This load test is focus on three cracks located at the north edge beam, near the
western frame leg. All three cracks are measured with COD (Crack Opening
Displacement). The heavy loaded vehicle has, as for the load test 1, a weight
corresponding to load class 2.
Test nr 1
The heavy loaded vehicle passes the bridge twice, first from the west side and
finally from the east side of the bridge. The velocity is about 40 km/h. The
sampling speed is 25 Hz.
0,05
0,045
0,04
Crack opening [mm]
0,035
0,03
MP1
0,025 MP2
MP3
0,02
0,015
0,01
0,005
0
0
21,3
42,6
64
85,3
107
128
149
171
192
213
235
256
277
298
320
341
362
384
405
426
448
469
490
Time [s]
Figure C-30 Crack width measurement
253
Test nr 2
The heavy loaded vehicle passes the bridge twice, first from the west side and
finally from the east side of the bridge. The velocity is about 40 km/h. The
sampling speed is 75 Hz.
0,09
0,08
0,07 1 2 3
Crack opening [mm]
0,06
0,05 At first the vehicle passes the MP1

bridge from the west. Then it N Crack line
MP2
turns and passes the bridge
0,04 from the east. MP3
0,03
0,02
0,01
0
0
9,37
18,7
28,1
37,5
46,9
56,2
65,6
75
84,4
93,7
103
112
122
131
141
150
159
169
178
187
197
206
216
225
Time [s]
Test nr 3
In this test the crack widths variations are measured when the heavy loaded
vehicle is standing still at different positions at the bridge. The heavy loaded
vehicle starts from the west side of the bridge and stops with the front of the
two gear axles at line west. After about 2 minutes it moves to the position for
the next stop, with the last rear axle at the line east. The heavy loaded vehicle
passes the bridge twice, first from the west side and finally from the east side
of the bridge. The velocity is about 40 km/h. The sampling speed is 25 Hz.
254
Appendix C
0,14
0,12
Crack opening [mm]
0,1
0,08 MP1
MP2
0,06 MP3
0,04
0,02
0
0
43,4
86,8
130
174
217
260
304
347
391
434
477
521
564
608
651
694
738
781
825
868
911
955
998
1042
Time [s]
C.1.5 Load-strain tests of the reinforcement
At the same time as the load test 1 was performed, 6 samples of the
reinforcement bars, Ø25, were cut out from the both frame legs. Since one of
these samples was damaged, 5 samples were useful for the test
The results of the load-strain test for each of these samples can be seen in
Figures C-33 to C-37.
255
256
Tension load [kN] Tension load [kN]
0
50
100
150
200
250
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
0,06 0
1,35 1,04
1,47 1,96
1,66 6,87
4,6 11,9
20,2 16,5
28,5 23,6
33,1 27,5
35,3 31,7
39,6 36,3
54,5 37,9
70,1 49
86,3 62,6
102 75,8
117 89,4
-3
130 103
144 117
Strain [10 m/m]
Strain [ m/m]

157 130
173 142
189 155
207 168
227 183
Figures C-33 Load strain curve of the reinforcement sample nr 1
199
Figure C-34 Load strain curve of the reinforcement sample nr 2

250
283 217
334 240
396 273
461 319
532 376
Tension load [kN] Tension load [kN]
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
-0,2 -0,1
1,29 1,35
3,31 7,12
11,8 11,3
21,7 19,8
26,6 24,2
32 28,5
36,6 33,2
40,9 38,6
43 44,2
56,5 49,4
70,9 54,7
85 56,9
99,1 73
113 89,7
-3
-3
127 106
142 122
Strain [10 m/m]

Strain [10 m/m]
156 139
170 155
184 171
200 188
218 206
225

239
262 246
297 265
351 273
410 275
407 279
257
Appendix C
250
200
Tension load [kN]
150
100
50
0
0,12
2,09
11,7
30,8
41,6
52,9
64,9
77,1
88,7
99,5
110
120
131
142
152
163
175
187
200
215
230
250
276
311
361
408
455
518
-50
-3
Strain [10 m/m]
Analysis of the reinforcement quality
Based on the test results a value of the tensile yield limit, in MPa, is estimated
from each of presented load-strain curves.
All values of the tensile yield limit, in Table C-1, are based on a reinforcement
diameter as 25 mm.
Table C-1 Tensile yield strength limit of tested reinforcement samples
Sample nr Load [kN] Tensile yield strength limit [MPa]
1 147.4 300.3
2 148.9 303.3
3 142.2 289.7
4 143.0 291.3
5 156.6 319.0
258
Appendix C
Mean value, mfst = 300.7 MPa.
Standard deviation, sfst = 15.7 MPa.
C.2 Comparison between measurements and a deterministic calculation

Since there are small measured strains at the reinforcement bars and at the
concrete and that these strains seems to be elastic, at least when used vehicle
passes the bridge with a maximum velocity of about 40 km/h, the calculation of
the load effect from the vehicle is made as it was a serviceability limit state.
The section of interest at the bridge deck is 1.6 m from theoretical support line
of the west frame leg where both reinforcement and concrete strains are
measured. Strain gauges at this section is named R1 (top reinforcement) and
C1 (concrete).
Two different bridge structure models are analysed for comparison between
measurement and calculation. The first one is a slab frame bridge without any
restraint between the base slabs and subsoil and without plastic hinges at the
bridge deck. Further assumption is the measured support movements. The other
model is a slab frame bridge with two plastic hinges at the bridge deck. The
other assumptions are the same as for the first model.
The analyses are based on the vehicle in load test 1. The vehicle starts from the
west side of the bridge and is thereafter standing still at the bridge with the last
rear axle at line east (test nr 9), which means a section about 2 m from the
theoretical support line of the east frame leg.
Material qualities are as earlier described in Appendix B, K 45 for the concrete

and Ss260 for the reinforcements.
Es = 200 GPa
Ec = 33 GPa
As = 652.8 mm2
d = 286 mm
b = 1000 mm
259
Es 1 M e
D
Ec
Me 0
2001 0
D 6.1
33
2
D As § D As · 2 D As d
x ¨ ¸
b © b ¹ b
x = 43.8 mm
b x3 b x3
D As d x
2
I
12 4
I = 2.6·108 mm4
C.2.1 First comparison: slab-frame bridge, without any plastic hinges
The result of the load distribution calculation gives a bending moment in the
considered section = -8.2 kNm. This is based on the total axle load without any
load distribution in the transversal direction.
This corresponds with the stress at the top reinforcement
M HLV (d x) 8.2 10 6 (286 43.8)

Vs D 6.1 46.6 MPa
I 2.6 10 8
and the associated strain
Vs 46.6
Hs 0.23 10 3
Es 200 10 3
Measured strain, İM at the top reinforcement in the analysed section is 0.014

‰, see Figure C-38.
260
Appendix C
The quote between calculated and measured reinforcement strain is

Hs 0.23 10 3
16.4
H M 0.014 10 3
This implies that the distribution width of calculated traffic load effect must be
16.4 m if calculated and measured strain shall be equal. This is of course not
realistic since the width of the bridge is 6.55 m.
With an assumption that the distribution width is 6.5 m, remaining quote

between strains is about 2.52. This implies that the real stiffness of the bridge
deck is higher than what is assumed in the calculation.
This can be compared with the height of the compression zone, xm, based on
measured strains at top reinforcement bars, İsm, and concrete, İcm, see Figure C-
38.
İsm = 14 ȝm/m
As
d
x
b İcm = -12 ȝm/m
Figure C-38 Cross section
H cm 12
xm d 286 | 127 mm
H cm H sm 12 15
The next step is a comparison between calculated and measured vertical

deflections of the bridge deck. With the same vehicle position as earlier, the
measured deflection is about 0.06 mm in the section with level indicator L2
(0.4 m from section used for strain comparison). The corresponding calculated
deflection, 0.7 mm is based on the total axle load.
Used values for the moment of inertia and modulus of elasticity are 2.94ǜ109
mm4 (uncracked cross section) and 32 GPa.
261
With the same assumption as earlier about the distribution width, 6.5 m, and an
adjustment of modulus of elasticity the deflection value is changed as follows
0.7 32
wz 0.10 mm
6.5 33
The relation between calculated and measured deflection is then
wz 0.10
2.0
wM 0.05
According to Bridge Assesment code, Vägverket (1998), the stiffness of

cracked concrete can be assumed to have a value that is 60 % of uncracked
concrete. This implies that the above calculated quote between deflections is
changed to
wz 0.10
3.3
wM 0.05 0.6
Consequently the stiffness corresponding to uncracked concrete seems to be

more in accordance with reality.
262
Appendix C
C.2.2 Second comparison: slab-frame bridge, with two plastic hinges at

the bridge deck
Section of interest P2 P2 P1 (front axle)
1.6 m
Plastic hinge B
Plastic hinge A
Eastern frame leg
PA (vertical force of reaction)
§ 0.4 m
M1.6 § PAǜ0.4
Figure C-39 Principle for calculation of the bending moment in the section of
interest at the slab frame bridge with assumed plastic hinges
The used vehicle in the test had the same axle load at both rear axles, P2 =
79.25 kN.
If the vehicle position is according to Figure C-39, there will be insignificant

section forces at analysed section, PA § 0 kN. Suppose now that the vehicle
stopped too early. The position of the last rear axle was instead between the
two sections with assumed plastic hinges. This implies that there will be
section forces at the analysed section.
As earlier described, measured reinforcement strain at this section was 0.014

‰.
263
This corresponds as earlier described with the reinforcement stress
VM H M Es 14 10 6 200 10 3 2.8 MPa
and a bending moment
Vs I 2.8 2.6 10 8
M HLV 10 6 0.49 kNm
D (d x) 6.1(286 43.8)
The force, PR, that can be described as a force of reaction at section with plastic
hinge, near the analysed section, can be calculated as
M HLV 0.49
PR 1.22 kN
0.4 0.4
The next step is to calculate the distance between the last rear axle and the
section with the plastic hinge B, see Figure C-40.
P2
x
A B
2.32 m
Figure C-40 Part of bridge deck between plastic hinges, illustrated as a

simple supported beam
The vertical force of reaction at the plastic hinge A, equal to PA, can be
calculated as
P2 x
PA
btr 2.32
The distance, x, can from that formula be calculated as a function of the traffic
load distribution in transversal direction, btr
264
Appendix C
PA 1.22
x 2.32 btr 2.32 btr 0.036btr
P2 79.25
With different values of the traffic load distribution the distance, x, will be as
follows
btr 3m x 0.11 m
btr 4m x 0.14 m
btr 5m x 0.18 m
btr 6m x 0.22 m
This result seems not reasonable, since the distance value is rather high, even if
the load distribution is not bigger than 3 m.
Therefore a supplementary calculation of reinforcement strains is made. This

time the comparison is between calculated and measured maximum tensile
strains at the top reinforcement in the same section as earlier. The position of
the vehicle is assumed to be as shown in Figure C-41.
P2 P2 P1(front axle)
Section of interest
1.6 m Plastic hinge B

Plastic hinge A Eastern frame leg
PA (vertical force of reaction)

§ 0.4
M1.6 § PAǜ0.4
Figure C-41 Principal of calculation the bending moment in section of

interest at the slab frame bridge with assumed plastic hinges
265
Based on the principle in Figure C-41, PA can be calculated as
§ 2.32 1.1 ·
PA 79.25¨1 ¸ 120.9 kN
© 2.32 ¹
The calculated bending moment is
M 120.9 0.4 48.4 kNm
This corresponds to the stress
M HLV (d x) 48.4 10 6 (286 43.8)

Vs D 6.1 275.0 MPa
I 2.6 10 8
and the associated strain
Vs 275.0
Hs 1.38 10 3
Es 200 10 3
With the assumption that the distribution width of the traffic load is 6.5 m
(maximum value), the quote between calculated and measured reinforcement
strain, 22 ȝm/m, will be
Hs 1.38 10 3
9.65
HM 6.5 0.022 10 3
This is a much higher value than for the first analysed structural model.
This seems also to be an impossible value which can be explained in the

following way. With the assumption that the concrete modulus of elasticity is
according to the made assumption, 32 GPa, the “real” stiffness must be
EI incr 9.65 32 10 3 2.6 10 8 8.03 1013 Nmm 4
This value is, as earlier described, based on a calculated width of the bridge
deck = 1 m.
The stiffness for a cracked concrete can be, as earlier described, calculated as
60 % of an uncracked concrete.
266
Appendix C
With a construction height of 0.328 m and the same width as earlier, 1 m, the
moment of inertia of an uncracked cross section is
1000 328 3
I max 2.94 10 9 mm 4
12
To reach value 8.03ǜ1013 Nmm4 the modulus of elasticity must have a

characteristic value equal to
8.03 1013
E 45.5 GPa
0.6 2.94 10 9 1000
This value corresponds with a concrete quality better than C60/75, see BBK04
(2004).
Even if it is well known that concrete strength is increased by time, it seems

not reasonable to believe that the concrete quality in this bridge is so high.
The first analysed bridge structural model, with no plastic hinges at the bridge
deck, seems therefore to be more in accordance with reality.
267
268
Appendix D
Appendix D DETERMINISTIC CALCULATION OF

THE BRIDGE OVER ÅHEDÅN AT
ROAD 522
D.1 Material quality

Concrete in existing structure
Quality: K45
f cck 32MPa
32
f cc 17,78MPa
1,5 1,2
f ctk 2,10MPa
2,1
fct 1,17 MPa
1,5 1,2
E ck 33,0GPa
33,0
Ec 22,9GPa
1,2 1,2
New concrete
The same quality as for the old concrete is chosen.
Reinforcement in existing structure
Quality: St44, which corresponds to Ss26S.
269
f yk 270 MPa
270
f st 196MPa
1,15 1,2
New reinforcement
Quality: B500B
f yk 500 MPa
500
f st 362MPa
1,15 1,2
Quality: Ks60S
f yk 500 MPa (Ø 16 mm)
620
f st 449MPa
1,15 1,2
D.2 Ultimate limit state

There are two different capacities that are studied; the bending moment
capacity and the shear force capacity.
D.3 Bending moment capacity
0,8x Fc
xTP
h d
Nd Md
Ft
b
Figure D-1
Equilibrium equation with consideration of the force at right angles to

considered cross section.
270
Appendix D
Fc Ft N d give Ft Fc N d D-1
Ms Fc (d 0,4 x) D-2
Fc 0,8 x b f cc D-3
Ms M d N d (d xTP ) D-4
Equations D-2 up to D-4 gives
0,8 x b f cc (d 0,4 x) M d N d (d xTP )
d M N d (d xTP )
x2 x d 0
0,4 0,8 b f cc 0,4
2
d § d · M N d (d xTP )
x r ¨ ¸ d
0,8 © 0,8 ¹ 0,32 b f cc
Equations D-1 and D-3 gives
Ft 0,8 x b f cc N d
which describes the requirement of the tensile force.
All reinforcements, both existing and new, in the top of the beams are
supposed to have the same effective depth even if the new reinforcements are
placed approximately 80 mm higher than the old reinforcements. This implies
of course that the results are on the safe side.
Based on the calculations, section 3.000, 0 meters from the centre of the frame
leg seems to be the most critical section (smallest difference between the
needed and inlayed reinforcement area). Values on geometrical and material
parameters together with calculated new reinforcement are presented in Table
D-1 and calculated section forces are shown in Table D-2.
271
Table D-1 Geometrical and material parameters in section 3.000
b dold dnew Asold Asnew fccold fccnew fstold fstnew

[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm2] [mm2] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa]
440 1217 1217 8239 1143 17.8 17.8 196 362
Table D-2 Section forces in section 3.000
Section Self Earth Break

Pavement Shrink Traffic Temp Force
force weight press. force
Bending
moment -656.1 -142.9 4.45 279.1 -1216.4 - -82.7 -68.9
[kNm]
Normal
force -31.7 -15.7 -23.8 -1492.5 -279.0 - -15.8
[kN]
D.4 Shear force capacity

The calculation is based on the method in BBK94 (1994), section 3.7.3.2. The
result is shown in Table D-3.
Table D-3 Different parts of the shear capacity and the load effect at some
sections
Vc Vckorr Vs Vi Vp VRd VSd

Section VRd/VSd
[kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN]
3.000 326.6 426.1 249.0 136.1 35.2 846.3 709.0 1.194
3.048 312.7 389.0 239.8 126.2 33.9 788.9 683.3 1.155
3.125 297.6 341.7 229.7 104.4 31.7 707.5 638.6 1.108
3.250 273.7 277.2 215.2 71.4 28.2 592 568.5 1.041
3.375 261.1 261.1 203.3 45.5 25.0 534.9 503.2 1.063
3.500 242.5 242.5 195.0 28.5 21.6 487.7 436.2 1.118
3.625 214.7 214.7 187.0 17.5 18.3 437.5 370.0 1.182
3.750 182.5 182.5 179.9 8.4 15.1 385.8 303.7 1.270
3.875 142.7 142.7 179.0 1.8 11.5 335.1 232.6 1.441
4.000 109.3 109.3 179.0 0.0 9.4 297.7 189.4 1.572
272
Appendix D
A comparison between VRd and VSd give that section 3,250, 1.58 meters from
the centre of the frame leg, is the most interesting to analyse since the
difference between the load carrying capacity and the load effect is smallest
here.
The shearing forces for each load and geometrical and material parameters can
be found in Tables D-4 and D-5.
Table D-4 Shearing forces for each load in section 3.250
Vsw Vpav Vtr Vbr Vsu

[kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN]
158.4 34.7 379.6 13.1 11.4
Table D-5 Geometrical and material parameters in section 3.250
As0 Asv1 Asv2 fsv fct bw d s

[mm2] [mm2] [mm2] [MPa] [MPa] [mm] [mm] [mm]
158.4 34.7 379.6 196 1.17 440 973 300
The shearing forces presented in Table D-4 have not been adjusted for the load
within the length of 0.9d from the analysed section.
These different parts of the shear force capacity shown in Table D-3 are now
described more in detail for section 3.250.
Section 3.250
Vc
Vc bw d f v
As 0
U d 0,02
bw d
9096
U 0,021 > 0,02
440 973
273
U 0,02
fv 0,30] 1 50 U f ct
fv 0,30 0,91081 50 0,02 1,17 0,6394
0,6394
Vc 440 973 273,7 kN.
1000
Effect of load near support
Vd
f vr fv
Vd ,red
568,5
f vr 0,6394 0,647
561,4
0,647
Vcr 440 973 277,2
1000
Vs for rectilinear bindings
0,9 d
Vs Asv1 fsv sin E cos E
s
0,9 973
Vs 157 0,196 sin 90 cos 90 89,8
300
Vs for bended reinforcement bars
Vs Asv2 f sv sin E
Vs 905 196 sin 45 125,4
Vi
Md
Vi tan J
d
274
Appendix D
1210,6
Vi 0,05742 71,4
0,973
Vp
Vd § M0 ·
Vp ¨¨ ¸¸
1,2 J n © Md ¹ min
Wu
M0 Nd
A
0,361
M0 412,8 111,2
1,34
568,5
Vp 0,071 28,2
1,2 1,2
D.5 Shear stresses in joint between new and old concrete in the main
girder
According to the bridge design code Bro94 (1994), the allowed shearing stress
in the joint between new and old concrete is 0.4 MPa without any mechanical
bonds in between. This is illustrated in Figure D-2.
New concrete
Shear stresses
Old concrete
Figure D-2 Illustration of shear stresses

between new and old concrete.
275
The shear stress in the joint can be expressed as
'M F new VSdmax Fstnew

W stTotal
'x z b Fst z b FstTotal
According to made calculation there are two sections where ĲS is higher then
ĲR, sections 3.375 and 3.500 (2.36 m and 3.15 m from the frame leg). These
sections of interest together with geometrical and material parameters and
section forces can be found in Tables D-6 and D-7.
Table D-6 Geometrical parameters and section forces in sections 3.295

and 3.250
y d b Md Nd Xtp x z
Section
[m] [m] [m] [kNm] [kN] [m] [mm] [m]
3.375 2.363 0.844 0.440 801.7 412.8 0.761 172 0.775
3.500 3.150 0.754 0.440 562.2 432.4 0.680 136 0.700
Table D-7 Geometrical parameters and section forces in sections 3.295

and 3.250
As0,old As0,new Fst,old Fst,new Fst,tot Vd Ĳs

Section
[mm2] [mm2] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [MPa]
3.375 6424 1608 1259.1 582.1 1841.2 503.2 0.467
3.500 5881 1325 1152.7 479.7 1632.3 436.2 0.416
In BBK94 (1994), section 3.11.3 there are design rules for mechanical bond,
divided into several cases which depends on the roughness of the existing
concrete surface. In the made calculations the concrete surface was supposed to
be smooth, i.e. no roughness. The formula of this condition is presented as
ff 0,7U f st V fc
where
ȡ = the amount of vertical reinforcement through the joint
fst = the yield strength of the reinforcement bars
ıfc = compressive force at unit area
276
Appendix D
In this situation
V fc 0
This means that the vertical reinforcement trough the joint is designed for all
shearing stress, Ĳs, at the joint.
W
Ut
0,7 f st
The amount of this needed vertical reinforcement through the joint is based on
section 3.375, see Table D-7.
0,467
Ut 0,0018
0,7 362
As the width of the concrete girder is 0.44 m the required reinforcement area is
Asj 0,0018 440 811 mm 2 / m of the main girder
Inlayed reinforcement is ø16 s 240 with the quality B500B. This corresponds
to a reinforcement area = 838 mm2 / m of the main girder.
277
278
Appendix E
Appendix E TEST RESULTS FROM THE ÅHEDÅN

BRIDGE
E.1 Description of the test

A sampling has been made of the concrete at the existing bridge. There were
12 core samples with diameter 103 mm and a length varying between 80 – 270
mm. The samples were taken from both frame legs, wing walls and the
superstructure.
These core samples were tested at SP where both concrete compression

strength and splitting concrete strength were determined.
The concrete compression was tested according to the first edition of SS 13 72

30 while the splitting concrete strength was determined according to first
edition of SS 13 72 13.
Some deviations from the standard were made with regard to storage
conditions and the size of the test specimen. In the time between specimen
preparations and testing these core samples were stored in the air at a
temperature of 20 ºC and a relative humidity of 65 %.
E.2 Concrete compression strength

In Tables E-1 and E-2 test results of specimens from each structure part are
presented.
279
Table E-1 Test result of the compression strength and the splitting strength
from test specimens drilled out from frame legs and wing walls.
Compression strength Splitting strength

82.3 4.4
65.3 4.6
68.7 5.4
> 53.8 1) 4.4
61.7 3.8
64.7 7.2
89.2 4.6
85.3 3.8
93.0 -
1)
The pressure areas of the test sample were reduced.
Table E-2 Test result of the concrete compression strength from test
specimens drilled out from the superstructure.
Compression strength Splitting strength

104.2 4.8
78.9 5.0
85.8 5.6
Mean value, m = 79.9 MPa. The test sample with reduced pressure area is not
included here.
280
Appendix F
Appendix F DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS
The most common distribution functions are described together with associated
equations.
f(x) Rectangular
x
a m b
f abf adxdb
ab 1
m f ( x)
2 ba
ba xa
s F ( x)
12 ba
281
f(x) Triangular
x
a um b
ad xdu
2 xa
f ( x)
ba ua
f a b f
x 2 2ax a 2
1 F ( x)
m (a b u ) (b a )(u a )
3
ad xdu
1 2
s
18
a b 2 u 2 ab au bu
f ( x)
2 bx

ba bu
x 2 2ax b 2
F ( x) 1
(b a )(b u )
f(x) Normal
x
sms
1 § 1 § x m ·2 ·
f ( x) exp¨ ¨ ¸
f m f s!0
s 2S ¨ 2 © s ¸¹ ¸
© ¹
m
1
x
§ 1 § x m ·2 ·
s F ( x) ³ ¨ ¨
exp
s 2S f ¨© 2 © s ¹ ¸¹
¸ ¸ dx
282
Appendix F
f(x) Lognormal
x
m
O,] 1 § 1 § ln x O · 2 ·
f ( x) exp¨ ¨¨ ¸¸ ¸
§ ]2 · ]x 2S ¨ 2© ] ¹ ¸¹
m exp¨¨ O ¸¸ ©
© 2 ¹ x
§ 1 § x m ·2 ·
1
s m exp] 2 1
F ( x) ³f]x 2S ¨¨ 2 ¨© s ¸¹ ¸¸ dx
exp
© ¹
f(x) Exponential
O
x
m
O!0
1 xt0
m
O f ( x) O exp(Ox)
1 F ( x) 1 exp(Ox)
s
O
f(x) Gumbel
(T1L)
x
m
u,D J # 0.577216
J
m u f ( x) D exp D ( x u ) exp D ( x u )
D
F ( x) exp exp D ( x u )
S
s
D 6
283
f(x) Gumbel
(T1S)
x
m
J
m u
D f ( x) D expD ( x u ) expD ( x u )
S F ( x) 1 exp expD ( x u )
s
D 6
f(x) Weibul
(T3S)
x
m
H dxf k !0 k 1
§ § x H ·k ·
k § x H ·
f ( x) ¨ ¸ exp¨ ¨ ¸
m
§ 1·
H (u H )*¨1 ¸ u H ©u H ¹ ¨ © u H ¸¹ ¸
k¹ © ¹
©
k
§ § x H · ·
ª § 2· § 1 ·º F ( x) 1 exp¨ ¨ ¸
s2 (u H ) 2 «*¨1 ¸ * 2 ¨1 ¸» ¨ © u H ¸¹ ¸
¬ © k¹ © k ¹¼ © ¹
f(x) Beta
x
a m b
f d a b f r, t t 0
*(r t ) ( x a ) r 1 (b x) t 1
r f ( x)
m a (b a) r t (b a ) r t 1
r 1
*(r t ) ( x a ) r 1 (b x) t 1
*(r )*(t ) ³
ba r t F ( x) du
s (b a ) r t 1
r t r t 1
284
Doctoral and Licentiate Theses at Div. of Structural Engineering
Doctoral Theses
Ulf Arne Girhammar (1980): Dynamic Fail-Safe Behaviour of Steel Structures.

Doctoral Thesis 1980:060D. 309 p.
Kent Gylltoft (1983): Fracture Mechanics Models for Fatigue in concrete Structures.
Doctoral Thesis 1983:25D. 210 p.
Thomas Olofsson (1985): Mathematical Modelling of Jointed Rock Masses. Doctoral
Thesis 1985:42D.
Lennart Fransson (1988): Thermal ice pressure on structures in ice covers. Doctoral
Thesis 1988:67D. 161 p.
Mats Emborg (1989): Thermal stresses in concrete structures at early ages. Doctoral
Thesis 1989:73D. 285 pp.
Lars Stehn (1993): Tensile fracture of ice. Test methods and fracture mechanics
analysis. Doctoral Thesis 1993:129D, September 1993, 136 p.
Björn Täljsten (1994): Plate Bonding. Strengthening of existing concrete structures
with epoxy bonded plates of steel or fibre reinforced plastics. Doctoral Thesis
1994:152D, August 1994, 283 pp.
Jan-Erik Jonasson (1994): Modelling of temperature, moisture and stresses in young
concrete. Doctoral Thesis 1994:153D, August 1994, 227 p.
Ulf Ohlsson (1995): Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Concrete Structures. Doctoral
Thesis 1995:179D, December 1995, 98 p.
Keivan Noghabai (1998): Effect of Tension Softening on the Performance of Concrete
Structures. Doctoral Thesis 1998:21, August 1998, 150 p.
Gustaf Westman (1999): Concrete Creep and Thermal Stresses. New creep models
and their effects on stress development. Doctoral Thesis 1999:10, May 1999, 301 p.
Henrik Gabrielsson (1999): Ductility in High Performance Concrete Structures. An
experimental investigation and a theoretical study of prestressed hollow core slabs
and prestressed cylindrical pole elements. Doctoral Thesis 1999:15, May 1999,
283 p.
Groth, Patrik (2000): Fibre Reinforced Concrete - Fracture Mechanics Methods
Applied on Self-Compacting Concrete and Energetically Modified Binders.
Doctoral Thesis 2000:04, January 2000, 214 p.
Hans Hedlund (2000): Hardening concrete. Measurements and evaluation of non-
elastic deformation and associated restraint stresses. Doctoral Thesis 2000:25,
December 2000, 394 pp ISBN 91-89580-00-1.
285
Anders Carolin (2003): Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymers for Strengthening of
Structural Members. Doctoral Thesis 2003:18, June 2003, ISBN 91-89580-04-4.
190 p.
Martin Nilsson (2003): Restraint Factors and Partial Coefficients for Crack Risk
Analyses of Early Age Concrete Structures. Doctoral Thesis 2003:19, June 2003,
ISBN: 91-89580-05-2.
Mårten Larson (2003): Thermal Crack Estimation in Early Age Concrete – Models
and Methods for Practical Application. Doctoral Thesis 2003:20, June 2003, ISBN
91-86580-06-0. 190 p.
Erik Nordström (2005): Durability of sprayed concrete: steel fibre corrosion in

cracks. Doctoral Thesis 2005:02, January 2005, 151 pp.
Roger Jongeling (2006): A Process Model for Work-Flow Management in

Construction. Combined use of Location-Based Scheduling and 4D CAD. Doctoral
Thesis 2006:47, October 2006, ISBN 978-91-85685-02-8, 191 pp.
Jonas Carlswärd (2006): Shrinkage cracking of steel fibre reinforced self compacting
concrete overlays – Test methods and theoretical modelling. Doctoral Thesis
2006:55, December 2006, ISBN 978-91-85685-04-2, 250 pp.
Håkan Thun (2006): Assessment of Fatigue Resistance and Strength in Existing

Concrete Structures. Doctoral Thesis 2006:65, December 2006, ISBN 978-91-
85685-03-03, 169 pp.
Joakim Lundqvist (2007): Numerical Analysis of Concrete Elements Strengthened

with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers. Doctoral Thesis 2007:07, March 2007,
ISBN 978-91-85685-06-6.
Arvid Hejl (2007): Civil Structural Health Monitoring – Strategies, Methods and
Applications. Doctoral Thesis 2007:10, March 2007, ISBN 978-91-85685-08-0.
Stefan Woksepp (2007): Virtual reality in construction – Tools, methods and

processes. Doktoral Thesis 2007:49, November 2007, 185 pp.
286
Licentiate Theses
Lennart Fransson (1984): Bärförmåga hos ett flytande istäcke. Beräkningsmodeller

och experimentella studier av naturlig is och av is förstärkt med armering.
Licentiate Thesis 1984:012L, 137 p. (In Swedish).
Mats Emborg (1985): Temperature stresses in massive concrete structures.
Viscoelastic models and laboratory tests. Licentiate Thesis 1985:011L, May 1985,
rev November 1985, 163 p.
Christer Hjalmarsson (1987): Effektbehov i bostadshus. Experimentell bestämning av
effektbehov i små- och flerbostadshus. Licentiate Thesis 1987:009L, October 1987,
72 p. (In Swedish).
Björn Täljsten (1990): Förstärkning av betongkonstruktioner genom pålimning av
stålplåtar. Licentiate Thesis 1990:06L, May 1990, 205 p. (In Swedish).
Ulf Ohlsson (1990): Fracture Mechanics Studies of Concrete Structures. Licentiate
Thesis 1990:07L, May 1990, 8+12+18+7+21 p.
Lars Stehn (1991): Fracture Toughness of sea ice. Development of a test system based
on chevron notched specimens. Licentiate Thesis 1991:11L, September 1990, 88 p.
Per Anders Daerga (1992): Some experimental fracture mechanics studies in mode I of
concrete and wood. Licentiate Thesis 1992:12L, 1ed April 1992, 2ed June 1992, 81
p.
Henrik Gabrielsson (1993): Shear capacity of beams of reinforced high performance
concrete. Licentiate Thesis 1993:21L, May 1993, 109 p. 18 June.
Keivan Noghabai (1995): Splitting of concrete in the anchoring zone of deformed
bars. A fracture mechanics approach to bond. Licentiate Thesis 1995:26L, May
1995, 123 p.
Gustaf Westman (1995): Thermal cracking in high performance concrete. Viscoelastic
models and laboratory tests. Licentiate Thesis 1995:27L, May 1995, 125 p.
Katarina Ekerfors (1995): Mognadsutveckling i ung betong. Temperaturkänslighet,
hållfasthet och värmeutveckling. Licentiate Thesis 1995:34L, October 1995, 137 p.
(In Swedish).
Patrik Groth (1996): Cracking in concrete. Crack prevention with air-cooling and
crack distribution with steel fibre reinforcement. Licentiate Thesis 1996:37L,
October 1996, 128 p.
Hans Hedlund (1996): Stresses in High Performance Concrete due to Temperature
and Moisture Variations at Early Ages. Licentiate Thesis 1996:38L, October 1996,
240 p.
Mårten Larson (2000): Estimation of Crack Risk in Early Age Concrete. Simplified
methods for practical use. Licentiate Thesis 2000:10, April 2000, 170 p.
287
Bernander, Stig (2000): Progressive Landslides in Long Natural Slopes. Formation,
potential extension and configuration of finished slides in strain-softening soils.
Licentiate Thesis 2000:16, May 2000, 137 p.
Martin Nilsson (2000): Thermal Cracking of young concrete. Partial coefficients,
restraint effects and influences of casting joints. Licentiate Thesis 2000:27,
October 2000, ISSN 1402-1757, 267 p.
Erik Nordström (2000): Steel Fibre Corrosion in Cracks. Durability of sprayed
concrete. Licentiate Thesis 2000:49, December 2000, 103 p.
Anders Carolin (2001): Strengthening of concrete structures with CFRP – Shear
strengthening and full-scale applications. Licentiate thesis 2001:01, June 2001,
ISBN 91-89580-01-X, 120 p.
Håkan Thun (2001): Evaluation of concrete structures. Strength development and
fatigue capacity. Licentiate thesis 2001:25. June 2001, ISBN 91-89580-08-2, 164
p.
Patrice Godonue (2002): Preliminary Design and Analysis of Pedestrian FRP Bridge
Deck. Licentiate thesis 2002:18, ISSN 1402-1757, 203 p.
Jonas Carlswärd (2002): Steel fibre reinforced concrete toppings exposed to shrinkage
and temperature deformations. Licentiate thesis 2002:33, August 2002, ISSN
1402-1757, 46 + 66 p.
Sofia Utsi (2003): Self-Compacting Concrete - Properties of fresh and hardening
concrete for civil engineering applications. Licentiate thesis 2003:19, June 2003,
ISSN 1402-1757, 36 +149 p.
Anders Rönneblad (2003): Product Models for Concrete Structures - Standards,
Applications and Implementations. Licentiate thesis 2003:22, June 2003, ISSN
1402-1757, 29 + 75 p.
Håkan Nordin (2003): Strengthening of Concrete Structures with Pre-Stressed CFRP.
Licentiate Thesis 2003:25, June 2003, ISSN 1402-1757, 57 +68 p.
Arto Puurula (2004): Assessment of Prestressed Concrete Bridges Loaded in
Combined Shear, Torsion and Bending. Licentiate Thesis 2004:43, November
2004, ISSN 1402-1757, 103 + 144 p.
Arvid Hejll (2004): Structural health of bridges: Monitor, Assess and Retrofit.
Licentiate Thesis 2004:46, November 2004, ISSN 1402-1757, 43 + 84 p.
Ola Enochsson (2005): CFRP Strengthening of Concrete slabs with and without
Openings – Experiment, Analysis, Design and Field Application. Licentiate Thesis
2005:87, November 2005, ISSN 1402-1757, 168 p.
Markus Bergström (2006): Life Cycle Behaviour of Concrete Structures – Laboratory
test and probabilistic evaluation. Licentiate Thesis 2006:59, December 2006, ISSN
1402-1757, 173 p.
288
Thomas Blanksvärd (2007): Strengthening of Concrete Structures by Mineral Based
Composites. Licentiate Thesis 2007:15, March 2007, ISSN 1402-1757, 300 p.
Peter Simonsson (2008): Industrial Bridge Construction with Cast in Place Concrete
– New Production Methods and Lean Construction philosophies. Licentiate Thesis
2008:17, May 2008, ISBN 978-91-85685-12-7, ISSN 1402-1757, 161 p.
289

Fulltext01 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Fulltext01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2008:18

Luleå University of Technology

Universitetstryckeriet, Luleå b: 978-91-85685-13-4|2008:18|:-1757|: -lic -- 08 ⁄18 -- 

Load Carrying Capacity of Bridges

Division of Structural Engineering

To my colleagues at the SRA, Ann-Christine Burman, Margareta Berglund, Per

Luleå, May 2008

Probabilistic methods are presented for the assessment of bridges. Load

2) Bridge over Kuivajärvi – A one span concrete slab-frame bridge built in

3) Bridge over Åhedån – A one span concrete beam-frame bridge built in

Monitoring and testing of material properties have given valuable information

Notations and Abbreviations

Explanations in the text of notations or abbreviations in direct conjunction to

Roman upper case letters

Roman lower case letters

Hs Steel strain, [-]

3 RECOMMENDED DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS AND

7.1 Background ....................................................................................75

If the load carrying capacity is insufficient, the options are strengthening or

An analysis starts with a deterministic calculation. If the load carrying capacity

Using a probabilistic method implies an object specific analysis of the bridge.

It is therefore very important, for economical reasons, to use more effective

Measurements are used to update and calibrate calculation methods.

Not within the scope of this thesis:

2 PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT – THEORY

Figure 2-1 A flow chart for assessment of existing bridges according to a

experience and technical facilities. If the damage is estimated to be a risk for

In this chapter a short description is given of the theory for probabilistic

As an introduction some definitions will be given.

While the subjective probability is based on each individual apprehensions and

2.2.1 The classical theory

number of favourable outcomes

A condition is that the probability is the same for each outcome.

Here the probability of an event is based on knowledge of the relative

This probability of an event can be illustrated with a statistic version of the

number of succesful trials

2.3 Probabilistic levels

x In level 1 the uncertainties of the stochastic variables are considered

fracture limit surface. Examples of methods of this level are so called

2.4 Level 1-method

When we talk about the safety of structures we often mean a comparison

Figure 2-2 Stochastic variables, R and S, with associated frequency

In building codes, characteristic values of the stochastic resistance variables,

A formal risk of failure can then be described as

This, J , can then be divided up in ȖS and ȖR corresponding to associated S and R

2.5 Level 2-method

The limit state of a certain structure can be described as a function of a several

The safety margin, M, will in this case be

RS 0 is the expression for the limit state

R  S  0 is the expression for condition of failure

R  S t 0 is the expression for condition of not failure

This example is also illustrated in Figure 2-3. The probability density

ȝR Limit state function (M = 0)

This can also be illustrated in a three dimensional presentation, as in Figure

Limit state function

Figure 2-4 A possible joint density function fRQ illustrated in a three-

Figure 2-5 Probability density function of M, f(M)

The expression of the reliability, according to Equation 2-7, is based on Cornell

where ĭ(·) is a symbol of the standard normal distribution function, see

Associated standard normal density function, ĳ(x), is according to Equation

Both these functions are shown in Figure 2-6.

Figure 2-6 Standard normal distribution function ĭ(x) and associated

where ĭ-1(·) is a symbol of the inverse standard normal distribution function.

RS 0 is the expression for the limit state

R S 0 is the expression for condition of failure

R S t 0 is the expression for condition of not failure

PM 0,844P d 3,5 P P 2-14

PM 0,844 700 3,5 120 170,8 2-15

0,844 2 17,5 2 3,5 2 12 2 1982,2 2-17

p f >M d 0@ ) 3,83 6.4 10 5

The limit state function is normalized as presented in Equation 2-19.

If the stochastic variables are correlated the failure function is transformed

where X i are stochastic variables, i 1 n .

Pfs 1 (1 PfBd )(1 PfS 1, S 2 )