STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

1.0 SUMMARY

Maintenance of bridge structures is an involved task of multiple disciplinary natures.

This includes inspection, assessment of strengths, repairs and maintenance, rehabilitation,
optimisation of resources, proper documentation and interaction with external bodies and
public.

A structure is called deficient when it has been restricted to reduced load level only,
closed, or required immediate rehabilitation to keep it open. The structure can be called
functionally obsolete when it no longer safely service the system of which it is an integral
part. For a bridge structure, the deficiency in any one or a combination of the following will
be responsible to be called as functionally obsolete : a) deck geometry, b) load carrying
capacity and c) approach roadway alignment. The obsolescence or the state of deficiency of
the structure should not be declared by an individual, rather a consensus of an expert
committee should be taken before taking any decision, because it varies significantly due to
the criteria and different analytical procedures used for estimation.

Assessment of existing bridges and strengthening for structural deficiency have

become major components of modern bridge engineering. But just as it is important not to
over-design new structures, responsible engineers should not apply excessively conservative
methods to assessment: in many cases a refined, more accurate method can show that the
existing structure has sufficient capacity, requiring no strengthening. This not only saves the
often considerable costs associated with strengthening or replacement, but also extends the
life of the existing structures, saving resources and promoting sustainability

To keep the bridge structure in safe and serviceable condition, the structural elements
have to be inspected periodically to study the behaviour, performance, safety and interaction
in the structural system. The strength assessment and rehabilitation should not be done only
based on the visual inspection of the structures.

Review of the serviceability condition of the modern bridges reveals that most
problems stem from the deterioration of materials. Structural analysis for determining the
strength of bridges plays an important role in the assessment and rehabilitation of bridges.

EWIT Page 1
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

2.0 INTRODUCTION

Bridges are vital elements for road and rail network for overall societal and national
development, and hence call for regular maintenance, strengthening and rehabilitation works.
Overseeing organisation are developing comprehensive programmes for bridge assessment
and strengthening.

Most bridge owning authorities are well progressed with their bridge assessment
programmes. However they are now facing up to the task of dealing with the backlog of
structures that have failed their original assessment. Many of these have been placed into the
basket for "future strengthening or replacement" or for "monitoring and re-assessment" based
on the "engineering judgement" of the bridge engineers who have had to prioritise their
scarce resources for strengthening and replacement works. However at some stage all of these
"failed" bridges must still be re-assessed and a decision taken on what action is required to
ensure their structural integrity and safety.

The causes of failure are varied and depend very much on the type of structure and
also, to an extent, on age and location. For example most of the motorway and trunk road
bridges were built post-1960 during the motorway expansion schemes. These bridges are
predominantly concrete and the Highways Agency is concerned with problems such as
deficiencies in shear, flexural capacity, inadequate anchorage details, pre-stress corrosion and
deterioration of joints, piers and cross-heads. Local authorities, on the other hand, have large
numbers of masonry arch bridges, which pose particular analysis problems, and also many
older concrete bridges which have often been subject to significant deterioration or were
designed with inadequate detailing, little or no top steel, and low percentages of transverse
steel.

The aim of these programmes is to bring the bridge stick up to the modern standards
to ensure it could safely carry the desired vehicles load.

EWIT Page 2
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

3.0 PRIMARY ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN BRIDGE PERFORMANCE AND

RELEVANT FACTORS FOR THE STRENGTH ASSESSMENT

1. Structural Condition & Structural Integrity

• Structure type
• Structural materials & material specifications
• Vertical clearances – over & under
• As-built material qualities & current conditions
• As-built construction qualities & current conditions
• Traffic loads – trucks
• Environment – climate, air quality, marine atmosphere
• Snow & ice removal operations
• Type, timing & effectiveness of preventive maintenance
• Type, timing & effectiveness of restorative maintenance, minor & major
rehabilitation
• Hydraulic design and scour mitigation measures
• Soil characteristics – settlement

2. Safety (of Users)

• Structure geometry- clear deck width, skew, approach roadway alignment

• Vertical clearances – over & under
• Traffic volumes and percentage of trucks
• Posted speed

3. Costs
• Initial construction costs
• Maintenance, repair & rehabilitation costs
• Traffic maintenance costs

EWIT Page 3
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

4.0 BRIDGE INSPECTION FLOWCHART

BRIDGES AND
FLYOVERS

PRINCIPAL
ROUTINE
INSPECTION
INSPECTION

SPECIAL
INSPECTION

STRUCTURAL
DEFICIENCY

ASSESSMENT
/
REHABILITATI

EXECUTION ROUTINE
OF MAINTENANCE
REHABILITATI

The purpose of strengthening and assessment is to ensure the following points.

1. Duty of care- To ensure that the part of the road supported by the bridges is safe for
those who are likely to use it.

2. For traffic- To ensure that operational capacity available reflects the needs of road
network users.

3. Financial- To ensure that the whole life of the bridge stock is either enhanced or
stabilised (not reduced), as a result of financial expenditure on maintenance.

EWIT Page 4
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

The concept of whole lifecycle cost relates to the design, construction and subsequent
maintenance of the bridges. The factors governing the strategies and the bridge management
philosophies of the overseeing organisation are the discount rate and road user delay costs.
The introductions of design and build projects, and the different permutation of finance,
operate and transfer presents an opportunity to take the maintenance aspect of the bridge
structures.

Rehabilitation and strengthening of the bridge structures is generally an approach based

on “policy factors”. It aims to funnel resources projects of recognised importance at the
expense, but not the abandonment, of project of lesser importance.

5.0 BRIDGE MANAGEMENT

Strength assessments are completed on existing bridge structures to determine the

optimum long-term solution for maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement to maximize the
service life of the structure at a minimum life cycle cost. The assessment is intended to
develop a strategy that answers “what, when and how much.”

The Department identifies bridge structures that may require maintenance,

rehabilitation or replacement in a short-term programming period. Structures may be
identified for an assessment based on condition deficiencies, functional deficiencies or
proposed highway improvements. There are three types of assessments, Bridge Assessments,
Rehabilitation Assessments and Complex Assessments, which are defined in more detail
below.

To determine the need for an assessment, an internal review applying appropriate

screening criteria should be completed. If the appropriate course of action is readily identified
at the screening phase, an assessment will not be required. This best practice guideline has
been adopted to provide guidance on when a particular type of assessment should be
completed and to define what each type involves.

A Bridge Assessment may be initiated due to the existing condition of the structure or
proposed highway improvements. For the Bridge Assessment, the Department’s internal
review of the existing structure will indicate that replacement may be economically feasible
or that functional improvements should be considered.

EWIT Page 5
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

The assessment should include the following areas:

• summary of bridge condition

• proposed highway improvements (if applicable)
• functional deficiencies (width, strength, vertical clearance)
• environmental (identification of issues and likely impacts)
1 navigability
2 fisheries
• hydro technical
3 adequacy of existing structure (risk of flooding or failure)
4 replacement structure sizing
• alternatives
5 actions, timing and cost estimates
6 life cycle cost analysis
• recommendation

6.0 BRIDGE MANAGEMENT FLOW.

1. TOP DOWN APPROACH:

Budgets and standards are used to develop optimal policies which are then used to
plan projects. Feedback is provided to refine the models. Budgets and standards may be
modified to perform what if analysis.

BUDGE STANDAR
TS DS

POLICIES

EWIT Page 6
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

PROJECTS

2 BOTTOM UP APPROACH:

Standards assist in planning projects. Planned projects are totalled to generate costs
which are then compared to budgets. This is used to adjust the standards and modify the
plans.

BUDGE

COSTS

STANDARD PROJECT
S S

7.0 REQUIREMENT FOR STRENGH ASSESMENT

Strength assessment of whole structures or of critical elements is carried out in

accordance with the technical requirement specified by overseeing organisation.

An assessment constitutes a ‘present state’ evaluation of all parts of a structure that

act monolithically and carry primary live load. For a bridge, this includes superstructure and
elements of the substructures. Precise details assessment are agreed for a particular structures
through the Approval in Principal or the assessment basis note.

EWIT Page 7
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

The process of strength assessment is a complete evaluation of the safe load carrying
capacity of the structures. The assessment reports on the adequacy of different parts of the
structures and identifies critical elements of the structure for subsequent inspection,
assessment and rehabilitation works. Other safety considerations, such as weak parapets may
also be considered during strength assessment.

A particular assessment may be required to assess the critical section or the elements
of the structure identified from the periodic process of assessment process. It is generally
carried out following special inspection and takes into account any deterioration identified in
the special inspection. The particular assessment utilizes available data and information from
the periodic assessment report. The intention is to reduce the amount of calculation necessary
and ensure that assessment calculations are acceptable and available to all. Furthermore,
careful consideration is given to validity of the approach for a particular structure, as it is
dependent on the structural modelling techniques and the nature and extent of component
deterioration.

PROCESS FLOW FOR ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

NEED FOR PREPERATION ANALYSIS FOR

BRIDGE OF DETERMNITION
ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF LOAD
IDENTIFIED BASIS NOTE EFFECTS

RECOMMENDATIO DETERMINATIO COMPUTATION

N FOR N OF OF SECTION
STRENGTHENING UTILISATION CAPACITIES
IF REQUIRED AND RESERVE (STRENGTH)
FACTOR

8.0 UNCERTAINITIES IN STRENGTH ASSESSMENT

It is ironic, however, that the general view held by many engineers is that strength
assessment is more difficult task than initial design. Yet in the former case, the structure

EWIT Page 8
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

physically exists and is available for the study, testing and measurement, whereas in case of
new design the structure exists only in the form of drawings,calulation and specifications.
Most of the uncertainities are time dependent. Such as decrease in strength of construction
materials like concrte, steel etc. Uncertainity may be variation of present traffic loading and
assessing of future intensity of traffic for the design period of bridge structure. Using these
inadequate strength of materials and varying traffic loading data the determination of reserve
strength or the strength of assessment of bridge structures become difficult.

9.0 STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF BRIDGE

STRUCTURES

Strength of construction materials of bridge structures are mainly assessed by the non
destructive test methods. Non-destructive test methods for concrete may be classified in two
categories. The estimation of strength of concrete is the major objective of non-destructive
tests. The characteristic strength of the concrete is estimated based on the calibrated 28 days
characteristic strength with appropriate reading of that method. In every method, a calibration
of the instrument has to be established before performing the test. The surface hardness,
penetration resistance, pullout, break-off, pull-off and maturity techniques belong to this
category. The other category includes different methods such as stress wave propagation,
ground probing radar and infrared thermograph techniques, which are used to locate
delaminations, voids, and cracks in concrete. Another important for strength assessment
would be details of steel reinforcement such as bar location, bar size and corrosion in steel.
There are different instruments available in the market to determine the above details.

9.1 SURFACE HARDNESS METHOD

The Schmidt rebound hammer is mainly a surface hardness tester. An empirical
correlations have been established between strength property and rebound hammer. The
rebound number is measured on an arbitrary scale marked from 10 to 100. The plunger is
released from its locked position by pushing the plunger against the concrete and slowly
moving the body away from the concrete. The test can be conducted horizontally, vertically
upward or downward or at any intermediate angle. However, in each case a separate
calibration has to be made because the rebound number will be different in the same concrete
due to different effects of gravity. . However, it has some limitations. The results of the
Schmidt rebound hammer are affected by: a) smoothness of test surface, b) size, shape and
rigidity of specimens, c) age of test specimens, d) surface and internal moisture conditions of

EWIT Page 9
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

the concrete, e) type of coarse aggregate, f) carbonation of concrete surface. It may be noted
that this test method is not intended as the basis for acceptance or rejection of concrete
because of the inherent uncertainty in the estimated strength. It is possible to estimate of the
strength of concrete within ±15 to ±20% by the rebound hammer provided the specimens are
cast, cured and tested under conditions similar to those from which the correlation curves are
established.

9.2 THE ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY METHOD

. In the ultrasonic pulse velocity test method, an ultrasonic wave pulse through
concrete is generated at a point on the surface of the test object and the time of travel between
the transmitting point and receiving point is measured. It is relatively easy to conduct a pulse
velocity test. However, it should be noted, that pulse velocity is affected with the concrete
properties, such as, aggregate size, grading, cement type, water-cement ratio, admixtures or
age of concrete, The pulse velocity also changes with the transducer contact, temperature of
concrete, moisture and curing condition of concrete, size and shape of specimen and the level
of stress. The estimation of compressive strength of concrete from pulse velocity is only
possible when a similar correlation has been previously established. In general, it is more
qualitative.
9.3 MAGNETIC METHOD
Magnetic non-destructive testing techniques used in conjunction with concrete
involve the magnetic properties of the reinforcement and the response of the hydrogen nuclei
to such field. The location, sizes, and depth of reinforcement are determined on the basis of
magnetic induction principle. Commercial reinforcement bar locators are portable,
inexpensive instruments and the accuracy of ±2% or 2.5 mm up to depths of 150 mm has
been claimed.
9.4 ELECTRICAL METHOD
The durability of concrete can be estimated by measuring the changes in electrical
properties of concrete. Moist concrete behaves essentially as an electrolyte with a resistivity
in the order of 104 ohm-cm. Oven-dried concrete has a resistivity in the order of 1011 ohm-cm.
The resistance probe method involves measuring the electrical resistance of a material, which
decreases as the moisture content increases. Most instruments consist of two closely spaced
probes and a meter battery assembly enclosed in a housing. The moisture content at various
depths can be measured by penetrating the probe.

EWIT Page 10
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

9.5 RADIOACTIVE METHOD

Gamma radiometry is widely used in highway construction for density determinations on

soil, soil aggregates and asphalt concrete. It is just beginning to gain acceptance for testing
concrete. All gamma radiometry systems are composed of (a) a radioisotope source of
gamma rays, (b) the concrete being examined, (c) a radiation detector and counter.
The principal applications of radiography to concrete to date are primarily in two categories :
(a) X-, gamma and neutron radiography in laboratory studies of internal microstructure,
particularly micro cracking. and (b) X- and gamma radiography in field studies of
microstructure, e.g., the location of reinforcing steel and voids or areas of inadequate
consolidation

10.0 NOTES ON UTILISTION, RESERVE FACTOR AND LIVE LOAD FACTOR

Utilisation factor (UF) is defined as the ratio of the load effects (due to permanent and
live loads) and section capacity (i.e. the strength).

UF= (permanent load effects+ live load capacity) / (assessed section capacity).

Reserve factor (RF) is defined as the factor of assessment live load required to reach
the first failure. It is the ratio of section capacity less the permanent load effects and the live
load effect.

RF= (Assessed section capacity-permanent load effects) / (assessed live load effects).

Live load factor is defined as the ration of live load to dead load. Clearly the higher
the live load factor would mean that the bridge is less sensitive to increased loads.

LLF= (Live load / Dead load).

11.0 ANALYSIS FOR STRENGTH ASSESSMENT

Structural analysis for assessment and strengthening of the bridges aims to determine
the reserve strength of the structures by optimising the use of available analytical methods
and analysis tools. It has been observed that if the assessment is excessively conservative
then an adequate structure may be condemned as “Safe”.

EWIT Page 11
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

The method of analysis should be appropriate for the bridge under the consideration
for assessment. It is recommended to comment an assessment with a simple method of
analysis and then to extend the analysis if there short fall in the capacity.

It is generally observed that the concrete bridges carry loads much greater than the
design loads due to their capacity to redistribute the load effects. This reserve strength of
concrete bridge is largely due to redistributions of the load effect, resulting from the available
ductility and redundancy, which results in a sizeable difference between the first yield load
and ultimate collapse load. In order to utilise this reserve strength of the concrete bridges, the
analysis of the structure and the computation of cross section capacities should adopt non-
linear or plastic method of analysis. However the use of non-linear or the plastic method of
analysis should ensure the availability of the adequate ductility of the concrete structures. In
some cases it is observed that the structure may have adequate strength at the ultimate limit
state but may show distress at serviceability limit state and the structure may deemed unsafe
or its usage may be restricted.

11.1 SELECTION OF METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF STRENGTH ASSESSMENT

There is an underlying realisation that the analytical techniques developed for design
are in many cases unable to accurately model the structural behaviour of existing bridges. As
a result assessments often significantly underestimate the actual load capacity of bridges.
This discrepancy between theoretical predictions and reality has been highlighted by the
number of bridges which have ‘failed’ their assessment even though the assessing engineers'
experience and intuitive feelings tell them that the bridges are capable of safely carrying
significantly higher loads. There are examples cited of bridges which have regularly carried
abnormal vehicles weighing 180 tonnes without distress being assessed to have an ultimate
load capacity of 7.5 tonnes. Equally most bridge engineers will know of examples of
assessment reports in which concrete slab bridges have been rated at zero live load capacity.

In many cases, the bridges exhibit no outward signs of distress. Although this does
not, in itself, imply that failure may not be imminent, it is likely that some evidence of
damage or significant deformation will precede collapse in cases of ductile flexural failure of
concrete slabs.

EWIT Page 12
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

This brings into question the appropriateness of using elastic analysis for the
determination of ultimate strength for many types of bridge, and in particular for short-span
concrete slab bridges which have been found deficient in flexure.

There is a need to review and refine our existing methods and to develop improved
techniques which can more realistically model the ultimate load capacity of bridges. These
must also be practical to apply and relatively quick to implement due to the large numbers of
bridges involved.

Clearly it is important that engineers carefully evaluate the methods of analysis

employed and ensure that the most realistic and relevant ones are used for determining the
strength of bridges. To be overly conservative could result in expensive and often
unwarranted remedial action such as replacement or strengthening being undertaken. Even
placing some form of traffic or weight restriction on a strategic bridge can impose a
substantial economic burden on a community.

11.2 METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF STRENGTH ASSESSMENT

The fundamental philosophy adopted for assessment, as distinct from design, has been
to evaluate only the ultimate strength as the fundamental criterion for passing or failing a
structure. Serviceability criteria are not usually considered. The argument given is that an
existing structure is likely to have already exhibited evidence of any serviceability problems
and these should have been dealt with in maintenance programmes. Thus the methods of
analysis employed need to be able to predict realistically this ultimate capacity.

The following methods of analysis are commonly used in the strength assessment of the
structure:

1. Linear elastic method of analysis: In this method of analysis the stiffness of the
structural members are assumed to remain constant throughout the full range of
applied loading and the second order effects of deformation are ignored.

2. Non-linear method of analysis: In this method of analysis, the non-linear structural

behaviour is considered. The non linearity may due to the significant change in the
member geometry or non-linearity in stress-strain behaviour of the material.

EWIT Page 13
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

3. Plastic methods: In this method of analysis, a part of or all of a material in the

section or sections of a structural member is assumed to have reached its yield
point under the applied loading. This results in possibility of plastic hinge or yield
lines being formed in the structures where yielding has taken place.

Analysis of the structure at ultimate limit state, determines the load effects under the
most adverse of the prescribed design loading conditions by a method satisfying the
equilibrium requirements. Usually the underlying theory for such analysis is plastic theory.
However elastic analysis methods are also applicable as lower bound solution for the
assessment of the strength of the structure.

Analysis of the structure at serviceability limit state, determines the load effects under
the prescribed design loading conditions by elastic method. However, non-linear methods
may be adopted with appropriate allowance for loss in stiffness due to cracking, creep, or
other predictable deformations of the structure and should be used where geometric changes
significantly modify the load effects.

Plastic method of analysis implicitly assumes that the structure is ductile. Concrete
structures are generally sufficiently ductile for this assumption to be valid. However,
establishing precise bounds on the ductility requirements for plastic analysis to be valid is
quite complex. Non-linear numerical methods such as non-linear finite element analysis, can
be used to account for the effects of limited ductility. However, such methods can be highly
complex and, therefore, costly to apply, and particular care and expertise is require to ensure
that the results are reliable.

One of the major differences between the design and assessment lies in the fact that
assessment are undertaken on the actual structures that have typically been in service for
some years. As a result of their condition may not be as it was intended when designed either
as a result of construction error or subsequent deterioration. Assessment should be
undertaken on basis of the actual properties of the structures, as built and matured.

11.2.1 ELASTIC METHOD OF ANALYSIS- A CONVENTIONAL APPROACH OF

ASSESSING LOAD CAPACITY.

Current codes of practice are written with the implicit assumption that the design and
assessment of bridges will usually be undertaken using linear elastic analysis techniques.
Elastic theory is well established and understood, is supported by many computer software

EWIT Page 14
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

packages, and has been found most satisfactory for the design of bridges. As a lower-bound
method the engineer can be confident that the analysis method should be conservative and
hence safe.

This approach is quite understandable for design where a certain degree of

conservativeness costs relatively little. Typically, the engineer might initially perform a
simple elastic beam analysis using a representative strip of the bridge deck. If this ‘quick’
check shows the structure to be inadequate, a more detailed linear elastic analysis allowing
for transverse distribution of load would probably be performed using either a grillage or
finite-element analysis. These results are then examined to identify individual locations at
which the maximum calculated moments or shears exceed the estimated ultimate capacity of
the section.

The decision to strengthen or replace a structure is commonly made on the basis of

these results. However, many older reinforced concrete bridges in the U.K. were built with
little or no top steel and very little transverse steel. Such structures almost inevitably are rated
at very low flexural capacities using such an elastic failure criterion when, for example, the
live load is positioned to one side of the deck resulting in some hogging or transverse sagging
moments.

In reality, concrete structures will crack under heavy loads resulting in a change in the
stiffness of the slab. Even when the ultimate moment capacity of a section of the deck is
exceeded loads will be redistributed elsewhere in the slab provided sufficient ductility is
available and it does not fail prematurely in shear. As a result, a linear elastic analysis will
not accurately model the distribution of stresses or the actual behaviour in the post-elastic
range where non-linear effects dominate. Elastic methods can be very conservative since
failure of one element in the structure is typically used to define failure of the structure as a
whole. In the cases of flexural failure, the consequences are likely to be small and may only
affect the serviceability of the structure. If one accepts that serviceability criteria do not
govern and collapse is the criterion on which to base the assessment, such conservativeness is
not warranted for concrete slab bridges for which ductile flexural failure is the critical
mechanism of failure. Once an individual section has reached ultimate or yielded, the failure
must develop into a full collapse mechanism before the structure will actually fall down.

EWIT Page 15
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

Despite the enormous cost implications of adopting such an approach, elastic methods
are still relied upon as the primary analysis tool for assessing concrete deck slabs. This is
despite the fact that there is a wealth of evidence from model experiments and full-scale load
tests to show that concrete bridges are often able to carry loads well in excess of the
‘theoretical’ capacity calculated using elastic techniques.

It is thus important to investigate the options available to an engineer if, after

performing an elastic analysis, the structure still fails to comply with the required standards.

The only practical alternatives to elastic analysis would involve undertaking a more
sophisticated analysis of the ultimate strength of the bridge or else carrying out load tests on
the bridge itself as a means of verifying the load capacity. In the research environment, where
the best possible predictive methods are sought to model the actual behaviour of bridges,
researchers have, almost without exception, used yield-line theory, and in more recent years
non-linear finite element methods, to predict the flexural collapse behaviour of concrete slabs
and concrete bridge decks.

11.2.1.1 LINE BEAM ANALYSIS OR STRIP ANALYSIS METHOD

The line beam analysis for slab and beam structures determines the load effects in the
beam using the static load distribution, ignoring the capacity of the deck to distribute the
load. This is lower bound method of analysis. If a structure deemed safe according to this
method of analysis, we should avoid more sophisticated analysis. The disadvantage of this
method of analysis is that the analysis does not give load effects in transverse direction.

This method is very useful as an independent check when more sophisticated methods
are used.

11.2.1.2 ELLASTIC GRILLAGE

Elastic grillage is one of the most commonly used method for analysis of bridge
structures. The advantage of grillage over line beam method lies in its ability to cater for the
distributions of the loads between the beams through the transverse members. Hence the
grillage method is superior method of analysis only when the structure has adequate
transverse rigidity to allow redistribution of loads.

EWIT Page 16
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

The section properties of grillage elements influence the outcome of analysis to a

large extent. In elastic method of analysis one had the liberty to choose the type of section
properties i.e. cracked or un-cracked section properties. However it is to be noted that in
design, one is restrict to the use of un-cracked section properties as the same can only be
computed after the amount of reinforcement required has been determined.

In isotropic structures, the use of cracked or un-cracked section properties makes no

difference as the stiffness in either direction is equally affected. However, in practise most
bridge structures are non-isotropic and, hence, the choice of type of stiffness has considerable
effect.

The grillage analysis results are also sensitive to the torsion characteristics used in
sectional properties. The assignment of torsional sectional properties should aim to optimise
the use of torsional and bending capacity of the section.

Grillage analysis is essentially a computer-aided method for analysis of bridge decks.

The deck is idealized as a series of ‘beam’ elements (or grillages), connected and restrained at
their joints. Each element is given an equivalent bending and torsional inertia to represent the
portion of the deck which it replaces. Bending and torsional stiffness in every region of slab
are assumed to be concentrated in nearest equivalent grillage beam. Restraints, load and
supports may be applied at the joints between the members, and members framing into a joint
may be at any angle.

BASIC THEORY OF GRILLAGE ANALYSIS

Basic theory includes the displacement of Stiffness Method. Essentially a matrix

method in which the unknowns are expressed in terms of displacements of the joints. The
solution of the problem consists of finding the values of the displacements which must be
applied to all joints and supports to restore equilibrium.

SLAB IDEALIZATION- SPACING AND LOCATION OF GRILLAGE

MEMBERS

The logical choice of longitudinal grid lines for T-beam or I-beams decks is to make
them coincident with the centre lines of physical girders and these longitudinal members are
given the properties of the girders plus associated portions of the slab, which they represent.
Additional grid lines between physical girders may also be set in order to improve the

EWIT Page 17
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

accuracy of the result. Edge grid lines may be provided at the edges of the deck or at suitable
distance from the edge. For bridge with footpaths, one extra longitudinal grid line along the
centre line of each footpath slab is also provided. The above procedure for choosing
longitudinal grid lines is applicable to both right and skew decks.

When intermediate cross girders exist in the actual deck, the transverse grid lines
represent the properties of cross girders and associated deck slabs. The grid lines are set in
along the centre lines of cross girders. Grid lines are also placed in between these transverse
physical cross girders, if after considering the effective flange width of these girders portions
of the slab are left out. If after inserting grid lines due to these left over slabs, the spacing of
transverse grid lines is still greater than two times the spacing of longitudinal grid lines, the
left over slabs are to be replaced by not one but two or more grid lines so that the above
recommendation for spacing is satisfied

When there is a diaphragm over the support in the actual deck, the grid lines
coinciding with these diaphragms should also be placed. When no intermediate diaphragms
are provided, the transverse medium i.e. deck slab is conceptually broken into a number of
transverse strips and each strip is replaced by a grid line. The spacing of transverse grid line
is somewhat arbitrary but about 1/9 of effective span is generally convenient. As a guideline,
it is recommended that the ratio of spacing of transverse and longitudinal grid lines be kept
between 1 and 2 and the total number of lines be odd. This spacing ratio may also reflect the
span width ratio of the deck. Therefore, for square and wider decks, the ratio can be kept as 1
and for long and narrow decks, it can approach to 2.

The transverse grid lines are also placed at abutments joining the centre of bearings.
A minimum of seven transverse grid lines are recommended, including end grid lines. It is
advisable to align the transverse grid lines normal to the longitudinal lines wherever cross
girders do not exist. It should also be noted that the transverse grid lines are extended up to
the extreme longitudinal grid lines.

GRILLAGE MESH (SIMPLE)

EWIT Page 18
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

BRIDGE DECK IDEALIZED MODEL (DEFLECTED)

11.2.1.3 INFLUENCE SURFACE CHARTS

The elastic analysis of slab may also be done by using standard influence surface
charts. These are two dimensional equivalent of influence lines. They plot the bending
moment intensity, for example, at a particular point in a slab due to point loads applied at all
positions in the slab. The most commonly used surface charts are that by Pucher.

11.2.2 PLASTIC EQUILLIBRIUM METHOD OF ANALYSIS

The upper bound theorem of plastic limit analysis underpins many of the approaches
used in the design of structures, particularly elastic methods. It is important to recognise that
this is strictly applicable to ductile structures and for cases where displacements are small.
Furthermore, it is essential that the equilibrium is satisfied everywhere throughout the
structure.

The ductility of reinforced concrete sections in flexure can be assessed from their
rotation capacity. The rotation capacity of the concrete section is governed either by concrete
crushing or reinforcement fracture. Particular care should be taken when considering the
structures which are either heavily reinforced or which are lightly reinforced with
reinforcement that itself has limited ductility. Structures that are moderately reinforced
typically have high degree of ductility, making them suitable for plastic analysis.

EWIT Page 19
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

11.2.2.1 YIELD LINE ANALYSIS

Yield-line method is a long established method of using the plasticity of reinforced

concrete slabs in order to obtain greater capacity than that obtained by elastic analysis.

Geometrically compatible plates of bridge deck are deflected under load to simulate a
failure mechanism. Each plate is bounded by straight lines and the boundaries form the
plastic hinges with the reinforcement yielding such that the mechanism is formed. The work
done in deflecting the load is deflected to the work done in yielding the reinforcement along
the plate boundaries.

This method provides an upper bound solution so it is necessary to examine all

conceivable combination and permutation of plate configurations to determine the failure
mode which gives the lowest ratio of applied work to internal work. Higher partial safety
factors are usually used for yield-line analysis in order to allow for this uncertainty. In
practise yield line analysis is generally used when elastic analysis has failed to show adequate
strength.

Yield line analysis is a familiar technique for determining the bending strength of
concrete bridge slabs (Johansen 1962; Clark 1983) but is generally not used in practise.
Probably because it is an upper bound method and also because many possible mechanism
have to be investigated in order to find the critical one. Many engineers find it tedious and
complex. However, providing that the slab is of simple geometry and possess sufficient
ductility for a mechanism to form, it could be used when conventional elastic techniques
indicate inadequate bending strength. A separate check is required for shear using
conventional elastic approach.

Middleton (1997) argues passionately for use of yield-line analysis for both slab and
beam-and-slab bridge decks and has produced a collapse mechanism analysis program called
Concrete Bridge Assessment (COBRAS). It uses graphics and 3D modelling techniques
which, it is claimed has the ability to analyse rigorously realistic configuration of loading,
bridge geometry, support fixity, and failure mechanism, without the need to derive the
mathematical expressions describing the interrelationship between those parameters. A
typical bridge assessment can be completed in a few minutes.

The program has been calibrated against published analytical solutions; results from
NLFE analysis. In almost all the methods the yield-line gave a conservative estimate of

EWIT Page 20
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

strength. The method clearly has high potential especially for short span bridges. For simply
supported short span bridges it is possible to choose set of probable failure mechanisms to
enable the work equation and to find the strength of bridge deck.

TYPICAL FAILURE MODES BY YIELD-LINE FOR A SIMPLY SUPPORTED SLAB

BRIDGES.

11.2.2.2 STRUT AND TIE ANALYSIS

Strut and tie analysis is commonly used for the analysis of the pile caps and
anchorages. It is also used for the analysis of diaphragms and deep beams. The principle is
based on establishing compressive struts of concrete and tensile ties of reinforcement.

The size of the compressive strut is dependent on allowable compressive stress for the
grade of concrete and the force carried. The method usually requires iterations to establish the
appropriate geometry of the strut and the reinforcement in the ties.

11.2.3 NON LINEAR FINITE ELEMNT ANALYSIS

NLFE programs are able to model the non-linear characteristics of a bridge deck
under the gradual load applied such as the change of stiffness as the concrete cracks; the non-
linear nature of the stress-strain curve for steel reinforcement, the non-linear and load-
displacement relationship that results when the deflection becomes large, in-plane force. In

EWIT Page 21
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

this sense they are very realistic form of analysis in that they seek to model the bridge
behaviour incrementally at every point in the load history right up to collapse. NLFE
programs are, however, very expensive to buy at the moment and require a high level of
expertise in order to use them effectively. They are also sensitive to the material properties
chosen and generate much output.

Henriques (1996) describes the use of NLFE program to model a two span twin box
girder bridge of concrete, but the results are nowhere are verified by the test data- as for
example measurement of deflection measurement under the load and are therefore unreliable.

Jackson (1996), on the other hand, used NLFE program to predict the behaviour of an in-fill
joist type bridge which was actually tested to destruction and he clearly explains the
limitations of the analysis. He concludes, that in a particular case, the predicted reserve
strength was justified in that it was conservative compared to the actual value, and therefore it
is probable that NLFE programs have a role to play in assessment. Jackson and Cope in 1990
carried out an assessment of two half-scale beam and slab decks using various methods
including NLFE analysis. The decks were then tested to failure and then the failure loads
were compared to those obtained from various methods. The conventional method based on
elastic theory and yield-line approach gave a conservative results. They found, however, that
not only did the NLFE analysis predict the failure load, but also the failure mode. They
conclude that the prediction methods which predict the correct failure load but the wrong
mode must be considered highly suspect.

Use of NLFE programs are likely to remain in the domain of research for some time
to come and in the mean time they should be used with caution and if possible backed up by
physical tests.

12.0 COMPARISON BETWEEN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN AND

STRENGTH ASSESSMENT

Structural analysis for assessment is apparently similar to the structural analysis for
the design. However, there are important and fundamental differences between the two
approaches. These differences need t be appreciated, otherwise they can result in significant
waste of resources on unnecessarily sophisticated analysis. The results of analysis may result
in structures being strengthened or even declared as unsafe, even when they are satisfactory.

EWIT Page 22
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

In contrast to the design, the details of the structure being assessed are fixed.
Therefore it is necessary to choose an analysis which is appropriate to the structure. The
structure cannot be altered to suit the analytical results; the analysis has to be adjusted to suit
the structures.

When an analysis suggests that something is inadequate, its significance should

always be evaluated. It may be a real problem but, frequently, there are other analytical
methods available that can prove it is not. Even if this analysis is very expensive, it is still
likely to be cheaper than restoring to strengthening the structures.

There is no reason to use an analysis that is any more expensive than the minimum
required proving the structure adequate. If more sophisticated and expensive analysis are
used (compared with static load distribution) then there should be logical reason for the
choice.

A simple, non-linear or plastic analysis may fully satisfy the serviceability

requirements. Serviceability checks and inspections can be used to assess the potential risks
of durability problems arising during the remaining life of the structure.

13.0 CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the use of elastic analysis methods for assessing the ultimate load capacity of
concrete bridges may in many situations result in a significant under-estimate of strength. The
development of the COBRAS yield-line program provides a very powerful alternative tool
with which plastic collapse analyses of these bridges can be undertaken for a wide selection
of possible failure modes and assessment load cases. As an upper-bound approach, care must
be used in applying this technique however there is substantial theoretical and experimental
evidence to support its validity for concrete bridge decks in which sufficient ductility exists to
justify the assumptions inherent in yield-line theory.

REFERENCES

• Strength assessment of bridge structures- By Santosh K. Singh and Ayan

Bhattacharya- Structural design engineers- Global design centre.

EWIT Page 23
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES

• Evolution of bridge performance data and assessments – John M. Hooks

• Bridge evaluation through non-destructive testing – Azlan Adnan, Karim

Mirasa.

• Sustainable concrete bridge assessment—Jon Shave

• Assessment and strengthening of structures – Nirjhar Dhang

• Concrete bridge assessment – C. R. Middleton University of Cambridge, U.K.

• Strategies for bridge assessment – M. J. Baker, P. J. Dowling – Imperial college

science and technology – London.

EWIT Page 24