Statistical Distribution of Bridge Resistance Using

Updated Material Parameters

Sarah L. Orton, Ph.D., M.ASCE1; Oh-Sung Kwon, Ph.D., M.ASCE2; and Timothy Hazlett3

Abstract: Resistance (load-carrying capacity) of a bridge girder is a random variable and can be determined by considering the uncertainty in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

material, fabrication, and professional/analysis properties. Previous calibrations of load and resistance factor design (LRFD) determined the
distribution of bridge resistance on the basis of data from more than 30 years ago. This study uses the latest Material properties available in,
the literature to update the resistance distribution. The statistical distribution of the resistance was determined through Monte Carlo
simulation. The results of the analysis show an increase in bias and a decrease in the coefficient of variation (COV) for all types of bridges
in comparison with those used in previous calibration studies. The changes in bias and COV are the result of higher bias and lower
COV in material properties owing to better quality control in concrete and steel manufacturing. Steel and concrete bridges saw the greatest
change in resistance distribution. Prestressed bridges saw little change because the material properties of prestressing steel, which is the most
sensitive parameter in the prestressed bridges, did not change significantly since the previous calibration study. With these resistance dis-
tributions, it is expected that the calibration of the load factor in the AASHTO specification will lead to a lower live load factor, thereby
possibly reducing the material cost of the bridge. In addition, the ratio of actual to required (design) resistances of representative bridges in
Missouri was determined. The analysis showed that almost all representative bridges had a capacity-to-demand ratio greater than 1 according
to current AASHTO standards. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000278. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Bridges; Prestressed concrete; Reinforced concrete; Steel; Reliability; Load and resistance factor
design; Material properties; Statistics.
Author keywords: Bridges; Prestressed concrete; Reinforced concrete; Steel; Reliability; LRFD; Material properties.

Introduction Previous projects have determined the distribution of the loads

Load and resistance factors in load and resistance factor design
(LRFD) are determined to produce a certain reliability, which
can be related to the probability of failure pf . Particularly, LRFD
evaluates the difference between required capacity from the loads
Q, and the available capacity from the resistance R. Both loads and
resistance are random variables that can be described with proba-
bility density functions, as shown in Fig. 1. The probability content
of the region where the load is greater than the resistance gives the
probability of failure. To calibrate load and resistance factors, it is
necessary to have an accurate prediction of the load-carrying capac-
ity (resistance) of structural elements. The resistance is a random
variable owing to uncertainties in material properties, dimensions,
and methods of analysis. Accurate determination of the uncertain-
ties in each of these properties is essential for accurate determina-
tion of the distribution of resistance and, hence, the probability of
failure.
1
Assistant Professor, Univ. of Missouri Columbia, E2503 Lafferre
Hall, Columbia, MO 65211 (corresponding author). E-mail: ortons@
missouri.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Univ. of Toronto, 242A 35 St. George St, Toronto,
ON M5S 1A4. E-mail: kwon@utoronto.ca
3
Graduate Research Assistant, Univ. of Missouri Columbia, E2509
Lafferre Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail: tahtgb@mizzou.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 25, 2010; approved on
June 3, 2011; published online on June 6, 2011. Discussion period open
until October 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for indivi-
dual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Vol. 17, No. 3, May 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2012/3-462–
469/$25.00.
and resistance and calibrated factors for a uniform probability of
failure. The National Cooperative Highway Research Progam
(NCHRP) Project 12–33 produced NCHRP Rep. 368 (Nowak
1999), which is the basis of the current LRFD specification. Before
NCHRP Rep. 368, several studies were undertaken to determine the
distribution of the resistance of bridge elements (Tabsh and Nowak
1991; Nowak et al. 1994; Tabsh 1996) using the material, fabrica-
tion, and professional factors reported in Ellingwood et al. (1980).
The factors reported in Ellingwood et al. came from earlier studies
on the variations in material and fabrication parameters (Mirza et al.
1979; Mirza and MacGregor 1979; Galambos and Ravindra 1978).
Therefore, the resistance uncertainty data used in the LRFD cali-
bration is more than 30 years old. The Final Rep. Project No.
NCHRP 20-7/186 (Kulicki et al. 2007) revised the load factors
on the basis of new truck weight information, but the same data
for the resistance was used. The Michigan Department of Transpo-
tation Rep. RC-1466 (Van de Lidt et al. 2005) also calculated new
load factors on the basis of heavier truck weights in Michigan, but
used the same source for the resistance uncertainty. Although these
projects were thorough at the time, more recent data are now avail-
able to update uncertainties in material properties and produce a
more accurate determination of the distribution of the resistance.
This research is part of an overall project sponsored by the Mis-
souri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) to calibrate the live
load factor for the Strength I limit state in the AASHTO LRFD bridge
design specifications (AASHTO 2008) considering the typical
bridge configurations in Missouri and state-specific traffic environ-
ment. The determination of the loads and calibration of the live load
factor is presented in Kwon et al. (2010, 2011). The objective of this
research is to find new resistance distributions using the latest
information available for the material and fabrication uncertainties.

462 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 462-469

 ratio is greater than 1, as expected; however, for some girders
the value is slightly less than 1, with the worst case being 0.85.
This is likely because the 2008 version of the AASHTO code
(and associated loads) was used rather than the actual version
the bridge was designed under or because of improper design of
that bridge. On average, the reinforced concrete bridge girders have
an actual/required resistance value of 1.18, indicating that their
strength is relatively close to the required 2008 factored load par-
ticularly if the resistance factors are taken into account. Fig. 3
shows the actual/required moment resistance values for prestressed
bridge girders. The negative moment capacity was calculated over
Fig. 1. Probability density functions for load and resistance the support. The positive moment capacity was calculated at the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

center of each span. The average actual/required resistance for neg-

ative moment is 1.42 and for positive moment is 1.33. All of the
In addition, the research determines the ratio of required/actual re- ratios are greater than (or close to) 1 and generally less than 2. This
sistance for representative bridge girders to give an indication of an indicates a fairly consistent prestressed girder design and a level of
additional factor of safety possessed by most bridges. over strength. For composite steel bridge girders (Fig. 4), the aver-
age ratios are 1.56 and 2.54 for negative and positive moments,
respectively. These ratios are greater than those for the reinforced
Comparison of Required and Actual Strengths
concrete or prestressed bridges, likely owing to other factors such
An analysis was conducted to gauge the over strength (strength as fatigue or deflection controlling the design of the bridge. Fig. 5
greater than that required for design) of bridge girders according shows the relationship between span length and the actual/required
to the Strength I limit state. For this analysis, all bridges were moment capacity. As shown in Fig. 5, the bridges with the greatest
viewed through the 2008 version of the AASHTO code (AASHTO ratios have the shortest spans. This is because those spans are often
2008). This assumes that the 2008 version of the AASHTO code is the short spans in a multiple-span bridge. For example, one three-
the most accurate way to predict both the actual loads and resistan- span bridge with lengths of 18.1, 36.2, and 16.9 m had ratios of
ces of the bridge. Although this over strength cannot be used in the 5.85, 1.67, and 6.67, respectively. Therefore, it is likely that the
calibration of load and resistance factors, it can give an accurate
indication of the required/actual resistance under the Strength I
limit state. It is expected that almost all bridges will be over
designed (owing due to constraints of a different code, other limit
states, or design considerations controlling the design).
To conduct the research, representative bridges were selected on
the basis of statistical analyses of the National Bridge Inventory
(NBI) database. A total of 100 representative bridges in Missouri
were selected considering randomness in number of spans, span
lengths, and number of lanes. The actual strength of each sample
bridge was determined from provided design drawings and nominal
material properties. The required strength of the bridge girder was
also determined using the using Strength 1 limit state loads. For the
analysis, resistance factors were not used in calculating the actual
strength of the bridge girder. Load factors were used in calculating
the required resistance.
Fig. 3. Comparison of actual/required strength on the basis of bridge
Fig. 2 shows the ratios of actual-to-required moment resistance
build year for prestressed bridge girders
for the reinforced concrete bridges. In most cases, the resistance

Fig. 2. Comparison of actual/required strength on the basis of bridge Fig. 4. Comparison of required/actual strength on the basis of bridge
build year for reinforced concrete slab bridges build year for steel bridge girders

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 463

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 462-469

 subsequent calibrations are from data from the 1970s and
1980s. These parameters come from Ellingwood et al. (1980),
Mirza et al. (1979), and Mirza and MacGregor (1979) and are
shown in Table 1 in the previous column. For the concrete strength,
0:85f ’c was used as the maximum compressive strength allowed in
the American Concrete Institute (ACI) code (Ellingwood et al.
1980). All distributions were treated as normal variables, with
the exception of the yield strength of the steel, which was treated
as lognormal.
For this research, the material and geometric parameters were
updated using the latest published research. Nowak and Szerszen
Fig. 5. Comparison of required/actual strength on the basis of span
(2003) found material parameters for reinforced and prestressed
length for steel bridge girders
concrete buildings. Although the report was meant for buildings,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the material parameters for the concrete and steel should be

applicable to bridges. For concrete compressive strength, Nowak
design of the shorter spans was influenced by the longer span (web and Szerszen (2003) give the bias on the basis of concrete compres-
depth generally remains constant throughout the bridge). sive cylinder strength as

λ ¼
0:0081f 03 02 0
c þ 0:1509f c
0:9338f c þ 3:0649 ð3Þ
Material and Geometric Parameters

The statistical distribution of resistance considers the uncertainties
in the materials (e.g., strength modulus), fabrication (e.g., geometry
dimensions), and professional/analysis (accuracy of analysis equa-
tions) parameters. Therefore, the resistance R is considered the
product of the nominal resistance Rn and three factors: materials
M, fabrication F, and professional/analysis P (Nowak et al. 1994)
R ¼ Rn MFP ð1Þ
For small coefficients of variation (COVs), the COV can also be
found as the square root sum of the squares
COVR ¼ ðCOV2M þ COV2F þ COV2p Þ2
1
ð2Þ
The statistical distribution of each parameter can be described in
terms of a bias factor λ and the COV. The bias factor (referred to as
“ bias” later in this paper) is the ratio of the mean to the nominal
design value. For example, the design value of a concrete mix may
be specified to be 27 MPa; however, the concrete that is actually
delivered is a bit stronger, for example 31 MPa. Therefore, the con-
crete strength would have a bias of 1.125. The COV is the ratio of
the standard deviation to the mean. It gives an indication of the
uncertainty of the parameter.
To determine the distribution of resistance, the uncertainties (or
bias and COV values) for the material, fabrication, and professional
parameters must be defined. Previous material and geometric
parameters used for the NCHRP Rep. 368 (Nowak 1999) and
where f 0c is in ksi. This relationship indicates a decreasing bias with
increasing concrete strength. Bias values for certain strengths are
shown in Table 1. These bias values do not include the 0.85 factor
on f ’c because the 0.85 factor is accounted for in the calculations.
To relate the compressive cylinder strength to in-place strengths,
Bartlett and MacGregor (1996) give the ratio of concrete compres-
sive strength measured in-place to that measured from cylinder test
as 0.95 for elements less than 431 mm in depth (generally slabs)
and 1.03 for elements greater than 431 mm in depth (generally
beams). Bartlett and MacGregor further say that the concrete com-
pressive strength increased by approximately 25% from 28-days to
1 year. However, for this study, only the 28-day compressive
strength is used. The updated material parameters used for rein-
forced and prestressed bridges are shown in Table 1.
Compared with the previous parameters, the most significant
changes for reinforced and prestressed bridges were that the bias
for concrete and steel increased and the COV decreased. This is
as expected because improvements have been made in the batching
of concrete and manufacture of steel. Furthermore, the bias and
COV for prestressing tendons have remained relatively unchanged.
A study done on steel by Schmidt and Bartlett (2002) found
updated material parameters for steel girders. In general, the size
of the plate (thickness and height) is close to deterministic, with a
bias close to 1 and a low COV. The yield strength of the steel de-
pends on the thickness of the plate. Although it would be assumed
that thinner plates should have a more bias, that is not the case.
Schmidt and Bartlett found that each plate thickness range uses

Table 1. Material Parameters for Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed Bridges

Previous Updated
Variable Nominal Bias Coefficient of variation Bias Coefficient of variation
Concrete strength (f 0 c) 20.7 MPa 0.92 0.18 1.4029 0.1
27.6 MPa — — 1.2257 0.1
34.5 MPa 0.805 0.15 1.1559 0.1
41.4 MPa — — 1.1449 0.1
Ratio of in-place strength to cylinder strength < 431 mm — — 0.95 —
> 431 mm — — 1.03 —
Yield stress of steel (f y ) 275 MPa 1.125 0.12 1.145 0.05
414 MPa 1.12 0.1 1.145 0.05
Strength of prestressing steel (f pu ) 1,861 MPa 1.04 0.025 1.045 0.025
Modulus of elasticity 200 GPa 1 0.06 1 0.06

464 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 462-469

 a slightly different composition of steel; the differences in the com- Table 3. Fabrication Parameters for Reinforced and Prestressed Bridges
position lead to greater bias values in the thicker plates. The pre- Variable Bias Coefficient of variation
vious parameters used in the calibration by Kulicki et al. (2007) for
the yield strength of the steel were a bias of 1.05 and a COVof 0.10. Area of prestressing steel 1 0.0125
As shown in Table 2, the new bias can be as great as 1.2. Therefore, Area of reinforcing bars 1 0.015
the yield strength of the steel has increased in bias by as much as Effective depth 1 0:7∕day
14% and lowered in COV. Section height 1 0:4∕h
For the fabrication (geometry) parameters for reinforced and Slab thickness 1 0:4∕t
prestressed concrete and for the professional factors, no updated Note: h = section height; t = slab depth.
information was found. Thus, in this study, the same parameters
used in NCHRP Rep. 368 (Nowak 1999) are used, as shown in
Tables 3 and 4.
Table 4. Professional Parameters
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Item Bias Coefficient of varition

Statistical Distribution of Resistance
Reinforced concrete moment 1.02 0.06
To determine the statistical distribution of the moment Prestressed moment 1.01 0.06
resistance, plans from 100 representative bridges (14 reinforced Steel moment 1.05 0.06
concrete slab, 58 prestressed girder, 28 steel girder) in Missouri
were analyzed, and the strength of the bridge girders was deter-
mined using the 2008 version of the AASHTO code (AASHTO
Table 5. Comparison of Test Case Using Previous Material Parameters
2008). The updated variations in the material and geometric param-
eters are then included by a Monte Carlo analysis to determine the Nowak et al. 1994 Crystal Ball
overall statistical distribution of resistance for each bridge. The ef- Coefficient of Coefficient
fect of professional/analysis uncertainty is included by using Beam Section Bias variation Bias of varition
Eqs. (1) and (2) after the Monte Carlo analysis.
Reinforced A 1.115 0.120 1.100 0.098
For this task, the program Crystal Ball (Oracle Crystal Ball
Fusion) was used in conjunction with Excel to perform a Monte concrete B 1.117 0.119 1.099 0.096
Carlo analysis. Crystal Ball is a spreadsheet-based application suite C 1.118 0.119 1.101 0.096
for predictive modeling, forecasting, simulation, and optimization. Prestressed II 1.036 0.039 1.026 0.046
Crystal Ball performs a Monte Carlo analysis by randomly III 1.037 0.035 1.022 0.047
assigning numerical values to selected cells following a defined IV 1.037 0.035 1.018 0.047
statistical distribution. Using Crystal Ball, the material and fabri-
cation properties in the Excel spreadsheets used to calculate the
bridges. The increase in COV is owing to the reduction in depth of
actual strengths of the bridge girders were given statistical distri-
the bridge slab and greater relative influence of the uncertainty of
butions, as shown in Tables 1–3. The program then performed a
Monte Carlo analysis while keeping track of the forecast value, reinforcing bar placement. The average bias and COV for positive
the moment resistance of the girder. The resistances were then plot- and negative moment in a reinforced concrete bridge are 1.15 and
ted and fitted to a log-normal distribution to obtain the bias and 0.067. The materials and fabrication factors can then be combined
COV for the resistance distribution. A log-normal curve best fit with the professional factors (Table 4) to give the distribution of
the data on the basis of a goodness of fit test and was also used resistance for the bridge. The combined resistance (Table 6) bias
in the original NCHRP Rep. 368 (Nowak 1999) calibration. To and COV for reinforced concrete bridges are 1.17 and 0.09, which
check the accuracy of the procedure, the results of the analysis us- are a slightly greater bias and a lower COV than the previous
ing the previous material parameters are compared with those pre- NCHRP report (Nowak 1999). The change is because the material
sented in Nowak et al. (1994) for a series of different reinforced parameters, particularly the steel strength, have improved (reduced
concrete (A, B, C) and prestressed (II, III, IV) girder sizes and show variability). A graphical representation of the change in the bias and
a fairly close agreement on the bias and COV, as shown in Table 5. COV factors in Fig. 7 shows that the distribution resistance has
The results for bias and COV accounting for the materials and narrowed and moved to the right.
fabrication uncertainty in reinforced concrete slab bridges are For prestressed bridge girders (Fig. 8, Table 7), the average bias
shown in Fig. 6. The bias falls in a fairly tight range between and COV for positive moment are 1.044 and 0.033. For negative
1.16 and 1.14 and does not seem to depend on the span length moment, the average bias and COV are 1.151 and 0.057, which are
of the bridge. For the COV, slight increase occurs for shorter span close to those of reinforced concrete bridges because most

Table 2. Updated Material and Fabrication Parameters for Plate Steel

Previous Updated
Variables Bias COV Variables Bias COV
Plate thickness 1 0.05 Plate thickness 1.04 0.025
Plate height 1 0.05 Plate height 0.999 0.002
Yield stress—for flange 1.05 0.1 Yield stress—0 to 30 mm 1.11 0.053
Yield stress—for web 1.1 0.11 Yield stress—30 to 40 mm 1.16 0.063
Yield stress— larger than 40 mm 1.2 0.055
Young’s modulus 1 0.06 Young’s modulus 1 0.06

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 465

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 462-469

 For composite steel bridge girders (Fig. 9, Table 8), the average
bias and COV for positive moment are 1.17 and 0.057. For negative
moment, the average bias and COV are 1.18 and 0.053. Including
the professional parameter, the combined resistance bias and COV
for steel bridges are 1.23 and 0.081; the bias is much greater than
the previous NCHRP report (Nowak 1999). The difference between
the two distributions is shown in Fig. 7. The substantial difference
is because the material parameter for the yield strength of the
steel changed from 1.05 or 1.1 to 1.11, 1.16, or 1.2 (depending
on plate thickness). Because the overall resistance parameter is
very sensitive to the material property of yield strength, the overall
resistance parameter also increased significantly.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Sensitivity Study

In an effort to determine the effect of changes in material param-

Fig. 6. Bias and coefficient of variation for moment in reinforced
concrete slab bridges
prestressed bridges in Missouri are made continuous by a rein-
forced concrete section at the supports. The resistance bias and
COV for prestressed concrete bridge girders, including the profes-
sional parameter in positive moment, are 1.055 and 0.068, which
are nearly the same as the previous NCHRP report (Nowak 1999).
The similarity between the previous and the updated distributions is
also shown in Fig. 7. The lack of significant change is because the
material parameters, particularly the prestressing steel strength, did
not change significantly, and therefore, the bias and COV remained
similar.
eters and which parameters have the greatest influence on the bias
and COV factors for the bridges, a sensitivity study was conducted.
The study changed each bias shown in Tables 2–4 by 50% and
then ran the Monte Carlo simulation to determine the resulting
change in the material/fabrication bias of the bridge. For the study,
only one bridge girder with the average span length for that
bridge type was used.
The results for the reinforced concrete slab bridges are shown in
Fig. 10. The most sensitive parameters are the slab thickness (depth
to reinforcement + cover), steel area, and yield strength. Because
these parameters changed only slightly (yield strength of steel bias
increased from 1.12 to 1.145), the statistical parameters of the re-
sistance did not change greatly when the updated material param-
eters were used. Furthermore, the material parameter with the
greatest change f ’c does not greatly influence the material/fabrica-
tion bias of the bridge. The results of the prestressed bridge girders
(Fig. 11), show a similar trend. The material/fabrication bias is not
sensitive to the strength of the concrete or rebar in the slab. How-
ever, it is very sensitive to the area and strength of the prestressing
tendons and effective depth. Because these updated material prop-
erties for prestressing steel had little change, little change occurred
in the statistical parameters for resistance of prestressed bridges.

Table 6. Statistical Parameters for Moment Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Bridges

Material/fabrication Professional Resistance
Bias Coefficient of variation Bias Coefficient of variation Bias Coefficient of variation
Previous 1.12 0.12 1.02 0.06 1.14 0.13
Updated 1.15 0.074 1.02 0.06 1.17 0.09

Table 7. Statistical Parameters for Moment Resistance of Prestressed Girders

Material/fabrication Professional Resistance
Bias Coefficient of variation Bias Coefficient of variation Bias Coefficient of variation
Previous 1.04 0.045 1.01 0.06 1.05 0.075
Updated 1.045 0.033 1.01 0.06 1.055 0.069

Table 8. Statistical Parameters for Moment Resistance of Steel Girders

Material/fabrication Professional Resistance
Bias Coefficient of variation Bias Coefficient of variation Bias Coefficient of variation
Previous 1.07 0.08 1.05 0.06 1.12 0.10
Current 1.18 0.055 1.05 0.06 1.23 0.081

466 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 462-469

 Fig. 7. Previous and updated distribution of moment resistance for reinforced concrete slab bridges
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Bias and coefficient of variation for moment in steel bridge

Fig. 8. Bias and coefficient of variation for moment in prestressed girders
bridge girders

For steel bridge girders (Fig. 12), the plate dimensions and yield
strength play a significant role in determining the material/fabrica-
tion bias. Because the plate yield strength changed significantly
using the updated parameters (from 1.05 to 1.16 in some cases),
the change in the material/fabrication bias was also significant.
Properties of the composite concrete deck do not have a significant
effect on the material/fabrication bias.
The sensitivity study also highlights which improvements to
standards specifying accepting material tolerances would have
the greatest effect. For example, specifications reducing the toler-
ance on concrete strength would not have a significant effect in the
overall strength of the bridge; however, specifications that reduce
the tolerance on reinforcing bar placement would have a greater Fig. 10. Sensitivity parameters for reinforced concrete bridges
effect.

were calculated. All parameters other than the resistance factors

Effect of Updated Resistance Parameters on Bridge
Reliability
To understand how the updated resistance factors affect reliability
of bridges, reliability indices of representative bridges in Missouri
were identical in both cases. Details on bridge selection and reli-
ability analysis procedures can be found in Kwon et al. (2010,
2011). The analysis showed that for steel bridges and reinforced
concrete bridges, the significant changes in the newly calculated
bias and COVs for resistance increased the reliability index by

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 467

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 462-469


Fig. 11. Sensitivity parameters for prestressed concrete bridges
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Sensitivity parameters for steel bridges
approximately 24 and 15%, respectively. For prestressed concrete
bridges, the newly calculated bias and COVs for resistance in-
creased the reliability index only approximately 3%. The small
change in the reliability index in prestressed concrete bridges is
the result of the small change in the bias and COV factors for
the material parameters. Because the updated resistance factors
on the basis of the latest material parameters increase the reliability
of bridges with varying degree, it may be appropriate to recalibrate
factors in bridge design specifications on the basis of the updated
resistance factors. For steel and concrete bridges, the significant
increase in reliability owing the material parameters may allow
for reduction of load factors to reduce the required design strength
and cost of the bridge.
Conclusions
Previous resistance distributions for bridges were calculated using
material data from the 1980s and earlier. This research was conducted
to update the distribution of resistance to coincide with the most cur-
rent material properties available. This research was done as part of an
overall project sponsored by MoDOT to calibrate the live load factor,
considering the typical bridge configurations in Missouri and state-
specific traffic environment, for Strength I limit state in AASHTO
LRFD bridge design specifications (AASHTO 2008).
Concrete, prestressed, and steel bridges representative of
Missouri were selected, and their actual and required resistances
were determined. The analysis showed that almost all
representative bridge girders were generally over designed accord-
ing to current AASHTO (2008) standards, indicating that the true
probability of failure will be less than the two in 10,000 that the
calibration procedure uses. On average, concrete bridges had an
actual/required strength ratio of 1.18, prestressed bridges had ratios
of 1.33 for positive moments, and composite steel bridges had
ratios of 1.56 for negative and 2.54 for positive moments. These
468 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 462-469
ratios indicated that according to the Strength I limit state, steel
bridges are the most over designed. This is likely because the de-
sign of steel bridges may not be controlled by the Strength I
limit state.
The distribution of resistance was determined on the basis of
material parameters for resistance updated using the latest research
available. The resistance distribution calculation was achieved
through Monte Carlo simulation. The results show an increase
in bias and a decrease in COV for all types of bridges evaluated,
with the most drastic changes being for the concrete and steel
bridges. The bias of the reinforced concrete slab bridges changed
from 1.14 to 1.17, and the COV changed from 0.13 to 0.09. The
improved bias and COV were the result of improved concrete com-
pressive strengths and steel yield strengths. The bias of the pre-
stressed bridge girders changed only from 1.05 to 1.055, and
the COV changed from 0.075 to 0.069. The prestressed bridges
had little change because their most sensitive parameter, strength
of prestressing steel, did not change with the updated material
parameters. For the steel bridge girders, the bias changed from
1.12 to 1.23, and the COV changed from 0.10 to 0.081. The drastic
improvement in the bias for the steel bridges was owing to an in-
crease in the bias for the yield strength of steel.
With these new biases and COVs, the reliability increased as
much as 24% for the steel bridges. The improved reliability can
lead to a new lower live load factor for bridges, possibly reducing
the material cost of a bridge.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported through MoDOT and the National
University Transportation Center (NUTC). Undergraduate students
(Issac Hop, Ashley Schmidt, Greg Neihus, and Joe Kirby), who
helped to process the data on the many bridges were greatly
appreciated.
References
AASHTO. (2008). LRFD bridge design specifications, 2008 interim revi-
sions, 4th Ed., Washington, DC.
Bartlett, F., and MacGregor, J. (1996). “Statistical analysis of the compres-
sive strength of concrete in structures.” ACI Mater. J., 93(2), 158–164.
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T., MacGregor, J., and Cornell, A. (1980).
“Development of a probability based load criterion for American Na-
tional Standard A58.” National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
Galambos, T. V., and Ravindra, M. K. (1978). “Properties of steel for use in
LRFD.” J. Struct. Div., 104(ST9), 1459–1468.
Kulicki, J. M., Prucz, A., Clancy, C. M., Mertz, D. R., and Nowak, A. S.
(2007). “Updating the calibration report for AASHTO LRFD code.”
Final Rep. Project No. NCHRP 0-7/186, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
Kwon, O., Kim, E., and Orton, S. (2011). “Calibration of the live load fac-
tor in LRFD bridge design specifications based on state-specific traffic
environments.” J. Bridge Eng., 16(6), 812–819.
Kwon, O., Orton, S., Kim, E., Hazlett, T., and Salim, H. (2010). “Calibration
of live load factor in LRFD design guidelines.” Final Rep. TRyy0913,
〈http://library.modot.mo.gov/RDT/reports/TRyy0913/or11003revised
.pdf〉 (Mar. 19, 2012).
Mirza, S. A., Hatziuikolas, M., and MacGregor, J. G. (1979). “Statistical
descriptions of the strength of concrete.” J. Struct. Div., 105(ST6),
1021–1037.
Mirza, S. A., and MacGregor, J. G. (1979). “Variations in dimensions of
reinforced concrete members.” J. Struct. Div., 105(ST4), 751–766.
Nowak, A. (1999). Calibration of LRFD bridge design code NCHRP Rep.
368, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC.
 Nowak, A., and Szerszen, M. (2003). “Calibration of design code for build-
ings (ACI 318). Part 1: Statistical models for resistance.” ACI Struct. J.,
100(3), 377–382.
Nowak, A., Yamani, A., and Tabsh, S. (1994). “Probabilistic models
for resistance of concrete bridge girders.” ACI Struct. J., 91(3),
269–276.
Oracle. (2008). Oracle Crystal Ball Fusion Edition Release 11.1.1.1.00
[computer software]. Redwood City, CA.
Schmidt, B., and Bartlett, F. (2002). “Review of resistance factor for steel:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Data collection.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 29(1), 109–118.
Tabsh, S. (1996). “Reliability of composite steel bridge beams designed
following AASHTO’s LFD and LRFD specifications.” Struct. Saf.,
17(4), 225–237.
Tabsh, S., and Nowak, A. (1991). “Reliability of highway girder bridges.”
J. Struct. Eng., 117(8), 2372–2388.
Van de Lindt, J. W., Fu, G., Pablo, R., and Pei, S. (2005). “LRFD Load
Calibration for State of Michigan truckline bridges.” Rep. RC-1466,
Michigan Dept. of Transportation, Lansing, MI.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 469

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 462-469