Evaluation of System‐Reliability Methods for Cable‐Stayed Bridge Design
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 118, Issue 4
Abstract
Probabilistic system‐reliability methods have the potential to assist designers in better understanding the ultimate global behavior of bridges, thus leading to more economical, rational, and reliable structures. Nonetheless, these techniques are not currently broadly used in North American bridge engineering practice. Using a sample cable‐stayed bridge design, a study is conducted to assess the practicability of system‐reliability analytical methods to assist in the design of cable‐stayed bridges. Ductile and brittle cables are considered in series and mixed system analyses, respectively. The sample bridge selected is found to be very reliable; the most likely failure mode identified is somewhat counterintuitive. More importantly, considerable insight into global ultimate behavior is provided by these analyses, and the effect of various design assumptions on global structural safety can be assessed. Some obstacles to the transfer of system‐reliability procedures to the state of practice are identified.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Agarwal, A. C., and Wolkowicz, M. (1976). “Ontario commercial vehicle survey.” Interim Report, Engrg. Res. and Dev. Branch, Ontario Ministry of Transp. and Communications, Downsview, Ontario, Canada.
2.
Ang, A. H.‐S., and Tang, W. H. (1984). Probability concepts in engineering planning and design, Volume II: Decision, risk, and reliability, John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
3.
Buckland, P. G., and Sexsmith, R. G. (1981). “A comparison of design load for highway bridges.” Canadian J. Civ. Engrg., 8(1), 16–21.
4.
“Design of highway bridges.” (1978). CAN3‐S6‐M78, Nat. Standard of Canada, Canadian Standard Assoc., Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
5.
“Design of highway bridges.” (1988). CAN3‐S6‐M88, Nat. Standard of Canada, Canadian Standard Assoc., Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
6.
Ellingwood, B. (1983). “Probabilistic codified design.” Structural reliability: Theory and applications, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
7.
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T. V., MacGregor, J. C., and Cornell, C. A. (1980). “Development of a probability‐based load criterion for American standard A58.” National Bureau of Standards Special Publication No. SP 577, Nat. Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.
8.
Foster, R. L., Peterson, C. W., and Buckland, P. G. (1981). “Commentary on clause 12' existing bridge evaluation of CAN3‐S6‐M78, supplement No. 1‐1980.” Canadian J. Civ. Engrg., 8(2), 196–205.
9.
Frangopol, D. M., and Nakib, R. (1990). “Damage‐redundancy‐reliability interaction in bridge analysis.” Third Int. Conference on Short and Medium Span Bridges, Toronto, Canada, 343–350.
10.
Gimsing, N. J. (1983). Cable supported bridges. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
11.
Harr, M. E. (1987). Reliability‐based design in civil engineering. McGraw‐Hill, New York, N. Y.
12.
Harman, D. J., and Davenport, A. G. (1979). “A statistical approach to traffic loading on highway bridges. Canadian J. Civ. Engrg., 6(4).
13.
Liu, P. L., Lin, H. Z., and DerKiureghian, A. (1989). CALREL—A computer program for structural reliability analysis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
14.
MacGregor, J. G. (1976). Safety and limit states design for reinforced concrete. Canadian Soc. for Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Alberta and the Portland Cement Assoc., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
15.
Melchers, R. E. (1987). Structural reliability, analysis and prediction. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
16.
Nowak, A. S., and Lind, C. (1979). “Practical code calibration procedures.” Canadian J. Civ. Engrg., 6, 112–119.
17.
Nowak, A. S., and Tharmabala, T. (1988). “Bridge reliability evaluation using load tests.” J. Struct. Engrg. J., 114(10), 2268–2279.
18.
Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code. (1983). Ministry of Transp. of Ontario, Highway Engrg. Div., Ontario, Canada.
19.
PROBAN—Computer Program for Probabilistic Reliability and Sensitivity Analysis. (1989). Det Norske Veritas, Veritas Sesam Systems A.S., Høvik, Norway.
20.
Special publication—S408‐1981—Guideline for the development of limit states design. (1981). Canadian Standard Assoc., Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
21.
Tang, M. C. (1984). “Safety of cable‐stayed bridges.” Proc. of the 4th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mech. and Struct. Reliability, ASCE, 432–435.
22.
Thoft‐Christensen, P., and Murotsu, Y. (1986). Application of structural system reliability theory. Springer‐Verlag, New York, N.Y.
23.
Tharmabala, T., and Nowak, A. S. (1987). “Mathematical models for bridge reliability.” Canadian J. Civ. Engrg., 14(2), 155–162.
24.
Wilson, E. L., and Habibullah, A. (1989). SAP‐90: Structural analysis program. Computers & Structures Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 118 • Issue 4 • April 1992
Pages: 1106 - 1120
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 ASCE.
History
Published online: Apr 1, 1992
Published in print: Apr 1992
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.