Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Performance-based design of bridge structures under vehicle-induced fire T

accidents: Basic framework and a case study
Ma Rujina, Cui Chuanjiea, Ma Mingleib, Chen Aironga,
⁎

a
College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, 200092 Shanghai, China
b
Shanghai Municipal Maintenance & Management Co., Ltd, 200023 Shanghai, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Although structural robustness under different fire scenarios has been widely studied in numerous engineering
Performance-based design projects, performance-based method still needs to be further defined for better design of bridge structures under
Bridge structure fire accidents. This paper presents a practical framework for the performance-based design of bridge structures
Vehicle-induced fire accident under vehicle-induced fires. Fire scenarios, structural-thermal analysis method, fire-resistance levels, and a risk
Case study
analysis-based maintenance cost evaluation process are all defined in detail. The applicability and rationality of
this design process are illustrated through a typical case study. The results of the case study demonstrate that the
initial properties of the bridge structure can satisfy the defined fire-resistance levels properly, while additional
measures for decreasing the burning time are still needed to limit the fire maintenance cost in an acceptable
level. The proposed performance-based design process can be widely used in engineering practice.

1. Introduction environmental pollution, and potential safety problems of such ex-

Fire hazards have become a growing concern in civil and infra-
structure engineering worldwide. Extensive research has been carried
out on the fire damage analysis and resistance measures of buildings
and tunnels in recent years [1–8], while relatively little research can be
identified in terms of bridge fires. For bridge structures, vehicle-in-
duced fire is the most common fire type. In recent years, with the
continually expanding transport demands, the number of bridge fire
accidents has rapidly increased. According to the statistical results of
the New York Department of Transportation, bridge collapses caused by
fire hazards are close to three times those of earthquakes [9]. The
collapse of the Oakland Highway Bridge in 2007 is one of the most
famous and serious bridge fire accidents globally (Fig. 1a)). Moreover,
in 2018, a truck impact-induced fire accident occurred in an urban
viaduct in Shanghai, which led to serious traffic jam and interruption
(Fig. 1b)).
Fire experiments are obviously the most direct method for fire-re-
sistance analysis. Several famous full-scale fire tests, such as the
Runehama Tunnel fire test [10] and pool fire experiments [11] have
been carried out. Recently, some small-scale and full-scale bridge fire
experiments also be designed and developed to clarify the temperature
distribution as well as the structural robustness under some certain fire
parameters [12–16]. However, owing to the economic costs,
periments, analytic method and numerical simulation remain the pri-
mary choice for the performance analysis under bridge fires. Sloane M J
D et al. [17] presented the solution to the transient heat equation with
linear convective boundary conditions to calculate the temperature
through the main cable and the results fit well with the experimental
data. Zwiers R I et al. [18] simulated the performance of concrete
beams and columns in a hydrocarbon pool test fire and found that the
concrete has a very good resistance to the erosive and abrasive effects of
hot moving gases. However, fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) simulation
is still the most widely used fire simulation method worldwide [19].
The tanker fire scenario of the I-65 Viaduct in the state of Alabama was
analysed by Alos-Moya et al. using FDS software [20]. The collapse of
the Oakland Highway Bridge was reproduced by Christopher et al. in
FDS, and the simulation results fitted quite well with the actual accident
[21]. Kodur et al. [22] analysed the fire-resistance performance of a
simply supported steel plate bridge and found that the definition of fire
curves, thickness of the fire-resistance coating, and local cementation
strongly influence the final performance. Similarly, the effects of the
girder size, main span, load effects, and material properties on the fire-
resistance performance of a simply supported steel plate bridge were all
investigated by Kassem et al. in FDS [23]. Quiel S E et al. [24] proposed
a streamlined framework for calculating the response of steel-supported
bridges to open-air tanker truck fires and analysed the collapse of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.chen@tongji.edu.cn (A. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109390
Received 6 December 2018; Received in revised form 8 July 2019; Accepted 8 July 2019
Available online 10 July 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Ma, et al.
Nomenclature
Abbreviations and symbols
RMB the currency used in China, one dollar equals to 6.7
RMBs approximately in 2018
AR the wind direction is parallel to the span direction and
opposite to the cable direction, see Fig. 6a)
AS the wind direction is parallel to the span direction and
same as the cable direction, see Fig. 6b)
TR the wind direction is parallel to the cross-section di-
rection and towards to the cable plane, see Fig. 6c)
TS the wind direction is parallel to the cross-section di-
rection and away from the cable plane, see Fig. 6d)
Oakland Highway Bridge by this framework. Several effective strategies
were proposed by Kodur et al. based on a detailed fire-induced bridge
collapse analysis through finite element methods [25].
However, almost all of the existing simulations have focused on
clarifying the structural robustness under different fire scenarios, in-
stead of proposing a practical performance-based design method. In
recent years, the performance-based design method, which aims to limit
both the global and local performance of a structure to acceptable levels
under specific loads or hazards, has gradually gained attention in civil
engineering. The performance-based design method has already been
applied extensively in the seismic design of bridges [26–28]; Similar
concept and method can be introduced to establish the process of
performance-based design under vehicle-induced fire accidents. Among
this topic, Marjanishvili S et al. [29] introduced a simple framework for
the robustness-based bridge design to blast, fire, and other extreme
threats. Naser M Z and Kodur V K R [30,31] proposed a simplified
approach to quantify the probable risk of fire in bridges and the
probability of fire-induced collapse of structural members by assigning
importance factors and weightage factors to potential relative para-
meters. Peris-Sayol G et al. [32] collected the information of 154 cases
of bridge fires and selected the main factors involved in bridge fire
damage. On the basis of which, five damage levels were defined to
describe the structural performance under a bridge fire. Kim W S et al.
[33] developed a fire risk assessment procedure for highway bridges in
South Korea, the procedure consisted of three steps named the pre-
liminary risk analysis, the simplified risk analysis and the detailed risk
analysis. These three analysis steps were only adopted for the fires
under the bridge. The above research aims to clarify the fire risk of
bridges as well as develop a simple procedure for performance-based
design based on the statistical data of existing fire. However, similar to
the seismic design, probability-based simulation of temperature dis-
tribution of bridge components needs to be further defined and studied
by numerical method for fire risk analysis and damage level
Fig. 1. Two fire accidents of bridge structures: (a) Oakland Highway Bridge, and (b) viaduct in Shanghai.
2
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390
determination in performance-based design process.
Through this research, it is expected that a basic framework of
performance-based design method for bridge structures under vehicle-
induced fire accidents can be proposed. Within the design process,
several key steps, such as the definition of fire scenarios, evaluation
standards, fire-resistance levels, and maintenance cost analysis, are
carefully discussed. Finally, a case study is presented as an example to
gain clearer consciousness of the entire design process.
2. Design framework
2.1. Design process
For bridge structures, the concept of performance-based design
means not only focusing on the structural safety, but also paying at-
tention to all other possible aspects, so that the structures can be
maintained at the required level during the entire operational period.
Hence, the performance-based design of bridge structures needs to
determine the performance targets and evaluation standards by com-
prehensively considering the design and maintenance demands of the
owners, the structural functions of the bridges, socio-economic factors
such as economic loss, traffic interruption, and post-disaster repair, as
well as cultural and environmental factors. On this basis, fire safety and
maintenance cost analyses should be carried out, following which sui-
table fire-resistance measures should be established. In general, per-
formance-based design under vehicle-induced fire accidents can be di-
vided into the following steps with the reference of performance-based
seismic design of bridges and fire-resistance design process of other
structure forms [26,34]:
(1). Determine the performance targets.
The performance targets should be determined considering the
safety of the bridge structure, structural functions, recoverability, socio-
economic aspects, and cultural and environmental factors. In general,
the performance targets are determined by the bridge owners.
(2). Determine the evaluation standards.
The performance targets determined by the owners may be am-
biguous to a certain degree because of the limitations of professional
knowledge. Thus, it is necessary to transform the performance targets
into specific structural evaluation standards, according to certain defi-
nite rules.
(3). Carry out the fire safety analysis.
The fire safety analysis, which is also the key point of the entire
design process, can be carried out by means of either numerical
R. Ma, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390

simulation or experimental methods. In this case, the numerical simu- (1). Determine the potential combustibles and relative parameters,
lation method is suggested, considering its higher efficiency and lower according to the bridge site and traffic forecast results.
cost. The procedure for the numerical simulation-based analysis is (2). Determine the possible fire locations and vulnerable structural
presented in Fig. 2. components, according to the structural characteristics.
(3). Determine whether or not the wind effect should be considered,
(4). Carry out the risk analysis of maintenance cost. according to the environment of the bridge site.
(4). Determine the most representative fire scenarios based on the
Step (3) mainly focuses on the structural safety analysis under analyses results of the above steps.
certain bridge fire scenarios. In addition to this, several other factors,
such as economic loss, traffic interruption, and post-disaster repair, 2.3. Risk analysis-based maintenance cost calculation
need to be considered in the performance-based design process, as
mentioned above. All of these factors can be measured by the main- 2.3.1. Risk assessment of bridge fires
tenance cost from the bridge owner perspective. Owing to the high The main purpose of bridge fire risk assessment is to identify the
randomness of bridge fires, probability-based risk evaluation is more possible consequences as well as maintenance costs under typical fire
suitable for maintenance cost analysis. The detailed analysis method is scenarios. For quantitative calculation, bridge fire risk assessment can
discussed in Section 2.3. be defined as a product of the occurrence probability of a risk event and
its relative cost:
(5). Propose strategies to improve fire-resistance ability.
Risk = Pro· Con, (1)
If the structural responses are confirmed to exceed the performance where Risk is the risk assessment result, Pro is the occurrence prob-
targets, according to the analysis procedure in Fig. 2, certain appro- ability of a risk event, and Con is the relative cost when the risk event
priate strategies must be proposed to improve the fire-resistance ability occurs.
of the structures or components and the fire safety analysis should be In the performance-based design process, the bridge damage and its
carried out again. relative maintenance cost can be classified into different levels. Thus,
for a given bridge fire scenario, the risk assessment result is expressed
(6). Determine the final fire-resistance projects. as:
n
2.2. Fire scenarios definition Riskk = Proi ·Coni ,
i=1 (2)
The definition of fire scenarios is one of the most important steps in
where Riskk is the assessment result of risk event k , Proi is the
fire safety and maintenance cost analysis. Several standard temperature
curves, such as the ISO 834 [35], ASTM-E119 [36], HC [37], and RWS
[38] curves, have generally been adopted in traditional fire-resistance Fire hazard identification
analysis. However, these curves were mainly established for tunnels or
Environmental parameters,
high-rise buildings, and may be not suitable for bridge structures in Define bridge
Fire scenarios e.g. location, wind speed
open-air environments. Therefore, typical bridge fire scenarios need to
be redefined to reflect actual bridge fire situations. Little recognized Thermodynamic parameters,
research to bridge fire scenarios definition can be found at present. e.g. heat release rate
Considering the source of bridge fire is quite similar to tunnel fire,
tunnel fire researches and standards can be adopted as a reference for Fire scenarios CFD-based fire scenario
bridge fire definition. These definitions can be found in part of our analysis model
previous work [39]. Table 1 presents definitions of the fire scenario
parameters. It should be noticed that tunnel fire and bridge fire have
Structural-thermal model
some obvious differences as is shown in [12]. Thus, among these de-
finitions, the maximum heat release rate can be properly determined by Heat transfer
analysis Boundary conditions
tunnel fire research because they are both induced by vehicles. While
the burning time in bridge fire is usually shorter than that of the tunnel Proposed Temperature parameters
fire due to the sufficient oxygen supply, however, the bridge fire acci- measures
dents which last more than 6000 s were also reported in previous stu- Load condition of structure
Structural
dies [40–42], hence, the definition of burning time is suitable for en-
response Structural parameters
gineering design to obtain a conservative result. The most noticeable
limitation for the definition is the bridge fire size. In a bridge fire ac-
cident, fuel may spread over a significant distance and the fire size may Multi-level evaluation
be larger than tunnel fire. However, the spread of the fuel can be in- Fire-resistance standards
evaluation
fluenced by many environmental factors, e.g. the wind speed, wind Maintenance cost
direction, longitudinal slope of bridge deck, transverse slope of bridge
deck, road roughness, and so on, which makes the real size determi-
nation become more complicated. Besides, it is hard to say the larger Exceed
fire size will be favourable or unfavourable for engineering design, limitation?
Yes
since with the increase of fire size, the heat release rate per square
meter will be smaller and the maximum temperature of fire will also be No
lower. These limitations should be clearly noticed and further research
should be carried out to determine the real fire size considering spread End
effect.
The general procedure for the definition of bridge fire scenarios is Fig. 2. Performance-based design procedure under vehicle-induced fire acci-
detailed as follows. dents.

3
R. Ma, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390

Table 1
Parameter definitions of typical fire scenarios.
Fire scenarios Fire model Fire increasing modulus (kW/s2 ) Burning time (s) Maximum heat release rate (×103 kW) Fire size (m2)

Car fire t 2 model 0.011 2700 1.5～10 1.5 × 4

Bus fire t 2 model 0.123 5400 20～30 2×6
Truck fire t 2 model 0.5 6000 30～200 4×6
Tanker fire t 2 model 1.0 7200 100～300 (3.5～10.4) × 12

occurrence probability of damage level i , and Coni is the relative cost M n

when level i occurs. RiskFD, M = Proi, j · Coni, j ,

j=1 i=1 (5)
Thus, the total risk assessment result is:
N
where RiskFD, M is the direct loss of the main components andM is the
RiskF = Riskk , number of main components.
k=1 (3) The entire direct loss can be calculated by:

where RiskF is the final risk assessment result.
2.3.2. Maintenance cost analysis
As both the structural safety and other complex factors need to be
considered in the overall performance-based design process, the bridge
maintenance cost can be divided into direct and indirect losses. In this
case, direct loss refers to the investments required for component repair
and replacement, while indirect loss consists of other complicated
factors, such as vehicle restrictions, traffic blockades, environmental
pollution, and public opinion. Thus, the quantitative calculation of in-
direct loss may be extremely different according to the bridge site,
traffic volume, maintenance time, and social popularity of the bridge.
However, the direct loss of the bridge can be approximately estimated
based on the following method.
For the same bridge, the direct losses of different components may
vary significantly, based on their importance to the structure.
According to the importance to the entire bridge, the components can
be divided into three categories: key, main, and secondary components.
Key components refer to the key load-bearing bridge members, such as
the towers, piers, main beams, and main cables, which may directly
determine the overall stability of the structure. Main components
generally refer to force-transmitting members, such as cables, hangers,
and supports. Secondary components include the bridge accessory
members, e.g., crash barriers, damping devices and the lighting system,
which usually make little contribution to the carrying capacity of the
overall structure. In general, damage to several secondary components
has little influence on the initial bridge function, while damage to key
components may lead to the destruction of the entire structure.
Two different situations of the corresponding results of key com-
ponent damage need to be considered, namely partial damage and total
damage. The partial damage cost mainly contains the investments of
component replacement, while the total damage refers to the loss of the
entire structural collapse. The cost of main component damage mainly
includes the investments for component repair or replacement. The cost
of secondary components is generally so small that it can be neglected
in most of the design processes.
Thus, the direct loss of key components can be calculated as follows:
m n
RiskFD, K = Proi, j ·Coni, j + max (Pron, j )·ConT ,
j=1 i=1
j
(4)
RiskFD = RiskFD, K + RiskFD, M , (6)
where RiskFD is the entire direct loss.
2.4. Definition of evaluation standards
The key point of the definition of evaluation standards in perfor-
mance-based design under fire accidents is determining several dif-
ferent fire-resistance levels of the structure and then selecting the
proper level for different fire scenarios, according to the detailed ac-
ceptable degrees. Thus, defining the explicit fire-resistance levels is the
first step towards the definition of evaluation standards.
2.4.1. Fire-resistance levels
The fire-resistance levels of a bridge structure can be determined
according to the following aspects:
(1). the influence on the traffic functions; for example, traffic restric-
tions and bridge blockades;
(2). the damage degrees of the components, which can be divided into
five levels: no damage, slight damage, medium damage, serious
damage, and total damage;
(3). the elapsed time for complete repair of the bridge.
Based on the above principles, the fire-resistance levels can be
classified as displayed in Table 2.
It should be noted that Table 2 only provides a general qualitative
description for the different levels. For the performance-based design of
a specific bridge, certain quantitative structural or economic standards
are surely required in practice.
2.4.2. Evaluation standards for different fire scenarios
During the operation period of the bridge structure, different fire
scenarios may arise with varying occurrence probabilities and cause
different damage to the structure. Therefore, in the performance-based
design process, different fire scenarios can’t be treated equally, and
multi-level standards for different fire scenarios should be set appro-
priately. The damage degrees of different fire scenarios are mainly
determined by the maximum heat release rate, according to the defi-
nitions in Table 1. Table 3 presents the defined evaluation standards
under different fire scenarios on the basis of Table 1.

where RiskFD, K is the direct loss of the key components; m is the number
of key components; n is the number of damage levels; Proi, j is the oc-
currence probability of damage level i in component j ; Coni, j is the
direct loss of level i in component j ; max(Pron, j ) is the maximum oc-
j
currence probability of all possible structural collapse types cause by
the damage of key components; and ConT is the cost for reconstructing a
new bridge.
The direct loss of the main components can be calculated by:
2.4.3. Risk analysis-based criterion
In addition to the evaluation standards defined in Section 2.4.2 for
structural safety analysis, the risk analysis-based criterion should be
formulated to clarify the acceptable degree of the maintenance cost.
The risk analysis-based failure criterion for bridge structures can be
expressed by the annual failure probability Pf or reliability index .
Table 4 lists the reliability index values in different Chinese codes.
In general, the bridge structures can be regarded as the key

4
R. Ma, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390

structure; here, the annual failure probability value Pf = 10 6 is sug-

structural performance can hardly be recovered to the initial state.

The structural performance can be totally recovered by adopting

Complicated repair measures are certainly required needed; the

gested with reference to the values in Table 4. Thus, the risk analysis-
based failure criterion can be calculated as follows:

The traffic must be halted for certain complicated repairs

RiskF < [Con]T × 10 6, (7)
where [Con]T is the total cost of the structure.
Eq. (7) indicates that if the overall risk loss RiskF calculated in
Section 2.3 is less than the product of the total cost [Con]T and annual
failure probability Pf , the structure can be considered as satisfying the
fire-resistance demands. Otherwise, certain special fire-resistance

The bridge must be reconstructed

certain simple repair measures

measures are surely required.

Reparability in long term

3. Case study
No repair is needed

In order to express the performance-based design method under

vehicle-induced fire accidents more clearly, a typical case study is de-
tailed in this section. It should be noted that the case study is mainly
used for illustrating the entire design process, instead of a real en-
gineering project; thus, some of the calculation methods and definitions
may be simplified here.
The traffic functions can be partly recovered by
The traffic functions can be rapidly recovered

The traffic functions cannot be recovered by

by adopting certain emergency measures

3.1. Engineering background

adopting certain emergency measures

No emergency measure is useful

A long-span river-crossing cable-stayed bridge is adopted as the

adopting emergency measures

engineering background for the case study. The span arrangement is

Reparability in short term

70 m + 75 m + 84 m + 818 m + 233.5 m + 124.5 m = 1405 m, as il-

lustrated in Fig. 3. Fig. 4 plots the cross-section arrangement of the
No repair is needed

main girder. The traffic volume of the bridge is estimated as 36,838

vehicles per day. The vehicles can be divided into four types: car, bus,
truck, and tanker, accounting for 39%, 18%, 7%, and 36%, respectively.
The total cost of the bridge is approximately 2.5 billion RMBs.
To simplify the design process, the following assumptions are
adopted.
Parts of the key components are slightly damaged, or parts of the main components
are seriously damaged; the overall structural performance is slightly affected, while
components are damaged; the overall structural performance and traffic functions
There is no damage to any of the components and no obvious impact on traffic

(1). A vehicle-induced bridge deck fire can arise anywhere along the
Parts of the main components are slightly damaged, while none of the key

span and cross-section direction with the same probabilities.

Parts of the key components are seriously damaged; the overall structural

(2). The wind load on the bridge deck can arise in all directions with
performance is significantly affected and traffic must be blockaded

the same probabilities.

(3). The occurrence probability of the bridge deck fire has no re-
lationship with the wind speed.
The bridge is destroyed and needs to be reconstructed

3.2. Bridge fire scenarios

the traffic functions are significantly affected

3.2.1. Fire locations and vulnerable components

Classification and relative description for different fire-resistance levels.

In this case study, the assumption is adopted that the vehicle-in-

duced fires can only arise on the bridge deck considering no cars can be
driven under the girder for a river-crossing bridge, thus only the su-
perstructures can be influenced by fires. The main girder, cables, and
towers constitute the superstructure of a cable-stayed bridge. As ana-
lysed in Section 2.3.2, the main girder and tower are key components,
are slightly affected

while the cables are main components in this project.

When a fire occurs on the deck of the cable-stayed bridge, the main
girder is located below the flame and can be insulated by the deck
Description

functions

pavement. Previous study has shown that the deck fire has little influ-
ence on the main girder [46]. In this engineering project, the towers are
constructed by reinforced concrete with higher fire-resistance abilities,
while the cables are constructed using high-strength steel wires, which
Slight damage

Total damage

are easily affected by high temperatures. When a fire occurs near the
No damage

Medium

cable, it may lead to cable fracture and then cause an obvious impact on
Damage

damage

damage
Serious
degree

the mechanical performance of the entire structure. Therefore, the ef-

fects on the cables are mainly calculated in the following analyses.
Bridge deck fires may occur anywhere on the deck and cause dif-
Resistance level

ferent damage degrees in theory. In this case, according to the spacing

and inclination characteristics of the cables, eight typical positions are
Table 2

selected along the bridge span direction, numbered A, B, C, D, E, F, G,

(IV)
(III)

(V)
(II)
(I)

and H, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The occurrence probabilities of the fires

5
R. Ma, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390

Table 3
Definition of evaluation standards for different fire scenarios.
Maximum heat release rate (×103 kW) Typical fire scenarios Evaluation standards

≤ 10 Car fire Resistance level (I): no damage

10～100 Bus fire, truck fire Resistance level (II): slight damage
100～200 Truck fire, tanker fire Resistance level (III): medium damage
200～300 Tanker fire Resistance level (IV): serious damage

Table 4
Suggested reliability index values in different codes.
Code index Key structure ( /Pf ) General structure ( /Pf ) Secondary structure ( /Pf )

−8 −6
GB/T 50283-1999 [43] 5.2/1.0 × 10 4.7/1.3 × 10 4.2/1.3 × 10−5
GB 50158-2010 [44] 4.5/3.4 × 10−6 4.0/3.2 × 10−5 3.5/2.3 × 10−4
GB 50068-2001 [45] 4.2/1.3 × 10−5 3.7/1.1 × 10−4 3.2/6.9 × 10−4

Fig. 3. . General arrangement diagram of cable-stayed bridge.

Fig. 4. . Cross-section arrangement diagram.

Table 5 Table 7
Fire locations and relative cable characteristics along span direction. Maximum heat release rate distribution of bus fire.
Fire locations A B, C, F D, E G H Maximum heat release rate (×103 kW) 20 30

Horizontal spacing of cables (m) 7.5 15 15 7.5 7.5 Probability 0.5 0.5
Horizontal dips of cables (°) 31 49 27 60 45

Table 6
Maximum heat release rate distribution of car fire. deck fire at these four positions are all assumed to be approximately
Maximum heat release rate (×103 kW) 1.5 10 0.25.

Probability 0.5 0.5

at these eight positions are all assumed to be approximately 0.125.
Furthermore, five categories are summarised in Table 5, based on the
cable spacing and inclination characteristics.
Similarly, four typical positions are selected in the cross-section
direction, as illustrated in Fig. 4, and the occurrence probabilities of
3.2.2. Fire parameters
The fire parameters are defined based on the values provided in
Table 1. It should be noted that the maximum heat release rates of each
fire type vary within a certain range. It is impossible to calculate all
maximum heat release rates one by one; thus, a uniform distribution is
assumed and several typical values are selected, as indicated in Tables
6–9.

6
R. Ma, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390

Table 8
Maximum heat release rate distribution of truck fire.
Maximum heat release rate (×103 kW) 30 60 80 100 125 150 175 200

Probability 0.088 0.147 0.118 0.132 0.147 0.147 0.147 0.074

Table 9
Maximum heat release rate distribution of tanker fire.
Maximum heat release rate (×103 kW) 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Probability 0.062 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.062

3.2.3. Wind effect

The wind effect usually includes two aspects: wind speed and wind
direction. The distribution laws of wind speed can be obtained ac-
cording to the daily average wind speed recorded by the wind speed
station. Fig. 5 shows the 1096 days’ statistical data from 2013/1/1 to
2015/12/31. The statistical laws can be well fitted by generalized ex-
treme-value distribution with the location parameter µ = 0.976 , scale
parameter = 0.434 and shape parameter = 0.127 . Thus, the prob-
ability of different wind speeds can be approximately calculated ac-
cording to the probability density function, as presented in Table 10.
The wind load may also result in a flame tilt angle in different di-
rections, which may have a significant influence on the cable tem-
peratures. According to the relative tilt direction between the flame and
cables, the following four typical conditions are summarised in this case
study. Here the probabilities of these four conditions are all assumed to
Fig. 5. Distribution laws of daily average wind speed from 2013/1/1 to 2015/
12/31. be 0.25 approximately, in accordance with assumption (2) in Section
3.1.

(1). The wind direction is parallel to the span direction and opposite to
Table 10 the cable direction (denoted AR, see Fig. 6a)).
Wind speed probability distribution. (2). The wind direction is parallel to the span direction and the same as
Wind speed 0 m/s 1 m/s 2 m/s 3 m/s 4 m/s 5 m/s
the cable direction (denoted AS, see Fig. 6b)).
(3). The wind direction is parallel to the cross-section direction and
Probability 0.061 0.703 0.226 0.009 0.001 0.000 towards to the cable plane (denoted TR, see Fig. 6c)).
(4). The wind direction is parallel to the cross-section direction and
away from the cable plane (denoted TS, see Fig. 6d)).

Fig. 6. Diagram of relationship between cables and wind direction: (a) AR condition, (b) AS condition, (c) TR condition, and (d) TS condition.

7
R. Ma, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390

Table 11
Definition of quantitative fire-resistance levels.
Maximum heat release rate (×103 kW) Resistance level Typical fire scenarios Damage degree Limited value of deflection-to-span ratio

≤ 10 (I) Car fire No damage dv 1

Lv 1000
10～100 (II) Bus fire, truck fire Slight damage 1
< v
d 1
1000 Lv 800
100～200 (III) Truck fire, tanker fire Medium damage 1
<
dv 1
800 Lv 600
200～300 (IV) Tanker fire Serious damage 1
<
dv 1
600 Lv 400

Table 12
Thermodynamic parameters of cables.
Parameter Density (kg/m3) Thermal conductivity (W/(m· C)) Specific heat C (J/(kg· C)) Emissivity Heat transfer coefficient h (W/(m2· C))

Value 7850 45 600 0.8 50

most unfavourable fire scenarios. Based on the definitions in Table 2,

1.0 Yield strength Table 3 and some previous studies [48–50], the quantitative fire-re-
Ultimate strength
sistance levels are defined and detailed in Table 11.
0.8
Reduction coefficients

3.4. Analysis of fire-resistance performance

0.6
3.4.1. Mechanical and thermodynamic properties of cable
The cables are constructed using high-strength steel wires and
0.4 protected by the high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Here the insulation
effect of HDPE is ignored. Table 12 lists the thermodynamic parameters
of the cables, and the variations in the ultimate strength and yield
0.2
strength with different temperatures are plotted in Fig. 7 in the form of
the reduction coefficients fuT / fu0 and fyT / fy0 [51]. Assuming that the
0.0 development of the fire process has no effect on the stress variation of
the cables if no cable is fractured, and the cable can be regarded as
0 200 400 600 800 fractured when the ultimate strength is lower than the actual stress.
Temperature (°C)
Fig. 7. Variations in yield strength and ultimate strength with fire tempera-
3.4.2. Structural safety analysis
tures. The aim of structural safety analysis is to ensure that the structural
performance can satisfy the fire-resistance levels in all possible fire
scenarios. Thus, the most unfavourable fire scenarios of each resistance
3.3. Quantitative fire-resistance levels
level should be selected and analysed. Using the definitions in Table 11,
the most unfavourable fire scenarios can be selected as 10 MW car fire
For cable-stayed bridges, the damage of one or more cables usually
for level (I), 100 MW truck fire for level (II), 200 MW tanker fire for
will not lead to the collapse of the entire structure directly. However,
level (III), and 300 MW tanker fire for level (IV). Combining Fig. 3 and
additional deflection of the main girder is often observed instead.
Table 5, it can be determined that positions A and D (E) are the most
Therefore, the maximum deflection of the main girder can be used as a
unfavourable along the span direction, as the cables are more con-
simple quantitative standard to evaluate the overall performance of the
centrated in position A and the maximum initial deflection can be ob-
bridge structure under different fire scenarios. The limited value of the
served in position D (E). Moreover, in the cross-section direction, po-
deflection-to-span ratio under live load is d v /L v = 1/400 for this struc-
sition I is obviously most unfavourable for the cable performance.
ture [47], which can be regarded as the ultimate deflection under the
The wind effect on the fire scenarios, which consists of the wind

Fig. 8. Simulation results of 300 MW tanker fire scenarios with wind speed: (a) 1 m/s, (b) 2 m/s, (c) 3 m/s, (d) 4 m/s, and (e) 5 m/s.

8
R. Ma, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390

900 900

750 750

Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)

600 600

450 450
D-I-0 m/s D-I-0 m/s
D-I-AR-3 m/s D-I-AR-3 m/s
300 D-I-AR-5 m/s 300 D-I-AR-5 m/s
D-I-TR-3 m/s D-I-TR-3 m/s
150 D-I-TR-5 m/s 150 D-I-TR-5 m/s

0 0
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000
Time (s) Time (s)
a) Cable 1 b) Cable 2
900 900
D-I-0 m/s
750 D-I-AR-3 m/s 750
D-I-AR-5 m/s
D-I-0 m/s
D-I-TR-3 m/s

Temperature (°C)
D-I-AR-3 m/s
Temperature (°C)

600 600
D-I-TR-5 m/s
D-I-AR-5 m/s
D-I-TR-3 m/s
450 450
D-I-TR-5 m/s

300 300

150 150

0 0
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000
Time (s) Time (s)
c) Cable 3 d) Cable 4
Fig. 9. Temperatures variations with burning times and different wind effects in position D of: (a) cable 1, (b) cable 2, (c) cable 3, and (d) cable 4.

Fig. 10. Diagram of structural-thermal simulation in ANSYS.

speed and direction, needs to be calculated and compared carefully to
obtain the most unfavourable conditions. The symbol of fire conditions
is defined as follows: fire position along the span direction, fire position
in the cross-section direction, wind direction, and wind speed; when the
wind speed is equal to zero, the wind direction is ignored. For example,
A-I-AS-3 m/s means the fire position is located in A (Fig. 3) and I
(Fig. 4), the wind direction is parallel to the span direction and the same
as the cable direction (Fig. 6b)), and the wind speed is 3 m/s. If the
wind speed is equal to zero, it can be expressed as A-I-0 m/s.
The whole process of structural safety analysis can be divided into
the following three steps:
(1). The time-dependent fire temperature laws are simulated in FDS
based on computational fluid dynamics theory and large eddy
simulation techniques.
(2). The structural-thermal analysis is carried out in ANSYS based on
the fire temperature calculated by step (1) to obtain the variation
of cable temperature.
(3). The fractured cables are removed from the finite element model,
and the structure performance is evaluated according to the stan-
dards in Table 11.
Noting that all of the following calculations and Figures in this
section are presented using the 300 MW tanker fire scenario as an ex-
ample. The remaining three fire scenarios will only demonstrate the
final results directly at the end of this section. Fig. 8 plots the simulation
diagrams of the fire scenarios with different wind speeds. The simula-
tion volume for 300 MW tanker fire is 27 m × 27 m × 45 m and the

9
R. Ma, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390

Fig. 11. Failure analyses of different cables under the 300 MW tanker fire with conditions of: (a) A-I-0 m/s and (b) D-I-0 m/s.

Fig. 12. 3D finite element model of the whole structure.

Fig. 13. Possible unfavourable traffic conditions under fire accident.

mesh size is chosen to be 0.6 m × 0.6 m × 0.6 m to keep a better bal-
ance between the simulation accuracy and simulation time [52]. It can
be observed that the maximum fire temperature is above 1100 °C, and
with the increase in wind speed, the flame tilt angle also increases,
while the maximum temperature area decreases obviously. The time-
dependent temperature laws of fire are obtained for the further struc-
tural-thermal analyses.
In Fig. 6, the AS and TS conditions are both favourable to the
structural performance, as the AS condition causes the same tilt direc-
tion between the cables and the flame itself, thereby affecting fewer

10
R. Ma, et al.
0.6
A-I-0 m/s
D-I-0 m/s
0.4
Vertical displacement(m)
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0 280 560 840 1120
Length (m)
Fig. 14. Maximum vertical displacements under the 300 MW tanker fire when
burning time t = 7200 s.
cables, and the TS condition causes fire away from the cables. Con-
versely, the AR and TR conditions are both unfavourable to the struc-
tural performance, which needs to be calculated further to obtain the
most unfavourable condition. Fig. 9 plots the temperature curves of the
burning cables with different wind speeds and directions in position D.
Here both the radiant heat transfer effect and the convective heat
transfer effect are considered in the structural-thermal analysis. The
number sequence of the cables is plotted in Fig. 10a), which is con-
sistent with the distance from the combustion source. Fig. 10b) plots the
contour of final temperature distribution with the condition of D-I-0 m/
s. It can be observed that, among all of the wind conditions, D-I-0 m/s is
the most unfavourable in terms of the cable temperatures.
In summary, two fire scenarios, namely A-I-0 m/s and D-I-0 m/s,
need to be calculated for every fire-resistance level. When considering
the deflection-to-span ratio, the influence of cable fracture must be
included, and the cable fracture analyses are plotted in Fig. 11. Here,
the y axis represents the variations in the ultimate strengths of the
cables varying with the burning time. The ultimate stresses of different
cables are also plotted in the figure, which are equal to the real cable
stresses. The fracture stresses are calculated by the finite element model
(Fig. 12) with consideration of the unfavourable value of two possible
vehicle driving conditions presented in Fig. 13. Here condition a) means
the lanes near the fire area are blocked by bridge management de-
partment immediately while the lanes with opposite driving direction
are still open normally. Condition b) means the fire size is large enough
so that the driving vehicles are congested before the fire area. The
traffic load is determined according to the Chinese Code JTG D60-2015
[53]. For each lane, the vehicle loading consists of a uniform force
which equals to 10.5 kN/m and a concentrated force which equals to
360 kN. The concentrated force is added near the fire area as far as
possible to obtain the most unfavourable deflection value.
It can be observed that three cables are fractured when the fire is
located in position A, while two cables are fractured when the fire is
located in position D. Fig. 14 plots the maximum vertical displacements
of the entire structure. It can be observed that the fire scenario D-I-0 m/
s (located near the middle span) can lead to a more serious consequence
Table 13
Calculation results of maximum value of deflection-to-span ratio with different fire-resistance levels.
Typical fire scenario Fire-resistance level
10 MW car fire (I)
100 MW truck fire (II)
200 MW tanker fire (III)
300 MW tanker fire (IV)
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390
compared to A-I-0 m/s, even if fewer cables are fractured in D-I-0 m/s.
Using similar method, the maximum deflection-to-span ratios can be
calculated, as displayed in Table 13 for all fire resistance levels. Thus, it
can be determined that all of the values can satisfy the fire-resistance
demands defined in Table 11.
3.5. Risk analysis of maintenance cost
The occurrence of a bridge fire as well as its relative maintenance
cost are quite uncertain because of various aspects. Thus, in addition to
the structural safety analysis for different fire-resistance levels, risk
analysis of maintenance cost is also necessary to determine whether the
bridge fire damage and maintenance cost are within an acceptable
range. In this case study, the direct loss of the bridge is mainly caused
by cable fracture. In order to simplify the analysis process, the indirect
1400 loss is neglected here. The risk analysis process should be organised as
follows. Firstly, the failure probability of the cables should be analysed
individually under all possible fire scenarios, following which the risk
analysis-based maintenance cost calculation should be carried out to
determine whether it meets the relative criteria or not. Finally, several
necessary measures need to be proposed for the fire scenarios that are
beyond the allowed values.
Here, only the tanker fire scenarios are analysed in detail as an
example. All of the other fire scenarios can be calculated using a similar
process.
Assuming that the fire occurs in position A (Fig. 3) along the span
direction and the wind speed is 0 m/s, for a 300 MW tanker fire sce-
nario, four possible conditions, namely A-I-0 m/s, A-II-0 m/s, A-III-0 m/
s, and A-IV-0 m/s, should be considered. The temperature curves of the
affected cables are plotted in Fig. 15.
When the fire scenario occurs in position I in the cross-section di-
rection, three cables are fractured, as indicated in Fig. 11a). According
to the probability definition in Section 3.2 and the assumption that all
parameters are mutually independent, the relative probability can be
calculated as follows:
0.125 × 0.25 × 0.061 × 0.062 = 1.182 × 10 4 .
When the fire scenario occurs in position II, III or IV, no cable is
fractured, according to the same analysis method. Similarly, all possible
fire scenarios (five positions along the span direction, four positions
along the cross-section direction, nine different heat release rates, four
different wind directions, and six different wind speeds) are analysed
individually. Moreover, the fire scenarios caused by cars, buses, and
trucks need to be calculated by the same process. The cable fracture
probabilities of the different fire types are summarised in Table 14. It
can be seen that the possibility of two cables’ fracture under truck fire is
higher compared to the tanker fire, the reason for that is according to
the FDS simulation results, the temperature of truck fire is higher than
tanker fire in general. However, the size of tanker fire is larger than
truck fire, thus, more potential conditions can be observed for three
cables’ fracture of the tanker fire. Hence, the possibility of three cables’
fracture is reasonable to be higher under the tanker fire.
The maintenance cost of cables in this case study is 0.023 million
RMBs/ton; thus, the maintenance cost of one cable in different positions
is calculated and presented in Table 15, according to the different cable
lengths. Here, an average value of 0.458 million RMBs per cable is used
to simplify the analysis.
Limited value of the deflection-to-span ratio Maximum value of deflection-to-span ratio
1/1000 1/7239
1/800 1/2956
1/600 1/2243
1/400 1/1901
11
R. Ma, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390

900 900
Cable 1 Cable 1
Cable 2 Cable 2
750 750
Temperature (°C) Cable 3 Cable 3
Cable 4 Cable 4

Temperature (°C)
600 Cable 5 600 Cable 5

450 450

300 300

150 150

0 0
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000
Time (s) Time (s)
a) A-I-0 m/s b) A-II-0 m/s

900
Cable 1 900
Cable 1
Cable 2 Cable 2
750 750
Cable 3 Cable 3
Cable 4
Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°C)
Cable 4
600 Cable 5 600 Cable 5

450 450

300 300

150 150

0 0
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000
Time (s) Time (s)
c) A-III-0 m/s d) A-IV-0 m/s
Fig. 15. Temperature curves of different affected cables under the 300 MW tanker fire when fire scenarios are: (a) A-I-0 m/s, (b) A-II-0 m/s, (c) A-III-0 m/s, and (d) A-
IV-0 m/s.

Table 14
Probability calculation results of different fire types.
Number of fractured cables 0 1 2 3

Probability Car fire 1 0 0 0

Bus fire 9.971 × 10−1 2.859 × 10−3 0 0
Truck fire 6.930 × 10−1 2.134 × 10−1 9.351 × 10−2 9.699 × 10−5
Tanker fire 5.894 × 10−1 3.794 × 10−1 2.925 × 10−2 1.918 × 10−3

Table 15 The occurrence probabilities of a car fire, bus fire, truck fire, and tanker
Maintenance cost of one cable in different positions. fire were determined to be 0.0684, 0.0405, 0.142, and 0.023 times per year
Position along span A B C D E F G H
in our previous work by means of the analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy
direction comprehensive evaluation [54]. Thus, the annual maintenance cost can be
calculated as RiskF = 30000 RMBs . The acceptable maintenance cost can
Maintenance cost of 0.675 0.212 0.212 0.738 0.738 0.212 0.357 0.524 be calculated as [Con]T × 10 6 = 2500 RMBs . It can be determined that
one cable
(million RMBs)
RiskF > [Con]T × 10 6 , thus some additional fire-resistance measures must
be drafted.
Fig. 11 shows that the burning time strongly influences the damage
degree of cables. Thus, fire extinguishers and fire hydrant systems can
Table 16 be considered to set up on the bridge. On the other hand, bridge fire
Probability calculation results of different fire types after adopting suggested management centre and fire monitoring system also should be estab-
measures. lished, further more, fire stations can be set up in the vicinity of bridge
Number of fractured cables 0 1 2 3 site, etc. The aim for these measures is to ensure that the burning time
would not exceed 45 min regardless of any fire scenarios. By adopting
Probability Car fire 1 0 0 0 these measures, the fracture probabilities under different fire types are
Bus fire 1 0 0 0
recalculated in Table 16. Thus, the annual maintenance cost can be
Truck fire 9.994 × 10−1 4.594 × 10−4 1.411 × 10−4 0
Tanker fire 9.872 × 10−1 1.126 × 10−2 1.565 × 10−3 0 calculated as RiskF = 200 RMBs . It can be judged that
RiskF < [Con]T × 10 6 , the suggested measures can well fit the design
requirement.

12
R. Ma, et al.
4. Conclusions and discussion
Performance-based design has become a widely implemented design
concept in recent years. This research presents a basic framework of
performance-based design for bridge structures under vehicle-induced
fire accidents, as well as a typical case study to illustrate the design
process more clearly. The study fills the gap between the engineering
demands for performance-based design and the latest research findings
on bridge fire analyses. The results of the case study demonstrate that
the bridge structure can satisfy both the structural safety levels and
maintenance cost limitation after adopting the suggested fire-resistance
measures. However, several detailed definitions in the case study, such
as the probability distribution of relative parameters and the calcula-
tion method of indirect maintenance cost, should be further discussed
and determined according to the engineering characteristics in practice.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Guizhou Science and
Technology Major Project (Contract No. (2016) 3013).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109390.
References
[1] Jiang J, Usmani A. Modeling of steel frame structures in fire using OpenSees.
Comput Struct 2013;118(6):90–9.
[2] Moliner V, Espinos A, Romero ML, et al. Fire behavior of eccentrically loaded
slender high strength concrete-filled tubular columns. J Constr Steel Res
2013;83:137–46.
[3] Vrakas AA, Maraveas C. Design of concrete tunnel linings for fire safety. Struct Eng
Int 2014;24(3):319–29.
[4] Moura Correia AntóNio JP, Rodrigues JoãO Paulo C. Gomes FCT. A simplified
calculation method for fire design of steel columns with restrained thermal elon-
gation. Comput Struct 2013;116:20–34.
[5] Wang F, Wang M, Carvel R, et al. Numerical study on fire smoke movement and
control in curved road tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2017;67:1–7.
[6] Hsu WS, Huang YH, Shen TS, et al. Analysis of the Hsuehshan Tunnel Fire in
Taiwan. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2017;69:108–15.
[7] Shafee S, Yozgatligil A. An experimental study on the burning rates of interacting
fires in tunnels. Fire Saf J 2018;96:115–23.
[8] Shafee S, Yozgatligil A. An analysis of tunnel fire characteristics under the effects of
vehicular blockage and tunnel inclination. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
2018;79:274–85.
[9] Wright W, Lattimer B, Woodworth M, et al. Highway bridge fire hazard assessment
draft-guide specification for fire damage evaluation in steel bridges. USA; 2013.
[10] Ingason H, Lönnermark A. Heat release rates from heavy goods vehicle trailer fires
in tunnels. Fire Saf J 2005;40(7):646–68.
[11] Skarsbø, Roar L. An experimental study of pool fires and validation of different CFD
fire models; 2011.
[12] Alos-Moya J, Paya-Zaforteza I, Hospitaler A, et al. Valencia bridge fire tests:
Experimental study of a composite bridge under fire. J Constr Steel Res
2017;138:538–54.
[13] Alos-Moya J, Paya-Zaforteza I, Hospitaler A, et al. Valencia bridge fire tests:
Validation of simplified and advanced numerical approaches to model bridge fire
scenarios. Adv Eng Softw 2019;128:55–68.
[14] Aziz EM, Kodur VK, Glassman JD, et al. Behavior of steel bridge girders under fire
conditions. J Constr Steel Res 2015;106:11–22.
[15] Lu P, Xie X, Shao C. Experimental study and numerical analysis of a composite
bridge structure. Constr Build Mater 2012;30(none):695–705.
[16] Beneberu E, Yazdani N. Performance of CFRP-strengthened concrete bridge girders
under combined live load and hydrocarbon fire. J Bridge Eng 2018;23(7).
[17] Sloane MJD, Betti R. Heat transfer on a disk: a closed-form solution for suspension
Bridge's main cables exposed to fire. J Eng Mech 2019;145(040190043).
[18] Zwiers RI, Morgan BJ. Performance of concrete members subjected to large hy-
drocarbon pool fires. J Prestressed Concr Inst; (USA) 1989;1(1):120–35.
[19] Kevin BM, Glenn PF. Fire dynamics simulator: user's manual.US Department of
Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and
Technology; 2000.
[20] Alos-Moya J, Paya-Zaforteza I, Garlock MEM, et al. Analysis of a bridge failure due
to fire using computational fluid dynamics and finite element models. Eng Struct
13
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109390
2014;68:96–110.
[21] Christopher SB, Earl PE, Harold EA, et al. Effects of the MacArthur maze fire and
roadway collapse on a spent nuclear fuel transportation package. Richland, WA
(US): Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); 2011.
[22] Kodur V, Aziz E, Dwaikat M. Evaluating fire resistance of steel girders in bridges. J
Bridge Eng 2013;18(7):633–43.
[23] Kassem AMTAA, Hassan AF, Seddeek MM. Behavior of composite steel-concrete
girders in fire condition. In: 23th international conference on aerospace sciences &
aviation technology; 2009.
[24] Quiel SE, Yokoyama T, Bregman LS, et al. A streamlined framework for calculating
the response of steel-supported bridges to open-air tanker truck fires. Fire Saf J
2015;73:63–75.
[25] Kodur VK, Aziz EM, Naser MZ. Strategies for enhancing fire performance of steel
bridges. Eng Struct 2017;131:446–58.
[26] Moehle J, Deierlein GG. A framework methodology for performance-based earth-
quake engineering. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering; 2004. p.
3812–4.
[27] Billah AHMM, Alam MS. Performance-based seismic design of shape memory alloy-
reinforced concrete bridge piers. I: Development of performance-based damage
states. J Struct Eng 2016;142(12).
[28] Billah AHMM, Alam MS. Performance-based seismic design of shape memory alloy-
reinforced concrete bridge piers. II: Methodology and design example. J Struct Eng
2016;142(12).
[29] Marjanishvili S, Mueller K, Fayad F. Robust bridge design to blast, fire, and other
extreme threats. Bridge Struct 2017;13(2–3):93–100.
[30] Naser MZ, Kodur VKR. A probabilistic assessment for classification of bridges
against fire hazard. Fire Saf J 2015;76:65–73.
[31] Kodur VKR, Naser MZ. Importance factor for design of bridges against fire hazard.
Eng Struct 2013;54:207–20.
[32] Peris-Sayol G, Paya-Zaforteza I, Balasch-Parisi S, et al. Detailed analysis of the
causes of bridge fires and their associated damage levels. J Perform Constr Facil
2016;04016108.
[33] Kim WS, Jeoung C, Gil H, et al. Fire risk assessment for highway bridges in South
Korea. Transportation Res Rec: J Transportation Res. Board 2016;2551:137–45.
[34] Shrivastava M, Abu AK, Dhakal RP, et al. State-of-the-art of probabilistic perfor-
mance based structural fire engineering. J Struct Fire Eng 2019 (Available online).
[35] ISO, Fire-resistance tests elements of building construction, amendent 1, amend-
ment 2[S]. Geneva: ISO 834-11:2014; 2014.
[36] ASTM E119-18ce1. Standard test methods for fire tests of building construction and
materials. ASTM International; 2018.
[37] Olst DV, Bosch RVD. Behaviour of electrical cables during fire in tunnels. In: Saveur
J, editor. Proceedings of ITA world tunnel congress 2003. Amsterdam: ITA; 2003. p.
991–2.
[38] Both C, Van de Haar PW, Tan GL, et al. Evaluation of passive fire protection
measures for concrete tunnel linings. In: International conference & one day
seminar 'Tunnel fires and escape from tunnels', Lyon, France, 5-7 May, 10; 1999.
[39] Ma ML. Vehicles related fires and performance-based fire-resistant design method
of bridges. Shanghai: Tongji University; 2016.
[40] Berthellemy J, Godart B, Lucas J. Diagnosis, Assessment and repair of the mathilde
bridge close to collapse during a fire. Struct Eng Int 2015;25(3):331–8.
[41] Kodur V, Aziz E, Dwaikat M. Evaluating fire resistance of steel girders in bridges. J
Bridge Eng 2013;18(7):633–43.
[42] Giuliani L, Crosti C, Gentili F. Vulnerability of bridges to fire. Bridge maintenance,
safety, management, resilience and sustainability - proceedings of the sixth inter-
national conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management. Taylor &
Francis; 2012. p. 1565–72.
[43] The Quality and Technology Supervision Bureau. Unified standard for reliability
design of highway engineering structures. GB/T 50283-1999; 1999.
[44] MOHURD. Unified standard for reliability design of port engineering structures. GB
50158-2010; 2010.
[45] MOHURD. Unified standard for reliability deisgn of building structures. GB 50068-
2001; 2001.
[46] Gong X, Agrawal AK. Safety of cable-supported bridges during fire hazards. J Bridge
Eng 2016;04015082.
[47] MOT. Guidelines for design of highway cable-stayed bridge. JTG/T D65-01-2007;
2007.
[48] MOT. Standards for technical condition evaluation of highway bridges. JTG/T H21-
2011; 2011.
[49] Xiong GH. Safety assessment and early warning of large-span cable-stayed bridge
based on limit analysis. Heilongjiang: Harbin Institute of Technology; 2013.
[50] Gao XY. Health monitoring system design and warning threshold study of the
Second Wuhu Yangtze River Highway Bridge. Anhui: Hefei University of
Technology; 2016.
[51] Zhang L, Wei Y, Au FTK, et al. Mechanical properties of prestressing steel in and
after fire. Mag Concr Res 2017;69(8):379–88.
[52] Hill K. Verification and validation of selected fire models for nuclear power plant
applications. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications; 2006.
[53] Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China. General specifications for
design of highway bridges and culverts. JTG D60-2015; 2015.
[54] Ma ML, Ma RJ, Chen AR. Occurrence probability model of bridge fires caused by
vehicles. J South China Univ Technol 2015;43:133–40.