Structural Safety, 13 (1993) 67-81 67

Elsevier

Probabilistic load combinations for steel piers

at ultimate limit states *
Wataru Shiraki

Department of Civil Engineering, Tottori University, 101 Minami-4, Koyama, Tottori 680, Japan

Abstract. A procedure is proposed for probabilistic evaluation of load combinations and load factors for steel rigid
frame piers at ultimate limit state with collapse mechanism. Twelve structural models are selected out of the existing
expressway bridges, and four actual load components (dead, traffic, live, temperature and earthquake load) are
modeled by the Ferry-Borges and Castanheta's model (FB&C model). By numerical calculations, the reliabilities of
twelve models are evaluated, and the optimal values of load factors are determined for preselected target safety
indices.

Key words: highway bridge; steel pier; probabilistic load combination; load factors; ultimate limit state; collapse
mechanism.

1. Introduction

A structure is usually subjected to several loads which randomly vary in time and in space
during its lifetime. Therefore, probabilistic evaluation of time-varying and their combinations is
one of the most important problems for the reliability-based design of structures.
In the conventional allowable stress design method (ASDM), consideration of load combina-
tion is performed in such a rather rude manner that the individual loads are simply added up
while the corresponding allowable stress is augmented by a certain factor, based on engineering
judgement and experiences. In the load factor design method (LFDM), consideration of load
combination is made by introducing load factors which are evaluated by considering the
statistical variability of individual loads and experiences obtained in practice.
The importance of rational consideration of load combinations in structural design has been
pointed out, and a lot of studies on this theme have been performed using probabilistic
methods from the second half of the 1970's to the first half of the 1980's [1-6]. With this
situation, we have investigated the load combination analysis and reliability analysis of highway
bridge structures. In our early studies [7,8], we pointed out a shortcoming such that the safety
indices of the pier structures designed by the ASDM differ considerably from each other,

* Discussion is open until June 1994 (please submit your discussion paper to the Editor, Ross B. Corotis).

0167-4730/93/$06.00 © 1993 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

68

depending on the model type of structure. Then, having recourse to the LFDM, a procedure is
proposed to determine the optimal values of load factors for pier structures, for preselected
target safety indices, for various load combination cases. In these studies, however, the
reliability analysis of structure was performed at first yield ultimate limit state for structural
members. A real structure is a structural system which usually has more than one structural
member, and has multiple limit states such as first yield, first hinge, plastic collapse (system
collapse) etc.. The ultimate limit state of a structural system in the true sense is the plastic
collapse (system collapse) limit state.
In this study, a procedure is proposed for probabilistic evaluation of load combination and
load factors for steel rigid frame piers at plastic collapse ultimate limit state. Twelve typical
types of pier structures are selected out of the existing bridge structures on the Hanshin
(Osaka-Kobe area) Expressway in Japan. Four actual load components such as dead load (D),
traffic live load (L), temperature load (T) and earthquake load (E) are considered. The three
loads except dead load are modeled by the FB & C load process, based on observation data on
actual loads in Hanshin area. Load combination analysis is made using the Turkstra's rule and
reliability analysis is performed using the extended level 2 method [9]. In numerical calcula-
tions, the safety indices are calculated for the twelve model piers which are designed according
to both the ASDM and LFDM. The optimal values of load factors are determined to insure
consistent level of preselected target safety indices at plastic collapse ultimate limit state.

2. Modeling of pier structures

A typical type of highway bridge structural system is selected out of the existing systems on
the Hanshin Expressways as shown in Fig. 1, where the three-span continuous steel box girder
bridges are supported by the steel rigid frame piers. In this study, the transverse direction
models of pier structures are considered in analysis. Twelve type structures are modeled that
they are amenable to analysis. In modeling, the combinations of three geometrical parameters
such as the span length of superstructure L = 40, 60, 80 m, the total height of pier H = 10, 20
m, and the total width of pier W = 20, 30 m, are considered. The principal dimensions and
configurations of these twelve models are listed in Table 1 and Table 2, and demonstrated in
Figs. 1 through 3.
The wall thickness of beam and column sections, t b and t c, of these twelve piers, are
determined using both the design formats shown in Table 3 and Table 4. The design formats in
Table 3 is selected from the current Hanshin Expressway Bridge Design Standard (HEBDS)
[10] based on the ASDM. In Japan, unfortunately, we do not have any design formats codified
by the LFDM. Therefore, those in Table 4 are arrenged according to the Ontario Highway
Bridge Design Code (OHBDC) [11] and National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) [12] based
on the LFDM. In Tables 3 and 4, D , , , Ln, Tn, E n = the nominal value of each load component
D, L, T and E, respectively, which are specified by the current HEBDS; a o , a L, a T,
a E = factors which convert each load component into corresponding stress level; ~ = the
augmentation factor of the allowable stress O'a; YD, YL, 3'T, YE = load factors of each load
component D, L, T and E, respectively; ~0 = load combination factor; "q = importance factor of
structure; 4' = resistance factor; and R = ultimate strength of member. In this study r / = 1.00,
4' = 0.90, YD = 1.25, YL = YE = 1.50 and YT = 1.25 are used for all design formsts (from Code 1
to Code 7), and ~O= 1.00 for Code 1, 2 and 4, ~0= 0.70 for Code 3, 5 and 6, and ~0 = 0.60 for
 69

L L

a a

Longitudinal Direction Model

Ib

C C
D

W
-I
Transverse Oirection Model
Fig. 1. Rigid frame pier supporting three-span continuous box girder bridge.

Code 7 are used. In design caluculations, four checking points 1 through 4 (see Fig. 3) are
considered, and each two diferent wall thickness tb, t~, for b e a m and tc, t" for column (see Fig.
4), respectively, are taken as design variables. The results of design calculation are summarized
in Tables 5 and 6.
The characteristics of steel material used are as follows: the grade of steel = SM50Y; the
allowable stress o"a = 214 MPa; the yield stress O-y= 367 MPa, the Young's modulus E D = 2.06
GPa, the linear coefficient of expansion a -- 12 MK-1; the unit weight p = 77 k N / m 3.
70

TABLE 1
Twelve models of rigid frame piers with non-compact sections (unit:m)
Model no. L H W h l a b c
1 40.0 10.0 20.0 9.17 18.5 2.00 1.67 1.5
2 40.0 10.0 30.0 8.75 28.0 2.00 2.50 2.0
3 40.0 20.0 20.0 19.17 18.0 2.00 1.67 2.0
4 40.0 20.0 30.0 18.75 27.5 2.00 2.50 2.5
5 60.0 10.0 20.0 9.17 18.5 3.00 1.67 1.5
6 60.0 10.0 30.0 8.75 28.0 3.00 2.50 2.0
7 60.0 20,0 20.0 19.17 18.0 3.00 1.67 2.0
8 60.0 20.0 30.0 18,75 27.5 3.00 2.50 2.5
9 80.0 10.0 20.0 9.17 18.5 4.00 1.67 1.5
10 80.0 10,0 30.0 8.75 28.0 4.00 2.50 2.0
11 80.0 20.0 20.0 19.17 18.0 4.00 1.67 2.0
12 80.0 20.0 30.0 18.75 27.5 4.00 2.50 2.5

Using the model pier structures thus determined, load combination and reliability analysis
are carried out in the following sections.

3. Modeling of actual load components

Based on the historical data on earthquake in Hanshin area, the actual earthquake load E is
modeled by the limiting spike type of FB & C load model. In the same manner, the actual live
load L and the actual temperature load T are modeled by the mixed type of F B & C load
model. The actual dead load is assumed to be deterministic. Based on extensive investigation
on actual conditions of various loads acting on urban expressway bridges [13,14], the character-
istics of the FB & C process of each load component are determined as follows.

TABLE 2
Twelve models of rigid frame piers with compact sections (unit:m)
Model no. L H W h l a b c
1 40.0 10.0 20.0 9.33 18.8 1.60 1.33 1.2
2 40.0 10.0 30.0 9.00 28.4 1.60 2.00 1.6
3 40.0 20.0 20.0 19.33 18.4 1.60 1.33 1.6
4 40.0 20.0 30.0 19.00 28.0 1.60 2.00 2.0
5 60.0 10.0 20.0 9.33 18.8 24.0 1.33 1.2
6 60.0 10.0 30.0 9.00 28.4 24.0 2.00 1.6
7 60.0 20.0 20.0 19.33 18.4 24.0 1.33 1.6
8 60.0 20.0 30.0 19.00 28.0 24.0 2.00 2.0
9 80.0 10.0 20.0 9.33 18.8 32.0 1.33 1.2
10 80.0 10.0 30.0 9.00 28.4 32.0 2.00 1.6
11 80.0 20.0 20.0 19.33 18.4 32.0 1.33 1.6
12 80.0 20.0 30.0 19.00 28.0 32.0 2.00 2.0
 71

f j j r f f ' ~ /

X •X

t o

IZ
e

Column Section

/ / / / f f f f f///.~,,,
/ T /
/ /

Z _ _
I
L
Z .O
f /
/
t~ / _ /
/
/
/
t" f f / / / / eJ / 2'//~'/
IY
a

Beam Section
Fig. 2. Cross-section of rigid frame pier.

TABLE 3
Design formats for the A S D M
Code D e s i g n f o r m a t s for A S D M

1 OtD'Dn + a L ' L n ~< b~'O'a 1.00

2 O/D'D n + O~L'L n + O/T "Tn ~< ~: "o"a 1.15
3 aD'D n + a E ' E n ~< ~:'¢ra 1.50
4 aD'D n + a T ' T n + a E ' E n ~ ~'~r a 1.70
72

3 4
-(3 O

C) :checking points

Fig. 3. Analytical model for transverse direction.

3. 1. Earthquake load, E
Actual e a r t h q u a k e load is m o d e l e d as E = SA/g, w h e r e S A = linear acceleration r e s p o n s e
spectrum; and g = acceleration of gravity. The cumulative distribution function ( C D F ) of S A is
expressed as
for natural f r e q u e n c y of structure = 0.5 sec
FSA( x ) = 1 -- exp[ -- {(x -- 41.28)/34.24}°931], 41.28 < x
for natural f r e q u e n c y of structure = 0.7 sec
FsA(X ) = 1 -- e x p [ - {(x - 25.88)/26.12}°'879], 25.88 < x (1)
for natural f r e q u e n c y of structure = 1.0 sec
FsA(X ) = 1 -- e x p [ - { ( x - - 17.19)/18.05}°8s°], 17.19 < x
(unit : c m / s e c 2 )

TABLE 4
Design formats for the LFDM
Code Design formats for LFDM
YD"D. + ,/" ~t (')t L" L n) ~<~b. R
TD" Dn + ~'/•~b('yT"Tn) ~<q~"R
"YD'Dn + "q" ~(TL'Ln + "yT"Tn)x< ~ ' R
"YD"Dn + ~/" ~/(]/E 'En) ~<~b"R
TD'Dn + 1"/"@('YL" Ln + "YE'En ) ~<~b"R
TD'Dn + "r/'@(TT-Tn + TE'En)~< ~b'R
TD'Dn + "q'@(YL'Ln +"/T'Tn + YE'En) ~<~b'R
 73

1/4

tb'
1/2

0
4
I
l/4

t
I
2
¢',1

to'

to
r-,

Fig. 4. Pier structure with non-uniform wall thickness.

In evaluation of eqn. (1), the occurrence of earthquake is assumed to be Poisson process, and
its average return period is considered to be greater than 2 years. Furthermore, it is assumed
that the magnitude is greater than 5.0, the ground condition is Grade 2 and the damping ratio
of structure is 0.05. The uncertainty of attenuation law is not considered.

TABLE 5
Results of design calculation according to the ASDM

Model Column Beam Pier

no. weight
Checking point 1 Checking point 2 Checking point 3 Checking point 4 (kN)
Code no. t c (mm) Code no. t~ (mm) Code no. t b (mm) Code no. t~ (mm)
1 2 16.9 1 28.6 1 22.3 1 13.6 5.08
2 2 26.2 1 38.8 1 28.6 1 21.9 10.33
3 3 16.4 1 18.8 1 19.0 1 12.5 7.10
4 3 15.3 1 25.4 1 22.7 1 22.2 11.80
5 2 18.5 1 31.0 1 24.2 1 14.8 7.07
6 2 28.9 1 42.6 1 32.0 1 24.5 14.17
7 3 18.7 1 21.1 1 20.7 1 13.4 9.97
8 3 17.7 1 28.7 1 25.4 1 24.5 16.26
9 2 20.0 1 33.3 1 26.0 1 15.9 9.28
10 2 31.4 1 46.0 1 34.9 1 26.8 18.37
11 3 20.7 1 23.0 1 22.5 1 14.3 13.14
12 3 19.8 1 31.5 1 27.7 1 26.6 21.10
74

TABLE 6
Results of design calculation according to the LFDM
Model Column Beam Pier
no. weight
Checking point 1 Checking point 2 Checking point 3 Checking point 4 (kN)
Code no. t c (mm) Code no. t c (mm) Code no. t b (mm) Code no. t~, (mm)
1 5 36.2 5 43.0 5 35.5 1 16.9 6.59
2 7 36.1 5 49.2 5 36.4 1 25.9 10.59
3 4 39.2 5 36.6 5 42.5 1 17.1 11.80
4 7 34.3 5 40.4 5 38.3 1 26.6 15.77
5 4 40.4 5 47.6 5 39.6 1 18.7 9.40
6 4 41.2 5 55.6 5 42.1 1 29.7 14.99
7 4 45.6 5 41.6 5 47.2 1 18.7 16.92
8 4 40.6 5 46.6 5 44.1 1 30.3 22.36
9 4 44.7 5 51.7 5 43.1 1 20.2 12.53
10 7 44.5 5 61.1 5 46.9 1 33.0 19.80
11 4 51.1 5 45.8 4 51.7 1 20.1 22.56
12 4 46.0 5 52.0 5 49.0 1 33.4 29.57

3.2. Dead load, D

As d e a d load D , only the own w e i g h t o f s t r u c t u r e is c o n s i d e r e d and it is a s s u m e d to be

deterministic. T o take its variability into c o n s i d e r a t i o n , h o w e v e r , the design v a l u e o f D is
c a l c u l a t e d by the f o r m u l a D = D ' (1 + 8), w h e r e D ' = actual w e i g h t o f the s t r u c t u r e c a l c u l a t e d
o n the basis o f the unit w e i g h t o f the m a t e r i a l a n d the v o l u m e o f the m e m b e r s ; a n d 6 = 0.05 for
the s u p e r s t r u c t u r e , 0.10 for p i e r s t r u c t u r e .

3.3. Live load, L

T h e actual live load is m o d e l e d as the s u p p o r t r e a c t i o n o n the piers by using the M o n t e - C a r l o

s i m u l a t i o n t e c h n i q u e . T h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f o c c u r r e n c e , p , a n d the basic time intervals ~'L, are
t a k e n as 0.75 a n d 6 hours, respectively, for daily traffic state. G i v e n t h a t the load o c c u r s the
C D F o f its a m p l i t u d e , F ~ ( x ) , is e x p r e s s e d as
F*(x) = 1- exp[-(x/5.758)2342], ( x > 0: u n i t : k N ) (2)

T h i s C D F is e v a l u a t e d for two s u p p o r t s o n t h e pier.

3.4. Temperature load, T

A c t u a l t e m p e r a t u r e load is m o d e l e d as the t e m p e r a t u r e d i f f e r e n c e such t h a t actual t e m p e r a -

t u r e o f s t r u c t u r e minus 15°C. T h e p a r a m e t e r s p and 7 x are t a k e n as 0.75 a n d 6 hours,
respectively, for daily t e m p e r a t u r e . T h e C D F o f the t e m p e r a t u r e d i f f e r e n c e , F ~ ( x ) , is
e x p r e s e d as
F T * ( x ) = 0.5 + 0 . 5 ~ { ( x - 1 3 . 2 ) / 4 . 4 } , ( x > 0: unit: °C) (3)
T h e distributions o f t h r e e loads E, L a n d T m o d e l e d above are all the a r b i t r a r y - p o i n t - i n - t i m e
distributions.
 75

4. Load combination analysis and reliability analysis

The load combination analysis and reliability analysis of the model pier structures under
combined of the four load components are well performed using the Turkstra's rule in
connection with the F B & C and the extended level 2 reliability method [7-9]. In load
combination analysis seven combination cases of actual load components shown in Table 7 are
considered, and in reliability analysis plastic collapse is formulated as the ultimate limit state.
In formulation of plastic collapse limit state it is assumed that the order of occurrence of
plastic hinge is neglected, that is, plastic collapse mechanism is formed instantaneously. Based
on the first-order plastic collapse analysis, the limit state functions are evaluated for several

5 6 7 8 9 10
•- 0 O3 (3(3 O-
11

12
3

13

1 14
.q
T
Fig. 5. Location of occurrence of plastic hinge.

TABLE 7
Combination cases of actual load component

Case Actual load combination

1 D+L
2 D+T
3 D+L+T
4 D+E
5 D+L+E
6 D+T+E
7 D+L+T+E
76
l "(3"Wb3+Wb4)/16 l "(Wb~+3"Wb,)/8 l "(3"Wb3÷Wb4)/16

2"(RD÷RL)'K~ I "(Wbs÷Wb4)°K~/2ffh "wCz'KJ4

l .(w~s÷wb4)'K./2
÷h'woz'Kh/4

h'(wo~wc2)'Kh/4 h'(W~l+W~2)'K~/4

h'(wo,+wc2)'K,/4 "~ h'(wc,+w~z). Kh/4 ~

Fig. 6. Loading conditions for evaluation of plastic collapse mechanism.

important collapse modes. The locations of occurrence of plastic hinge and the loading
conditions for evaluation of plastic collapse mechanism are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6,
respectively. In Fig. 6 Wci and Wbi (i = 1, 2, 3 and 4) are the self-weight of column and beam
member, respectively; R D and R L are the support reaction due to dead load and traffic live
load on supper structure, respectively; and K h is the seismic coefficient for horizontal
direction.
The general expression of the limit state function M i for collapse mechanism i is given as

M i =Mpb " 0 b -'~-Mpc " 0 c - - (A T " T + A w " D + A D " R D + A L "R E + A E "E) (4)

where Mpb and Mpc = the fully plastic m o m e n t capacities of the beam and column section,
respectively; 0 b and 0c = the rotations of plastic hinge in the beam and column, respectively;
and AT, Aw, AD, A k and A E = factors which convert each load component such as tempera-
ture load, self-weight of beam, support reaction of dead load, traffic live load on super
structure and earthquake load into corresponding work.
The reliability indices /3i for the plastic collapse ultimate limit state function given by eqn.
(4) can then be calculated by the extended level 2 reliability m e t h o d [9]. For the load
combination Case 7, the safety index /3 was calculated for each of the twelve model piers
shown in Table 2 and Table 6. In numerical calculations, 50 years was taken as the lifetime of
pier structure. The result is shown by dotted line in Fig. 7. The solid line in Fig. 7 is a result
which was calculated for model structures shown in Table 1 and Table 5. In this case the limit
 77
12

10

f ~LFI}Ii for plasticj~__

tc°llapse~f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~N
6 -
/

4 -

2 -

I I | I I I I I I I I I
i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 II 12
ModelNumber
Fig. 7. Safety indices of twelve pier structures for load combination Case 7.

state function was formulated for first yield at four checking points 1, 2, 3 and 4 shown in Fig. 3
or Fig. 4. The minimum value among the safety indices for these four checking points was
considered to be the safety index of the pier structures.
It is seen from Fig. 7 that the safety indices of twelve piers designed by the L F D M denote
rather large fl values such as/3 = 4.5 to 6.5 in comparison with those of designed by the A S D M
such as from /3 = 1.0 to 4.0. This is caused by the difference between the formulations of
ultimate limit states in the A S D M and LFDM. The dispersion of /3 in plastic collapse limit
state is not so much as that in first yield, but t h e / 3 values considerably differ from depending
on the model type of structure. With respect to the models Nos. 2, 6 and 10, where the
earthquake load is not dominant, they have very large values of/3.

5. Probabilistic evaluation of load factors for pier structures

In this study, optimal load factors for pier structures subjected to various loads are calculated
for a target safety index/3 r preselected for the plastic collapse ultimate limit state. The basic
idea for determining the load factors is to make the structures have the same target safety
index.
Table 8 lists seven formats of load factor design method used in this study. In this table 7D,
7L, 7T, ~/E = the load factors for load components D, L, T and E, respectively, whose values
should be determined; aD, aL, aT, a E = factors which convert each load component into
corresponding stress level; D,, Ln, Tn, E n -- the nominal value of each load component which is
specified in the current HEBDS; or* = ultimate strength of member; and ~b = resistance factor
(0.9 is assumed in this case).
The calculation of optimal load factors has been carried out iteratively by a numerical search
method according to the following procedure:
78

TABLE 8
Load factor design formats
Code Load factor design format
TD'aD'Dn -k "yL'OCL'Ln~ •'Or*
TD'aD'Dn + ")IT'O~T'Tn~ t~'O'*
TD'aD'Dn + TL'aL'Ln + ")IT'OtT'Tn~<~'or*
Yo'ao'Dn + yE'C~E'En~<~b"or*
TD'aD'Dn + TL'aL'Ln + "yE'aE'En ~<q~'O'*
YD'Oto'Dn + TT'aT 'T. + TE'aE'En ~<q~"O'*
"YD'OtD'Dn q- yL'aL'Ln + •T'aT ' T n + TE'teE'En ~<q~'O'*

Step 1: A target safety index /3T is preselected.

Step 2: For a load combination case u n d e r consideration, take out the corresponding design
format from Table 8, and guess adequately values of a set of load factors.
Step 3: Using the design format with a set of load factors guessed in Step 2 cross-sections of
members of the model pier structure i (i = 1, 2 , . . . , m: m = n u m b e r of structure) are
determined.
Step 4: For the pier structure i thus designed, the safety index/3 i in plastic collapse limit state
is calculated, u n d e r the action of the corresponding actual load combinations.
Step 5: Calculate the objective function 12 defined by
m
a= E 2 (5)
1=l
Step 6: R e p e a t through Step 2 and 5 until 1~ becomes m i n i m u m (O~/OYD = 0YI/0YL = OY~/OYT
---- af~/~y E = 0), by rechoosing (variating) a set of load factor values for each iteration.

According to this optimization procedure, numerical calculations were carried out. In

numerical calculations, the target safety index fiT w a s taken as 5.0 based on results shown in
Fig. 7.

TABLE 9
Load factors for Code 4 (D + E)
L ~T "YD 'YE
40 m 5.0 0.85 4.47
60 m 5.0 0.90 4.15
80 m 5.0 0.89 4.20

TABLE 10
Load factors for Code 5 (D + L + E)
L fiT ~/D 'YL "YE
40 m 5.0 0.85 0.05 3.05
60 m 5.0 0.80 0.21 3.12
80 m 5.0 0.79 0.19 3.38
 79

TABLE 11
Load factors for Code 6 (D + T + E )

L /3T '~D ')IT "YE

40 m 5.0 0.75 0.90 3.65
60 m 5.0 0.85 0.05 3.09
80 m 5.0 0.74 0.68 3.70

TABLE 12
Load factors for Code 7 (D + L + T + E )

L fit "YD "YL YT TE

40 m 5.0 0.85 0.07 0.08 3.15
60 m 5.0 0.93 0.04 0.16 2.75
80 m 5.0 0.88 0.09 0.07 2.89

TABLE 13
Results of design calculation according to optimal load factor design formats for/3 T = 5.0 and L = 40 m

Model Column Beam Pier

no. weight
Checking point 1 Checking point 2 Checking point 3 Checking point 4 (kN)
Code no. t c (mm) Code no. t~ (mm) Code no. t b (mm) Code no. t~ (mm)
1 7 41.2 7 33.8 7 29.4 7 7.7 5.60
2 7 33.4 7 33.8 7 26.1 7 12.4 7.37
3 7 50.7 7 36.1 7 44.3 7 7.1 12.62
4 7 40.6 7 34.1 7 33.6 7 11.7 13.92
Total 39.51

TABLE 14
Results of design calculation according to optimal load factor design formats for/3 T = 5.0 and L = 60 m

Model Column Beam Pier

no. weight
Checking point 1 Checking point 2 Checking point 3 Checking point 4 (kN)
Code no. t¢ (mm) Code no. t c (mm) Code no. t b (mm) Code no. t~, (mm)
5 7 45.3 7 39.2 7 34.1 7 9.6 8.23
6 7 38.3 7 40.8 7 32.0 7 16.0 11.05
7 7 56.1 7 41.6 7 49.7 7 8.8 17.92
8 7 46.4 7 40.8 7 39.9 7 15.1 20.13
Total 57.33

S e v e r a l c a l c u l a t i o n r e s u l t s f o r l o a d f a c t o r s a r e s h o w n i n T a b l e s 9 t h r o u g h 12.. F o r t h e c o d e s 4
t h r o u g h 7, i n w h i c h e a r t h q u a k e l o a d E is i n c l u d e d . T h e l o a d f a c t o r s YL a n d 7"r t a k e s m a l l
values less than unity. It may be attributed that the nominal values L, and T, in the current
H E B D S is o v e r e s t i m a t e d w h e n e a r t h q u a k e is c o n s i d e r e d i n l o a d c o m b i n a t i o n s .
80

TABLE 15
Results of design calculation according to optimal load factor design formats for/3 T = 5.0 and L = 80 m

Model Column Beam Pier

no. weight
Checking point 1 Checking point 2 Checking point 3 Checking point 4 (kN)
Code no. t c (mm) Code no. t~ (mm) Code no. t b (mm) Code no. t~, (mm)
9 7 50.0 7 42.6 7 37.4 7 10.2 10.99
10 7 42.6 7 44.6 7 35.6 7 17.5 14.55
11 7 63.3 7 46.3 7 54.8 7 9.4 24.11
12 7 52.6 7 45.6 7 44.7 7 16.4 26.70
Total 76.35

Tables 13, 14 and 15 show the results of design calculation using the optimal load factor
design formats obtained in this study for the span length of superstructure L = 40, 60 and 80 m,
respectively. With respect to the pier weight of each model in Tables 13, 14 and 15, it is smaller
than that of in Table 6 except the model numbers 3, 7 and 11.

6. Summary and conclusions

A probabilistic evaluation of load factors for steel rigid frame piers supporting three-span
continuous box girder bridge is performed at plastic collapse ultimate limit state using the
Turkstra's rule and extended level 2 reliability method. The main results of the analysis are as
follows:
(1) Safety indices of twelve typical types of pier structures were calculated at the plastic
collapse ultimate limit state. These values turned out to be 4.5 to 6.5.
(2) The optimal load factors corresponding to the seven formats were calculated for the target
safety index/3 T = 5.0 at the plastic collapse ultimate limit state.
(3) The design calculations were performed using the optimal load factor design formats
obtained above, and compared with results according to the current design code.

Acknowledgments

This study was made possible by the use of the observed data offered by the Committee on
Design Loads, Hanshin Expressway Public Corporation. The author is thankful to the Commit-
tee for kindness and corporation.

References
1 C.J. Turkstra and O. Madsen, Load combinations in codified structural design, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 106 (ST12)
(Dec. 1980) 2527-2543.
2 R.D. Larrabee and C.A. Cornell, Combination of various load processes, J. Struct. Die., ASCE, 107 (ST1) (Jan.
1981) 223-239.
3 T.V. Galambos, B. Ellingwood, J.G. MacGregor and C.A. Cornell, Probability based load criteria: assessment of
current design practice, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 108 (ST5) (May 1982) 959-977.
 81

4 B. Ellingwood, J.G. MacGregor, T.V. Galambos and C.A. Cornell, Probability based load criteria: load factors
and load combinations, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 108 (ST5) (May 1982) 978-997.
5 B. Ellingwood, Probability-based criteria for structural design, Structural Safety, 1 (1) (1982) 15-26.
6 A.S. Nowak, Risk analysis for code calibration, Structural Safety 1 (4) (1983) 289-304.
7 W. Shiraki, S. Matsuho and N. Takaoka, Load combination analysis and reliability analysis of steel rigid-frame
piers supporting bridges constructed on urban expressway network, Proc. 5th ICASP, Vancouver, Canada, 1987,
pp. 206-213.
8 W. Shiraki, S. Matsuho and P.N. Takaoka, Probabilistic evaluation of load factors for steel rigid-frame piers on
urban expressway network, Proc. 5th ICOSSAR, San Francisco, USA, 1989, pp. 1987-1994.
9 P.T. Christensen and M.J. Baker, Structural Reliability and its Applications, Springer, Berlin, 1982.
10 Hansin Expressway Public Corporation, Design standards (II), 1980 (in Japanese).
11 Ministry of Transportation and Communication, Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, Toronto, 1983.
12 Canadian Standard Association, Steel structures for building-limit state design, CAN-S16, 1-M78.
13 Committee on Hanshin Expressway' Design Load Development (HDL), Study on the design load system for
Hanshin expressway, Hanshin Expressway Public Corporation, Dec. 1986 (in Japanese).
14 I. Konishi, H. Kameda, K. Matsuhashi, S. Emi and M. Kitazawa, Safety assessment of urban expressway bridge
based on probabilistic modeling of multiple load environment, Structural Safety, 7 (1) (1990) 33-55. •