Bridge collapse frequencies versus failure probabilities

129 Pages·2018·3.478 MB·English

by  Proske, Dirk

Risk Engineering
Dirk Proske
Bridge Collapse
Frequencies
versus Failure
Probabilities
Risk Engineering
Series editor
Dirk Proske, Vienna, Austria
The Springer Book Series Risk Engineering can be considered as a starting point,
looking from different views at Risks in Science, Engineering and Society. The
bookseriespublishesintenseanddetaileddiscussionsofthevarioustypesofrisks,
causalities and risk assessment procedures.
Although the book series is rooted in engineering, it goes beyond the thematic
limitation,sincedecisions related torisksareneverbased ontechnicalinformation
alone. Therefore issues of “perceived safety and security” or “risk judgment” are
compulsory when discussing technical risks, natural hazards, (environmental)
health and social risks. One may argue that social risks are not related to technical
risks, however it is well known that social risks are the highest risks for humans
and are therefore immanent in all risk trade-offs.The book seriestries to cover the
discussion of all aspects of risks, hereby crossing the borders of scientific areas.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11582
Dirk Proske
Bridge Collapse Frequencies
versus Failure Probabilities
With 29 Tables and 90 Figures
123
DirkProske
University of Natural Resourcesand
LifeSciences
Vienna
Austria
ISSN 2195-433X ISSN 2195-4348 (electronic)
Risk Engineering
ISBN978-3-319-73832-1 ISBN978-3-319-73833-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73833-8
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017963976
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG,partofSpringerNature2018
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringer
InternationalPublishingAGpartofSpringerNature
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
For Beatrix and Rolf
Contents
1 Objective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Terms and Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Definition of the Term “Bridge” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Definition of the Term “Collapse” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 Definition of the Term “Cause”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5 Definition of the Term “Bridge Collapse Frequency” . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6 Definition of the Term “Failure Probability”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4 Categorization of Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2 Structural Systems of Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Construction Material of Bridges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4 Construction Method of Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.5 Age Distribution of Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5 Measures of Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2 Probability of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2.1 Unconditional Probability of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2.2 Conditional Probability of Failure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
vii
viii Contents
5.3 Risk Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3.2 Mortality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.3 Fatal Accident Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.4 F-N-Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.3.5 Lost Life Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.4 Target Probability of Failure Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.5 Correction of Probability of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.5.2 Correlation Consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.5.3 Human Error Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.5.4 Structural Determinacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.5.5 Maintenance and Deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.5.6 Actual Loads and New Loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.5.7 Structural Probabilities of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6 Collapse Frequencies of Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.2 Data Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.3 Number of Bridges Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.4 Collapse Frequency of Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.5 Time-Dependency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.6 Causes of Damages and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.6.2 Bridge Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.6.3 Bridge Collapse Fluctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.6.4 Bridge Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.6.5 Bridge Structural System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.6.6 Bridge Age Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.7 Prediction of Future Collapse Frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.8 Comparison of Target Values and Failure Probabilities. . . . . . . . 104
6.9 Further Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.10 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Index .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 125
Chapter 1
Objective
Probably more than a billion structures exist on earth including several million
bridges.Thesuccessofthetechnicalproduct“structures”isnotonlybasedonthe
gained large improvement of the quality of life for humans including protection
againstenvironmentalhazardsandconditionsandsecurity,itisalsostronglyrelated
totheoutstandingsafetyofthestructuresitself.
Structuresareprobablyoneoftheearliesttechnicalproductsproducedbymankind
(Figs.1.1and1.2).ThecodeofHammurabibyimposingharshpunishmenttobuilders
of collapsing structures shows that the safety of structures has been an important
issuesincethousandsofyears.Thetoolstoensureandprovideasufficientsafetyof
structureshaveevolvedoverthistime,forarchbridgesseeProskeandvanGelder
(2009).
Todaythereexistdifferentnumericalparameterstoevaluatethesafetyofstruc-
tures.Oneoftheseparametersisthe“probabilityoffailure”ofastructure.Theterm
probabilityoffailureandfailureprobabilityofstructuresrespectivelycanbefound
inalargenumberofscientificpublications,booksorcodesofpractice.Thecomputa-
tionoftheprobabilityoffailureofstructures,andspecificallybridges,isperhapsnot
dailybusiness,butstate-of-the-artandhasbeencarriedoutinnumerouscases[just
seetheconferenceproceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceonStructuralSafety
& Reliability (ICOSSAR), International Conference on Applications of Statistics
andProbabilityinCivilEngineering(ICASP),EuropeanSafetyandReliabilityCon-
ference(ESREL)andInternationalProbabilisticWorkshopseries(IPW)].Ifwehave
computedtheprobabilityoffailureinsomanycasesweshouldbeabletocompare
thesetheoreticalvalueswiththeobservation,thecollapsefrequency.
However, such comparisons of the probability of failure with the frequency of
collapse are not common in structural engineering, they do not exist for bridges.
In many codes and books it is argued that these two parameters can not directly
becomparedduetotheirindividuallimitations.Thisargumentissurprisingsincein
otherindustriessuchastheNuclearPowerIndustrysuchcomparisonsarecarriedout
(Proske2016)andareoftenanissueofpublicdiscussionrelatedtothequalityofthe
models.Evenfurther,ourmodelsshouldalwaysbecomparabletorealityandtoreal
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG,partofSpringerNature2018 1
D.Proske,BridgeCollapseFrequenciesversusFailureProbabilities,RiskEngineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73833-8_1
2 1 Objective
Fig.1.1 Reconstruction of a typical pile dwelling around 4000 B.C in Switzerland (Seengen)
(PictureD.Proske)
Fig.1.2 Gizapyramidcomplexbuildaround2500B.C.(PictureD.Proske)
worldobservationsrespectivelywhichwouldinourcasebethefrequencyofcollapse.
If our models are neither based, nor compared nor confirmed by observations, we
developmodelsandparameterswhichareneitherusefulnorverifiable.Wehaveto