Simplified probabilistic non-linear assessment of existing railway bridges

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Volumn 5, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 439-453

  Wisniewski, Dawid F ^a   Casas, Joan R ^b   Ghosn, Michel ^c  

^a Tunnel and Marine Structures ^*  (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^c CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Capacity assessment; Existing bridges; Non linear analysis; Safety formats; System capacity

Indexed keywords

BRIDGE SYSTEMS; CAPACITY ASSESSMENT; EUROPEAN COMMISSION; EXISTING BRIDGE; EXISTING RAILWAY; LOAD CAPACITY; NON-LINEAR; SIMPLIFIED METHOD; STRUCTURAL SAFETY; SUSTAINABLE BRIDGES; SYSTEM CAPACITY; TRAFFIC DEMANDS;

BINARY CODES; RAILROAD BRIDGES; RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION; RAILROADS; SAFETY ENGINEERING;

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 70449672635     PISSN: 15732479     EISSN: 17448980     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15732470701639906     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bell, B., 2004. European railway bridge demography. Background document, SB1. 2, Sustainable Bridges, VI Framework program, Brussels.
2. Bridge Management in Europe (BRIME), 2001. Guidelines for assessing load carrying capacity. Brussels: BRIME, Deliverable D10, IV Framework program. Available online from: http://www.trl.co.uk/brime [Accessed 2007].
3. Casas, J.R., 1999. Evaluation of existing concrete bridges in Spain. ACI concrete international, 21 (8), 48-53.
4. Casas, J.R., 2000. Permit vehicle routing using reliability-based evaluation procedures. Transportation research record, 1696 (2), 150-157.
5. Casas, J.R., 2007. Probabilistic modelling. Background document, SB4. 4. 2, Sustainable Bridges, VI Framework program, Brussels.
6. Casas, J.R., Wisniewski, D. F. and Cervenka, J., 2007. Safety formats and required safety levels. Background document, SB4. 4. 3, Sustainable Bridges, VI ramework program, Brussels.
7. COST345, 2004. Procedures required for assessing highway structures - numerical techniques for safety and serviceability assessment. Brussels: European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research, Action 345. Available online from: http://cost345. zag. si [accessed 2007].
8. Deng, J., Gu, D., Li, X. and Qi Yue, Z., 2005. Structural reliabilityanalysis for implicit performance functions using artificial neural network. Structural safety, 27, 25-48.
9. Eamon, C.D., Thompson, M. and Liu, Z., 2005. Evaluation of accuracy and efficiency of some simulation and sampling methods in structural reliability analysis. Structural safety, 27, 356-392.
10. Enevoldsen, I., 2001. Experience with probabilistic-based assessment of bridges. Structural engineering international, 11 (4), 251-260.
11. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2003. Design of concrete structures: prEN 1992-1-1: part 1: general rules and rules for buildings, EC2.
12. Ghosn, M. and Moses, F., 1998. Redundancy in highway bridge superstructures. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report No. 406.
13. Haldar, A. and Mahadevan, S., 2000. Reliability assessment using stochastic finite element analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
14. Henriques, A.A., 1998. Application of new safety concepts in the design of structural concrete. Thesis (PhD). Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto (in Portuguese).
15. Highways Agency, Department of Transport, 1998. The management of sub-standard highway structures, design manual for roads and bridges. London: Highways Agency, Department of Transport, BA79/98, 3 (4).
16. Joint Committee of Structural Safety (JCSS), 2001a. Probabilistic assessment of existing structures. JCSS, RILEM Publications S.A.R.L.
17. Joint Committee of Structural Safety (JCSS), 2001b. Probabilistic model code, 12th ed. JCSS. Available online from: http://www. jcss. ethz. ch [accessed 2007].
18. Kaymaz, I., 2005. Application of kriging method to structural reliability problems. Structural Safety, 27,133-151.
19. Lauridsen, J., 2004. Bridge owner's benefits from probabilistic approaches - experiences and future challenges. In: E. Watanabe, D. M. Frangopol and T. Utsunomiya, eds. Bridge maintenance, safety, management and cost, Proceedings of IABMAS'04. [CD-ROM]. Rotterdam: Balkema.
20. Melchers, R.E., 1999. Structural reliability - analysis and prediction. John Wiley & Sons.
21. Nowak, A.S. and Collins, K.R., 2000. Reliability of structures. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
22. Rajashekhar, M.R. and Ellingwood, B. R., 1993. A new look at the response approach for reliability analysis. Structural safety, 12, 205-220.
23. SAMARIS, 2006. State of the art report on assessment of structures in selected EEA and CE countries. Brussels: SAMARIS, Deliverable D19, Sustainable and advanced materials for road infrastructures, V Framework program. Available online from: http://samaris.zag.si [accessed 2007].
24. SB-LRA, 2007. Guideline for load and resistance assessment of existing European railway bridges. Brussels: SB-LRA, Sustainable Bridges, VI Framework program.
25. Schneider, J., 1997. Introduction to safety and reliability of structures. Zurich: IABSE.
26. Schueremans, L. and Van Gemert, D., 2005. Benefit of splines and neural networks in simulation based structural reliability analysis. Structural safety, 27, 246-261.
27. Sobrino, J.A. and Casas, J.R., 1994. Random system response of reinforced and prestressed concrete bridges. In: Schueller, Shinozuka and Yao, eds. Proceedings of ICOSSAR'93, international conference on structural safety and reliability. Rotterdam: Balkema, 985-988.
28. Waarts, P.H., 2000. Structural reliability using finite element analysis. Delft: Delft University Press.
29. Wang, J. and Ghosn, M., 2005. Linkage-shredding genetic algorithm for reliability assessment of structural systems. Structural safety, 27, 49-72.