Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Vol.12, No.


Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2013) 12: 241-250 DOI: 10.1007/s11803-013-0167-z

Bridge pier failure probabilities under combined hazard effects of

scour, truck and earthquake. Part II: failure probabilities

Zach Liang1 and George C. Lee2

1. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Unidersity at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
2. Depart of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA

Abstract: In many regions of the world, a bridge will experience multiple extreme hazards during its expected service
life. The current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) load and resistance
factor design (LRFD) specifications are formulated based on failure probabilities, which are fully calibrated for dead load
and non-extreme live loads. Design against earthquake load effect is established separately. Design against scour effect is
also formulated separately by using the concept of capacity reduction (or increased scour depth). Furthermore, scour effect
cannot be linked directly to an LRFD limit state equation because the latter is formulated using force-based analysis. This
paper (in two parts) presents a probability-based procedure to estimate the combined hazard effects on bridges due to truck,
earthquake and scour, by treating the effect of scour as an equivalent load effect so that it can be included in reliability-based
failure calculations. In Part I of this series, the general principle for treating the scour depth as an equivalent load effect is
presented. In Part II, the corresponding bridge failure probability, the occurrence of scour as well as simultaneously having
both truck load and equivalent scour load effect are quantitatively discussed. The key formulae of the conditional partial
failure probabilities and the necessary conditions are established. In order to illustrate the methodology, an example of dead,
truck, earthquake and scour effects on a simple bridge pile foundation is represented.

Keywords: multi-hazards; load and resistance factor design; bridge scour

1 Introduction The scour depth is considered as a function of

the reduction of the change in resistance R, which is
1.1 Objectives calculated for the case without scour. The specific
function should be established in terms of the types of
The basic formula of bridge failure probability is scours and the types of bridge foundations. In this study,
given in Eq. (1) of Part I; and the total failure probability only the local scour and the drilled shaft foundation is
due to dead, truck, earthquake and scour hazard effects considered as an example to explain the methodology.
is given in Eq. (24) of Part I, where the equivalent scour No attempt is made to review the state-of-the-art of
load effect S is defined as a function of the amount of scour studies and their countermeasures in bridge design
resistance reduction R. Both are treated as force-based (Liang and Lee, 2012a, b; HEC-18, 2012; HEC-20,
random variables or processes, that is 2001; HEC-23, 2009).
S = f (R) (1) There are two objectives of this study. The first is
to establish the relationship between the design scour
Furthermore, the scour depth, considered as a non- depth DS and the reduction in resistance caused by the
force based random variable, is also a function of the scour (see Part I). Upon treating the scour effect as an
scour effect S. The corresponding design parameter dS equivalent load effect,
is therefore a function of these parameters that affect the
resistance R. L = D + T + E + DS (2)
Correspondence to: Zach Liang, Department of Mechanical and
In which D, T, E, are nominal dead, truck and earthquake
Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
loads and is a proportional constant to be determined.
14260, USA
Tel: +1 716 645 4354; Fax: +1 716 645 3040
Except for the dead load D, all other load effects are time
E-mail: variables that may or may not occur simultaneously.

Associate Professor; Professor Therefore, these load effects cannot be combined. To

Supported by: Federal Highway Administration at the University carry the probabilistic summation described in Eq. (2), it
at Buffalo under Contract Number DTFH61-08-C-00012 is necessary to first address the issue of combining time
Received October 22, 2012; Accepted May 7, 2013 variables. This is the second objective of this study and is

discussed herein by establishing the failure probabilities then load Li can be ignored. To be compatible with
of the load effects given in Eq. (2). currently used AASHTO LRFD, in the following,
With the methodology established in this study assume pf = 0.23%.
(presented in Parts I and II), it is possible to develop the Consider the case of a combination of truck,
design limit state equation described in Eq. (25) of Part I. earthquake and scour as an example (for which Eq. (18)
A theoretical framework to establish MH limit states in Part I can be used)
and the methodology developed is briefly explained in
Appendix A. Details about this theoretical framework pfTES pUTES (8)
are documented in an MCEER technical report currently
under review for publication in 2013. * That is, if the term
pUTES pf (9)
1.2 Partial failure probability
then Eq. (17) must be satisfied.
The concept of partial failure probability described In Eq. (5), when the term P(Li only) is taken out of
in Appendix A can be used to realize Eq. (1). In Eq. the summation, it indicates that the truck, earthquake
(A9) each partial failure probability consists of two and scour are assumed to be independent. Under this
components, conditional probability P(Li RLi only) assumption,
and the probability of condition P(Li only). Practically pUTES = P(scour occurs) P(truck and earthquake
speaking, Eq. (A9) cannot be used to realize a specific occur simultaneouslyscour occurs)
partial probability, because the probability of condition Suppose the occurrence rate of a special scour type in
P(Li only) is a function of the amplitude x. That is, in the one year is S, with an average duration of occurrence tS.
general form of a discrete variable, Denote the occurrence rate of a truck and an earthquake
in one second to be T, and E, respectively, and denote
pfL = P( Lia R |L
ia only ) P( Lia only) (3) the average duration of earthquakes to be tE. Then in the
a =1
bridge service time, say 75 years, the chance to observe
where the second subscript a denotes the level of a special type of scour is given by
( )
amplitude. P (scour occurs) = 1 1 e

1 S

Consider now P (truck and earthquake occur

1.3 Criterion for including hazard effects simultaneouslyscour occurs). When this specific type of
The computation of failure probabilities is far more scour occurs, the chance to simultaneously have truck
complex than for the case of dead and truck load only, loads and earthquakes can be written as
because there are many terms of pf . However, if some i P (E+TSC) P (truck and earthquake occur
of them are sufficiently small, then it is not necessary to simultaneouslyscour occurs)
include them in the computation of the total pf. Thus, a This results in (see Appendix B for a detailed
criterion is established in the form of derivation)

pfL pf
(4) pUTES P (E+TSC) =
where is a proportional factor, say, = 0.05 0.1.The n ( r tE ) mr (T r tE ) k (ETS )r
e (10)

specific volume will be chosen after several trial k! r!

r =1 k =1
It is seen that in Eq. (3), if in the second term P(Lia where TS is the total time of scour in 75 years and nE and
only) the level a is not specified but a general case of m are, respectively, the numbers of earthquakes in Ts
whether Li only occurs without other loads is considered and the number of trucks during an earthquake. Suppose
and denoted as P(Li only), the result is nE = 75 and m = 1.
m m To carry out Eq. (10), assumptions are needed.
P( Li only) = P( Lia R |L ia only ) P( Lia R |L ia only )P( Lia only) First, it is assumed that the occurrence of trucks and
a =1 a =1
(5) earthquakes are of Poisson distributions. It is also
= pfL i

assumed that each earthquake and truck have an average

Furthermore, duration tE and tT. Suppose tE =30 s and tT = 2 s. With
P(Li only) pf i
(6) average daily truck traffic = 500, and earthquake return
period = 500 years, the result is pUTES = 0.00096. In this
Since any term of probability must not be greater TES
case, pU = 0.42 pf > 0.1 pf . That is, only using Eq. (7),
than unity, if the case of the combination of truck, earthquake and
P (Li only) pf (7) scour cannot be ignored.
However, if the earthquake return period is taken
* Readers are advised to contact the authors for the exact date to be 2000 years, the result is pU = 0.00023. In this
of publication and availability of the report and for answers to case, pU = 0.1 pf . That is, based on Eq. (7), the case
specific questions in Appendix A. of the combination of truck, earthquake and scour can
No.2 Zach Liang et al.: Bridge pier failure probabilities under combined hazard effects of scour, truck and earthquake. Part II 243

be ignored. S R
A further analysis shows that if Eq. (3) is used, which I
is more precise than Eq. (7), in most cases of interest,
pUTES < 0.1 pf . Therefore, in this paper, pUTES will not be T
considered as an example of how to use the suggested II
framework. In any case, in frequent earthquake and E
scour zones, the partial probability pUTES cannot be

ignored. III

2 Probability of condition IV
2.1 Total and partial failure probabilities
In Part I and the above discussion, the methodology 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Intensity (MN.m)
that a bridge failure probability pf can be represented by
Fig. 1 Maximum intensity of single or combined probability
several partial failure probabilities is described. Each of
density functions
the partial failure probabilities can be further written as
a product of an x-condition probability and a uniqueness
occurrence probability. For example, the partial failure combined truck and earthquake and the combined truck
probability due to the dead load and the scour effect, pf , and scour load effects, which are, respectively, denoted
is given in Part I, Eq. (15). In this equation, the term px
S as T, E, TE, and TS. For convenience in the following
is the conditional probability and here, px is used as an discussions, the effects of T, E, TE, and TS are referred
example to describe how to evaluate these x-condition to as secondary effects, and the scour S is referred to as
probabilities. the primary effect.
The term px in Eq. (15) of Part I exists with a
rigorous condition. The partial failure probability pf
S 2.2 Secondary load effects
is obtained when the scour effect reaches its maximum In Fig. 1, the shadowed areas represent all the
value x. There are several conditions to guarantee that chances that the secondary load effects are smaller than
the count x is indeed a true maximum effect. From Fig. 1, this given level x.
the x-axis of the probability density function (PDF) is Generally speaking, the sum of all these chances can
the maximum value of the load effect when a given be expressed as the integral of the PDF of the second
bridge is subjected to the dead load and a single time load effect, fS (z, x). Here, the subscript S denotes the
variable such as the scour effect only, denoted by S. The secondary load effect, and in the following, the font
dead load is time invariant. When the sum of the time of blackadder ITC is used to denote the conditional
variable scour effect and the dead load effect reaches a PDFs. That is,
certain maximum level, x, there is no chance that other PS ( x ) = -x fS ( z , x ) dz 1 (11)
load effects reach this specific level. (For convenience,
the dead load is ignored in Fig. 1. Furthermore, any time Therefore, the PDF of the primary load, fS(x), shown
variable load is automatically combined with the dead in Fig. 1, must be modified as fS(x)PS(x). Generally
load). In Fig. 1, R stands for the resistance. speaking, PS(x) < 1, so that the resulting failure
If other loads exist when the time variable scour probability due to the first load only, should be smaller
effect reaches a given level, then there can be a chance than the case with the first load only.
that the rest of the time variable loads have already The secondary load effects are considered one by
reached and/or exceeded the same level. The rest of one in the following discussion. For the truck load only,
the time variable loads can be the truck load only, the denote the corresponding PDF of truck effect as fT (x).
earthquake load only, the simultaneous combination of From Eq. (11),
truck and scour and the simultaneous combination of PT ( x ) = -x f T ( z , x ) dz (12a)
truck and scour, denoted by T, E, TE and TS in Fig. 1.
In this case, the impact of the scour effect cannot be The level of the first load effect, denoted by y, can be
guaranteed to be the maximum value. In other words, taken from x to ; therefore, Eq. (12a) is modified to be
for a time variable load effect to be recognized as the
maximum value at intensity x, no other load effects can PT ( x ) = -y f T ( z , x ) dz (12b)
have reached the same level. In Eq. (12b), the symbol x is still used to denoted the
Figure 1 conceptually shows this condition. At condition y x.
Position I, the solid and dotted lines are, respectively, Now, consider the earthquake load only in a similar
the PDFs of the equivalent scour load effect and the fashion and denote the corresponding PDF as fE(x). From
resistance. At Positions II, III, IV and V, the curves are, Eq. (11),
respectively, the PDFs of the truck, the earthquake, the PE ( x ) = -y f E ( u , x ) du (13)

Considering the simultaneous load combination of where fT(y) is the PDF of the maximum truck effect.
truck and earthquake load effect only and denoting the
corresponding PDF as fTE(x), 2.5 Partial failure probabilities due to earthquake
PTE ( x ) = -y f TE ( v, x ) dv (14)
The partial failure probability due to earthquake
Finally, considering the simultaneous load combination only, pfE, can be written as
of truck and scour load effect only and denoting the
corresponding PDF as fTS(x), pfE =

f R ( x ) x f E ( y ) -y f T ( z , x ) dz -y fS ( u , x )du

PTS ( x ) = -y f TE ( w, x ) dw - f TE ( v, x ) dv - f TS ( w, x ) dw dy dx
y y
T n ( r t ) (STH )
Therefore, the x-condition probability pxS can be 1 -e 1- 1-e
r! / p

written as r =1

where fE(y) is the PDF of the maximum earthquake

pxS = f R ( x )x fS ( y ) pT ( x) pE ( x) pTE ( x) pTS ( x)dy dx effect.

= f R ( x )x fS ( y )
f T ( z , x ) dz
f E ( u , x ) du
2.6 Partial failure probabilities due to combined
f TE ( v, x ) dv f TS ( w, x ) dw dy dx truck and earthquake effect
y y

where fS(y) is the PDF of the maximum scour effect. The partial failure probability due to truck and
earthquake only, pfTE, can be written as
2.3 Partial failure probabilities due to scour effect
pfTE =

f R ( x ) x f TE ( y ) -y f T ( z , x ) dz -y fS ( u , x ) du
In the next section, the uniqueness occurrence
- f E ( v, x ) dv - f TS ( w, x ) dw dy dx
y y
probability for having scour only will be described.
Suppose this probability of condition is given; the partial n (T r tE )k (ETH )r
( r tE ) mr
e T e

failure probability due to the scour effect only can be / p


further written as r =1 k =1 k! r!
where fTE(y) is the PDF of the maximum combined truck
pfS =

f R ( x )x fS ( y ) -y f T ( z , x ) dz -y f E ( u,x ) du and earthquake effect.
- f TE ( v, x ) dv - f TS ( w, x ) dw dydx
y y

2.7 Partial failure probabilities due to combined

T n ( r t ) (STH )
(17) truck and scour effect
1- 1-e

1 -e r! / P

r =1

The partial failure probability due to truck and scour
In Eq. (17), the partial failure probability is a only, pfTS, can be written as
function of level x. Namely, at different levels, the value
of the partial failure probability is different. pfTS =

f R ( x ) x f TS ( y ) -y f T ( z , x ) dz -y fS ( u , x ) du

- f E ( v, x ) dv - f T E ( w, x ) dw dy dx
y y
2.4 Partial failure probabilities due to truck load
n ( T )r
e T 1-e ( r t ) S H / p
Similar to the case of scour effect only, the rest of S H T
(21) S

the partial failure probabilities, pfT, pfE, pfTS and pfTE can r =1 r!
also be formulated. Since the procedure of derivation where fTS(y) is the PDF of the maximum combined truck
is identical to pfS, they are listed below without and scour effect.
The partial failure probability due to truck only, pfT,
can be written as 3 Uniqueness occurrence probability
pfT =

f R ( x ) x f T ( y ) -y f T ( z, x ) dz -y f E ( u, x ) du In the above discussion, it is assumed that the
probability of uniqueness occurrence is given. These
- f TE ( v, x ) dv - f TS ( w, x ) dw dy dx
y y
uniqueness occurrence probabilities are formulated as
n mr ( r t ) k ( T ) r

[1 e T e T e ( r t ) T E E H

r =1 k =1 k! r! 3.1 Uniqueness occurrence probability under the
n ( T ) r condition of no truck loads
e T 1 e ( r t ) E H / p

r =1 r! (18) Consider the occurrence probabilities of having

No.2 Zach Liang et al.: Bridge pier failure probabilities under combined hazard effects of scour, truck and earthquake. Part II 245

scours and earthquakes under the condition of no truck

loads. Because the conditional probability of not having nS (ETH ) r n r (E r tS )k
( r tS )
pse =e T e T e

trucks is smaller than unity, the occurrence probability r! k!
of simultaneously having both earthquakes and scours
r =1 r =1
k =1

is negligible. This simplifies the computation of load (STH )r T n S

( r tS ) r (E r tS )k (STH )r
=e 1-eS H E

occurrence probabilities. r! r =1
k =1 k! r!
Assume the return period of scour is 1 year. The (25)
rate of occurrence is then S = 1/75 for an expected
bridge service life of 75 years. On average, a scour An alternative formula for the probability of not
lasts for 2 weeks. Thus, the duration tS = 1,209,600 s; having earthquakes when scours occur can be written as
or approximately 1 106 s. In 75 years, there are 75 nS
( r tS ) (STH )r
scours, the total scour time is TS = 9,072 104 s, or pse = e T e
r =1 r!
approximately 1 108 s. If the return period is 0.5 year,
then S = 2/75, and TS 2 108 s. Comparing Eq. (25) and Eq. (26), both yield virtually
Assume the return period of an earthquake is 2 years. the same results with acceptable errors.
The rate E = 2/75; on average, an earthquake lasts 100 s, 3.1.3 Uniqueness occurrence for earthquake only
and duration tE 100 s. Thus, the total duration TE 7500 In 75 years, if nE earthquakes occur, then the
s. The total seconds of 75 years is TH = 2.3668109 s. probability of not having scour when an earthquake
In the following subsections, the occurrence occurs is denoted by pse , written as
probabilities of scour and earthquake, without
pse = pe - pse (27)
considering the condition of whether or not a load exists,
are addressed first. Then, the condition of having a load
Note that
(the truck load is again excluded) is investigated. nE (ETH )r
3.1.1 Uniqueness occurrence for simultaneous pe = e T E H
Therefore, r =1 r!
occurrence of scour and earthquake
Consider the chance that scour and an earthquake nE (ETH )r T n ( r t ) r (E r tS )k (STH )r
pse = e T
occur simultaneously. Based on the Poisson model E H
-e e


(Liang and Lee, 2012a, b) , in one time duration tS, the r =1 r! r =1

k =1 k! r!
chance of having an earthquake is e t (E tS ) . Thus, E S (29)
up to r tS, there may be more
r ( r t ) k Alternatively, in 75 years, if there are nE earthquakes,
earthquakes, and the chance is e ( r t ) E S . E S

k =1 k! the probability of not simultaneously having scour

Furthermore, in duration TH, the chance of having a denoted by pse , can be written as
scour is e T (S TH ) , which is the condition that one

(ETH )r
of the duration tS within TH both earthquake and scour p se = e T e ( r t
(30) S E )
can simultaneously occur. Thus, the condition to have r =1 r!
up to nS scours is the probability of having scour in the The difference between the results from Eq. (29)
duration TH, denoted by ps . It can be written as and Eq. (30) is smaller than 0.1 percent in most cases.
Therefore, it can also be concluded that Eq. (29) and Eq.
nS (ETH )r (22) (30) yield virtually same results with acceptable errors.
ps = e T S H

r =1 r! 3.1.4 Uniqueness occurrence probability with the

condition of having load effect
Therefore, in 75 years, if there are nS scours, the Consider the condition of having load effect that is
probability of simultaneously having earthquake and only caused by scour and/or earthquake (no truck load).
scour, denoted by pse, can be written as Denote the sum of occurrence probabilities without
considering whether there is a load to be p:
(r tS ) r (E r tS ) k (STH )r
pse = e T e
(23) p = pse + pse + pse
r =1
k =1 k! r! (31)
Based on this condition, the probability of
3.1.2 Uniqueness occurrence for scour only simultaneously having earthquake and scour, denoted by
In 75 years, if there are nS scours, the probability of pSE, can be written as
not having earthquakes when scours occur, denoted by pSE = pse/ p (32)
pse , can be obtained as follows.
Denote ps as the occurrence probability of scour, the probability of having scour without earthquake,
which is also the sum of probability pse and pse. That is, denoted by pSE , can be written as
pse = ps - pse (24) pSE = pse / p (33)
and, the probability of having earthquake without scour,
From Eq. (22) through Eq. (24), denoted by pSE , can be written as

pSE = pse / p (34) and for earthquake only, Eq. (25) and Eq. (29), will be
different. In the following paragraphs, these terms are
4 Total failure probability considering truck, recalculated.
earthquake and scour The term pUTS in Eq. (36) implies that when the
truck and the scour simultaneously occur, there is no
4.1 Modified total failure probability earthquake. And, the term pUTE in Eq. (36) implies that
when the truck and the earthquake simultaneously occur,
4.1.1 Rejection of simultaneous scour and earthquake there is no scour. The relationship among truck, scour
and earthquake may be plotted as a Venn diagram shown
From the above discussion of trucks, earthquake and in Fig. 2.
scour load effects, the small chance of simultaneously Denote the probabilities of truck, scour and
having both scour and earthquake means that the earthquake occurrences, respectively, as pT, pS and pE,
combined effect of scour and earthquake will not from Fig. 2,
contribute much to the bridge failure probabilities. pT = pUT +pUTS +pUTE (37)
Therefore, this condition is rejected to simplify the
calculations. In Fig. 3, the shaded area shows the probabilities
4.1.2 Rejection of simultaneous scour, earthquake and pUT =p T -pUTS -pUTE . This is not exactly true, because there
truck will be a slim chance of the occurrence probability, pU .
Since the uniqueness occurrence probability of However, it is rejected in this analysis for
simultaneously having both scour and earthquake can simplicity,
be rejected, it is obvious that the uniqueness occurrence pUTES = 0 (38)
probability of simultaneously having truck, scour and
Thus, Eq. (37) holds. Similarly,
earthquake can be rejected.
4.1.3 Total failure probability S TS
pS = pU +pU (39)
In Liang and Lee (2012), it is shown that in certain
earthquake zones, the uniqueness occurrence probabilities E TE
pE = pU +pU (40)
of earthquake only and that of simultaneously having
truck and earthquake are not negligible. Therefore, 4.1.4 Uniqueness occurrence probability without
in formulating the partial failure probabilities not considering load existence
due to truck only, the terms pfT, pfE and pfTE should be In the following subsections, the uniqueness
considered. Furthermore, if the total duration of scours occurrence probabilities are shown without considering
is compatible with that of earthquakes, then the term pfTS whether there is a load, for simplicity reasons.
should also be considered. In fact, it can also be shown 4.1.5 Uniqueness occurrence probability of
that pfTS is indeed not negligible. In this case, Eq. (18) simultaneously having truck and scour
can be rewritten as According to Liang and Lee (2012) the uniqueness
pf = pfT + pfS + pfE + pfTS + pfTE (35) occurrence probability of simultaneously having truck
and earthquake can be written as
Furthermore, considering level x, Eq. (35) can be
rewritten as n (r tE )
mr (T r tE )k (ETH )r
pte = e T e

pf ( x) = pxT pUT + pxS pUS + pxE pUE + pxTS pUTS + pxTE pUTE r =1 k =1 k! r!
(36) (41)
When the truck load is considered, the values of Equation (41) is obtained under the condition of no
the uniqueness occurrence probabilities for scour only scour, which is guaranteed by the condition described
for Eq. (36). Thus, Eq. (41) can be used.

Truck Scour


Scour Truck only



Earthquake Truck

Fig. 2 Venn diagram of truck, scour and earthquake Fig. 3 Probabilities of truck only
No.2 Zach Liang et al.: Bridge pier failure probabilities under combined hazard effects of scour, truck and earthquake. Part II 247

4.1.6 Uniqueness occurrence probability of ps te = ps - pts

simultaneously having truck and scour n
( r tS ) (STH )
=1-e T e T 1-e
From the above discussion, when the unique

occurrence of simultaneously having both truck and r =1
scour is calculated, denoted by pts, no earthquake is n ( T ) r
=1 -e T 1- 1-e ( r t ) S H

present. Thus,
r =1 r!
n ( r tS ) mr (T r tS )k (STH )r 4.1.9 Uniqueness occurrence probability of having
pts = e T e
r =1 k =1 k! r! earthquake only
Liang and Lee (2012a, b) provided a method to
Equation (42) is difficult to calculate because the calculate the uniqueness occurrence probability pe t as
value of factorial k! can be very large. Therefore, an given by
alternative method is used to calculate the probability of
having truck in duration rtS. It is seen that, in duration rtS, n ( T ) r
pe t = e T e ( r t ) E H

the chance of no truck is e ( r t ) so that having trucks is

r =1 r!
1- e ( r t ) . Such a chance is clearly overestimated.

However, according to the experience gained in the This equation is obtained under the condition
computation of scour and earthquake, it is seen that the without scour. However, from Fig. 2, it is seen that
corresponding error is negligible. Therefore, Eq. (42) there is virtually no overlap between earthquake and
may be replaced by scour. Therefore, this equation can also be used for the
situation with the equivalent scour effect. That is
n ( T ) r
pts = e T 1-e ( r t ) S H


r =1 r! n (r tE ) (ETH ) r
pe ts = pe t = e T e


4.1.7 Uniqueness occurrence probability of having truck r =1
4.2 Uniqueness occurrence probability with condition
It is noted that the probability pte is not just pUTE ,
of existence of load
because pte is calculated without considering the
condition there must be a load, which is the only case 4.2.1 Condition of existence of load
of interest. The occurrence pUTE should be calculated As mentioned above, the case with load is the one
with the condition of having load only, which will be of interest. That is, the focus is on the sampling space of
discussed later. The same situation is also true for the load occurrence. Thus,
probabilities of pts and pU .
Now, without considering the condition of whether pUT + pUS + pUE + pUTS + pUTE = 1 (50)
or not there is a load, the probability of having truck,
denoted by pt, can be written as In the above discussion, the level of load effect x is
assumed. Namely, with different levels of load effect,
pt = 1 e- T TH
these uniqueness occurrence probabilities in Eq. (48)
where T is the rate of occurrence of truck in duration can be different. That is, Eq. (48) should be rewritten as
TH. Equation (37) in this situation is rewritten as
pUT ( x ) + pUS ( x ) + pUE ( x ) + pUTS ( x ) + pUTE ( x ) =1 (51)
pt = ptse + pte + pts (45)
where ptse is the uniqueness occurrence probability 4.2.2 Uniqueness occurrence probabilities
of having truck only without scour (and without To realize Eq. (50) or Eq. (51),
earthquake). From Eq. (45),
ptse +ps te +pe ts + pts +pte = p (52)
ptse = pt pte pts = 1 e -T TH

With the help of Eq. (52), the uniqueness occurrence
T (r tE )
mr ( r t ) k ( T )r probability with the level x of truck only is
e e T E E H
r =1 k =1 k! r! pUT ( x ) =ptse / p (53)
( r tS ) (STH )
The uniqueness occurrence probability with the level x
e T 1-e

r =1 r! of scour only is
pUS ( x ) =ps te / p (54)
4.1.8 Uniqueness occurrence probability of having scour
only The uniqueness occurrence probability with the level x
From the above discussion, when the unique of earthquake only is
occurrence of having scour only is calculated, denoted pUE ( x ) =pe ts / p (55)
by ps te , no earthquake is present. Thus, from figure 4.1,

The uniqueness occurrence probability with the level x S = 3 Ds3 + 2 Ds2 + 1 Ds+ 0 (60)
of simultaneously having truck and scour only is
where 3 , 2 , 1 and 0 are coefficients that are functions
pUTS ( x ) =pts / p (56) of the design total pile foundation length H and the
sediment depth H0.
The uniqueness occurrence probability with the level x Furthermore, assume the standard deviation of the
of simultaneously having truck and earthquake only is scour depth, Ds, and the standard deviation of the scour
effect, S, can be described as
pUTE ( x ) =pte / p (57)
S = 3 Ds3 + 2 Ds2 + 1 Ds+ 0 (61)
4.3 Total failure probability with load effect level
being x where 3 , 2 , 1 and 0 are coefficients that are also
functions of the design total length H and the sediment
With the help of Eq. (53) through Eq. (57), the total depth H0. Note that all the coefficients i s and i s can
failure probability at load effect level x is given by be determined through Monte Carlo simulations (Liang
and Lee, 2012).
pf(x) = pxT pUT ( x ) + pxS pUS ( x ) + pxE pUE ( x ) + pxTS pUTS ( x ) + 5.1.2 Scour effect under different conditions
Consider first the mean values. The scour effect has
p TE p TE ( x )
x U
two different Conditions. Condition A is the dead load
with scour and Condition B is the dead load, truck load
5 Relationship between factors of equivalent and scour. To account for these two conditions, let the
scour effect and scour depth nominal design value of the equivalent scour effect NS
be equal to the mean value, that is,
After the partial failure probabilities in Eq. (58) are
calculated, design limit state equations can be further NS = S (62)
established. This procedure is identical to the pure force
based multi-hazards (MH) loads. However, for non-force This mean value of scour effect should be distributed
based hazards such as scour, the factor of equivalent into the above-mentioned two Cases A and B.
load cannot be directly used in bridge design. Obtaining The distributions should be based on the chances of
the factor of scour depth is considered, as an example to the appearance of scour in these two cases, namely SA
show the general steps for non-force based hazards. In and SB. Using kA and kB to denote these two different
this case, only r the simplest case of the equivalent load chances,
effect due to vertical displacement is considered. Since kA S = SA (63)
the relationship is linear, the load factors can be used
directly (see Eq. (34)). kB S = SB (64)
In general, the relationship between scour depth and
equivalent load is nonlinear. An approach is needed to In Part I of this paper, only the uniqueness occurrence
convert the load parameter to the scour parameter. In this probability of scour, ps te was addressed and that of scour
section, the determination of mean values and standard and truck pts. Therefore, the chance of scour appearance
deviations of equivalent scour effects are discussed for Cases A and B are given as
before the partial failure probabilities are calculated. ps te
kA = (65)
ps te + pts
5.1 Statistical characteristics and
5.1.1 Equivalent scour effect pts
kB = (66)
When the conditional partial failure probabilities pCS , ps te + pts
are established, the equivalent scour effects share the Consider next the standard deviations. Here the scour
identical formula expressed by Eq. (54). For a given is treated as random variables with normal distributions.
bridge located at a specific location, the depth dS of the The distributions of scour effect for Case A and B are
live bed local scour can be calculated. For example, the also normalized as normal distributions (see footnote on
formula given by HEC-18 is adopted (HEC-18, 2012), p242). Denote SA and SB as the corresponding standard
namely deviations. The following may be written:
dS = f (V, Q, s, d) (59)
SA = (bSA) SA

Once the scour depth is calculated based on Eq. (59),
the equivalent scour effect can also be determined. It is SB = (bSB) SB
assumed that the mean value of the scour depth, Ds and
the mean value of the scour effect S can be described where bSA and bSB are values of bias for the Case A
as and B. The exponents and B are positive numbers,
No.2 Zach Liang et al.: Bridge pier failure probabilities under combined hazard effects of scour, truck and earthquake. Part II 249

whose value can be determined through Monte Carlo HEC-20 (2001), 3rd ed Stream Stability at Highway
simulations. In this study, let Structures, Publication No. FHWA NHI 01-002.
= B = 0.01 (69) HEC-23 (2009), 3rd ed. Bridge Scour and Stream
Instability Countermeasures, Publication No. FHWA-
By using the above equations, the required mean and NHI-09-111.
standard deviations for computing the corresponding
partial failure probabilities are obtained. Liang Z and Lee GC (2012a), Towards Multiple
Hazard Resilient Bridges: a Methodology for Modeling
6 Summary Frequent and Infrequent Time-varying Loads. Part
I, Comprehensive Reliability and Partial Failure
A probability based approach to combine frequent, Probabilities, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
non-extreme loads and infrequent extreme hazard Vibration, 11(3): 293301.
load effects is described herein. Emphasis is given to Liang Z and Lee GC (2012b), Towards Multiple
methodologies that handle combinations of random Hazard Resilient Bridges: a Methodology for Modeling
processes and combinations of direct capacity reduction Frequent and Infrequent Time-varying Loads. Part
hazard effects (e.g., bridge scour) with force-based II, Examples for Live and Earthquake Load Effects,
hazard effects (e.g., earthquake) . An example of dead, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
truck, earthquake and scour effects on a simple bridge 11(3): 303311.
pile foundation is used to illustrate the methodology. Melih YA and Apaydin M (2011), A Study on Bridge
The formulae of the conditional partial failure Scour Risk Assessment and Countermeasure Design
probabilities and the necessary conditions were first Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
established. In the case of truck, earthquake and Submitted February 4, 2011; accepted June 14, 2011;
equivalent scour load effects, the number of conditions posted ahead of print June 16, 2011. doi:10.1061/
necessary to calculate the partial failure probabilities is (ASCE)CF.19435509.0000254.
at least four. NCHRP Report 396 (1997), Monitoring Scour Critical
The proposed approach is illustrated by using a Bridges.
specific common failure model of live-bed local scour.
Based on several assumptions of triangle shaped
sediment stiffness and normal scour depth values, the Appendix A Challenges in formulating
relationship between scour depth and the required multiple extreme hazard effects
elongation of a bridge column compared with no scour
is provided. A non-forced based hazard such as scour can be
With the specific scour failure model, the limit state considered as an equivalent load effect. Such an effect
equations of bridge failure are established, in which the may be the result of a single load or load combinations.
scour effects are treated as equivalent loads. In the following discussion, the dead load is temporarily
excluded and the term load and load effect are used
interchangeably to address the issue.
Acknowledgement To facilitate subsequent discussion, the physical
meaning of Eq. (1) in Part I of this series is explained in
This paper presents part of the results of a the following paragraphs.
research contract sponsored by the Federal Highway Define non-extreme load by I-(1). The first notation
Administration at the University at Buffalo (Contract I stands for the first case consisting of non-extreme dead
Number DTFH61-08-C-00012). The authors express and truck load only. Symbol II is used to denote the
their sincere appreciation to members of the research second case of extreme hazard loads.
team: Wei-huei Yen (COTR, Federal Highway The probability of condition I-(1) is unity, namely
Administration), John M. Kulicki and Thomas
Murphy (Modjeski and Masters), Harry Capers (Arora P (load occurs) 1 (A1)
& Associates), Jerry J. D. Shen (Federal Highway
Administration) and Chao Huang (University at Buffalo) When Eq. (1) is used in Part I, this condition can be
for their critical comments, advice and contributions. overlooked.
I-(2), The magnitude of the load is L;
In the case of only having dead and truck load, since
References whenever truck load occurs, dead load must exist and
also because I-(3) the load must be maximum, the case
Das BM (2007), Principles of Foundation Engineering, of dead load only can be excluded. In other words, L
6th ed, Thomson. must be a combined effect. Or, the probability of that
HEC-18 (2002), 5th ed Evaluating Scour at Bridges load can be L for unity, namely
Publication No. FHWA HIF-12-003.
P (load is L) 1 (A2)

Thus, the second condition can also be overlooked. a% b% (A7)

I-(3), L is considered to be the maximum value;
L is the maximum value and is also a random Equation (A7) states that the distribution of L1 is
variable. To account for L, its distribution function no longer a function of level x only, but is affected by
needs to be considered. That is, it will be sufficient (and other loads. In other words, the PDF of L1 is a function
necessary) to have its probability distribution function, of x. This is the reason that a simple solution cannot be
(PDF), denoted by fL(l). provided when discussing Eq. II-(2).
I-(4), LR, (R is the value of resistance). Lastly, a discussion of Eq. (14) in Part I is provided.
Since R is also a random variable, its PDF denoted In I-(1), L R, whereas, in Eq. II-(1), the load L consists
by fR(r) must be taken into account. Combining both I- of L1, L2, etc. Based on the above discussion, Eq. (2)
(3) and I-(4), the failure probability can be evaluated as can be separated as

f R ( x ) x f L ( y ) dy dx P(L1 RL1 only) P(L1 only) + P(L2 RL2 only) P(L2 only)

+ = pf (A8)
Now, consider MH loads as the second case, denoted
by II. Note that the formula (1) in Part I also works for Denote the ith term in (A8) as
MH loads. Therefore, the above-mentioned conditions I-
(1) through I-(4) should also be considered, but denoted P(Li RLi only) P(Li only) pf i
as II-(1) through II-(4) for the second case.
First, consider Eq. II-(1). In the MH loads, there are where pfL can be called the ith partial failure probability

more loads than dead and truck loads only. Therefore, at and Li is a combination of a single load with dead load
a moment when a load (other than dead load) exists, that DL. In this case, the procedure of load analysis and
there can be different types of load; and at different time computation of failure probability is identical to Eq. (1)
moments, other types of loads may exist. The occurrence in Part I. Note that here, the phrase single load includes
of loads becomes time variable (random process). In this a single type of load combination. For example, if there
case, the time t will become a factor, the probability of is a combination of scour SC and truck load LL without
condition that whether a load occurs (A1) is still held. other types of loads or load combinations, SC+ LL + DL
However, P(L1 occurs) is no longer unity in general; only is considered as a single load.
that is
P (load occurs, the load is L1) 1 (A4) Appendix B A brief derivation for Eq. (10)
Second, consider Eq. II-(2), because of MH, a simple TES
The term pU is a conditional probability that
L cannot be used, but L1, L2, to denote the load. The describes the chance of simultaneous occurrence of
probability of condition that only a given load Li occurs earthquake and truck loads with the presentation of
is, generally speaking, no longer unity. Therefore, (A4) bridge scours.
is further written as To better understand Eq. (10), consider the procedure
P(load occurs, the load is L1 only) < 1 (A5) to derive the probability that when a scour occurs, an
earthquake occurs simultaneously. Since in the averaged
Calculating the above corresponding probability will duration of one scour occurrence, tS , the chance of
be introduced after the discussion of II-(3). having only one earthquake can be obtained based
Thirdly, consider II-(3). Without loss of generality, on the model of Poisson arrival. In the total time of
consider L1 for the load 1, only. scour in 75 years, TH, more earthquakes may occur, say
(a), This condition must include the following: when n ( T ) r
nE earthquakes, so the chance becomes e T E S .
load 1 is the maximum value, denoted by x, load L2, L3, r =1 r!
etc. must not be greater than x. Therefore, this condition Furthermore, in duration tE, the chance that there is
must include the subconditions: a truck is e t (T tE ) ; therefore the condition to

have up to mr trucks is the probability written as

L2 < x, L3 < x, etc. (A6)
mr ( r t ) k

It is understandable that each probability of the e ( r t ) T E


k =1 k!
above condition is, in general, smaller than unity. Thus, with the assumption of Poisson arrivals,
(b), For I-(3), the PDF of L is used, which is a
function of level x. However, for MH loads L1 , L2, L3 E TS
nE ( r t ) mr (T r tE ) k (ETS ) r
P(E+TSC)= e e

etc. Although L1 is caused on load 1, it can also combine

r =1 k =1 k! r!
with load 2, 3, etc. At different level x, the proportions (B1)
of L1 in these combinations are different. Thus, at level In addition, the chance of having scours in 75 years
xa, load 1 has a%, and at level xb, load 1 has b%, and in is close to 1; therefore, the term pUTES is roughly equal
general to P (E+TSC).