Condition Assessment of Existing RC Highway

Bridges in China Based on SIE2011

Hui-Bing Xie1; Yuan-Feng Wang2; Han-Liang Wu3; and Zheng Li4

Abstract: Subjective or inaccurate condition assessment is the most critical technical barrier to effective management of highway bridges. In
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2011, the promulgation of the specification for the inspection and evaluation of the load-bearing capacities of highway bridges (SIE2011) in
China promoted quantitative evaluation of Chinese highway bridges, but a series of empirical coefficients of load-bearing capacity needs to be
calibrated to determine the deterioration of material strength and rigidity of bridge cross sections in such evaluations. In this paper, the coef-
ficients are integrated into the performance function used to determine the flexural limit state of highway bridges, and a Monte Carlo sampling
method is used to calculate the reliability indices of existing RC simply supported T-beam highway bridges and to predict the probability of
failure of the existing highway bridges in each condition state and at each age. Based on statistical data from 1,228 bridges constructed between
1978 and 2008 in Beijing, predictions of the distribution of condition states for the bridges during 2015–2080 were made. Based on a case study
of a highway bridge built in 1978, the inspection results and calculated reliability for the bridge are compared to validate the rationality of the
coefficients specified in SIE2011. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000633. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Bridge; Calibration; Structural reliability; Coefficients; Load-bearing capacity; Inspection; China.

Introduction
Bridges subjected to environmental attack and load effects experience
changes in resistance that are time variant during their lifetimes
(Enright and Frangopol 1998). Regular inspection and routine
maintenance and rehabilitation are needed to keep the bridges in good
condition. Since 1978, a large number of highway bridges have been
built in China; in fact, in 2011, there were 689,000 highway bridges in
China [Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China
(MOT) 2013]. Meanwhile, most bridges in China are 20–30 years old,
which means that the need to rehabilitate bridges will increase dra-
matically over next 20 years as the service lives of these bridges
increase. The prioritization of scarce funds among the multitude of
urgently needed bridge maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation ac-
tivities is a major problem that bridge authorities in China must face.
Subjective or inaccurate condition assessment is the most critical
technical barrier to effective management of highway bridges (Aktan
et al. 1996). Standard provisions, such as national bridge inspection
1
Ph.D. Student, School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong Univ.
Shangyuancun 3, Haidian District, Beijing 100044, PR China. E-mail:
dragen1987@163.com
2
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong Univ.,
Shangyuancun 3, Haidian District, Beijing 100044, PR China (correspond-
ing author). E-mail: cyfwang@bjtu.edu.cn
3 capacity specified in SIE2011 (MOT 2011a).
Assistant Researcher, Bridge Technology Research Center, Research
Institute of Highway, Ministry of Transportation, Beijing 100088, PR
China. E-mail: hanliangwu@gmail.com
4
LUNAM Univ., IFSTTAR, Dépt. Géotechnique, Environnement,
Risques Naturels et Sciences de la Terre, SV, F-44341 Bouguenais, France;
formerly, Ph.D. Student, Institut Français des Sciences et Technologies des
Transports, de l’Aménagement et des Réseaux, F-75732 Paris Cedex 15,
France. E-mail: zheng.li@ifsttar.fr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 31, 2013; approved
on March 31, 2014; published online on April 28, 2014. Discussion period
open until September 28, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/04014053(10)/$25.00.
standards and the AASHTO Guide for Commonly Recognized (Core)
Structural Elements (AASHTO 1997), mandate standardized bridge
inspection procedures. Several conditions that could compromise
bridge safety are flagged, including material deterioration, fatigue, and
overloading. In China, the “Code for Maintenance of Highway Bridges
and Culverts” (MOT 2004), the “Technical Specifications of Main-
tenance for Highways” (MOT 2009), and the “Standard for Technical
Condition Evaluation of Highway Bridges” (MOT 2011b) were issued
in succession to standardize highway bridge management in China, and
these publications specify five condition states (CSs) for existing
bridges. CS I indicates that the condition of the existing bridge is good,
whereas CS V means that the bridge is in an unacceptable condition. A
bridge determined to be in CSs IV–V is stipulated to need rehabilitation.
In November 2011, the “Specification for Inspection and Evaluation
of the Load-Bearing Capacity of Highway Bridges” (SIE2011) (MOT
2011a) was promulgated as a recommended standard for highway
bridges in China. The promulgation of this standard promoted quan-
titative evaluation of the load-bearing capacity of all Chinese highway
bridges. Based on probabilistic theory and limit-state design meth-
odology, SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) modified the limit-state function for
existing bridges by introducing coefficients of load-bearing capacity as
the basis for evaluation of the load-bearing capacity of existing highway
bridges. However, the values of the coefficients used in SIE2011 (MOT
2011a) are empirical. Calibration based on probabilistic theory should
be conducted to verify the rationality of the coefficients of load-bearing
Many previous studies have analyzed the reliability of structures
based on the newly issued codes [Ministry of Transportation and
Communications (MTO) 1979; AASHTO 1983, 1994; MOT 1985;
Highways Department 1997]. Nowak and Lind (1979) calibrated the
safety of the steel and prestressed-concrete bridges designed according
to the new Ontario highway bridge design code (MTO 1979), which is
based on probabilistic theory; Ghosn and Moses (1986) conducted
a reliability analysis with data from large-scale field measurements on
actual truck loading and bridge responses and calculated the safety
indices for typical span bridges designed according to the AASHTO
code (AASHTO 1983), proposing a new design procedure to achieve

© ASCE 04014053-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng. 2014.19.

 the target index uniformly for all bridge spans. In 1994, the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO 1994) were first
implemented in the United States. Nowak (1993) and Nowak and
Eamon (2005) proposed a calibration procedure for bridge design
codes. They analyzed the uncertainty involved in the assessment of
bridges based on an investigation of bridge resistance and load data and
calibrated the load and resistance factors in the new LRFD code
(AASHTO 1994). Nowak et al. (2001) compared the reliability levels
of prestressed-concrete girders designed using three different codes.
Frangopol et al. (2001) proposed a reliability-based life-cycle man-
agement system of highway bridges and predicted the condition state of
existing bridge using a presumptive range of bridge reliability in each
condition state.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In China, Qin and Zhao (2002) discussed the calibration of a re-
liability index for RC beams in buildings in terms of the serviceability
limit state of crack width; Du and Au (2005) conducted a deterministic
and probabilistic analysis to compare the reliability indices of pre-
stressed reinforcements and prestressed-concrete bridge girders
designed using three codes: the Chinese bridge code issued in 1985
(MOT 1985), the Hong Kong code (Highways Department 1997),
and the AASHTO LRFD (AASHTO 1994) code.
SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) defines standard values of the coefficients
of bridge load-bearing capacity in different situations. The influence
of inspection results that indicate the effect of the appearance of the
structure, concrete strength, inherent frequency, and so forth on the
resistance of bridges is considered (Zhang, et al. 2011). The Delphi
method is used to determine the weight of each factor and standard
values that result in empirical coefficients (MOT 2011a). Li and Wang
(2011) calibrated the comprehensive modification coefficient of bridge
load-bearing capacity used in the draft of SIE2011 (MOT 2011a).
However, the influence of the deterioration coefficient and the section
reduction coefficient of load-bearing capacity on the reliability of
existing bridges was not considered. Moreover, the analysis result was
not compared with the time-dependent reliability model of bridges to
verify the rationality of the coefficients.
In this study, after briefly introducing the provisions for RC
highway bridges in SIE2011 (MOT 2011a), the authors calibrate the
coefficients of load-bearing capacity based on probabilistic theory. A
Monte Carlo sampling method is used to calculate the reliability of the
as-built and existing RC highway bridges, considering the coefficients
of load-bearing capacity in limit-state function. The range of reliability
indices of bridges in each condition state is determined. For a bridge
network, from the perspective of decision making, a unified de-
terioration model is a cost-effective way to predict the condition of
bridges in order to determine the prioritization of scarce funds among
the multitude of urgently needed bridge maintenance, repair, and
rehabilitation activities. In addition, the time-dependent probability of
failure of existing bridge in a certain condition state is calculated based
on SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) so as to predict the time of rehabilitation.
A bridge network containing 1,228 bridges built at different times
in Beijing is analyzed to predict the number of bridges that need to
be rehabilitated every year between 2015 and 2080.
Taking an existing bridge constructed in 1978 as an example,
a comprehensive inspection based on SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) was
conducted, and the condition state of that bridge was determined. The
reliability index of the bridge was calculated and compared with
inspection data to verify the rationality of the inspection results. A
comparison of the calculated reliability and the time-dependent model
of reliability proposed by Frangopol et al. (2000) was conducted to
calibrate the coefficients defined in SIE2011 (MOT 2011a).
Although SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) is applicable to all types
of existing RC bridges to evaluate their load-carrying capacity, RC
T-beam highway bridges in different condition states are analyzed
in this paper. The proposed evaluation procedure is also suitable
© ASCE 04014053-2
J. Bridge Eng. 2014.19.
for other types of existing RC bridges, and similar research on
prestressed-concrete bridges and box-girder bridges is being carried
out. Accuracy of the inspection results, which depends on inspection
technology, will have an impact on the capacity evaluation of
existing bridges. The uncertainties resulting from the use of
various inspection technologies and inspection personnel should be
quantified and taken into consideration in future studies.
In this paper, the concept of a planned bridge is introduced. The
reliability of the planned bridge forecasts the condition of the bridge
that ultimately is constructed, and the uncertainty of the design
parameters is the root of the randomness in material and element
production. However, for an as-built bridge that has been trial op-
erated and found to have few defects, the calculated reliability is an
evaluation of the bridge before operation, and the uncertainty results
from the random errors of the inspection.
Brief Introduction of SIE2011
SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) adopts probability method–based load and
resistance factors in the condition evaluation of existing bridges,
which is convenient for engineers. In SIE2011 (MOT 2011a),
uncertainties inherent in the operation phase and inspection process
of bridges, such as the uncertainties resulting from data deficiencies
or the subjective judgment of inspectors, are considered. According
to SIE2011 (MOT 2011a), the assessment of an existing highway
bridge involves the following steps: first, historical data on the
bridge are collected to analyze bridge performance parameters to
better describe serviceability and safety. Then nondestructive or
destructive testing is conducted to determine the bridge state
parameters, including mechanical, chemical, and geometric char-
acteristics of the materials, distortions and displacements, flexibility,
mode frequencies and shapes of the bridge, and so forth. Coefficients
of load-bearing capacity can be determined based on the state
parameters and the provisions in SIE2011 (MOT 2011a). Four
coefficients of load-bearing capacity of bridge are defined in
SIE2011 (MOT 2011a), namely, comprehensive modification co-
efficient of bridge load-bearing capacity Z1 , deterioration coefficient
of load-bearing capacity je , section-reduction coefficient for con-
crete jc , and section-reduction coefficient for steel js . Z1 reflects the
comprehensive condition of the inspected bridge, which is de-
termined by inspectors subjectively. For an existing bridge with no
deterioration, the actual strengths of materials are higher than
expected, resulting in higher safety stock. To reflect the safety stock,
an amplification of the bridge’s design capacity, via use of Z1 . 1, is
conducted. jc and js decrease with an increase in the loss rate of
concrete and steel cross-sectional area. The standard values of the
coefficients defined in SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) are listed in Table 1.
je is used to consider the further degradation of the bridge during the
inspection intervals. Bridge condition at the next inspection can be
predicted by introducing je into the limit-state function. je varies for
different environmental categories, as listed in Table 2. Environ-
mental categories represent factors such as climate, marine envi-
ronment, deicing chemicals, and other operating policies that tend
to cause faster or slower deterioration than the typical situation.
Table 1. Coefficients of Load-Bearing Capacity of Bridges
Condition state Z1 jc js
I 1.15 1.00 1.00
II 1.10 0.98 0.98
III 1.00 0.93 0.95
IV 0.90 0.85 0.90
V 0.80 0.74 0.80
J. Bridge Eng.
 Table 2. Deterioration Coefficients of Load-Bearing Capacity je in Four Environmental Categories
Environmental categories
Good (wetting-drying cycle, Bad (wetting-drying cycle, Worst (wetting-drying
Condition Best (dry, warm, no warm, no corrosive freezing-thawing, cycle, freezing-thawing,
state corrosive medium) medium) no corrosive medium) erosion environment)
I 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.06
II 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08
III 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.12
IV 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.18
V 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.25
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Finally, the load-bearing capacity of an existing highway bridge

can be calculated by introducing the coefficients of load-bearing Table 3. Statistical Properties of Variables Involved in Study (Data from
MOT 1999)
capacity into the design formulation, as shown in Eq. (1)
Variable Symbol Bias COV Distribution type
g0 S # Rð fd , jc adc , js ads ÞZ1 ð1 2 je Þ (1)
28-day yield strength of fc 1.2500 0.1464 Normal
where g0 5 coefficient for the importance of a structure; S 5 function concrete
of load effect; Rð×Þ 5 function of resistance; fd 5 design value of Yield stress of steel fs 1.1600 0.0685 Normal
material strength; adc 5 geometric parameter of element; and ads reinforcing
5 geometric parameter of steel. Width of web b 1.0013 0.0081 Normal
Effective height of T-beam h0 1.0124 0.0229 Normal
Ultimate State for Flexure of a RC Bridge Uncertainty factor: lrebar 1.0000 0.0350 Normal
reinforcing steel area in
For simply supported RC T-beam bridges, the performance function concrete
for the flexure limit state is shown as Eq. (2) Model uncertainty factor of lmfc 1.0980 0.0710 Normal
concrete flexure
Z ¼ R2S ¼ R2D2L (2)
Uncertainty factor: weight of lconc 0.9865 0.0980 Normal
where D 5 bending moment generated by permanent loads; L concrete
5 bending moment generated by live loads; and R 5 ultimate Uncertainty factor: weight of lasph 0.9891 0.1114 Normal
flexural capacity of RC simply supported T-beam bridges, which can asphalt
be expressed as Eq. (3) for as-built bridges (MOT 1999) Design distribute lane load qk 0.7882 0.1082 Normal

 Crowd load qr 0.5786 0.3911 Gumbel
x
R ¼ g mfc fs lrebar As h0 2 (3) Impact on girders Ibeam 1.2 0.05 Gumbel
2
Uncertainty factor: live-load Imtrk2i 1.35 0.162 Normal
For existing bridges, the coefficients of load-bearing capacity are moment on interior girder
introduced into the formulation, and the resistance can be expressed
as Eq. (4) (MOT 1999)

pffiffiffiffiffi  of lane load; mcr 5 transverse distribution coefficient of crowd load;
R9 ¼ ð1 2 je ÞZ1 gmfc js fs lrebar As h0 jc 2
x
(4) qr 5 crowd load; and lmtrk2i 5 uncertainty factor of moment
2 generated by live load on the beam.
where gmfc 5 model uncertainty factor of ultimate flexural capacity of Randomness and epistemic uncertainty are considered in this
concrete structures; fs 5 yield strength of reinforcement; As 5 rein- study. Statistical characters of random variables such as bias and
forcing steel area; lrebar 5 uncertainty factor of reinforcing steel area coefficient of variation (COV) involved in this study are shown in
in concrete; and h0 5 effective height of girder cross section. Table 3. The random variables are assumed to be mutually
Moment generated by permanent load D is expressed as Eq. (5) independent.
(MOT 1999) A hybrid procedure whereby the descriptive statistics of perfor-
mance function Z were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation and
L2  
then the reliability of an existing bridge was assessed with the first-
D ¼ T ðg1 þ g2 Þlconc þ g3 lasph (5)
8 order reliability method (FORM) is shown in Eq. (7)
where LT 5 span length of RC girder; g1 5 dead load of precast RC mz
girder per unit length; g2 5 equivalent dead load of RC diaphragm b¼ (7)
sz
per unit length; g3 5 dead load of asphalt concrete pavement per unit
length; lconc 5 uncertainty factor of RC dead load; and lasph
Use of Monte Carlo simulation avoids the error caused by a linear
5 uncertainty factor of asphalt concrete dead load.
Moment generated by live load L is expressed as Eq. (6) (MOT hypothesis of the performance function (Li et al. 2012). Meanwhile,
1999) use of the FORM means that the frequency of sampling can be
 
decreased significantly. A program called Reliability Evaluation
L2T LT L2T System for Existing Bridges (RESEB1.0) was developed by the
L ¼ Ibeam j mcq qk þ mcq Pk þ mcr qr lmtrk2i (6) authors to calculate the reliability of existing bridges that had been
8 4 8
inspected based on SIE2011 (MOT 2011a). A flowchart summa-
where Ibeam 5 the impact coefficient of vehicle load; j 5 girder rizing how RESEB1.0 works is provided in Fig. 1.
distribution factor; mcq 5 transverse distribution coefficient of The number of samples affects the results of Monte Carlo sim-
vehicle load; qk 5 uniform load of lane load; Pk 5 concentrated load ulation considerably. The number of trials to include in each Monte

© ASCE 04014053-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng. 2014.19.

 Carlo simulation was selected based on a small set of sample cases.
Ten calculations were conducted for a sampling frequency covering
10e2:1 3 107 samples. The results are given in Fig. 2. The mean and
COV of each sampling series also were analyzed, as shown in Fig. 3.
It can be seen from these figures that the accuracy of the results
increases with the number of samples. Equivalently, the uncertainty of
the results decreases with the number of samples. Two principles are
established to choose the most cost-effective sampling frequency: (1)
the difference between the result and the exact value is allowed to be
more than 0.01, and (2) the variance of results is not allowed to be
more than 0.01. Based on these principles, a sampling frequency of
80,000 was chosen for the Monte Carlo method in this study.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Flowchart of RESEB1.0
Fig. 2. Convergence of Monte Carlo results as a function of number of trials
© ASCE 04014053-4
J. Bridge Eng. 2014.19.
Reliability of Existing Bridges
Because bridges are such large products, every bridge is unique. For
the purpose of studying the reliability of the bridges in China,
a virtual database (VDB) containing 8,064 RC T-beam highway
bridges covering different span lengths, girder spacings, load rat-
ings, and materials was established. The coefficients of load-bearing
capacity for each condition state listed in Table 1 were imported into
RESEB1.0. The reliability indices of the bridges in the VDB in
different condition states were calculated. Taking the mean of the
reliability indices as the minimum value for each condition state, the
authors determined the range of reliability indices of the existing
bridges in each condition state. The results are shown in Table 4.
In China, the target reliability of highway bridges is specified as
btarget 5 4:2 in the “Unified Standard for the Reliability Design of
Highway Engineering Structures” (USR1999) (MOT 1999). The
reliability index of existing bridge must not be less than their target
reliability. Otherwise the existing bridge needs to be rehabilitated.
Table 4 shows that the condition state of existing bridge is CS IV when
the reliability of the existing bridge is lower than the target reliability.
It can be concluded from this result that the provisions specified in
SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) and USR1999 (MOT 1999) are in accord.
Bridges deteriorate with time because of aggressive environ-
ments and ever-increasing traffic volume and loads. Therefore,
many existing bridges do not satisfy the structural requirements
specified for new bridges. Deterioration also results in a reduction in
bridge reliability (Stewart and Val 1999). Forecasting of bridge
condition is expected to provide information on future conditions if
no maintenance action is taken over a period of time. The forecasting
capability depends critically on a deterioration model, a mathe-
matical description of typical changes in condition experienced by
a facility as it ages (Thompson and Johnson 2005). Having analyzed
a great many bridges, Frangopol et al. (2000) chose a bilinear model,
as shown in Fig. 4, to represent the time-dependent reliability index
of bridges.
For bridges without any maintenance, the bilinear model can be
formulated as Eq. (8)
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Relationship between mean and COV of b and the number of samples

Table 4. Range of Reliability of CS I–V Bridges The selected model is based on statistical data on a great many
Condition state Range of reliability index existing bridges. The model is used in the bridge management
system and is broadly accepted to model the time-dependent re-
I [6.08, 1‘)
liability of existing bridges. According to the reliability model, the
II [5.70, 6.08)
expected reliability index of existing bridges at a certain point in
III [4.83, 5.70)
time is not a fixed value. The probability of the expected reliability
IV [3.50, 4.83)
index belonging to a certain interval (a, b) can be calculated by
V (2‘, 3.50)
Eq. (9)

Pða, bÞ ¼ Pfb j a , b , bg (9)

All the bridges in the VDB are assumed to be constructed at the

same time, and it is assumed that no rehabilitation would be con-
ducted in their service life. The environmental category is defined as
a good one. Based on the selected reliability model and the reliability
range listed in Table 4, the proportion of bridges in CS I–V in their
service life in the VBD can be obtained. The result is shown in Fig. 5.
As can be seen from Fig. 5, the proportion of CS I bridges de-
clined sharply with increasing service life. Meanwhile, the pro-
portion of bridges in CS II–IV grows gradually. At 40 years after
bridge construction, the proportion of bridges in CS IV, equal to
44%, is at a maximum. This means that 44% of existing bridges need
maintenance after 40 years of operation. And the proportion of
bridges that need to be rehabilitated will continue to increase if no
maintenance is provided. The risk of bridge failure also will increase
as the proportion of bridges in CS V increases.
Previous studies have provided some condition state–based de-
terioration models (James et al. 1993; Stukhart et al. 1991; Chen and
Fig. 4. Bridge reliability profile without maintenance Johnston 1987; Morrow and Johnston 1994; Rahim and Johnston
1991). Many of these models are based on a linear deterioration of
 condition state in which the deterioration rate is expressed in terms of
b0 0 # t # Ti condition rating increase per year (CR/year), where the condition
bðtÞ ¼ (8)
b0 2 aðt 2 Ti Þ t $ Ti rating at any time t can be computed (Estes and Frangopol 2001).
The results of several studies based on these linear models are shown
where b0 5 reliability of bridge at time t 5 0; a 5 deteriorated rate in Table 5. The mean time for the bridges to be rehabilitated is 37.7
of bridge reliability per year [a obeys a uniform distribution for years, which is in accordance with the predictions shown in Fig. 5.
different environments, i.e., a ∼ Uð0:002, 0:2Þ]; T 5 deterioration The proposed method is equally applicable to a group of de-
initiation time, which is modeled using a lognormal distribution, teriorating highway bridges built at different time periods. The com-
i.e., Ti ∼ LNð15, 5Þ. putational procedure for evaluating the probability of maintenance

© ASCE 04014053-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng. 2014.19.

 application for a group of deteriorating structures is identical to that
for an individual structure. To demonstrate the applicability of the
proposed method to a group of structures, a large stock of 1,228 RC
bridges built in Beijing between 1978 and 2008 was analyzed. The
year of construction for all the bridges in the bridge stock is indicated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in Fig. 6. Considering this bridge stock and using simulation based
on the data in Fig. 5, the expected number of bridges without
maintenance in each condition state between 2015 and 2080 can be
predicted, as shown in Fig. 7. Assuming that bridges in CS IV would
be rehabilitated in a timely fashion, the expected number of bridges
that need to be rehabilitated every year also can be forecasted, as
shown in Fig. 8.
It can be seen from Fig. 7, taking no account of newly built
bridges during the 2015–2080 period, the number of bridges in CS
IV and V increases sharply after 2015. Also, as shown in Fig. 8, the
number of bridges that need to be rehabilitated every year grows
rapidly. The number of bridges that need to be rehabilitated is es-
timated to reach a peak value of 33 in 2031. After that, assuming that

the reliability index of an existing bridge after the first rehabilitation

Fig. 5. Proportion of CS I–V bridges in lifetime
is equal to that of a newly built bridge, the number of bridges that
need to have a second rehabilitation increases gradually. However, it
is inadequate to attempt to estimate the condition state probabilities
from the proposed model unless maintenance activities include
preventive maintenance that delays the deterioration of existing
bridges and essential maintenance that improves the reliability and
condition of existing bridges substantially. The desirability of
feedback on maintenance accomplishments has long been recog-
nized (Estes and Frangopol 2001). Such feedback could be de-
veloped by recording the work done on specific bridges so that the
effect on condition can be clearly identified (Thompson and Markow
1996) and a more fruitful bridge deterioration model can be
established.

Table 5. Condition State Deterioration Models for RC Bridges

Element Basis Time to rehabilitation (years) Deterioration rate (CR/year) Source
RC deck Data 24 0.125 James et al. (1993)
RC deck Expert 33 0.091 Stukhart et al. (1991)
RC deck Data 41 0.073 Chen and Johnston (1987)
RC deck Data 45 0.067 Morrow and Johnston (1994)
RC deck Data 48 0.063 Rahim and Johnston (1991)
RC substructure Data 23 0.130 James et al. (1993)
RC substructure Expert 35 0.086 Stukhart et al. (1991)
RC substructure Data 44 0.068 Chen and Johnston (1987)
RC substructure Data 42 0.071 Morrow and Johnston (1994)
RC substructure Data 42 0.071 Rahim and Johnston (1991)
Mean — 37.7 0.079 —

Fig. 6. Stock of 1,228 RC bridges in Beijing by year of construction

© ASCE 04014053-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng. 2014.19.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Expected number of bridges in different condition states from stock of 1,228 bridges assuming no maintenance in 2015–2080 period based on
simulation

Fig. 8. Expected number of bridges needing to be rehabilitated every year during 2015–2080 period based on simulation

Case Study

To verify the validity of the coefficients of load-bearing capacity

specified in the SIE2011 (MOT 2011a), a five-span bridge constructed
in 1978 was taken as a case study. The length of the bridge is 80.62 m.
Fig. 9 is the side elevation of the selected bridge. The strength of the
concrete used in the bridge is 30 MPa. The design load is a super-
position of the traditional HS20 truck and lane loading. Cross sections
of the bridge and the internal beam are shown in Figs. 10 and 11.
In 2011, a regular inspection of the selected bridge was con-
ducted based on SIE2011 (MOT 2011a). The inspection result is
provided in Table 6. In the table, the first column lists inspection
items that affect the value of the coefficients. Take Z1 as an example:
state of appearance, concrete strength, and natural frequency of the
bridge would affect the value of Z1 . The second column lists the
weight of each inspection item, which is referred from SIE2011
Fig. 9. Side elevation of selected bridge (image by Han-Liang Wu)
(MOT 2011a). The third column lists the classification of each
inspection item. The sums of products of Column 2 and 3 are listed in

© ASCE 04014053-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng. 2014.19.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Cross section of bridge (in meters)
Fig. 11. Cross section of internal beam (in millimeters)
Column 4. Then the value of each coefficient can be obtained by
looking in Table 2, as listed in Column 5. It can be seen from Table 6
that the condition state of the bridge is CS IV. Values of the
coefficients were calculated by linear interpolation. The compre-
hensive modification coefficient of bridge load-bearing capacity is
0.99. The deterioration coefficient of load-bearing capacity is 0.1.
The section reduction coefficients for concrete and steel are 0.95 and
0.90, respectively. The calculated maximum moment of the bridge
under design load is less than the ultimate bearing capacity.
After importing the coefficients obtained from the inspection into
RESEB1.0, the reliability index of the bridge is calculated and shown
in Table 7. In this table, the reliability of the planned bridge is
calculated for the bridge design scheme. The reliability of the as-
built bridge is calculated for the bridge that has been built, and a trial
operation has been completed. Compared with the planned bridge,
the uncertainty of material strength and geometric dimensioning
disappear in the as-built bridge. In other words, for the as-built
bridge, the SD of the performance function sz is smaller. The re-
liability index of the planned bridge is less than the reliability index
of the as-built bridge, i.e., b1 . b0 . The reliability index of the
existing bridge is the lowest for the deterioration of the bridge in its
33-year operating period. However, the selected bridge can still be
used normally because the reliability index bT is greater than the
target reliability btarget 5 4:2. The result is in accord with the con-
clusion made by inspection.
© ASCE 04014053-8
J. Bridge Eng. 2014.19.
In this study, the bilinear model of time-dependent reliability
proposed by Frangopol is used as a benchmark. A comparison be-
tween reliability analysis results of the selected bridge and the
selected model is made to demonstrate the rationality of the co-
efficients of load-bearing capacity specified in SIE2011 (MOT
2011a). The deterioration rate of structures obeys a uniform dis-
tribution. Therefore, 4a, as shown in Table 8, can be assumed as the
deterioration rate for each environmental category. Thus the in-
fluence of environmental category on time-dependent reliability can
be analyzed, and consistency between the reliability of the bridge
and the selected model can be studied. The time-dependent re-
liability profile for each environment rating is shown in Fig. 12.
It can be seen from Fig. 12 that the reliability of the existing
bridge fits well with the predicted value of the time-dependent
reliability model. The former is only 2% greater than the pre-
dicted value. This error is acceptable for the study of uncertainty.
A comparison between the reliability of the existing bridge and
the range of reliability for each condition state also was made.
The reliability of the bridge after 33 years of use is in the range of
bridges in CS IV. It can be concluded that the coefficients of load-
bearing capacity specified in SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) are ap-
plicable to the evaluation of the load-carrying capacity of the
existing RC bridge.
Conclusions
In this study, the coefficients of load-bearing capacity for RC bridges
specified in SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) are imported into the limit-state
function. A reliability analysis of existing bridges based on SIE2011
(MOT 2011a) was conducted. The ranges of reliability indices for
bridges in each condition state are calculated. The proportion of
existing bridges in each condition state with increasing service age is
predicted. An existing bridge that has been used for 33 years was
studied to calculate the reliability index of the planned bridge, the as-
built bridge, and the existing bridge at time T. The result is compared
with the well-known time-dependent reliability model. The fol-
lowing conclusions are made:
1. The effectiveness of the coefficients used to evaluate the
condition of existing bridges is validated based on probabi-
listic theory. The coefficients can be imported into the per-
formance function to calculate the reliability index of existing
bridges, and the expected number of bridges without mainte-
nance in each condition state and the expected number of
bridges that need to be rehabilitated every year are predicted.
Thus the prioritization of scarce funds among the multitude of
J. Bridge Eng.
 Table 6. Inspection Results for Case-Study Bridge
Inspection item Weight State of inspection item State of coefficients Value Coefficient
Appearance of bridge 0.4 4 3.1 0.99 Z1
Concrete strength 0.3 4
Natural frequency of the bridge 0.3 1
Weathering of material 0.1 2 2.35 0.95 jc
Carbonization 0.35 3
Physical damage 0.55 2
Corrosion of reinforcement 1 3 3 0.9 js
Appearance of concrete 0.32 4 3.05 0.1 je
Corrosion potential 0.11 4
Specific resistance of concrete 0.05 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Carbonation depth 0.2 3

Thickness of concrete cover 0.12 4
Chlorine ion content 0.15 —
Concrete strength 0.05 4

Table 7. Reliability Index and Parameters of Case-Study Bridge

Planned Newly built Existing
Coefficient bridge bridge bridge
Comprehensive modification coefficient 1 1.15 0.99
of bridge load-bearing capacity Z1
Deterioration coefficient of load-bearing 0 0 0.1
capacity je
Section reduction coefficient for 1 1 0.95
concrete jc
Section-reduction coefficient for steel js 1 1 0.90
Reliability index b0 5 5:46 b1 5 6:16 bT 5 4:43

Table 8. Deterioration Rate and Damage Initiation Time in Various

Environment Conditions
Fig. 12. Time-dependent reliability of bridge in various environment
Environmental category Deterioration rate (a=year21 ) conditions
Best 0.0143
Good 0.0388
Bad 0.0633
Worst 0.0878
References

urgently needed bridge maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation
activities can be determined.
2. The reliability of an as-built bridge is greater than that of
a planned bridge because some uncertainties disappear when
the bridge is constructed.
3. The inspection result based on SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) agrees
well with the result obtained from the analysis based on
reliability.
4. The reliability of the bridge in the case study, which was
calculated by applying the coefficients of load-bearing ca-
pacity specified in SIE2011 (MOT 2011a) into the limit-state
function, fits well with the predicted value of the time-
dependent reliability model. The former is only 2% greater
than the predicted value. It can be concluded that the coef-
ficients of load-bearing capacity specified in SIE2011 (MOT
2011a) are applicable to evaluating the load-carrying capac-
ity of the case-study bridge. There is an urgent need to apply
the proposed procedure in the evaluation of existing bridges
to further verify the coefficients.
AASHTO. (1983). Standard specifications of highway bridges, Washington,
DC.
AASHTO. (1994). LRFD bridge design specifications, 1st Ed., Washington,
DC.
AASHTO. (1997). AASHTO guide for commonly recognized (core) struc-
tural elements, Washington, DC.
Aktan, A. E., et al. (1996). “Condition assessment for bridge management.” J.
Infrastruct. Syst., 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(1996)2:3(108), 108–117.
Chen, C. J., and Johnston, D. W. (1987). “Bridge management under a level
of service concept providing optimum improvement action, time, and
budget prediction.” Rep. No. FHWA/NC/88-004, North Carolina State
Univ., Raleigh, N.C.
Du, J. S., and Au, F. T. K. (2005). “Deterministic and reliability analysis of
prestressed concrete bridge girders: Comparison of the Chinese, Hong
Kong and AASHTO LRFD codes.” Struct. Saf., 27(3), 230–245.
Enright, M. P., and Frangopol, D. M. (1998). “Probabilistic analysis of
resistance degradation of reinforced concrete bridge beams under cor-
rosion.” Eng. Struct., 20(11), 960–971.
Estes, A. C., and Frangopol, D. M. (2001). “Bridge lifetime system re-
liability under multiple limit states.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1084-0702(2001)6:6(523), 523–528.

© ASCE 04014053-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng. 2014.19.

 Frangopol, D. M., Gharaibeh, E. S., Kong, J. S., and Miyake, M. (2000).
“Optimal network-level bridge maintenance planning based on minimum
expected cost.” Transportation Research Record 1696, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 26–33.
Frangopol, D. M., Kong, J. S., and Gharaibeh, E. S. (2001). “Reliability-
based life-cycle management of highway bridges.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2001)15:1(27), 27–34.
Ghosn, M., and Moses, F. (1986). “Reliability calibration of bridge design
code.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:4(745),
745–763.
Highways Department. (1997). Structures design manual for highways
and railways, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region, China.
James, R. P., et al. (1993). “A proposed bridge management system
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
implementation plan for Texas.” Rep. No. FHWA/TX-92/1259-IF, Texas
Transportation Institute, College Station, TX.
Li, S., and Wang, S. (2011). “Reliability-based calibration of load capacity
checking factors of existing highway bridges.” J. Beijing Univ. Technol.
37(4), 515–521 (in Chinese).
Li, Y., Lu, D., and Sheng, H. (2012). “Fatigue reliability analysis on cable
of cable-stayed bridge under random vehicle load and wind load.” China
J. Highway Transport, 25(2), 60–66 (in Chinese).
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (MOT). (1985).
“Code for design of highway reinforced concrete and prestressed
concrete bridges and culverts.” JTJ 023-85, China Communications
Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (MOT). (1999).
“Unified standard for the reliability design of highway engineering
structures.” GB/T 50283-1999, China Plan Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (MOT). (2004).
“Code for maintenance of highway bridges and culverts.” JTG H11-
2004, China Communication Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (MOT). (2009).
“Technical specifications of maintenance for highways.” JTG H10-
2009, China Communication Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (MOT). (2011a).
“Specification for inspection and evaluation of the load-bearing capacity
of highway bridges.” JTG/T J21-2011, China Communications Press,
Beijing (in Chinese).
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (MOT). (2011b).
“Standard for technical condition evaluation of highway bridges.” JTG/T
H21-2011, China Communications Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
© ASCE 04014053-10
J. Bridge Eng. 2014.19.
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (MOT). (2013).
“Safety of bridges in China.” Æhttp://www.glzx.gov.cn/dongtaixx/bujidt/
201303/t20130312_1377568.htmlæ (Oct. 10, 2013).
Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MTO). (1979). Ontario
highway bridge design code, Downsview, Canada.
Morrow, T. K., and Johnston, D. W. (1994). “Bridge maintenance level of
service optimization.” Rep. No. FHWA/NC/94-004, Center for Trans-
portation Engineering Studies, Dept. of Civil Engineering, North Car-
olina State Univ., Raleigh, NC.
Nowak, A. S. (1993). “Calibration of LRFD bridge design code.” NCHRP
Project 12-33, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Nowak, A. S., and Eamon, C. D. (2005). “Load and resistance factor cal-
ibration for wood bridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702
(2005)10:6(636), 636–642.
Nowak, A. S., and Lind, N. C. (1979). “Practical bridge code calibration.”
J. Struct. Div., 11(2), 2497–2510.
Nowak, A. S., Park, C. H., and Casas, J. R. (2001). “Reliability analysis of
prestressed concrete bridge girders: Comparison of Eurocode, Spanish
Norma IAP and AASHTO LRFD.” Struct. Saf., 23(4), 331–344.
Qin, Q., and Zhao, G. (2002). “Calibration of reliability index of RC beams
for serviceability limit state of maximum crack width.” Reliab. Eng. Syst.
Saf., 75(3), 359–366.
Rahim, A. I. J., and Johnston, D. W. (1991). “Analysis of relationships
affecting bridge deterioration and improvement.” Rep. NC/R&D/93-001,
Center for Transportation Engineering Studies, North Carolina State
Univ., Raleigh, NC.
Stewart, M. G., and Val, D. V. (1999). “Role of load history in reliability-
based decision analysis of aging bridges.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:7(776), 776–783.
Stukhart, G., James, R. W., Diaz, A. G., Bligh, R. P., Sobanjo, J., and
McFarland, W. F. (1991). “Study for a comprehensive bridge man-
agement system for Texas.” Rep. No. FHWA/TX-980/1212-If, Texas
Transportation Institute, College Station, TX.
Thompson, P. D., and Johnson, M. B. (2005). “Markovian bridge de-
terioration: Developing models from historical data.” Struct. Infrastruct.
Eng., 1(1), 85–91.
Thompson, P. D., and Markow, M. J. (1996). “Collecting and managing cost
data for bridge management systems.” NCHRP Synthesis 227, Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Zhang, J., et al. (2011). Carrying capacity evaluation measures of highway
bridges and applications, China Communications Press, Beijing (in
Chinese).
J. Bridge Eng.