Performance-based design and analysis of the Messina Strait Bridge

Prof. Franco Bontempi (1) Dr. Luciano Catallo (1) Dr. Luca Sgambi (1)
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Rome La Sapienza, Via Eudossiana 18, Rome, 00184, ITALY, franco.bontempi@uniroma1.it , luciano.catallo@uniroma1.it , luca.sgambi@uniroma1.it
(1)

Abstract
For advanced systems, like long span suspension bridges, it is necessary to set the global design process in the philosophy of the Performance-based design (P.B.D.), rather than in the conventional prescriptive-based design. In this work a performance approach to the design problem is represented dividing the general treatment of this subject in two points: one related to the performance approach applied to the Messina Strait Bridge, the other related to the modeling phase.

Keywords
Performance-based design; Modeling; Non linear analysis; Sub structuring process; Long-span bridge.

Introduction
This work examines the main aspects of the performance-based design with regard to advanced systems, like the Messina Strait Bridge (Fig.1). The project of this kind of structures involves several general aspects, and their consideration and optimization need to be organized and synthesized within a performance approach, in opposite to the more usual prescriptive approach. The behavior of long span suspended bridge is influenced by different and complex aspects that need to be treated and evaluated deeply, organically and systematically. The P.B.D. allows a rational approach of the design problem, with the possibility of optimization the different parameters and levels of detail. To do that, it must be clear which are the peculiar aspects that the design of this typology of bridge must concern, above all referring to the geometrical non linearity of the system (Catallo, Sgambi, Silvestri 2003). Moreover, great attention must be paid in the realization of the main topics of the entire design process, represented by the structural modeling of the system, which allow to estimate realistically the structural response to the action that act during the exercise phase.

Performance-based design
The performance analysis for the evaluation of the reliability of complex structures like the Messina Strait Bridge, results from three main points (Fellows & Liu, 1997): - formulation of the structural problem and organization of the relevant data and information; - structural modeling and numerical analysis; - synthesis of the results and critical evaluations.

Figure 1: Longitudinal view of the Messina Strait Bridge and of its global model. The inherent complexity in planning and designing this kind of structures leads to the necessity of a new design statement in the framework of the so-called Performancebased besign (P.B.D.), which aims at defining preventively and accurately the performances requested to the structure. Absolutely critic it appears the ability to predict the performance required for such structures and the necessity to provide the qualitative and quantitative elements able to support the following decisional processes needed to specifically define such an important structure, including both limit and service behaviors. In the specific case, it has been chosen to make use of all the advantages that a performance based design can guarantee with respect to the more traditional prescriptive approaches. Figure 2 synthetically, but efficiently, shows the relationship between prescriptive and performance content.
Specification Level

6 5 4 3

As part of total system in risk-based performance terms As a sub-system with performance requirements only As a sub-system with performance and interface requirements Performance with some prescriptive criteria

Prescriptive Content
2 1 0 100%

Designers Freedom
Prescriptive with some performance criteria Fully Prescriptive

Prescriptive Content Performance Content

100% 0

Figure 2: Prescriptive content and performance content. Nowadays, most of the structures are designed, constructed, maintained and dismantled without taking in consideration the specific knowledge pertinent to their real behavior. The recent improvement in measurement and elaboration data technologies has created the proper condition to improve the decisional tools, traditionally based on experimental and numerical simulations, through the improvement of the information connected to both the structural performances on site and the measurement systems. These systems have become in the last few years more numerous, cheaper, stronger, stable and precise: some of those ones that in the past were reliable only in laboratory applications, today are powerfully applied on site problems. The enormous advantages that can be drawn by the results of these measurements and the development of these technologies have led to the birth of

activities inside the domain of the so-called Performance-Based Structural Engineering (Smith, 2001, Silvestri and Bontempi 2003). The actual organization of the entire design process (generally based on prescriptive concepts) pays attention in defining loads and external forces applied and in the definition of the admissible stress and strain conditions. On the other hand, the P.B.D. starts the design process fixing the performance guideline required to the structure. In general, a prescriptive approach describes an acceptable solution, while a performance approach describes the performances which are required to the structure. A performance approach is, essentially, the attitude to think and to work in terms of finality, rather than in terms of meanings. It concerns what a structure has to achieve rather than the way it is built.

Decomposition technique
Because of complexity of the system, in order to take into consideration all aspects, it is necessary to adpt a decomposition strategy. In this manner, the structural problem and each relevant aspetct are hierarchical organized in several levels that can be singularly dealt with. The decomposition can be performed for different aspects: Performance, Structural Organism and Load (Simon, 1980; Bentley, 1999).
CONCEPTION CONTENTS SPECIFICS CONFORMITY FORMAL PERCEIVED ORGANIZATION PROCESS AND PRODUCT CONFORMITY PRACTICABILITY INTEGRITY EFFICIENCY
COMPETITIVE QUALITY UNDERSTANDABILITY

QUALITY

DESIGN QUALITY

REACHED QUALITY

QUALITY

PRODUCT QUALITY

CORRECTENESS RELIABILITY MANUTENIBILITY DEMONSTRABILITY FLEXIBILITY

STRESS STATES MANMADE LOADS DEAD LOADS LIVE LOAD

GLOBAL STRENGTHENING

THERMAL ACTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS WIND ACTIONS SEISMIC ACTIONS

BRIDGE

STRENGTHENING

MANMADE ACTIONS EXCEPTIONAL ACTIONS MAX STRESS ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS

LOCAL STRENGTHENING

FATIGUE STRNGTHENING CONNECTIONS STABILITY LONGITUDINAL DISPLACEMENT

STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY
GLOBAL DEFORMABILITY

VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT TRANSVERSAL DISPLACEMENT ROTATION WARPING BUCKLING

DEFORMABILITY
LOCAL DEFORMABILITY

ROTATION WARPING

RUNNABILITY SHIP INTERACTION DURABILITY

SERVICEABILITY

INSPECTION MANUTENIBILTY MONITORING REPAIRED AESTHETIC

Figure 3: Partial performance decomposition of the Messina Bridge.

Figure 3 shows the framework for the performance breakdown. It is clear that the decomposition is made for several aspects of the whole structural system, such as design quality, product quality and serviceability. In the flowchart of Figure 4 the whole system is firstly divided into substructures (macro-level), then into components (meso-level), and finally into elements (micro-level). Consequently, it is possible to modify each variable and optimize the structural behavior in order to achieve a specified performance objective (Bontempi, Biondini, Radogna 2002; Calzona, Bontempi (2001)).

Figure 4: Structural decomposition of the Messina Bridge.

Performance identification and measure

The performance approach to the structural design is based on the verification of the exact suitability of the structure with respect to fixed requisites connected to serviceability and safety conditions, as shown with reference to the Messina Strait Bridge in Figure 5 (Blockley, 1980; Catallo, Biondini, Bontempi, Fragopol, 2003). In the planning of the structural design, which concerns the qualitative identification of the necessary performance, one can draw up a performance matrix (Fig.6) in which the general outline, about the subdivision of the complex problem in exam, is described. For each structural part of the bridge (Structural Decomposition), the performances have been listed (Performance Decomposition), operating divisions among Structural Safety, Functional Efficiency and Constructive Efficiency.

Among all the performances pointed out in the Performance Matrix, particularly interesting for a complex structure like the Messina Strait Crossing Bridge are (Biondini, Bontempi, Malerba 2000; Imai, Frangopol 2002; Sgambi, Biondini, Bontempi, Frangopol 2003): - structural strength; - run ability; - maintenance of a free level above the sea in frequent condition; - analysis and aerodynamic optimization of the bridge cross-section; - limitation of deck accelerations induced by vortex shedding for frequent wind conditions; - aero elastic stability.

Figure 5: Principal performances examined.

Structural Decomposition

Variables

Performance Performance Decomposition Decomposition

Figure 6: Performance Matrix. Static and cinematic parameters have been chosen carefully in order to understand the real behavior of the structure toward the performance condition preliminarily identified as prominent. This complex analysis can be supported by the knowledge of other experiences concerning other bridges already built in other countries. Relating

to the long span and to the traffic typology, some of the performances have been analyzed and then adopted after a phase of correction and improvement both during the design and the construction phases. The functional run ability performances or the skill ness of the bridge to execute safely the correct functions of roadway and railway connection, concern both static and dynamic aspects: they have to be compatibles with the railway and roadway traffic safety. Adequate comfort standards must also be guaranteed. The roadway traffic conditions are strictly connected to the complex strain path generated by the load combination expected in the exercise phase, varying with the length and with the stresses generated by the roadway and railway traffic. Essentially, they are formed by the transversal slope (sum of the drainage initial slope and the rotation induced), by the vertical curvature radius and by the vertical and horizontal accelerations induced on the deck. Relatively to the railway run ability, the longitudinal slope, the rail torsion and the respective variations must be also added. Each of these aspects, which influence the run ability, identifies one or more realistic and severe load combinations under which the structure, modeled and calculated with reliable programs, must satisfy the performances attended. Among the actions potentially dangerous toward the run ability, great attention must be paid in analyzing the wind effects, which can really influence the safety and the comfort of the users. Relating to the average economic damage attended by every hour of closure for a year, its necessary to quantify the bridge performances with respect to this event, namely the attended number of hours in which the bridge will be closed or open with a series of traffic limitations for the different vehicular categories.
DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL FUNCTION AND THEIR RELATIONS

DEFINITION OF DETAILED OPRATIONS STEP BY STEP

Figure 7: Subdivision of structural system analysis.

Modeling process
The modeling process consists of a net of theories, decisions, and operative aspects that make possible to extract useful information about the system studied. The existing data and information are organized in the real system model, obtained starting from the reality through a reduction process, maintaining the useful aspects and avoiding to consider the other ones. Introducing an analogy, the model is like a terrain map: it does not contain all the terrain particulars that one wants to represent, but is useful, for example, to know the distance between two points. Its evident that

different topographic sections and different viewpoint of a terrain exist, so different models for the same system can exist, depending on what it is aimed to evidence: this vision of the modeling can be synthesized with the name of layerization, as shown in Fig.7. Useful can be considered the expression holographic modeling, commonly used referring it to the risks management of the complete structure, that underlines the multidimensionality of the description developed through the model. The analysis of a complex structural system hardly can be reduced to a single phase only. Generally in fact there are inside the structure two classes of regions with strongly different mechanical behavior. One considers the so called: - B-regions, where the stress picture is congruent to a simple strain picture; the B letter, stems from Bernoulli; - D-regions, where the absence of a simple cinematic behavior involve complex stress picture; in this way there are regions with diffusive stress, by which stems the letter D. It appears necessary to divide the structural system analysis in several phases, hierarchically organized as (see again Figure 7): - Global analysis; - Local analysis at a first under level; - Local analysis at a second under level; - .

Figure 8: Sub structuring technique applied to the Messina Bridge. The layout of this multilevel analysis process can be formalized through the sub structuring concept (Fig.8), with the first analysis level executed with numerical models able to gain the global aspect of the structural behavior (for example, with Bernoulli beam elements). It is important to note that: - all the connections of the structural elements are configured as D-regions; - the global behavior of the structure is the result, from a macroscopic point of view, of the integration of the local behavior of these D-regions; - the local possible crisis, can be dangerous for the integrity (robustness) of the overall structural organism and this must be avoided with an accurate design;

the local behavior, particularly the local strain, can lead to an unacceptable behavior (for example, regarding the second order effects). It must be noticed how the complexity of structures such as the Messina Bridge results just from the matching and the interactions peculiar of this system at local behavior: in fact, it is possible the arise of secondary effects to jeopardize the design. The development of these mechanisms must be identified by the modeling and opportunely dominated in the design strategy. -

Acknowledgements
The financial support of Stretto di Messina S.p.A. and of COFIN2002 is acknowledged. The opinions and conclusions presented is this paper are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring organizations.

References
Bentley J.P., 1999. Reliability & Quality Engineering. Addison Wesley England. Biondini F., Bontempi F., Malerba P.G., 2000. Fuzzy Theory and Genetically-Driven Simulation in the Reliability Assessment of Concrete Structures. Proceedings of 8th Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability. July 24-26, Notre Dame, USA. Blockley D.I., 1980. The nature of structural design and safety. Ellis Horwood Limited. Bontempi F., Radogna E.F., Biondini F., 2002. La modellazione realistica delle strutture esistenti in c.a./c.a.p (in italian). Giornate A.I.C.A.P. 2002, Bologna, Italy. Calzona R., Bontempi F., 2001. Remarks on the approval process of designs of structures provided with innovative anti-seismic systems in Italy. 7th International Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control of Vibrations of Structures. Assisi, Italy. Catallo L., Biondini F., Bontempi F., Frangopol D.M., 2004. Robust reliability-based design optimization of Suspension Bridges. PSAM 7ESREL 04, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, June 14-18, 2004, Berlin, Germany. Catallo L., Sgambi L., Silvestri M., 2003. General aspects of the structural behavior in the Messina Strait Bridge design. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Structural and Construction Engineering, September 23-26, 2003, Rome, Italy. Fellows R., Liu A., 1997. Research Methods for Construction. Blackwell Science. Imai K., Frangopol D.M., 2002. System reliability of suspension bridges. Structural Safety 24 (2002). Elsevier Science. Sgambi L., Biondini F., Bontempi F., Frangopol D.M., 2004. Handling Uncertainties in Optimal Design of Suspension Bridges with Special Emphasis on Loads. PSAM 7 ESREL 04, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, June 14-18, 2004, Berlin, Germany. Silvestri M., Bontempi F., 2003. Strategy and formulation levels of the structural performance analysis of advanced systems. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Structural and Construction Engineering, September 23-26, 2003, Rome, Italy. Silvestri M., 2002. Gli aspetti concettuali del Performance-based Design e la loro applicazione nel progetto dei ponti sospesi (in italian). Graduate thesis, Faculty of Engineering, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering. Simon H.A., 1998. The Sciences of the Artificial. The MIT Press, Cambridge. Smith I., 2001. Increasing Knowledge of Structural Performance. Structural Engineering International, 12 (3), 191-195.