UK experience The UK is undergoing a comprehensive rehabilitation programme for local and trun k road bridges which commenced in 1988

in response to an EU directive for international transport road vehicles to be allowed into the UK. In particular this referred t o 40 tonne vehicles coming onto UK roads from 1 January 1999. Assessments are carried out u sing limit state principles to the current mandatory assessment code BD 21 (1997) sup ported by a complementary advice note BA 16 (1997). The code is generally concerned wit h older structures using outmoded forms of construction and obsolete materials, an d provides specific guidance for assessing the capacity of masonry arch bridges. G uidance is given on inspection; unit weights of materials; live loading; strength of mat erials and methods of analysis. At present the assessment live loading is considered at its worst possible level and is applied indiscriminately to motorways and minor roads; to relatively new bridges as well as old ones, and to bridges of different types. This is clearly an unsatisfactor y state of affairs and research sponsored by the Highways Agency is now underway with the a im of producing a comprehensive set of assessment documents that will discriminate bet ween bridges of different ages, types and carrying different intensities of traffic, specifically the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) which use the bridge. The new methods will provide default values of load and resistance variables and allow for the incorp oration of probabilistic and reliability methods at higher levels of assessment using bridg e specific data. Das (1997) advocates the use of a hierarchy of assessment methodologies starting at a very simple level and becoming progressively more sophisticated with the aim of determining more accurately the load carrying capacity of a particular bridge sh ould its initial assessment fail. Five levels are proposed (with a possible modus operand i as in Appendix 3C), namely: Level 1 This employs a simple analysis tool, with design based on specified mate rial properties combined with codified partial safety factors. An example may be the analysis of a simple beam analysis using a strip of deck under full assessment loading. Thi s gives information about longitudinal bending only since transverse bending is ignored. Level 2 This employs a more refined linear elastic analysis technique employing a better structural idealization such as a grillage or finite element analysis both of wh ich allow for the transverse distribution of load due to the presence of transverse bending mo ments and shear forces. It may be possible to carry out useful non-destructive tests to establish materi

al properties and also to carry out a load test to establish the transverse load di stribution characteristics (see Chapter 5). Level 3 This level is bridge specific in that it uses material properties and lo ading specific to a particular bridge and uses the results of research into local traf fic conditions to derive the assessment live loads. For short span bridges the 1997 version of BD 21 takes account of traffic density and road surface irregularities. For longer bridges o ther factors derived from traffic surveys are recommended in BD 50 (1997). Bridge response da ta may be derived from load tests if these are considered appropriate. Level 4 This level aims to use modified partial safety factors for both loads an d materials (as opposed to the full codified values used in Levels 1 to 3). The pa rtial safety factors reflect the uncertainty of the given variable and need to be calculated with great care. Der Kiureghan (1989) defines four sources of uncertainty as natural variab ility; estimation error; model imperfection and human error which are defined in Append ix 3A. Shetty et al. 1998) suggests that modifications to partial safety factors can be derived to take account of the specific characteristics of a particular bridge, which might include, for example: Measurements of actual dimensions of the main structural and superimposed dead l oad elements this would enable more accurate assessment of dead loads and element strengths. Live Load Factor (LLF) = ratio of live load to dead load. Clearly a high LLF wou ld mean that a bridge is less sensitive to increases of live load. Age of the structure and its expected remaining service life a bridge in good co ndition can be expected to be safer that a similar bridge suffering severe deterioration. Reserve strength and redundancy could take account of things like membrane actio n; fixity at supports and improved load distribution. Inspection and monitoring regime linked to warning of failure this increases confidence and enables remedial action to be taken more immediately. Consequences of failure even if there is the loss of one life it is difficult to see how this knowledge can enable a modification of the safety factors. Level 5 This level incorporates the use of structural reliability analysis techn iques. It considers the probability of failure of an element within the structure, (or the overall structure) based on the random uncertainties in load and resistance. The same so urces of uncertainty are used as in level 4 from which a reliability index can be calcula ted. Shetty et al. (1998) points out that the probability of failure should be treated as a no tional value and not used as a measure of the frequency of failure which could be expect ed in

service. This is because the probability distributions used in a reliability ana lysis do not take into account gross errors in design, construction or operation (see Appendi x 3A). In assessing the capacity of a bridge Micic (1997a) suggests that gross errors can be disregarded since they would have manifested themselves during the previous life time of the bridge. The reliability procedure can be a daunting one, but it is hoped to produce a gu idance document so that bridge engineers can work alongside reliability specialists to ensure a consistency of results. In particular this will mean the provision of probabilit y distributions and the target reliability index (T). Since the latter has not been specified in the UK, research will have to be carried out in order to determine it, and could follow the calibration procedure used by Nowak (1997); in particular the selection and stud y of a wide spectrum of bridges designed according to UK standards. The guidance will i nclude a number of worked examples.