The Failure Mechanism Concept An Innovative ULS Design Approach

Matthias SCHUELLER
Principal, P.Eng.
Infinity Engineering Group
North Vancouver, BC, Canada
MSchueller@infinity-engineers.com

Matthias Schueller, born 1964,

received a structural engineering
degree from the University of
Darmstadt, Germany, a Ph.D. from
the University of Stuttgart, Germany
and an MBA from the University of
Phoenix, USA. He is the designer of
innovative pedestrian, roadway, and
pipeline bridges.

Summary
The Failure Mechanism Concept (FMC) is an innovative plastic design approach which encourages
designers to investigate probable failure mechanisms and intentionally define the weakest link
along primary load paths. The FMC is very useful for Integral Bridges (structures without bearings
and expansion joints), but even for conventional bridges the method offers new opportunities to
design structures with lower construction and maintenance costs, improved durability, and a higher
safety margin against failure. The over 1 km long Deh Cho Bridge crossing the Mackenzie River in
Canada (see Figure 1) has been designed using the FMC design approach. As a result, a continuous
superstructure was achieved thereby avoiding two costly expansion joints in the main span.
Keywords: conceptual bridge design; plastic design; integrity; redundancy; ductility; durability;
reliability.

Fig. 1: Rendering of the Deh Cho Bridge near Fort Providence, Northwest Territories, Canada

1.

Introduction

Many modern bridge design standards clearly define the acceptable degree of safety (safety margin)
required to avoid structural failure. Standards using the Load Factor and Resistance Design (LFRD)
approach specify load and resistance factors for selected Ultimate Limit State (ULS) scenarios.
Designers typically verify for relevant ULS load combinations that factored demands do not exceed
the factored resistance of critical sections. An investigation of potential failure mechanisms is
generally not conducted except in progressive failure or forensic investigations [1], [2].
Plastic design approaches are not new; however, existing design concepts usually consider only one
material or only a few specific components of the structure [3], [4]. Conversely, the FMC
investigates every single structural component along critical load paths. Therefore, a global
perspective is incorporated into the design process and the interaction between main elements such
as the foundations, substructure, superstructure, and pylons is considered when deriving capacities
of critical sections. This holistic design approach requires significant knowledge about the structural
behaviour of relevant components such as pile foundations, bearings, shock-transmission-units, and
cables. As such, knowledge becomes vital when designing for the imperative goal: avoiding
unpredictable structural failures.

2.

Conceptual Bridge Design

Conceptual bridge design is one of the most important stages in the design process. Experienced
designers devote relevant time to this early stage in order to avoid time consuming and costly
revisions that may be required if an immature concept advances to the final design and construction
stages. Conceptual bridge design is a complex task. A sound concept should appropriately address
design criteria & standards, deploy an economical fabrication & construction method, make
efficient use of material & labour, create a reliable & durable structure, allow for inspection &
maintenance, and find general acceptance from a technical, economical, and aesthetical point of
view.
Successful bridge design concepts primarily focus on an advantageous structural system and a fast
paced economical erection method. An excellent example is the widely accepted cable-stayed
bridge concept with one main span and two relative short back spans [5], [6].
Close attention must be paid to the overall structural system and structural detailing. The bridges
long-term performance (serviceability, durability, reliability, maintenance requirements etc) depends
directly on the structures resilience to resist wear & tear, pollution, and detrimental effects caused
by the environment. Structural systems are typically defined in the conceptual bridge design phase;
however, structural detailing is not necessarily a part of this early design phase. Nevertheless,
designers must ensure that constructible and reliable solutions for any kind of anticipated structural
details are achievable. Expensive or excessive design, fabrication, and construction issues should be
avoided by any means.
Stability is often a major concern; this is particularly true if during construction the structural
system is changed several times before the final configuration is achieved. Specialized erection
engineers typically investigate critical construction stages in great detail and specify additional
temporary equipment required to ensure safe construction procedures and stages. However, even in
the early conceptual design phase a profound understanding of reasonable and reliable construction
methods is crucial for a cost-effective design approach. This is particularly true if a novel bridge
concept is being developed.
The FMC has a notable influence on the efficiency of structural systems during service and
construction. It is an excellent tool to verify structural resistance during the conceptual bridge
design phase as it considers the entire structural system and requires the designer to visualize major
load paths and adjust for optimum Structural Performance. The key word is Structural Performance.
The FMC approach is more than a simple stress check or verification that factored demands are not
exceeding factored capacities; the FMC is a design tool. Using accepted plastic design principles
the method animates the designers structural perception and allows intelligent structures that are
able to develop a predictable and controlled failure mechanism if overloaded.

3.

Plastic Design Principles

3.1

Idea and Challenges

The general idea is twofold: Plastic design principles can be used in order to (1) determine the
Ultimate Sectional Capacity of a member and (2) activate the Structures Ultimate Capacity.
3.1.1 Ultimate Sectional Capacity
The Ultimate Sectional Capacity is exhausted if any additional load would trigger a failure of the
critical section. Plastic design principles are commonly used for the design of structural concrete,
structural steel, or composite members to determine the Ultimate Sectional Capacity if local
sectional buckling can be excluded. Modern design standards do not precisely predict the Ultimate
Sectional Capacity; instead, material resistance factors are specified in order to establish a generic
safety margin against failure.
3.1.2 Structures Ultimate Capacity
The Structures Ultimate Capacity is exhausted if any additional load triggers a collapse of the
structure. It should be noted that a collapse does not necessarily occur immediately if the Ultimate
Sectional Capacity at one or more locations is exhausted. For instance, a multi-span continuous

beam may have the ability to resist additional loads even if the Ultimate Sectional Capacity at a
certain location for a given load configuration is already exhausted. If this is the case then the
structure may have reserves and designing for higher loads could be justified despite the fact that
one or more sections are overloaded. However, the elastic distribution of forces (predominantly
moment and shear) is no longer valid and some design standards apply restrictions. Generally the
plastic activation of a Structures Ultimate Capacity relies on three factors: Integrity, Redundancy,
and Ductility.
3.2
Integrity
Achieving integrity through proper detailing, as demonstrated for concrete box girders in [7], is of
fundamental importance for any bridge structure. Integrity ensures that a structure does not
experience an unforeseen local failure which may trigger a global collapse before the anticipated
ultimate capacity is exhausted. Even the most sophisticated design approach is ineffective if the
structure suffers an impetuous collapse due to a lack of integrity. For instance, several columns of
the Hanshin expressway in Kobe collapsed during the 1995 earthquake due to premature
termination of the longitudinal reinforcement and inadequate concrete confinement [8]. This
incident demonstrates why the absence of structural integrity along a primary load path may have
fatal consequences. For the design of structural concrete, Strut-and-Tie Models [9] and the
Modified-Compression-Field Theory [10] have been proven to be excellent design tools. Skilled
designers use them to visualize the flow of forces, verify zones of stress concentrations, and design
reinforcement. It is noteworthy that many modern design standards have recognized the fact that a
primary load path (load chain) is only as strong as the weakest link and included important
information on proper detailing and methods which emphasize structural integrity.
3.3
Redundancy
Without redundancy a Structures Ultimate Capacity is governed by the Ultimate Sectional Capacity
of the critical section. For example, a statically determinate system lacks redundancy and will
collapse if demands exceed the structural capacity at one critical location. Conversely, redundant
structural systems, or in other words statically indeterminate systems, have load reserves so long as
the elastic distribution of forces do not trigger an unlikely failure mechanism which activates
several plastic hinges at the same time. However, in order for structures to take advantage of the
redundancy principle, overloaded sections require ductility so that the structures reserved strength
can be activated through the redistribution of internal forces.
3.4

Ductility

Ductility is defined as the ability of a section to endure significant deformations (predominantly

rotations and elongations) without forfeiting its structural capacity in terms of moment, shear, and
axial force resistance. A ductile sectional response is essential for avoiding sudden brittle failure
modes and allowing the activation of secondary redundant load paths.

4.

Failure Mechanism Concept

4.1
Motivation
The I-35 Mississippi River Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA [11] and the Boulevard De La
Concorde Overpass in Laval, Quebec, Canada [12] are examples of unpredicted sudden bridge
collapses causing the loss of human lives. Typical engineers learn from these regrettable incidents
more than from thousand examples of well functioning structures. However, the question remains:
Are unpredictable collapses avoidable?
No structure is or will be absolute safe. The level of safety (margin against failure) is typically
defined by widely accepted safety concepts prescribed by design standards or other design criteria.
The commonly used ULS design approach is assuming fictitious load scenarios serving the sole
purpose of verifying that the required level of safety is achieved or exceeded. However, engineers
should be encouraged to develop new methods to decrease the probability of an unforeseen collapse
without exceeding financial budgets and timelines.

4.2
Design Philosophy
The FMC goes beyond the ULS design philosophy adopted by modern codes. The FMC
investigates failure mechanisms along primary load paths. A primary load path is defined as a
structures preferred way of resisting loads (natural load path). Objective is the development of a
structure which announces a serious problem before a collapse is possible.
Structural integrity and redundancy are the foundation of the FMC. Considering the structure as a
whole and investigating possible failure mechanisms are paramount. This Big Picture design
approach will provide designers with valuable information about the structures behaviour when
reaching its structural capacity. Sudden failures along primary load paths should be avoided by
deliberately defining weak sections with ductile failure mechanisms. The so defined weak sections
shall act as fuses safeguarding the structure by activating additional redundant load paths. This Fuse
Design Approach shall trigger noticeable deformations so that the structures critical condition is
clearly identifiable before lives are endangered.
4.3
Design Criteria
Like any other design method the Fuse Design Approach is based on assumptions. Since the FMC
is investigating the structural behaviour of the entire structure conservative design assumptions at a
certain design section may lead to an overall unconservative design approach. For example, if the
resistance of a section designated as fuse is calculated using factored resistances (ULS design
approach) the fuse may be behave stronger than anticipated and its function as fuse is questionable.
Therefore, the design criteria shall reflect lower-bound (under-strength) and upper-bound (overstrength) considerations when verifying the structural capacity of fuse sections. It is recommended
to design the fuse in accordance with ULS design criteria (under-strength) for primary load path
demands and to use over-strength design values when specifying the Fuse Limit State (FLS) for the
activation of secondary load paths. Structural tuning may be required to achieve an overall well
balanced structural system responding appropriately to the different design scenarios (ULS and
FLS).
4.4
Limitations
The FMC design approach mandatorily requires statically indeterminate structural systems (such as
integral bridges [13] or moment frames) allowing the activation of redundant secondary load paths.
The method is relevant for the design of primary (natural) load paths in order to avoid sudden local
failures triggering a chain reaction and resulting in a fatal collapse. It is not recommended for
members irrelevant for overall structural integrity.

5.

Deh Cho Bridge

5.1
Description
The Deh Cho Bridge is a 1045 m long structure crossing the Mackenzie River near Fort Providence
in the Northwest Territories, Canada [14], [15]. The symmetrical span arrangement is 90 m 3 x
112.5 m 190 m (navigation channel) 3 x 112.5 m 90 m (see Figure 2). The 190 m long main
span is cable assisted allowing a constant superstructure depth of only 4.5 m over the entire length
of the bridge. The superstructure (with expansion joints only at the abutments) has a maximum
slope of 3.5% and consists of two vertical Warren trusses and Chevron bracings (for cross frames
and two lateral bracings at top and bottom chord level). This adaptation of an open steel box
girder is designed to carry two lanes of traffic while acting compositely with an 11.3 m wide by 235
mm thick precast concrete deck.
Two steel A-pylons located at the tallest piers are flanking the main span. Each A-pylon is
supported by spherical bearings allowing a pendulum movement of the pylon in the longitudinal
bridge direction (see Figure 3). Four groups of three stays each, arranged in two cable planes, are
anchored at each pylon head using sockets with pin connections. The stays (locked coil cables with
100 mm diameter) are anchored at the third points of the main span and at the centres of the back
spans using a truss outrigger system.

Fig. 2: New Articulation Scheme for the Deh Cho Bridge

The Deh Cho Bridge can be classified as an Extradosed Bridge System [16] since the
superstructure has a significant bending stiffness and is locally reinforced with stays and king posts.
As such, the Deh Cho Bridge has a very different structural behaviour compared to a similar
looking traditional cable-stayed bridge system which does not require a stiffening girder because its
outer backstays are anchored at a pier location [17].
The eight piers of the Deh Cho Bridge are founded on spread footings which overlay the river bed.
The piers consist of a lower solid concrete cone (reinforced with an outer steel shell protecting the
concrete against ice forces) and an upper steel head. Each steel head has a base, two inclined legs,
and a tie-beam connecting the legs at the top thus forming an inverted open triangle in the
transverse bridge direction. All of the steel head components (base, legs, and tie-beam) are custom
made hollow boxes using 40 mm thick steel plates. The lower concrete cone and the steel head are
connected at the piers bottle neck (called the Pier Connection Detail, see Figure 3) with posttensioned bars which ensure that the connection stays tight and sealed under service conditions.

Fig. 3: Pier 4 South of the Deh Cho Bridge (Pier 4 North similar)

Fig. 4: Cross Section at the Pier Connection Detail

5.2
Problem
The original concept had numerous design issues, and therefore Infinity Engineering Group (IEG)
was retained by the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation (DCBC) to redesign the superstructure, pylons
and stays. The original superstructure design had been conceived with two complex expansion
joints in the main span. For cost, durability, and comfort reasons, IEG preferred a continuous
superstructure from abutment to abutment. This concept required a new articulation scheme
compatible with the original substructure. It was found that the piers were very stiff and overreinforced (concrete compression zone crushes before steel in the tension zone starts yielding) at
the Pier Connection Detail thus giving rise to a brittle failure mode if overloaded due to bending in
the longitudinal bridge direction.
5.3

Solution

5.3.1 New Articulation Scheme

The new articulation scheme (see Figure 2) utilizes conventional disk bearings at the piers and
abutments. The bearings guide the superstructure in the transverse direction but allow longitudinal
movements due to temperature changes. Pier 4 North (one of the main span piers) is the only
location where the superstructure is longitudinally restrained. At the remaining piers, except the
piers nearest to each abutment, so called Lock-Up Devices (LUDs) are employed. The LUDs ensure
that temperature displacements are allowed without generating noteworthy restraining demands, but
for longitudinal impact forces due to gusty winds or braking loads, the devices rigidly connect the
superstructure to the piers.
5.3.2 Pier Retrofit
As a consequence of the new articulation scheme, Pier 4 North had to be checked in order to verify
that it was capable of resisting all longitudinal load effects arising from steady forces. The Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code [18] does not explicitly define steady transitory loads in the
horizontal direction; therefore, it was decided to use the 100-year return wind (with a gust factor of
1.0) as the governing ULS design load for a steady longitudinal force effect. It was found that the
Pier Connection Detail of Pier 4 North was not capable of resisting the new design force and that a
pier retrofit design was required. The retrofit design focused on the following structural aspects: (1)
a favourable local and global failure mechanism, (2) resistance and ductility of the Pier Connection
Detail, and (3) splices between steel head components (base, legs, and tie beam).
A favourable local and global failure mechanism was created by providing sufficient rotational
capacity for Pier 4 North and the adjacent piers equipped with LUDs. In the event of an overload
the LUDs would be activated on account of large superstructure displacements, and load sharing
could be achieved through the capability of the piers to endure plastic deformations. The design
limit for the longitudinal displacement was set to 225 mm which corresponds to the maximum play
in the LUDs at Pier 2 South. This ensures that even Pier 2 South can be engaged before any of the
previously engaged piers start to give up a portion of their resistance.

In order to meet the rotational demands, the resistance and ductility of the Pier Connection Detail
due to bending and axial force was improved by: (a) applying high strength grout in the
compression zone, (b) activating some of the high strength bars in the joint as compression
reinforcement, (c) utilizing the outer steel shell as external compression reinforcement by ensuring
that buckling does not occur and (d) limiting the number of high strength bars activated in the
tension zone.
During the retrofit design, it was found that the pier splices between steel head components had
been originally designed with a resistance below 75% of the members capacity and were therefore
deemed to be in noncompliance with the design code. The Fuse Design Approach was applied to
overcome this conflict. Sealing welds were added to each splice; however, the welds were designed
to resist only the forces up to those triggering plastic deformation in the Pier Connection Detail.
The integrity of the system was ensured by applying under-strength values for the welds in the
splices and over-strength values for components in the Pier Connection Detail.
5.3.2 Improvements
This unique structural system spawned by the FMC allows the structure to mobilize several
redundant load paths for longitudinal force effects and provides valuable information to engineers
long before a critical condition is reached.
The pier retrofit design using the FMC significantly improved the structures behaviour during ULS:
The retrofitted piers undergo a ductile local failure mechanism if overloaded. Load sharing
(achieved through the capability to endue plastic deformations) is possible without reducing
structural resistance locally or globally. Plastic pier deformations and significant superstructure
displacements provide engineers with important information so countermeasures can be taken. The
Fuse Design Approach justified an economical solution for the retrofit of pier splices without
compromising reliability, durability, and aesthetic quality of the piers. Most importantly the FMC
did not change the bridges general appearance or caused extra cost. On the contrary, it provided the
foundation for a very cost effective new structural system with a continuous superstructure over the
entire bridge length.

6.

Conclusions

The FMC is a design tool using Plastic Design Principles in order to achieve innovative and cost
efficient structures with predicable and ductile failure mechanisms. The FMC is not restricted to
any specific material or structure. It is a new interpretation of existing safety concepts without
compromising accepted safety margins. The technique is useful for designing new structures,
rehabilitation and seismic retrofit of existing structures or forensic investigations. Design goal is the
creation of an intelligent structure being capable of enduring local failures, showing early evidence
of structural deficiencies, and thus saving lives and increasing return on investment.

Fig. 5: Deh Cho Bridge Superstructure under Construction, Picture taken by Michael Owen

7.

References

[1]

STAROSSEK U., Progressive Collapse of Structures: Nomenclature and Procedures,

Structural Engineering International, Issue 2, 2006, pp. 113-117.
BORELLO D.J., ANDRAWES B., HAJJAR J.F., and OLSON S.M., Experimental and
Analytical Forensic Investigation of Bridge Timber Piles under Eccentric Loads, ASCE
Structures Congress, 2010, pp. 98-109.
SEGUI W.T., LRFD Steel Design, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, 2003, pp. 540-551.
PILLAI S.U., KIRK D.W., and ERKI M.A., Reinforced Concrete Design, McGraw-Hill
Ryerson, Toronto, 1999, pp. 331-339.

[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]
[9]

[10]
[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]
[16]

[17]
[18]

GIMSING N.J., Cable Supported Bridges: Concept and Design, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, 1997, pp. 440-444.
PODOLNY W. and SCALZI J.B., Construction and Design of Cable-Stayed Bridges, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1976, pp. 155-164.
SCHLAICH J. and SCHEEF H., Beton-Hohlkastenbrcken, Structural Engineering
Documents, Vol. 1d, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich,
1982, pp. 77-105.
PRIESTLEY M.J.N., SEIBLE F., and CALVI G.M., Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996, p. 18.
SCHLAICH J., SCHFER K., and JENNEWEIN M., Toward a Consistent Design of
Structural Concrete, Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, Vol. 32, No. 3, MayJune 1987, pp. 74-150.
COLLINS M.P. and MITCHELL D., Prestressed Concrete Structures, Response
Publications, Toronto and Montreal, 1997, pp. 343-374 and pp. 412-475.
National Transportation Safety Board, Collapse of I-35W Highway Bridge, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, August 1, 2007, Highway Accident Report NTSB/HAR-08/03, Washington DC,
2008, p. xiii.
Commission dEnqute sur le Viaduc de la Concorde, Commission of Inquiry into the
Collapse of a Portion of the de la Concorde Overpass, Government of Quebec, 2007, pp. 57.
SCHLLER M., Konzeptionelles Entwerfen und Konstruieren von Integralen
Betonbrcken, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, Vol. 99, No. 10, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2004, pp.
774-789.
SCHLLER M., Ganzheitliches Entwerfen im Brckenbau Deh Cho Bridge im Norden
Kanadas Brckenbau Construction & Engineering, Vol. 4/2009 and 1/2010,
Verlagsgruppe Wiederspahn, Wiesbaden 2010, pp. 77-80.
SINGH P., SCHUELLER M., Remote Control, Bridge: Design & Engineering, Issue 58,
2010, pp. 30-31.
MEISS K.U., Anwendung von Strukturoptimierungsmethoden auf den Entwurf
mehrfeldriger Schrgseilbrcken und Extradosed Bridges, Verlag Grauer, Beuren und
Stuttgart, 2007, pp. 2-3 and pp. 5-26.
SINGH P., SCHUELLER M., and OPPEL S., Deh Cho Bridge The Northern Link,
Larsas 4D Journal, October, 2009, p. 1 and pp. 4-6.
CAN/CSA-S6-06, Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, Canadian Standards
Association, Ontario, 2006, pp. 39-113.