Structural Assessment of A Concrete

MASTER'S THESIS
Structural Assessment of a Concrete

Bridge
Probabilistic analysis of the Shear Resistance of the Kiruna Mine Bridge Using
In-Situ Material Properties
Bartomiej Sawicki
2015
Master of Science in Engineering Technology

Civil Engineering
Luleå University of Technology

Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
MASTER THESIS
Structural Assessment of a Concrete Bridge

Probabilistic analysis of the shear resistance of the Kiruna Mine Bridge using
in-situ material properties
Bartłomiej Sawicki
2015
Master of Science in Engineering Technology

Civil Engineering
Luleå University of Technology

Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
Division of Structural Engineering
The cover photo shows the Kiruna Mine Bridge after testing in June 2014. ©Niklas Bagge
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to dedicate this thesis to Lesław Kwaśniewski, professor of Warsaw University of
Technology, without whom I would never got here.
May You rest in peace.
The following thesis was prepared in frameworks of Erasmus Mundus Master Course SUSCOS_M
(Sustainable Constructions under natural hazards and catastrophic events)
Luleå in January 2015
Bartłomiej Sawicki
ABSTRACT
The demolition of an old structure and replacement with a new one is a very complex, time
consuming and expensive task, especially if it needs to be conducted without interruption of its
functioning (e.g. carrying traffic). In the case of bridges, closing one of them due to such an action
can paralyze the infrastructure net and influence the life of thousands of people. This is why the
proper assessment of bridge capacity, and the decision regarding possible strengthening or limiting
of loads is crucial for the existing transportation system.
In this thesis the basis of reliability, assessment of structures and calculations of safety are explained.
As an example the shear capacity of a road bridge girder in Kiruna, northern Sweden, is discussed.
First, on basis of samples of concrete and reinforcement, the in-situ properties of the materials are
found by laboratory tests (concrete compressive and tensile strength fcc.and fct and yielding strength
of stirrups fy). Next, models in three structural codes are described and used: (1) Eurocode 2, which is
used in the European Union, (2) the performance-based international Model code 2010 and (3) the
Swedish standard BBK 04. The influence of the prestress forces has been partially taken into account.
Three different approaches are used to obtain the shear capacity/resistance of one of the girders in
the bridge: (I) The design resistance, computed using material properties taken from standards - in
same way as during design of the structure. (II) The resistance based on characteristic properties
found by testing of the build-in materials. (III) Finally using the outcome from the laboratory tests a
probabilistic approach is used to find the different levels of safety of the structure.
Although the theories behind codes varies, all the results obtained with use of simplified methods
are similar.
With proper assessment of material properties it can be shown that the structure has bigger carrying
capacity than what it was originally designed for. This would allow an increased traffic volume
without any physical intervention. Thanks to this, large amount of money and time can be saved by
avoiding structural strengthening or replacement. It also has a positive environmental impact.
The thesis presents a small fragment of the work needed for a full structural assessment. A summary
of the main results are given in the table below.
Material Properties Load Carrying Capacity
Used Material Concrete Stirrups BBK 04 EC2 MC 2010
Properties Compression Tension Yield
fcc [MPa) fct [MPa) fy [MPa) V [MN] V [MN] V [MN]
Design Value 35,5 2,4 410 1,005 1,526 1,308
Characteristic Value 55 2,9 441 1,117 1,630 1,334
Mean value and
62 (5) 4,2 (1,3) 464 (11) 1,034 1,429 1,438
(standard deviation)
During the final test of the Kiruna Bridge a total load of 13,4 MN could be applied to the studied
span. If it’s assumed that one third of the force is carried by each girder and the shear force in
midspan is half of the force on the girder, then we get a shear resistance of ca. VR ≈ 13,4/6 = 2,23 MN
– about twice the values obtained by the simplified models used, mostly due to neglecting influence
of the prestress force on the concrete behaviour and simplifications of strength calculation.
SAMMANFATTING (Swedish)
Olika metoder för tillståndsbedömning tillämpas på Gruvbron I Kiruna I norra Sverige. Bron har ett
tvärsnitt som utgörs av en betongplatta som bärs av tre förspända betongbalkar. Bron har sex spann
och dess totala längd är 121,5 m. Den byggdes 1959 och ett av spannen belastades till brott i juni
2014.
Tryckhållfastheten för betongen (fcc) har bestämts genom provtryckning av sex utborrade cylindrar
och flytspänningen för armeringen (fy) har bestämts genom provdragning av fem stavar av
bygelarmering med diametern 10 mm. Betongen draghållfasthet (fct) har uppskattats utgående från
tryckhållfastheten.
Tvärkraftskapaciteten (V) för en av de tre bärande balkarna har beräknats enligt förenklade modeller
i tre normer: (1) den svenska BBK 04, (2) den europeiska EC2 och (3) den internationella fib Model
Code 2010. En av förenklingarna består i att förspänningskraftens positiva inverkan delvis har
försummats.
Tre uppsättningar materialvärden har använts: (I) normenliga dimensioneringsvärden för använda
material, (II) karakteristiska provade värden samt (III) medelvärden och spridningar bestämda från de
utförda provningarna.
Resultaten för det studerade spannets mittsnitt sammanfattas i tabellen nedan.
Materialegenskaper Bärighet
Använda Betong Armering BBK 04 EC2 MC 2010
materialvärden Tryck Drag Flytspänning
Dimensionerings-värde 35,5 2,4 410 1,005 1,526 1,308
Karakteristiskt värde 55 2,9 441 1,117 1,630 1,334
Medelvärde och
62 (5) 4,2 (1,3) 464 (11) 1,034 1,429 1,438
(standardavvikelse)
Vid provningen uppnåddes totalt belastningen 13,4 MN. Om en tredjedel av kraften antas vara buren
av var och en av de tre balkarna och tvärkraften mitt i spannet antas vara hälften av lasten fås att
tvärkraftskapaciteten var ca Vt ≈ 13,4/6 = 2,23 MN. De använda förenklade modellerna ger alla
resultat som ligger mycket på säker sida. Detta beror delvis på förspänningens inverkan försummats.
STRESZCZENIE (Polish)
W pracy dyplomowej wyjaśniono podstawy niezawodności i oceny konstrukcji oraz poziomu
bezpieczeństwa. Jako przykład wybrano wytrzymałość na ścinanie dźwigara mostu drogowego w
Kirunie, w północnej Szwecji.
Na podstawie próbek betonu i zbrojenia właściwości materiałowe in-situ zostały określone za

pomocą odpowiednich testów laboratoryjnych (wytrzymałość betonu na ściskanie i rozciąganie, fcc i
fct, oraz granica plastyczności strzemion fy). Następnie podstawowe modele dostępne w trzech
popularnych normach budowlanych zostały opisane i użyte, a są to: (1) Eurokod 2, który jest
stosowany w Unii Europejskiej, (2) oparty na tzw. parametrach użytkowych międzynarodowy Model
code 2010 oraz (3) szwedzka norma BBK 04. W związku z ograniczeniami czasowymi oraz
niewystarczającą liczbą informacji wpływ sprężenia betonu na wytrzymałość został pominięty.
Trzy różne podejścia zostały zastosowane do obliczenia wytrzymałości dźwigara na ścinanie:

(I)tradycyjne podejście projektowe, wykorzystujące właściwości materiałowe podane w normach, (II)
charakterystyczne właściwości materiałowe uzyskane z badań próbek pobranych z wiaduktu, oraz (III)
podejście probabilistyczne, gdzie wartości materiałowe są opisane rozkładem prawdopodobieństwa
na podstawie badań próbek, a wytrzymałość zależna jest od poziomu niezawodności konstrukcji.
Pomimo iż użyte standardy oparte są na różnych założeniach teoretycznych, rezultaty otrzymane przy
użyciu uproszczonych formuł są podobne i spójne.
Przy odpowiedniej ocenie wytrzymałości użytych materiałów można potwierdzić iż nośność

konstrukcji jest wyższa od pierwotnie planowanej. Umożliwia to zwiększenie dopuszczalnych
obciążeń bez żadnej interwencji w ustrój nośny, co pozwala na zaoszczędzenie znacznej ilości czasu i
pieniędzy w porównaniu ze wzmocnieniem bądź wymianą konstrukcji. Pozwala to również uniknąć
negatywnego wpływu na środowisko.
Praca ukazuje mały fragment procesu oceny konstrukcji, a najważniejsze wartości przedstawione są
w tabeli poniżej:
Właściwości materiałowe Wytrzymałość na ścinanie

Beton Strzemiona BBK 04 EC2 MC 2010
Zastosowane podejście
Ściskanie Rozciąganie Gr. Plastyczności
Wartości projektowane 35,5 2,4 410 1,005 1,526 1,308
Wytrzymałości
55 2,9 441 1,117 1,630 1,334
charakterystyczne
Średnia i (odchylenie
62 (5) 4,2 (1,3) 464 (11) 1,034 1,429 1,438
standardowe)
W trakcie eksperymentu na wiadukcie przyłożono siłę 13,4 MN zanim trzy dźwigary uległy zniszczeniu
przez ścinanie. Przy założeniu że siła ta rozłożyła się po równo na każdy z nich, a siła ścinająca
pośrodku wyniosła połowę przyłożonej, wytrzymałość na ścinanie każdego z nich wynosiła co
najmniej Vt ≈ 13,4/6 = 2,23 MN, czyli około dwóch razy więcej niż obliczono. Wynika to z uproszczeń
dokonanych przy obliczeniach oraz nie wzięciu pod uwagi wpływu sprężenia betonu na jego
wytrzymałość na ścinanie.
Symbols
Asw /Asv the cross-sectional area of stirrups

bw the (effective) beam width
d the effective beam depth
fcd the design concrete compressive strength
fck / fcc the characteristic concrete compressive strength
fctk / fct the characteristic concrete tensile strength
fv the characteristic concrete shear strength
fy / fsv the characteristic steel yield strength
fywd the design yield strength of the shear reinforcement
s / sw the spacing of stirrups
z the inner level arm
β the angle between shear reinforcement and beam axis
θ the angle between compression strut and beam axis (angle of cracks)
ρ the longitudinal reinforcement ratio
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................
SAMMANFATTING (Swedish) ...............................................................................................................
STRESZCZENIE (Polish) .........................................................................................................................
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background of problem .......................................................................................................1
1.2. Aim and scope .....................................................................................................................2
1.3. Limitations...........................................................................................................................2
1.4. Outline of thesis ..................................................................................................................3
2. Assessment procedures for existing structures ............................................................................5
2.1. Basis of structure assessment ..............................................................................................5
2.2. Structure reliability ..............................................................................................................7
2.3. COMREL software .............................................................................................................. 12
2.4. Shear models..................................................................................................................... 14
3. Material testing......................................................................................................................... 21
3.1. Concrete testing ................................................................................................................ 21
3.2. Reinforcment steel testing ................................................................................................. 34
3.3. Materials tests with samples from bridge in Kiruna............................................................ 35
3.4. Results from bridge in Kiruna ............................................................................................. 36
4. Reliability of bridge in Kiruna..................................................................................................... 40
4.1. Calculation of strength using design material properties .................................................... 42
4.2. Calculation of strength using characteristic material properties based on tests.................. 45
4.3. Calculation of strength using variable material properties and desired reliability level ....... 46
4.4. Influence of prestress on shear resistance ......................................................................... 53
5. Results and discussion ............................................................................................................... 55
6. References .................................................................................................................................. I
A. APPENDIX A – Test results of concrete and reinforcement.......................................................... A
B. APPENDIX B – original design drawing ........................................................................................ A
C. APPENDIX C – calculation of shear resistance using characteristic material properties ............... A
C.1. Computations with material data from standards ............................................................... A
C.2. Computations with material data from tests ....................................................................... N
D. APPENDIX D – reliability calculations using COMREL ................................................................... A
E. APPENDIX E – about the author .................................................................................................. A
1. Introduction
1.1. Background of problem
Civil engineer is a profession of public trusts. During normal use of buildings and
infrastructures people do not wonder if it is safe or not – they just assume it is. That’s the
role of designer and owner to assure unproblematic use of the edifice. But what is the
definition of safety, and where is the golden mean between safeness and cost-effectiveness?
The relation between requirements - loads and supply - resistance changes through whole
lifespan of the structure. The resistance depends mostly on geometry and material
properties which are influenced by all kinds of deterioration and random damages, like
earthquakes, impacts and even vandalism. However the structure even after such a random
action cannot cause any danger for users. Proper design and maintenance can limit the
deterioration, and thanks to restoration, the original performance can be brought back when
needed (Enright and Frangopol, 1998). However without special strengthening, the
resistance shall never be higher than the original one.
On the other hand of this balance we have loads. They change quite dynamically in case of
bridges, especially due to long lifespan (at least 100 years, EN 1990) and the source of
imposed loads - which does not come from the nature (like snow or wind load in case of
buildings) but rather from humans’ actions and needs. If we consider the world 100 years
ago, the expected load from snow did not change significantly, which cannot be said about
loads from normal bridge exploitation. One of the most popular trucks in 1930’s was
Mercedes-Benz LO 2000, with maximum allowable load of 2 tons, giving the gross weight of
vehicle around 4 tons. Nowadays one of most popular truck from Mercedes-Benz is Actros,
which loaded and with trailer can weigh as much as 40 tons, so ten times more (Fig. 1).
Similar progress in weight of cargo trains can be noted, not mentioning the increase of traffic
volume of both means of transport.
Fig. 1. Mercedes Benz LO 2000 (1937) and Actros (2014) comparison (Wikimedia Commons)
This shows how much the demand on bridges change during their lifetime. Note that the
proper level of safety still needs to be maintained. To do so, usually the strengthening needs
to be applied as it is both cheaper and more sustainable then demolition and replacement of
the structure. Two main ways of strengthening can be distinguished – physical and notational
see e.g. Sustainable Bridges (2007), Nowak and Collins (2013) and MAINLINE (2014).
1
The physical strengthening is done by addition or change of part of the structure, so that the
force distribution and overall resistance is increased. It can be done by post-tensioning, near
surface reinforcement, gluing lamellas etc (Nilimaa, 2013).
The notational strengthening is not the real upgrade of structure as it does not change the
physical resistance and whole process takes place only on the paper. Thanks to recalculation
of structural capacity its official resistance can be raised. This can come from either change
of law, which allows for different safety levels or use of different approaches, or from
development of engineering art. Nowadays we know much more about behaviour of
structures than 100 years ago, so using new structural and resistance models for old
structures the remaining non-used resistance can be found. Good example of such is Georg
Washington Bridge in New York, opened in 1927 offering 6 lanes of traffic, after recalculation
and legal acceptation it was extended in 1960’s to 14 lines (Britannica Online) without
improving the main structural system (despite addition of one deck level).
It does not matter if the structure is to be only maintained or strengthened, the proper
assessment needs to be conducted for assurance of proper safety level. Most of construction
standards are founded on probability model of reliability (Nowak and Collins, 2013) assuming
some chance of failure. The level of safety is a compromise between constructors and
society, and this is civil engineers role to guarantee that this level is maintained. As it is
impossible to build virtually imperishable structure – no one can predict everything, and even
if one could, such an edifice would be super expensive – the proper investigation into
possible actions and guaranteed resistance is essential.
1.2. Aim and scope

Due to their importance, size and construction cost bridges are considered to be valuable
structures and worthy of a proper assessment. The importance of full-scale experiment,
confronting calculations with real life is vast. Such an occasion had appeared in Kiruna, where
a prestressed reinforced concrete bridge was scheduled for demolition, see Fig. 2. The team
from Luleå University of Technology (LTU) could conduct a series of experiments in June
2014, including both moderate loading and loading until failure of one span. In this thesis the
shear resistance of the girders of this span is investigated, on basis of designed and real
material properties. The material properties of the real structure can be found by a series of
test of samples taken from it. The thesis also demonstrates the difference between designed
shear resistance and one calculated with real material properties obtained by different
widely used codes. Using the probabilistic approach, maximum allowable shear force can be
found which would conform the desired safety level. More about full-scale test on Kiruna
bridge can be found in (Bagge, 2014).
1.3. Limitations
Most of the limitations in this thesis come from the workload needed for proper assessment
of structure. First of all, only the resistance part of assessment is investigated, giving no
connection with load effects imposed on the structure. Only rough comparison with full scale
experiment maximum load is done, and none with possible load due to normal or extreme
traffic on the bridge. Secondly, only one limit state of one structural element is considered,
namely shear resistance of girder. This is only one of a series of checks that should be
conducted for each part of the bridge. Next, the only uncertainties taken into consideration
2
come from material models. The errors in resistance and structural models are neglected in
computation of resistance. However due to the time limitation, only two kinds of tests could
have been done on material samples, giving compressive strength of concrete in axial
compression and yield strength and modulus of elasticity of steel in axial tension. Finally only
three building codes are used, from a big number available worldwide. Furthermore, as only
sectional resistance was supposed to be found, without defining full stress-state of element,
some simplifications has been done for resistance models, including omitting most of the
effects of prestress on shear resistance, which are discussed in a later part of the thesis.
However extended investigations on the bridge shall be continued at LTU, which will cover
most of the limitations. This is just an attempt to present the assessment procedure.
Fig. 2. Viaduct near mine in Kiruna, Sweden (Bagge et al., 2014)
1.4. Outline of thesis

In the following thesis firstly the term “assessment of structures” is explained and the basics
of procedure and examples given. Next, an overview of reliability theory and safety index is
presented. Following, couple of words about software used here for reliability studies,
COMREL® software, are given. The shear resistance models from different codes are
described, too.
The main effort during preparation of this thesis was devoted to material testing. The
possible ways of testing were considered for concrete and reinforcing steel, next the
laboratory tests conducted are described and obtained material properties of concrete and
steel for further use given.
3
Continuing, the designed and shear resistance of one of the girders in the Kiruna bridge are
computed using different codes and results discussed. The “real” resistance based on
material tests shall is get too, taking into account demanded reliability level.
Finally, the designed and “real” shear resistances are compared and results discussed,
leading to conclusions.
4
2. Assessment procedures for existing structures
The probability based design or assessment of structures involves certain time and money
needed for sampling and testing the material, predicting the loads, their effects and
calculating the reliability. This is why usually it’s applied to meaningful structures like bridges,
dams, power plants or national heritage buildings (Nowak and Collins, 2013). A full
probabilistic assessment procedure can be divided into four parts, where different models of
physical phenomena are used. Starting with (1) action models, through (2) structural models
for action effects computation, followed by (3) resistance models and finally (4) material
models, where also geometry is considered (JCSS). This holistic approach is not very often
used as it’s time-consuming and rise the need of monitoring both load distribution and
source –for example amount and pattern of cars crossing the bridge – and actual condition
and material properties of structure (Fig. 3), however when justified sometimes is used
(Jeppsson, 2003, Alkhrdaji et al., 2001). Usually authors focus their researches on either
resistance models and material properties (WP7, 2008, Piementel et al., 2014, Thun, 2006,
Giannini et al., 2014, Gardoni et al., 2002) or loads and action effects (O’ Connor and
Enevoldsen, 2008, Khaleel and Itani, 1993), taking the remaining part as deterministic from
codes and standards.
2.1. Basis of structure assessment

In the following thesis, the emphasis is put onto the resistance side of reliability problem.
The shear resistance of a concrete girder of bridge is found, taking into account the desired
level of safety. This is why the action models are not used nor discussed here, however they
can be easily found in any bridge design code or standard.
Next step in the assessment of a structure, after defining the loads, is to find the structural
response, thus the effects of action. The mechanical models can be divided into those
describing static or dynamic response and those for fatigue (JCSS). In this thesis the static
response models would be used, as this is the nature of action for which the resistance
would be found. The local effect of actions would be investigated, so brittle or ductile
behaviour of section rather than global effects, like instabilities and buckling. The simple
theory of elasticity would be used for finding member efforts.
The response of member needs to be compared with its resistance. It is impossible, or very
difficult, to find the real resistance. All models have some uncertainties and mistakes,
whether because the theory behind them are not perfect, or because some simplifications
were used during introducing them into codes to make them more understandable and
easier to use (JCSS, Nowak and Collins, 2013). Those uncertainties could be modelled as
random variables, however it needs extended experimental and theoretical research
(Gardoni et al.,2002). In this thesis some shear models will be discussed (see 2.4) and used
explicitly.
5
Fig. 3. Scheme of probabilistic assessment or design of structure procedure (Rucker et al., 2006)
For calculation of the resistance of a structure, the accurate material properties are needed
and this part would be emphasized in following thesis. An ideal way to obtain them would be
by taking big number of samples from all the parts of edifice where concrete comes from
different batches, was casted in different days and conditions, etc. Unfortunately, the aim of
most of those researches are to maintain and, in case needed, strengthen the structure, thus
harmful concrete coring should be avoided or minimized. Depending on availability of
samples for testing, a couple of ways can be followed to assure proper confidence of results.
If quite many samples can be obtained, the characteristic value or distribution of strength
can be found directly from tests. However, usually the type of variable distribution needs to
be assumed. Various non-destructive methods, especially Schmidt rebound hammer, are
used to check if concrete in places of core extraction and those where it’s impossible has the
same toughness and strength (Schueremans et al., 2006, Coronelli, 2007, Thun, 2006,
Jeppsson, 2003)
6
If the amount of samples cannot assure the proper level of confidence in properties
obtained, combination with results from other studies of similar concrete types (Piementel et
al.,2014, Chen, 2001) or probabilistic standards and codes (WP7, 2008, Jeppsson, 2003) can
be done. Also original design values can be used and updated with properties tested in real
structure (Jeppsson, 2003).
Sometimes the future material properties are needed to be anticipated. To do so, different
deterioration algorithms can be used, combining designed and up-to date properties to
calculate future reliability of structure (Enright and Frangopol, 1998, Jeppsson, 2003) or for
assessment of existing state without testing properties of all the elements (Coronelli, 2007).
The cheapest, as no material sampling and testing is needed, but the less reliable method is
to take the material properties directly from the design and standards, sometimes combining
it with deterioration algorithms, either as deterministic values or taking some distribution
into account (O’ Connor and Enevoldsen, 2008, Khaleel and Itani, 1993, Jeppsson, 2003).
Also geometrical properties of sections influence their resistance. The differences between
nominal or designed values and real ones comes from uncertainties during execution,
imperfections and second order effects due to imposed actions (JCSS). However, the human
errors cannot be considered as geometrical variables and are not considered in probabilistic
studies (Nowak and Collins, 2013). In case described in this thesis, the geometrical properties
were measured on-site, thus they are known and considered as deterministic.
The material properties can be introduced into resistance models whether as variable or
deterministic values. The variable values are defined in some range and follow one of the
distributions in this range. They are usually described by mean value and standard deviation.
Those information give some probability of the value of property for considered material
and, after using it with resistance model, some probability of member resistance.
Another popular way is to use deterministic characteristic value of the material properties
which describes the material quality. In case of material properties used for resistance
calculation, the characteristic value may be taken as 5% fractile value (EN 1990), which
means that there is probability of 95% that the property, for example strength, will be higher
than characteristic value. This is supposed to give some level of confidence in calculations
and the resistance value would be deterministic.
In this thesis material properties are used as both variables and deterministic values to
obtain better estimates on reliability and show the difference of outcomes for both methods.
All the other factors, like geometry and resistance model uncertainties are taken as
deterministic, thus the biggest focus is on obtaining the material data and their distributions.
2.2. Structure reliability

The material properties - especially in case of concrete, the dimensions of elements and
magnitude of loads always vary. This comes from different raw material qualities in different
batches, workmanship, curing and from unpredictability of life. However by testing and
foreseeing all those, some probability distributions can be obtained, which can later be used
for performance-based design or reliability studies.
7
In building codes those uncertainties are compensated by use of partial factors which change
characteristic values of strengths and loads into designed values, used further in structural
analyses (Nowak and Collins, 2013). However, the probability methods can be also used in
both structure design and assessment (JCSS).
2.2.1. First order reliability method (FORM)
The structural response can be described by the inequality:
(1)
Where:
R is the resistance of structure

S is the load effect on structure (from French: solicitation - demand)
When the resistance is bigger than the load effects, thus when this inequality is bigger than
0, the structure is safe. When it falls below zero, the failure occurs by any means, including
material fracture, too big deflection or vibrations of element. As both resistance and load can
vary, those values are not deterministic, so some failure probability should be found:
(2)
As mentioned, both of them can be given with some distributions, like in Fig. 4. If the
distributions are known, the failure probability can be calculated as (Jeppsson, 2003)
(3)
If we express the probability that R falls in or under the infinitesimal interval dx in the way:
(4)
we can reformulate the equation (3) into
(5)
to obtain the failure density distribution from Fig. 4.
8
Fig. 4. Arbitrary R-S distribution with R cumulative function and failure probability
The inequality (1) can be also expressed as a safety margin equation
(6)
In case the safety margin M is set to 0, this became a limit state equation. If both resistance
and load effect functions are normally distributed, the resultant function M would be
normally distributed too (Nowak and Collins, 2013), with characteristics:
(7)
(8)
The probability density function (PDF) of normally distributed variable M can be found using
formula (Nowak and Collins, 2013):
9
(9)
obtaining PDF of safety margin M visible in Fig. 5. The coefficient β presented there,
describes by how many standards deviations the mean value of safety margin M (μM) exceeds
zero, so describes the safety of structure. This β coefficient is thus called reliability index. It
can be noted as
(10)
Fig. 5. Probability density function of safety margin M (Jeppsson, 2003)
By definition of cumulative distribution function (CDF) the probability of normally distributed

variable to have value lower than x can be found by formula (Nowak and Collins, 2013)
(11)
where φ is standard normal function. As M is normally distributed, probability of failure can

be found in following way:
(12)
So the reliability index is directly correlated with failure probability by relation
10
(13)
and some of the values can be seen in Tab. 1. The reliability indexes are used in structural
codes (EN 1990) to describe the safety levels of different kinds of structure and for derivation
of safety coefficients.
The method described above is quite easy and in clear way presents the idea of reliability
index. However, if the distribution of variables cannot be approximated by normal
distribution it can be inaccurate. Furthermore the reliability index depend on the form of the
limit state equation – it is not invariant, which can lead to different solutions for similar limit
state formulations (like change of bending moment-form into stresses-form of equation)
(Nowak and Collins, 2013). That is why alternative methods of reliability calculation are used
nowadays.
Tab. 1. Probabilities of failure for different reliability levels
pf 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7

β 1.28 2.33 3.09 3.71 4.26 4.75 5.19
2.2.2. Hasofer-Lind safety index
One of the most popular methods of obtaining reliability index is Hasofer-Lind (HL) method
proposed in 1974 (Nowak and Collins, 2013). Instead of the mean values, the “design point”
laying on the failure surface is used. As this point is not known a priori, an iterative method
needs to be used to find the most severe combination. The limit state equation is substituted
by limit state function g(X1,X2,...,Xn), where the random variables are uncorrelated. If the
primary variables are correlated, they need to be transformed into uncorrelated first. Next,
the limit state function is rewritten in terms of standard form of the variables using
(14)
so that the normalized variables have the mean value at 0 and standard deviation of 1 and
the limit function has changed to g(Z)=g(z1,z2,...,zn). Now, the reliability index can be defined
as the shortest distance between the origin of the coordinate system to function g(Z), and
the closest point of this function is called the “design point” (see Fig. 6).
If the original limit state function is linear, thus
(15)
the Hasofer-Lind can be found by following expression (Nowak and Collins, 2013):
11
(16)
If the function g(X), thus g(Z), is nonlinear then the design point (z1,...,zn)needs to be found by
iteration, and the linear function g*(Z) tangent to original one in design point needs to be
found. Mathematically this can be given as
(17)
where is the failure surface in z coordinate system. Next the unit vector ,
given by , where O is the design point, can by calculated from:
(18)
The factors αi are the sensitivity factors with respect to mean value of i-th variables. Again, it
shows how far below the variables’ mean value the limit function is (Fig. 6). The sensitivity
factors of variables on resistance side are positive, while those of variables on load effect side
are negative. Furthermore,
(19)
And αi2 is sensitivity factor for standard deviation of i-th variable. It shows how much the
variation of values of this variable influences the final solution, thus if it’s close to zero, then
the variable can be assumed to be deterministic value.
As mentioned previously, the HL method needs iteration for non-linear limit state functions,
so usually software is used. In this thesis the COMREL software, which uses HL method shall
be used for calculation of reliability index.
2.3. COMREL software

As it can be deducted from previous chapter, reliability computation can be quite difficult to
execute by hand, especially for multivariable equations and in case of nonlinear limit
function. This is why nowadays software is used for this purpose, and in this thesis COMREL
Time Invariant program will be used (STRULER).
The method discussed above is the first order method, which means the limit function should
be linear, or linearized in design point g*, for example using Taylor series first derivative
expansion, thus name of the method (Nowak and Collins, 2013). Obviously some accuracy is
12
lost due to this simplification (Zhao and Ono, 1999). This is why second-order reliability
method available in COMREL will be used here (STRUREL) as the limit state equations are
twice differentiable and not very complex, so Hessian matrix determination shall not be very
time-consuming. As all the actions and structural responses are static, the time-invariant
analysis will be used.
Fig. 6. Normalized variables and limit function (Blanksvärd, 2007).
The COMREL software allows not only for reliability coefficient β computation, but also
sensitivity factors α allowing for better estimation of assumed material properties
distribution influence of final reliability study results.
The procedure of using the software from user side is quite simple and stepwise. First, the
limit-state equations needs to be defined in symbolical form. Next, to all the symbols the
numerical values are assigned, whether as constants or variables using one of distributions
with descriptive values (like mean and COV) giving also possible variations between them.
After deciding about analysis settings, the results are presented in graph form.
Couple of result parameters can be displayed. One of the most important is the reliability
factor β, which can be presented in dependence on one of parameters, like for example
13
distributed load magnitude or, which could be useful for prefabricated beams, length of
span.
Another parameters are the sensibility factors and their squares, which gives better picture
of importance of each of variables.
Next factor giving information about how critical the variable is for total outcome is a safety
factor. It works similar way as in construction standards, so is given by equation
(20)
where xi* is the value of variable in design point. In this way the bias between mean and
characteristic value in design point can be expressed.
The last quite important parameter is elasticity, calculated by
(21)
where βE is the safety index and τ denotes any of the parameter, for example variable. Now,
the change in safety factor in its vicinity can be predicted using
(22)
however, as the approximation is based on gradients of variables, it is prediction of a first

order (FORM) (STRUREL).
2.4. Shear models

A background to the development of shear models for concrete is given in ASCE-ACI 445
(1998). For elements with stirrups two Swedish standards were compared – one which is the
same as Eurocode 2 (SS EN 1992-1-1) and an older version given in Boverket Handbook on
concrete design (BBK 04). Additionally the probabilistic international fib Model Code 2010 is
considered. The influence of prestressing is further discussed in section 4.4.
2.4.1. Eurocode 2
Method used in Eurocode 2 is a strut-and-tie method (see Fig. 7). Two checks are performed,
for steel stirrups and for concrete struts, and the smaller of the outcomes is governing the
shear strength of element.
In case of members with vertical stirrups, the equations taking into account steel (23) and
concrete (24) are:
14
(23)
(24)
Where:
Asw is the cross-sectional area of stirrups

s is the spacing of stirrups
z is the inner level arm
fywd is the design yield strength of the shear reinforcement
fcd is the design concrete compressive strength
bw is the beam width
ν1 is a strength reduction factor due to concrete cracked in shear, depending on characteristic
concrete strength
αcw is a coefficient taking into account stresses in compression chord, depending on axial force
and design concrete strength. The value depends on the amount of prestress
θ is the angle between compression strut and beam axis
In case of inclined shear reinforcement the above equations are modified by proper
trigonometric functions.
Fig. 7. Strut-and-tie shear model from Eurocode 2
2.4.2. Model Code 2010
The Model Code 2010 gives four levels of shear strength analysis and each of them is
subsequently more complex. A background to the code is given in (Sigrist et al, 2013). The
level III is based on a simplified version of the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT)
and will be used here. Level IV should be used for the design of members in complex loading
states or for more elaborate assessments of a structure.
The MCFT was developed in 1980’s (Vecchio and Collins, 1986) and uses combined effect on
shear strength of stirrups and aggregate interlocking. While the longitudinal concrete
15
member like slab or beam web is subjected to shear, it cracks under some angle θ, so two
sections can be found – cracked and uncracked, thus one between the cracks (Fig. 8). In
uncracked portions of concrete some tensile stresses are still present and the reinforcement
(fsy) is less efforted than in crack (fsycr), so the strength can be governed by yielding of
reinforcement there. On the other hand in cracks some friction (vci) exists due to aggregate
interlocking exists helping in shear transfer, up to the moment when crack width is too big.
Those shear stresses are accompanied by some compression (fci). Because of this
compression and concrete-slip in crack surface, some additional tension in the main
reinforcement arise too, which my govern flexure-shear failure.
Fig. 8. Stresses in cracked and uncracked sections of concrete in shear (Vecchio and Collins, 1986)
Another important principle that cannot be omitted is that compressive strength of concrete
decreases as the tensile stresses increase in perpendicular direction, which is a case in this
stress-state (Vecchio and Collins, 1986). The MCFT was confirmed by experimental studies
16
(Bentz et al., 2006) thus could be implemented in construction codes. To do so, some
assumptions and simplification had to be done (Bentz and Collins, 2006), and the method
could be used in 2004 Canadian Standards Association code and on the similar basis in Model
Code 2010.
First, the angle θ needs to be estimated. It varies depending on stress-state of concrete

according to Mohr’s Circle. The simplified approximation is given as
(25)
where εx is the longitudinal strain at the mid-depth which can be calculated as
(26)
In numerator the forces acting on section are presented, while in denominator the stiffness’s
of tensile parts of section, including prestress strands. Moment and shear forces should be
taken as positive, and MEd≥VEdz. In case the strain computed this way would be negative, also
tensile stiffness of activated part of concrete needs to be used, ActEc. The number 2 in
denominator stands for strain at mid-height. It’s safe assumption as no negative strains in
compression part are considered this way.
Now, the shear resistance is computed as
(27)
with limitation
(28)
due to crushing capacity of cracked concrete, with kc
(29)
The resistance provided by stirrups is found by
(30)
and the steel strength can be activated when
17
(31)
The resistance provided by aggregate interlock of concrete is given as
(32)
and √fck is limited to 8MPa. Model Code 2010 as explanation gives big variability of shear
strength for high-strength concretes, however according to background literature (Bentz and
Collins, 2006) this comes from cracking pattern of those. When high-strength concrete is
used, the cracks tends to go through aggregate instead of around them tending to produce
smoother surface and thus interlocking phenomenon is no that strong. The coefficient kv
represents the decrease of shear resistance due to aggregate interlock as the cracks gets
wider (Bentz and Collins, 2006) and is given by:
(33)
where
(34)
and dg is an aggregate diameter. As mentioned in high strength concrete the crack tends to
go across the aggregate, thus for concrete strength above 70MPa dg should be taken as 0.
Fig. 9. Free body diagram of web in shear (Benz and Collins, 2006)
18
As it was previously mentioned and can be easily seen using the free body diagram of a shear
mechanism (Fig. 9) the aggregate interlock mechanism results in additional tensile force in
longitudinal reinforcement. To avoid flexural-shear failure, during longitudinal reinforcement
design an force increment needs to be added which comes from moments equilibrium:
2.4.3. BBK 04
In BBK 04 a sort of composite method is used, where shear strength of concrete itself like for
plain element and strength due to reinforcement are added, in following way:
(35)
Where:
Vsd is a designed shear load

Vc is a shear strength coming from concrete
Vi is a shear strength increment coming from axial force, ex. prestress
Vs is a shear strength component coming from shear reinforcement.
The shear strength component coming from concrete, Vc is calculated in the same way as
strength of elements without shear reinforcement, using simple formula:
(36)
Where:
d is the effective beam depth

fv is the shear strength of concrete, calculated using equation below:
(37)
Where:
fct is tensile strength of concrete
ξ is factor depending on depth of the beam (taking into account size effect)
ρ is longitudinal reinforcement ratio, limited to 0,02
The component coming from steel can be calculated using equation (38) and comes from
tensile strength of stirrups like in strut-and-tie model. It is equivalent to equation from
Eurocode (23).
(38)
19
Where:
Asv is cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement

fsv is tensile strength of shear reinforcement
β is the angle between shear reinforcement and beam axis.
The part Vi giving the contribution from compressive stresses from e.g. prestressing or a
inclined compression chord are not considered in the simplified version used here.
The prevention from concrete crushing in compressive struts is done indirectly by following
check:
(39)
Where:
Vd is a designed shear strenght

fcc is the concrete characteristic compressive strength
The code gives also a rule about activation of shear reinforcement. It states that shear
reinforcement is active only if following condition based on tensile concrete strength is
pleased:
(40)
The Swedish code BBK 04 also allows for calculation of shear strength using alternative
method, which is simply strut-and-tie method. The assumptions and equations are similar to
those given in Eurocode 2 thus will not be explained here.
20
3. Material testing
As mentioned, the most important part of this thesis is calculation of real resistance of the
bridge tested. To do so, the material characteristics of concrete and reinforcement must be
obtained by extensive testing. Some ways of testing are described here and next the
properties calculated on basis of laboratory works are given.
3.1. Concrete testing

Concrete core destructive testing is the best and most reliable way to get to know real
condition of concrete in structure, taking into consideration production and mixing, casting,
curing and possible corrosion (Bungey and Millard, 1996). However, many factors can
influence final outcomes at any stage of investigations, starting from choose of core
extraction location, through cutting and curing the core, up to preparation for testing and
testing itself. This is why appropriate standards should be strictly followed (ASTM C42, ACI
318, EN 12504-1, EN 13791, Report 11), however even those standards bring some
uncertainties, errors and simplifications which could be avoided (Rocco et al., 2001).
3.1.1. Chose of drilling location
According to the majority of manuals and standards (Bungey and Millard, 1996, ASTM C42,
ACI 318, EN12504-1, Report 11) cores should be extracted by drilling (Fig. 10) in most
stressed areas or in these to which justified suspicions about concrete quality exist. However,
overall stability and serviceability of tested element cannot be disturbed, thus those
locations should be chosen very carefully. Also reinforcement should be avoided, not only
due to possible problems during drilling process and distortion of force-flow in structure, but
also due to influence on strength of tested core (however in case of presence of rebars in
core, special formulae can be applied for estimation of true concrete strength). Sometimes
due to architectural or on-site purposes other locations can be taken for core extraction, like
in (Jeppsson, 2003 ).
Also another factors influencing final results should be bore in mind during core extraction,
like direction of concrete casting. Usually the top layer of concrete in case of thicker slabs,
plates and horizontal elements is not representative and should be avoided (Bungey and
Millard, 1996, Report 11), as well as vertical bottom–to-top direction of drilling should be
avoided for safety reasons (Report 11). However all these are just hints, and on-site
assessment needs to be done by drilling supervisor, and all factors should be carefully noted.
Finally, the rule of probably biggest importance is that samples should be taken in such
places, to be representative for whole structure (ACI 138), so chose of location is always
difficult task for engineer .
3.1.2. Observations
Before the mechanical tests can begin, sample core should be carefully examined and all
faults, excessive void content including honeycombing, cracks due to structural behaviour
and drilling process should be noted. All of those factors highly influence final outcomes. The
sample should be representative, thus all damages done during preparation process for
testing, like cutting and polishing, should be avoided. For better assessment, all cores should
be carefully photographed.
21
Another very important feature is proper measuring and weighting of core, to obtain it’s
cross-area, length-to-diameter ratio, porosity and density. Correction for presence of
reinforcement and caps should be taken (ASTM C42,EN12504-1, Report 11) if needed.
Fig. 10. Core drilling in concrete (© Om Shakthi Engineering and Contractors)
3.1.3. Tests on concrete cores

3.1.3.1. Axial compressive test
The most important and popular method of testing concrete are compressive tests, as usually
this is the mode in which this material works. It gives the compressive strength of a sample,
and by use of empirical equations estimates can be obtained also of other properties,
including Young’s modulus, shear and tensile strengths. However, sometimes it’s important
to obtain them directly from tests for better accuracy.
3.1.3.1.1. Core size
British and American Standards implies that the minimum core diameter is three times the
nominal maximum aggregate size (Bungey and Millard, 1996) . Moreover, most of them
suggest that this diameter should be at least 100mm, however smaller cores are not
prohibited in case of small elements and tests other than standard axial compressive (ASTM
C42, EN 13791). For aggregate sizes bigger than 25mm, up to 40mm the diameter of 150mm
is suggested (Report 11), but smaller sizes are also possible if change of nominal core
strength is taken into account (EN 12504-1).
22
The bigger the diameter of core, the smaller the variability of results, thus whenever possible
bigger size should be chosen (Report 11). In case it’s impossible, more small-size cores should
be extracted and tested (EN 13791). This influence of core diameter comes from strength
reduction due to cutting (Khoury et al., 2014). As with rise of size of core, the ratio of cut
surface area to volume of sample decreases, cores with big diameters are preferred.
Length to diameter ratio also influences the test outcomes, with increase of strength with
decrease of this ratio (EN13791). Different manuals are constructed for different ratios: (EN
12504-1) suggest l/d=1 if the results are to be compared to cube strength and l/d=2 if they
are to be compared to cylinder strength. (ASTM C42) prefers l/d=1.9-2.1 and gives l/d ratio
smaller than 0.95 as unacceptable. Old British standards suggest that l/d should vary from 1.0
up to 1.2 (Report 11).
Most of those suggestions are valid for axial compressive strength test as this one is
considered as standard one and most popular. For different kinds of tests the preferred
dimensions may vary, and if so it will be pointed out in chapters below.
3.1.3.1.2. Core curing
As concrete is an porous material, the water content is one of the most important factors
influencing compressive strength of sample. For uniformity of results and repeatability of
tests, but not forgetting about real in-situ state of material, three different strategies can be
found in literature.
First is dry state of concrete, assumed for elements that during their lifetime will not be
immersed in water (ACI 318). Such samples should be air-dried for 7 days before testing in
temperature of 60 to 80⁰F (≈15 to 25⁰C) and relative humidity less than 60%. This should
assure similar water content in samples for test in different laboratories, thus repeatability of
test.
For structures that would be more than superficially wet under service conditions, same
standard (ACI 318) gives wet state of sample for testing, similarly to European rules (BS1881,
EN12504-1). The sample should be kept in water for not less than two days. Again,
repeatability is assured here. The climate chamber is also acceptable, but the storage needs
to take longer for assuring water penetration. However the European code allows also for
testing of concrete without special curing, it the curing is not needed (EN12504-1). It can be
interpreted similarly as in (ACI 318), depending on concrete environmental conditions in
structure.
Third and the most complex from point of view of storage and preparation of sample method
is one proposed by (ASTM C42). Here, for better understanding of state of built-in concrete,
in-situ moisture is tried to be kept for the compressive test, thus strong limitation on time of
preparation of sample, sun and dry exposure, shipping containers etc. However, this does not
assure that the moisture would be same as structure moisture and makes whole experiment
much less repeatable as additional randomized characteristic value plays a role here.
23
3.1.3.1.3. Core preparation
All cores needs to be prepared for testing by cutting to proper length, where uniform, fault-
free and representative sample is obtained (Fig. 11) . Due to shape effects, diameter to
length ratio is very important and can influence results of almost all destructive tests (ASTM
C42, EN12504-1, BS1881, Rocco et al. 2000). Faces of core, especially upper and lower should
be properly treated to obtain flat surface, and then, if needed, capped with high-alumina
cement mortar or sulphur. Other materials cannot be used as they highly influence obtained
results (Report 11). European standard allows also for sandbox method of capping (EN
12390-3). American standards allows for axial tests without capping if end faces are flat
enough (ASTM C42, ASTM C39). If not, ordinary cement paste caps should be applied of
thickness about 3mm (ASTM C617).
Fig. 11. 100mm concrete core after axial compressive test
Capping plays quite a vital role, especially during basic axial compressive test, as results in
tries in which capping failed or separated from concrete are not acceptable (Report 11).
European standards (EN 12504-1) allows for testing both with and without capping.
3.1.3.1.3.1. Capping using calcium aluminate cement
European standard (EN 12390-3) gives quite clear instruction for capping of cores using
aluminate cement. It can be used up to anticipated strength of concrete of 50MPa. After the
surface is grinded, cleaned and in wet condition, special collar should be applied, then filled
with aluminate mortar composed of three parts of calcium aluminate cement and one part
by mass of fine sand. Then the oiled glass should be pressed to obtain smooth surface. Cap
should be thin as possible and not thicker than 5 mm (EN 12390-3). Older British standards
suggest thicker caps – of average thickness of half of the maximum aggregate size (10-15mm)
and not be thicker than maximum aggregate size (Report 11). Then the cap should be cured
in the moist air in room temperature.
24
3.1.3.1.3.2. Capping using sulfur mixture method
This method can be used up to expected concrete strength equal to 50MPa. Surface should
be cleaned and in dry state. Ready-made sulfur mixes are recommended, but one can
prepare his own. The mixture should be heated to temperature specified by producer. Next,
the lower end should be immersed into mixture on a horizontal plate. A capping frame
should be used to ensure proper thickness of capping which should not exceed 5mm (EN
12390-3)or maximum aggregate size (Report 11). This method is much faster than capping
with aluminate cement as it doesn’t need special curing and compression test can be
executed as soon as after 30 minutes from capping (EN 12390-3)
3.1.3.1.3.3. Capping using sandbox method
For this method special steel boxes should be used as visible in Fig. 12. The required volume
of sand should be put into box without spreading it. The positioning frame should be set in a
way to obtain height of sand of 10mm ±2mm. The core, with its surface cleaned, should be
placed and vibrations should be applied for 20s ±5s. Then the paraffin wax with a setting
point of 60⁰C ±10⁰C should be applied around the core up to the rim of box for proper
sealing. To prevent separation of cap during transportation, the core should be always
supported from the bottom. Compressive test can be executed almost immediately. The
scheme of sample with capping is shown in Fig. 13 (EN 12390-3).
Fig. 12. Details of steel box for sandbox capping (EN 12390-3)
25
Fig. 13. Scheme of sample with sandbox capping (EN 12390-3)
3.1.3.1.4. Testing and interpretation of results
The axial compressive test allows, under proper instrumentation of sample, for measuring in
straight forward manner two basic properties of concrete – Young’s Modulus in compression
and compressive strength. The procedure is simple and well-known (EN 12390-3, BS1881,
ASTM C39), but this is mostly the method of preparation of samples described above and
interpretation of results that varies between different codes.
As concrete properties varies depending of shape, size, moisture of sample and many other
factors, they need to be taken into consideration while calculating resistance of structure on
basis of tests of cores extracted from it. Each code provides its own formulas to take it into
account. They need to be slightly different as preparation of samples varies, but those
difference arise also from different factors taken into account in each of those code. (Khoury
et al., 2014) gives a good comparison of those in Fig. 14.
Fig. 14. Comparison of factors taken into account in different codes’ formulae (Khoury et al., 2014)
It can be easily seen that Egyptian Code and Concrete Society manual are based on old British
Code. As formulas in those three standards are quite similar, there are some differences in
26
coefficients proposed by them, which can rise from constantly growing database of test
conducted. Another family of codes are those from CEN. The old European Standard
specification was taking into account aspect ratio, reinforcement, damage and diameter. In
new EN specifications, the two former factors are not considered, probably due to
simplification of whole procedure, and code got more similar to old British one. The
differences are still coefficients used for calibration of formulae. The last family of standards
are American ones – ACI and ASTM. In former ACI and current ASTM codes only correction
factors due to aspect ratio were taken into account. New ACI code gives directions for taking
into account l/d ratio, concrete diameter and damage to drilling, which should reflect the
quality of workmanship and machine performance during core extracting. As this code is the
only one that allows for different sample curing (see chapter 3.1.3.1.2) it gives also correction
factor for moisture content in sample.
In his work (Khoury et al., 2014) suggest also his own correction factors for concrete strength,
based on tests of 500 cores of different concrete mix, ratios, humidity, reinforcement
alignment and extracted from various kinds of elements. The aspect ratio, core diameter,
casting direction, reinforcing steel presence, core moisture condition and damage due to
drilling are considered there. Despite of big database of samples (500 cores extracted) this
work probably still shows smaller reliability than codes used for years, thus results of the
work should be treated carefully.
What is important, in (Khoury et al.,2014) can be noticed that for cores without presence of
reinforcement, so for situation that should be pursued during core extraction, the best
results among all the codes considered can be obtained for new ACI code (ACI 214.4R-03).
3.1.3.2. Point load test
This test originally comes from rock testing, but can be successfully used with concrete as
was shown by (Robins, 1980). Core can be tested in two directions – axial or transversal (Fig.
15). It is placed between two steel cones with rounded tips and compressive force is applied.
One of the biggest advantages of this test is that no special preparation of surface is needed
except of flattering the surfaces, contrary to axial compressive test. As the area of force
application is much smaller than for traditional compressive test the apparatus is portable
and much cheaper. In case of transversal way of testing, if only length to diameter ratio is
bigger than 1.0, no influence on results exists (Richardson, 1989) thus core does not even
need to be cut. However in case of core extraction in the direction of concrete casting and
compacting, some discontinuities due to bleeding water can be found, thus axial testing is
recommended (Richardson, 1989).
Then, by use of formulae taking into consideration shape of sample and aggregate in
concrete so called Point Load Index can be calculated and finally compression strength of
sample (Zacoeb and Ishibashi, 2009). However, the tensile strength also plays a vital role in
mode of failure of sample and can be found during the test (Bungey and Millard 1996). The
biggest advantages comparing to axial compressive test is smaller size of sample needed, no
time-consuming preparations of capping and smaller force applied, thus reduction of costs.
As the biggest disadvantage, the indirect way of obtaining results needs to be mentioned as it
relies on Point Load Index recalculation into Compressive Strength, which is done by means
27
of empirical equations (Richardson, 1989, Zacoeb and Ishibashi, 2009, Bungey and Millard,
1996).
Fig. 15. (a) Point-load cone platen; Specimens loaded transversally (b) and axially (c) (Richardson, 1989)
3.1.3.3. Triaxial compressive test
Compressive testing under hydrostatical pressure (Fig. 16) is common for soil and rock
samples (EN 1997), but to use it in concrete is sort of novelty. However, it can be useful for
obtaining concrete strength in elements subjected to complex multi-axial stresses (Lee et al.
2004) or during explosions and ballistic impact (Pinard et al. 2012).
Another interesting feature for concrete in triaxial state is it’s behavior under thermal action,
as investigated by (Petkowski et al., 2006).
Due to lacks in literature in use of this test for assessing the real state of concrete in
structures , the novelty of the methods and lack of equipment, they cannot be used here.
3.1.3.4. Direct tensile test
This is the most straight-forward method to find the tensile strength of concrete.
Unfortunately, due to well-known problems with clamping the ends of specimens without
crushing concrete in those locations the test performance itself is not that easy. One of the
solutions is proposed by Army Corps of Engineers code, with grouting metal caps to which
tensile force would be applied (CRD-C 164). Another problem is fixing the sample through
caps to a testing machine in the manner which will not cause any torsion or bending actions
in core – roller chain is proposed. Currently the method of fixing steel plates to ends of core
by adhesives are preferred thanks to better force distribution in vicinity of connection, and
thus smaller risk of crushing concrete there (Zheng et al., 2001).
28
One of ways to limit the force needed for cracking failure of specimen and to imply the point
of cracking in the middle of core is to notch the sample by cutting the groove in the mid-
height of it, leaving the diameter of about 70% of the original one (Thun et al., 2007). The
upper and lower faces of the core are, after smoothing, attached by means of adhesives to
steel plates and after montage of strain gauges the sample is tested (Fig. 17). Thanks to pre-
determined location of the crack it can be better instrumented and thus observed. This
makes it possible to directly observe the tensile branch of the concrete constitutive
behaviour (Thun, 2006; Elfgren et al., 2007, 2008). The method can also be used to
determine the fracture energy of concrete, which can explain many factors influencing
concrete strength together with the theory of fracture mechanics, see e.g. Bazant and Planas
(1998).
Fig. 16. Instrumented concrete specimen for triaxial compressive test in water impermeable membrane (Lee et al., 2004)
3.1.3.5. Brazilian test
This indirect tensile splitting test is well-known and well-propagated thanks to easiness of
execution. It was first proposed by Brazilian scientists (Carneiro and Barcellos, 1949) thus its
commonly used name. It’s basic idea is that through application of compressive force linearly
distributed along the side face of cylinder, nearly uniform tensile stress is caused in
perpendicular direction along the plane of loading (Mondoringin et al., 2011).
The cored sample of length to diameter ratio not less than 1 should be checked for
dimensions and surface smoothness. In case of need it should be cut or grinded. After
conditioning in water for not less than 40h (EN 12504-1) the sample should be placed (as in
Fig. 18) horizontally between packing strips made of hardboard and dimensions of width a=
10mm ±1mm, thickness t=4mm ±1mm according to (BS EN 12390-6) or a=15mm ±1mm and
29
t=4mm ±1mm according to Swedish standard (SS EN 12390-6). The strips should be slightly
longer than the core. Special attention should be paid for placing core diametrically between
those strips. Then the compressive force is applied. Thanks to much higher compressive than
tensile strength of concrete uniform splitting is obtained along that plane. By means of
equation (41)
(41)
where F is maximum compressive load, L is the length where load is applied and d is cylinder
diameter, the tensile stress depending on compressive force applied can be easily calculated
(EN 12390-6). However the strips used for distribution of force, usually made from plywood,
vary in thickness in different standards (ASTM C496, BS1881, BS EN 12390-6, SS EN 12390-6)
which may lead to different behaviour of sample under load and thus quite different
outcome as can be seen in Fig. 19 (Rocco et al., 2001). An advantage is easiness of application
with no need of special surfaces preparation or capping, no need of paying special attention
on diameter to length ratio and simple dependence between applied force and concrete
strength (EN 12390-6, ASTM C496).
Fig. 17. Grooved specimen prepared for tensile testing and equipped with strain gauges (Elfgren et al., 2008)
30
Fig. 18. Test set-up for splitting tensile test (EN12390-6)
Fig. 19. Variation of tensile splitting strength depending on width ratio of strip to specimen according to theory of
elasticity (Rocco et al., 2001)
3.1.3.6. The diameter-compression test
The diameter-compression test could be an alternative for axial compression test. The core is
placed horizontally between two steel semicircles and the compressive force is applied (Fig.
20). Thanks to no need of capping the core and no influence of length do diameter ratio the
test is much simpler than traditional. Unfortunately, because of complex diametral and
circumferential stresses in core the concrete strength cannot be found directly. However, it is
31
proportional to force applied, but the coefficient of proportionality is yet to be found and
confirmed for various concrete types, thus this method is not reliable enough.(Ruijie, 1996)
3.1.3.7. Gas tension test
This is an indirect tensile test. The core is placed inside steel jacket, with two rubber “O” rings
at each end (Fig. 21). The neutral gas, usually nitrogen, is pumped in and when pressure is
approximately equal to concrete tensile strength, perpendicularly to axis of core the fracture
plane is created. However, the mechanism of sample failure is quite complicated and
counter-intuitive as sample is not loaded axially, neither in tension nor compression. The
failure plane is formed by pressure in pores and micro cracks of concrete, and while in radial
direction it is balanced by applied gas, in axial direction it is not. By increasing gas pressure,
more gas I driven into the sample rising the pressure. However this mechanism is still not
fully understood thus this method should be used carefully (Uno et al.,2005)
Fig. 20. Diameter-compression test principles (Ruijie, 1996)
3.1.3.8. Additional tests
After destructive tests which had on point investigation of mechanical properties, other
features can be checked for better understanding of concrete in structure, like carbonization,
alkali-aggregate reactions and other indicators of structure deterioration. However, they are
not in scope of this thesis (Bungey and Millard, 1996; Report 11).
32
Fig. 21. Gas tension test set-up (Uno et al., 2005)
3.1.4. Size effect of concrete cores
Concrete is an non-homogenous material, thus the size effect on tests results is a well-known
phenomena (Khoury et al., 2014, Kadlecek et al., 2002, Vandegrift and Schindler, 2006).
It has been proven that for axial compressive test the length to diameter ratio is the crucial
factor. As it increases, the measured strength decreases (Fig. 22) due to stresses
redistribution in the sample. This ratio is set to be in vicinity of 2 in most important codes
(ASTM C42, EN 12504-1) and strength recalculation formulae are well calibrated in this range
(Khoury et al., 2014). For axial compression test also the diameter itself influences the
results. During drilling for core extraction the side faces of concrete are influenced
destructing the cement – to – aggregate bounds. The bigger the core diameter the smaller
influence of those faults, and above diameter of 100mm which is suggested to be the
smallest possible by most of codes (ASTM C42, EN 12504-1, Report 11) this dependence can
be neglected (Khoury et al, 2014). Also the variability of results for bigger cores is smaller due
to same reason (Khoury et al., 2014).
In case of tensile splitting test, as well as point-load test which uses same principles, there
are couple of factors influencing the outcomes. The minor one is the length of specimen. For
short samples the dependence on length to diameter ratio is quite big, but as it goes above 1
the influence on results is smaller (Kadlecek et al., 2002, Zacoeb and Ishibashi, 2009) thus
most of standards accept cores of l/D ratio as small as 1 (EN 12390-6, ASTM C496). It is the
diameter of specimen that has bigger influence on results as it determines two
characteristics: fracture area and width of bearing strip to specimen size ratio. First one
comes from well-know relationship in concrete – when the size, thus in this case fracture
area increases, the tensile strength decreases, and it comes from strength of materials. The
so called High Stressed Volume is dependent on square of specimen diameter, thus cannot
be included in equation (41). However this equation is quite well-known and the error is not
very vulnerable. There exist also equation for recalculation of strength for different sizes and
shapes of section (Kadlecek et al., 2002). Much more dangerous is the influence of size of
33
bearing strip. As mentioned previously, different standards suggest different sizes of this strip
(Rocco et al., 2001). This difference exist even in British (EN 12390-6) Eurocode and Swedish
(SS 12390-6) Eurocode. The strip width does not influence measured tensile strength only
when it’s reduced to 0, thus linear load is applied. Otherwise, the wider the strip, or rather
the higher strip width to core diameter ratio, the higher measured strength. It can lead to
wrong conclusions as different codes used different widths of stripes but still same equation
for calculation of strength (41), and for small cores the difference can be as high as 30%
(Rocco et al., 2001, Rocco et al., 1999).
Fig. 22. Influence of length to diameter ratio on cylinder axial compressive strength (Vandegrift and Schindler, 2006)
In case of direct tension tests of concrete cores, the size almost does not influence the
results. It is rather the uniformity of section, thus probability of founding weak plane in
specimen (Zheng et al., 2001) or non-equal compaction and aggregate segregation (Kim and
Taha, 2014) which rise with concrete length.
3.2. Reinforcment steel testing

As steel reinforcement in concrete works mostly in tension and its influence in compressive
zone can be neglected due to difference in Young’s moduli of those two materials, it’s usually
tested in axial tension. This simple test lets for direct record of force-elongation behaviour of
sample and, usually assuming original area (EN 10002-1) stress-strain relationship.
As steel is not as prone to external environment as concrete there are not any rules
regarding conditioning or preparation of specimens. The test should be conducted at the
34
temperature between 10⁰C and 35⁰C, preferably in 23⁰C ± 5⁰C (EN 10002-1) which can be
also described as an ambient temperature (ASTM A370). The sample is camped by metal
grips and tensioned by stress rate between 6 to 60 MPa/s for normal steel (EN 10002-1).
Another test applicable to reinforcement is the bend-test which is used mostly to check the
quality of bars to be curved in structure for any possibility of cracks or fracture during
process, thus it’s not applicable in this thesis (ASTM A615).
3.3. Materials tests with samples from bridge in Kiruna

Several samples were extracted from the bridge structures (see chapter 4) of which only a
few were used in preparation of this thesis.
Two kinds of concrete samples were prepared – cylinders of length 200mm and 100mm. Due
to presence of reinforcement not all cores could have been sampled to 200mm length.
However, from bigger cores two samples were obtained where possible to increase number
of samples. The longer samples were to be used for compressive tests to obtain strength and
modulus of elasticity. Some of them were put aside to be tested in low temperature (-20⁰C)
which is out of scope of this thesis. The short samples were tested to obtain compressive
strength by axial test and tensile strength in Brazilian test. In total, from the slab and the
beam there have been available 18 samples for Young’s modulus testing in compression and
room temperature (200mm), 6 for compressive strength testing (100mm) and 13 for tensile
strength testing (100mm). The exact results of testing done in scope of preparation of this
thesis is given in appendix.
According to standards (EN 12504-1) the shorter cylinders strength reflects the cube
strength, while the longer – cylinder strength. It needs to be taken into account during
properties calculation. The rate of compression in tests was 7.8kN/s, which depends on area
of sample (EN 12390-4). For longer samples tested also for Young’s Modulus, the strain
gauges of length 120mm were to be used, to avoid any local effects of aggregate. No special
curing was used, and cores were prepared by grinding, without capping.
There have been 5 samples of shear reinforcement prepared, which is the only sort of rebars
needed in this thesis. The lengths of samples were 420mm, which is bigger than minimum
length calculated from formula (ISO 6892-1):
(42)
where:
lclamp is the length of testing machine clamps, and lclamp=120mm
lgauge is the length of strain gauge used, and lgauge=100mm
d is the diameter of rebar.
After cleaning the surface of bar by abrasion (Fig. 23) for proper measurement and gauge
attachment full tensile stress-strength curve was obtained until fracture, and the results are
given in Appendix A.
35
Fig. 23. Samples of reinforcement before and after cleaning.
3.4. Results from bridge in Kiruna

The material data needed to calculate the shear strength is the compressive and tensile
strengths of concrete and yielding strength of shear reinforcement. All those characteristics
are needed in two forms in this thesis – as characteristic values, used for calculation of
resistance, and as variable values, used for calculation maximum shear force under required
reliability level.
In case of concrete due to time limitation in preparation of this thesis, only 6 short cores
(100mm) of concrete K40 were tested in axial compression, thus other characteristic
properties needs to be found using equations from Eurocode 2 (EN 1992). The method of
calculation the characteristic strength is given by European standard (EN 13791), and for 6
samples tested it is given as lower of values:
(43)
(44)
and k depend on number of samples, for n=6, k=7. The outcome is given in MPa. No equation
is given for recalculation cube strength to cylinder strength which should be used in
resistance calculation, however ratio 0.8 was used, which is the ratio for most of concrete
classes (EN 1992). For all the samples the cylinder strength was obtained, and then the
formulae (43) and (44) used (see Tab. 2). The characteristic cylinder strength obtained was
fck=55MPa, so it’s significantly higher than expected from updated concrete class (35,5MPa,
see 4.1).
The characteristic tensile strength has been calculated on basis of compressive strength
according to Eurocode 2 (EN 1992). First, the mean tensile strength needs to be computed.
The Eurocode gives two formulas, one for class below C50/60, and one above C50/60. Since
36
characteristic strength gathered from tests is higher than of class C50/60, the second formula
was used, which is:
(45)
where fcm is mean compressive strength. Since the compressive strength was calculated for
each sample separately first, it will be substituted by fc which is compressive cylinder
strength of sample. Next, the characteristic 5% fractile strength needs to be found by
(46)
Results of those computations can be seen in Tab. 2Tab. 5, giving fctk=2,9MPa.
Since the Young’s modulus of concrete is not needed in any of codes formulae used in this
thesis, it will not be investigated.
For the variable values of concrete, the lognormal distribution was used since no negative
values can appear (JCSS). From the test data the lognormal distribution parameters can be
found using well-known relations (COMREL, Nowak and Collins,2013):
(47)
(48)
where:
ξ is the median
m is the mean value of results
V is the coefficient of variation (COV), and V=σ/m where is the

standard deviation, and n number of samples tested
δ is the standard lognormal deviation
As input for this recalculation, executed automatically in program, the mean value and
standard deviation is needed. For compressive strength fc.mean=62MPa and fc.σ=5MPa. For
tensile strength the calculated standard deviation is equal to 0,2MPa, giving the coefficient of
variation 3,6%. Since the tensile strength is not obtained directly, there is low confidence
level on results. As the code (JCSS) gives much higher COV for this concrete property (30%),
the standard deviation will be increased to recommended level, so that fct,mean=4,2MPa and
fct,σ=1,3MPa (see Tab. 2).
37
Tab. 2. Results of compressive test of concrete 100mm cores.
100mm
Mean Characteris
Updated Maximal compr.
Specimen Concrete Maximal tensile tic tensile
concrete strength str.
ID class load strength strength
class (fmax) cylinder
(45) (46)
(0.8fmax)
- x kN MPa MPa MPa MPa
17 K40 K50 709,0 84,41 68 4,3 3,0
18 K40 K50 675,1 80,58 64 4,3 3,0
19 K40 K50 624,4 74,29 59 4,1 2,9
25 K40 K50 552,3 65,43 52 3,9 2,7
29 K40 K50 668,0 78,97 63 4,2 3,0
30 K40 K50 687,4 81,26 65 4,3 3,0
Mean 77 62 4,2 2,9
Std.
6 5 0,2 0,1
Deviation
k 7
fck.1 (43) 55
fck.2 (44) 56
fck 55
COV[%] 8 3,6 3,6
Tab. 3. Results of axial tensile tests of reinforcement.
0.2 %
Initial
Specimen Extension at plastic
Diameter nominal
ID yield point proof
area
strength
- mm mm2 mm MPa
1 10 82,59947 0,41 460
2 10 82,26513 0,41 449
3 10 82,22980 0,40 484
4 10 82,36639 0,41 460
5 10 80,59989 0,42 465
Mean 464
Std.
Deviation 11
COV[%] 2,5
fyk 441
Five samples of steel reinforcement has been tested in tension, giving full stress-strain curve.
The 0,2% offset yield criterion has been used to get proof yield strength for each sample
(JCSS). The normal distribution should be used for steel properties as they are much more
uniform than in case of concrete (JCSS). As the characteristic strength means that the
probability that the true strength is higher than given is equal to 95%, and the assumed
distribution is normal (Gaussian) it is known that this interval lies 1.96 standard deviation
38
from mean value (Nowak and Collins, 2013), which usually is rounded to 2σ. This will be used
for calculation of characteristic yield strength of reinforcement.
As it can be seen in Tab. 3, the steel quality is quite uniform, with mean value fy.mean=464MPa
and standard deviation fy.σ=11MPa. The recommended standard deviation (JCSS) is 30MPa,
but as the steel reinforcement comes from one producer, the lower variation is
understandable. With two standard deviations from mean value the characteristic value can
be found as fyk=441MPa, which is somewhat higher than the one presumed by standards
(410MPa).
39
4. Reliability of bridge in Kiruna
The bridge in Kiruna, constructed in 1959, is a roadway reinforced concrete prestressed
bridge carrying one line of traffic in each direction and two footpaths, see Bagge (2014). The
total length of a viaduct is 121.5m measuring along central line, divided into five spans of
lengths varying from 18 to 29.35 meters. The viaduct is sloped longitudinally at 5% and
curved (see Fig. 24).
Fig. 24 Side and top view of bridge in Kiruna
The load tests were carried out on the second span (between columns 2 and 3) and this span
shall be considered.
The superstructure is supported on three girders of height about 1.6m and width varying
from 41cm in mid-span to 65cm in vicinity of supports, and the constant 41cm width is
reached 4 meters from support. The concrete slab thickness is 22cm (Fig. 25), giving the total
depth of beam of 1923mm. Each of beams carries prestressing wires which follows bending
moments. On the left side there are two wires in two groups (2+2), while at the casting break
(Fig. 26) another group is added, giving three groups of two wires each (2+2+2). Each wire
gives 90t force of prestress, according to original design. In any horizontal layer of beam
there are utmost 4 tendons. The single tendon consists of 32 wires of diameter 6mm each,
enclosed in 50mm diameter duct and grouted. Some of the original drawings are given in
Appendix A.
40
Fig. 25 Superstructure section at mid-span
Fig. 26 Superimposed load, casting break and coring points locations
As mentioned, the span under consideration (2nd) consist a casting break, which means two
concrete batches were used. Because of technological processes and weather conditions
during castings their characteristics may vary. This is why samples were taken from both of
them. To avoid weakening of span under tests, the cores (presented in Fig. 27) were taken in
the middles of adjacent spans, three from each of beams in distance of half-a-meter from
each other, giving 18 cores in total. As the concrete class in the slab is the same as used in
the girder this data can be also used for strength estimation. There have been 19 cores
extracted from slab, in same places as beam cores. The designed class of concrete in beam
and slab was K400 according to old Swedish codes, which stands roughly for C28/35
Eurocode class (Puurla et al., 2008).
41
Fig. 27. Samples extracted from bridge (not all of them are in scope of this thesis)
The samples of steel stirrups were taken from span 2-3 during bridge demolition - 8 samples
of steel stirrups were taken in total, 5 of which tested for this thesis scope. Also another
kinds of reinforcement bars were extracted, however their testing is out of scope of the tesis.
The stirrups were originally designed of φ10 class KS 40, which in old Swedish codes stands
for yield strength fyk=410MPa.
4.1. Calculation of strength using design material properties

Three resistance models were described previously and now they shall be compared. The
design shear resistance is to be obtained, using design material properties, in the same way
as it is done during safety check of new structures. As mentioned, this will not help to find
the error level of any of those computational models, as this needs extended investigations
including testing of multiple elements experimentally and compare results with calculation
outcomes. However, such a comparison of calculated shear strengths of the very same
element using different codes might be interesting.
Fig. 28. Components of shear resistance
On the Fig. 28 the components of shear resistance force are presented. Their use differ from
code to code. The resistance from stirrups Vs is considered in all the codes, and since
considered girder contains shear reinforcement, this is one of the most important
42
components. The shear resistance of plain, uncracked concrete Vcz is taken into account in
BBK 04 as Vc, and is somehow assumed to be equally distributed over the section area (36).
The contribution from interlock of aggregate, Va, is used in Model Code 2010 (VRd,c, (32)). The
vertical component of prestress force VP can be considered in all the codes due to rules of
mechanics of structure, more about that is chapter 4.4. The last component, dowel action of
longitudinal reinforcement Vd is quite small and all the codes neglect it.
Since the width of beams change near supports, and the tendon depth follows the bending
moments, effective dimensions of beam change within the width. This is why five sections of
interest has been chosen (Fig. 29): two next to supports, two at the ends of widened sections
and one in the middle of span, where the full-scale test was executed.
Fig. 29. Five sections of interest, span 2-3.
Because the area and strength of longitudinal reinforcement is much smaller than of
prestressing cables, in the ultimate limit state tendons governs the shear strength. This is
why the depth of the beam is taken as bigger distance between geometrical centre of
prestressing cables and edge of beam. Either zero or two tendons are present between this
geometrical centre line and beam edge, which should be taken into account in some codes
(Eurocode, Model 2010) as an effective width bw . The set of dimensions to be used is given
below:
Tab. 4. Effective beam dimensions for shear strength calculation.
Effective width of beam bw

Section Effective depth d [mm] Width of beam b [mm]
[mm]
1 1670 650 650
2 1042 410 410
3 1658 410 360
4 1341 410 360
5 1830 650 600
The Eurocode and BBK04 gives quite simple procedures allowing calculation of resistance of
element knowing only its dimensions and material properties, but the MCFT used in Model
code requires also some knowledge on stress state, or rather effort state of element. This is
because the angle of cracks depends on ratio of longitudinal and transversal stresses.
However, the very same code gives some tools for estimation of resistance without this
knowledge on loadings. This is called level one method, which means it is not as exact as
level three described previously as contains more simplifications.
43
As simplification, the cracking angle at limit state is taken as θ=36⁰, which is the value
appearing in ULS in most of beams during the tests (Bentz and Collins, 2006). Further, the
two equations for factorisation of concrete strength are replaced by
(49)
(50)
which are valid for fck≤64 MPa, fyk≤ 500 MPa and concrete with aggregate of size at least
10mm, which all are pleased in this case.
According to Trafikverket (TRVK), which is Swedish Transport Administration, the material

data for bridges designed between 1947 and 1960, which is the case, the concrete properties
should be taken from BBK94. However, for K40 concrete class can be increased by two
strength classes (TDOK 2013:0267). Same document gives properties of steel reinforcement
for bridges constructed after 1955.
So summing up, the data used for shear strength calculation will be:
ϕ=50mm diameter of tendon duct
KS40 steel class in beam
fyk=410MPa characteristic yield strength
K400 concrete class in beam, data given after 2 class increase (TDOK 2013:0267)
fck=35.5MPa characteristic compressive strength
fct=2.4 MPa characteristic tensile strength
Eck=34GPa characteristic Young’s modulus
φ10@150 shear reinforcement (vertical stirrups, 2 legs)
3φ16 bottom longitudinal beam reinforcement
18φ16 additional longitudinal beam reinforcement
And in all the codes considered here, the partial safety coefficients are:
γC=1.5 for concrete
γS=1.15 for steel
Computations were done in Mathcad® software and are presented in Appendix B.
44
Tab. 5. Designed shear strength of beam according to different codes
Section BBK04 EC2 MODEL 2010

1 1073 kN 1388 kN 1354 kN
2 578 kN 866 kN 711 kN
3 894 kN 1378 kN 1086 kN
4 731 kN 1115 kN 879 kN
5 1172 kN 1521 kN 1435 kN
All the codes gave similar results (Tab. 5) and the differences lie within 20%. The highest
outcomes are coming from Eurocode. This code allows for modification of assumed angle of
concrete cracking within some range, to maximize contribution of shear reinforcement
without violation of VRd,max value (see eq. (24)). As the section is not heavily reinforced in
shear, the minimum allowable angle of 22⁰ could have been assumed, maximizing the
outcome. In case of BBK 04 and Model Code 2010 those angles are fixed, and contribution
from stirrups is smaller.
In Eurocode, neither the width of the beam nor the axial force due to the prestress influences
the shear strength. This is because the width of beam plays role only in formula for VRd,max
which is limitation in case of strong shear reinforcement and poor concrete. The axial force is
influenced in same formula only (in α coefficient) thus lack of variation of calculated strength.
However, the influence of the inclined cables can be introduced into the truss model. This
has not been done here.
For both BBK04 and the Model Code 2010, the influences of axial forces have not been
considered. In the case of BBK04 an additional term Vi can be added, and it’s calculation can
be based on Betonghandbok – Konstruktion (Concrete Manual – Design) but it was not done
here.
For Model Code 2010, the axial force obviously influences the longitudinal strains, and by
that the angle of cracks. However here, due to lack of information about the complete stress-
state of member, the simplified method of level I was used, with constant crack angle which
corresponds to the expected one in ULS. Due to this simplification, the influence of prestress
force is neglected and its effect on capacity is lost.
4.2. Calculation of strength using characteristic material properties based on tests

The characteristic properties of steel and concrete were calculated previously. The shear
strength shall be computed analogously to this with designed properties. The data used for
computation is given in Tab. 4 and below:
ϕ=50mm diameter of tendon duct
fyk=441MPa characteristic yield strength
fck=55MPa characteristic compressive strength
fctk=2.9MPa characteristic tensile strength
φ10@150 shear reinforcement (vertical stirrups, 2 legs)
3φ16 bottom longitudinal beam reinforcement
45
18φ16 additional longitudinal beam reinforcement
And in all the codes considered here, the safety factors are:
γC=1.5 for concrete
γS=1.15 for steel
The results are presented in table below:
Tab. 6. Shear strength of beams using characteristic in-situ material properties

1 1223 kN 1493 kN 1555 kN
2 652 kN 932 kN 803 kN
3 1006 kN 1482 kN 1223 kN
4 824 kN 1199 kN 989 kN
5 1335 kN 1636 kN 1643 kN
Again, since it comes from construction of codes, the Eurocode model gives highest
resistance, and BBK04 lays somewhere 15-20% below Model Code 2010 (Tab. 6). Since the
tested material properties are slightly better than those given by codes – which is normal as
producers needs to stay on safe side with additional margin – also the resistances are higher
than designed ones (given in Tab. 5). As both material characteristic of concrete and steel has
been raised, the cracking angle in Eurocode could have been minimized to 22⁰
4.3. Calculation of strength using variable material properties and desired reliability
level
The three shear models were introduced into COMREL software, used for reliability studies.
The material strengths were applied as variables, with distribution and values calculated
previously (Tab. 7). Also the spacing of shear reinforcement was parameterized for being one
of most important values for shear resistance. The probabilistic codes (JCSS) does not give
any distribution for this dimension, thus one used in literature (Jeppsson, 2003) should be
used, which is normal with COV=10%. All the other values on side of resistance are taken as
constant. As in case of previous calculations for Eurocode, and with use of mean values, the
angle θ=22⁰ could have been reached without violating VRd, max, same cracking angle is
assumed for all sections.
The load side, which is shear forces, has been given as parameter. Thanks to that, the graph
of reliability of structure on dependence on load can be given, so that the maximum load
under assumption of some reliability index can be found. The Eurocode (EN 1990) requires
the reliability class RC3 for bridges, with reliability index in 50 years reference period β=4.3.
This is the desired level in this case, and the force for which it is reached shall be understand
as the designed resistance.
Summing up, the variable values were:
46
Tab. 7. Properties used in probabilistic Analysis
Property Mean Standard deviation Distribution

Concrete compressive strength 62 MPa 5 MPa Lognormal
Concrete tensile strength 4,2 MPa 1,3 MPa Lognormal
Steel yield strength 464 MPa 11 MPa Normal
Stirrups spacing 150 mm 15 mm Normal
The shear resistances for different codes and RC3 reliability class (β=4.3), which is desired for
bridges, are presented in Tab. 8. However, since the reliability level achieved by using
standard partial variables in Eurocode is one for class RC2 (β=3.8) (EN 1990) it is rather the
second one that should be compared with standard design procedure. Those values can be
seen in Tab. 9.
Tab. 8. Shear resistance for reliability level β=4.3

1 1015 kN 1241 kN 1778 kN
2 561 kN 774 kN 866 kN
3 871 kN 1233 kN 1296 kN
4 711 kN 997 kN 1048 kN
5 1109 kN 1360 kN 1860 kN
Tab. 9. Shear resistance for reliability level β=3.8

1 1076 kN 1290 kN 1814 kN
2 595 kN 805 kN 886 kN
3 923 kN 1281 kN 1327 kN
4 754 kN 1036 kN 1073 kN
5 1170 kN 1414 kN 1899 kN
As it comes directly from reliability of structures theory, it shouldn’t be a surprise that for
lower reliability class the computed strengths are higher. This is because the design point g*
can be shifted further on probability distribution graph of variables used for computation,
giving a bit higher probability of failure, but better material quality in this point. During real
structure assessment the resistances for higher quality class should be taken, but for
comparative purposes in this thesis the β=3.8 are more useful.
Quite an important information regarding computations for BBK04 code needs to be stated
here. An abrupt change in shear force – reliability curve has been noticed for the sections
above the supports (Fig. 30).
47
Fig. 30. Force-reliability curve for section 5, BBK04.
This change of curve comes from change of activation of shear reinforcement contribution
to the resistance (see equation (40)). While the force is increased, the design point g* shifts
(see chapter 2.2) and the higher strength values from possible distribution needs to be used
to please the limit equation. Since the concrete strength has bigger COV than steel, when
both steel and concrete strengths lies only one standard deviation above their mean values,
the equation (40) is not pleased anymore, so that strength from steel is not taken into
account, as virtually concrete is too strong to crack and let the stirrups work. Finally, the total
strength comes only from Vc component (35), and the abrupt fall of reliability happens, with
values below one, which means that there is no resistance to given load anymore. The
reliability level β=4.3 lays still on the upper curve, while β=3.8 is already in transition zone for
sections 1 and 5, so the last safe value was taken as resistance of section (for β around 3.9).
Since in sections 2-4 the right hand side of equation (40) is smaller, no such a problem exists.
The mechanism explained above can be seen by looking at importance factors of variables,
with only concrete tensile strength playing part in resistance calculation (Fig. 31).
48
Fig. 31. Importance factors α for section 5, BBK 04.
In the following part, the shear-reliability curves and importance factors of section 3
obtained with different codes shall be compared. This is to get better feeling about what
influence the shear resistance and where does the differences in results come from.
Fig. 32. Force-reliability curve, section 3, BBK 04
49
Fig. 33. Importance factors α, section 3, BBK 04
The resistance- reliability curve (Fig. 32) consists of small squares, which represents
subsequent runs of formulas for different design point. The higher the shear force, the higher
resistances of materials needed to achieve it, and the smaller probability they will have those
characteristics, depending on distribution of variables, so smaller reliability. In case of BBK
04, the tensile strength plays the biggest role in resistance, with α=0.92. The spacing of
stirrups is important as well, with α=-0.37. Importance factor for spacing of shear
reinforcement is negative because the higher this variable, the smaller the shear resistance,
so it behaves somehow as loading. For strengths the importance factors are always positive.
The yielding strength of steel is quite a minor factor, with α=0.09. The compressive strength
of concrete is only use for check of strut crushing for heavily reinforced section (equation
(39)), so in this case it has no influence on section shear resistance (α=0).
Fig. 34. Force-reliability curve, section 3, Eurocode
50
Representative Alphas of Variables FLIM(1), eurocode_65.pti
fy 0.58
s -0.82
fcc 0.00
Sum of a² 1.00
Fig. 35. Importance factors α, section 3, Eurocode
As it was mentioned previously, in Eurocode (Fig. 34) for sections with shear reinforcement,
only the resistance from steel is used and concrete strength is used only for strut crushing
check. It is shown by importance factors in Fig. 35, where α=0.28 for yield strength of stirrups
and α=-0.96 for their spacing. The bigger importance of spacing is not only due to codes’
equations, but also due to bigger COV used in this studies than this of steel resistance. This
big influence of stirrups spacing is quite important though, and this should be noted.
Fig. 36. Force-reliability curve, section 3, Model code 2010
51
Fig. 37. Importance factors α, section 3, Model code 2010
In Model code 2010 (Fig. 36) the steel contribution is quite important (with α=-0.76 for
stirrup spacing and α=0.36 for yield strength, Fig. 37), but the concrete compressive strength
plays a role as well (α=0.55). It is not as important as in case of BBK 04 standard (see Fig. 33),
and the importance factor is also influenced by smaller coefficient of variation of
compressive strength of concrete than its tensile strength (8% to 30%).
This high variability of fct, and also the fact that the characteristic strength lies only one
standard deviation below the mean value (which comes from Eurocode material properties
relations for concrete and increased COV of tensile strength coming form JCSS) has led to
smaller section resistances calculated using variable values then characteristic ones with BBK
04 code (Tab. 9 and Tab. 6)
For Eurocode, the shear resistance computed using variable values is smaller than one
computed using characteristic ones (difference of around 20%). This comes from the fact of
using normal distribution of stirrups spacing, with mean value same as characteristic one
(15cm). Since it’s reinforcement that give whole section resistance in this standard, such a
distribution had to decrease the final resistance outcome.
Model code 2010 is the only one from used here for which resistance obtained by
characteristic properties is smaller than this one obtained with variables, however the
difference lies below 10%. This can come from the fact that the variation of steel strength is
quite small, so low values are not really probable.
The difference between Model code and BBK 04 was much higher here than in case of
previous computations. This is due to fact that the former one uses compressive strength,
while the following uses tensile strength of concrete, which had very big coefficient of
variation and was obtained indirectly in case of those considerations. In case of probabilistic
approach, the Model code gives strength which is almost double as high as one from BBK 04,
with Eurocode outcomes laying somewhere between them.
During the final test of the Kiruna Bridge a total load of 13,4 MN could be applied to the
studied span. If one third of the force is assumed to be carried by each of the three girders
52
and the shear force in the middle of the span is assumed to be half of the force on the girder,
then we will obtain a shear resistance of approximately VR ≈ 13,4/6 = 2,23 MN. This is about
twice the values in Tab. 11 obtained by the simplified models used. A main reason to this is
the fact that the positive influence of the prestressing force has not been included in the
simplified version of the models that has been used. However, in case of Eurocode there is
no possibility of rising the resistance of section by taking the normal force from prestress.
Similar differences between Model Code 2010 and experiments outcomes are reported also
in literature (Sigrist et al, 2013)
4.4. Influence of prestress on shear resistance

In a prestressed structure, the axial force has a beneficial influence on shear resistance. This
comes in two ways – (1) due to the clamping effect on the concrete, which increases the
shear and compressive resistance in transverse direction together with better aggregate
interlock, and (2) from the force balance in section itself (the additional load carried by
prestressing steel).
The increase of concrete material properties in shear is treated differently in the three codes
considered here. In the Eurocode (EN 1992), the shear resistance of a section with vertical
shear reinforcement comes only from stirrups, with limitation due to crushing of struts.
However, if it’s the strut crushing that limits the shear (for heavily reinforced sections), some
increase in resistance can be taken into account with factor αcw (see equation (24)). In this
thesis, for all sections it’s the stirrups resistance that governs the shear strength.
In the international Model Code, as described previously, the axial force influences the
longitudinal strain εx (26), which governs the angle of cracking θ (28) and the concrete
resistance(32) by increasing the factor kν which tells about aggregate interlock (33).
The Swedish BBK 04 code increases the shear resistance thanks to prestress by a term Vp = Vd
∙Mo/(1,2 γn Md,max) where Mo is a moment which due to prestress gives zero strain in a
studied section and Md,max is the maximum design moment. It is further explained in the
concrete Hand Book issued by Swedish Building Centre (Svensk Byggtjanst) (Betonghandbok).
There, the method to increase the shear resistance in dependence on the ratio between
designed moment and residual moment from prestress is given. The same handbook gives
also the possibility to calculate Vi for beams with inclined tendons using simplified formula:
(51)
where:
Peff is the axial resultant of the prestress force
γhp is an angle between the beam axis and inclined tendon.
This is equivalent to the other way that the prestress influences the shear resistance. It can
be easiest seen using the free body diagram of a section – since the tendon is inclined, it’s
force can be split into two component forces – horizontal (previously named as Peff) and
vertical (Vp) (see Fig. 28). This vertical component, in case the tendons follow bending
moments, acts contrary to shear causing the decrease of force that needs to be carried by
53
section (Sigrist et al., 2013, Sengupta and Menon). Such an increase in shear resistance can
be found using trigonometric functions, and is equal to:
(52)
where:
P is the prestress force
δp is an angle between the beam axis and inclined tendon.
Please mind that equations (51) and (52) are equivalent on basis of trigonometry.
The measurements of the real prestress force in girder has been conducted during test
(Bagge et al., 2014), but since the results were not known during preparation of this thesis,
the designed force taken from original documents had to be used, which is 90 tones per
cable.
Tab. 10. Increase of shear resistance due to resultant prestress force
Section No. of tendons Prestress force P Average angle δp Resistance due to

prestress VRd.p
1 4 3530 kN 0⁰ 0 kN
2 4 3530 kN 14.7⁰ 896 kN
3 4 3530 kN 2.4⁰ 148 kN
4 6 5296 kN 9.6⁰ 589 kN
5 6 5296 kN 0⁰ 0 kN
In tab Tab. 10 an increment of shear resistance due to the vertical resultant of the prestress
force is given for each of 5 sections. It can be quite high, depending mostly on the angle
between tendon and axial force of the beam, almost double the resistance of section 2
calculated previously. Those increments can be added to all the results obtained previously
to get the total shear resistance of the sections studied in span 2-3, that is for the span where
an experiment was conducted, and the results are summed up in Tab. 11.
54
5. Results and discussion
The purpose of this thesis was to calculate the shear resistance of a concrete bridge girder
located in Kiruna using different approaches and codes. Also the attempt was undertaken to
answer what is the real shear strength of this element, to be compared with results of the
full scale experiment. To do so, the material characteristics were found by material testing.
A summary of the main results are given in Tab. 11, including the contribution of inclined
tendon. The results from probabilistic approach are given for β=3.8 for sake of comparison
(see 4.3).
Tab. 11. Summary of main results (for middle of span 2-3).
Used Material Material Properties Load Carrying Capacity

Properties Concrete Strength Stirrups BBK 04 EC2 MC 2010
Compression Tension Yield stress
Design Value 35,5 2,4 410 1,042 1,526 1,234
Characteristic Value 55 2,9 441 1,154 1,630 1,371
Mean value and 62 (5) 4,2 (1,3) 464 (11) 1,071 1,429 1,475
(standard deviation)
As mentioned, during the final test of the Kiruna Bridge the total load of 13,4 MN could been
applied to the studied span. If one third of the force is assumed to be carried by each of the
three girders and the shear force in the middle of the span is assumed to be half of the force
on the girder, then we will obtain a shear resistance of approximately VR ≈ 13,4/6 = 2,23 MN.
Even while taking into account vertical component of prestressing force in Tab. 11, this is still
almost twice more than results from all standards. This is mostly due to use of simplified
formulas, that doesn’t take into account the change of concrete properties due to
prestressing/clamping, and which for sake of simplicity has higher safety margin. However, in
the case of Eurocode there is no possibility of rising the resistance of a section by taking the
normal force from prestress into consideration..
Calculation using all the results are quite similar. Eurocode gives quite high results thanks to
low angle of concrete cracking assumed, which was possible in all the cases as section is not
heavily reinforced for shear. The procedure is quite easy, that’s why this code is popular in
design. However it is based mostly on pre-assumptions, so the final angle of cracking can be
different, and the shear resistance may vary.
In case of the Swedish BBK 04 standard, which uses combined strut-and-tie method and
shear resistance of the concrete based on its tensile strength, the results lies some 20%
below the Model Code. Since the Model Code is much more complicated, this difference is a
price of simplicity, lying within the borders of economical reasonability.
The Model Code 2010 is based on the modified compression-field theory which is more
complex than the simple strut and tie model, see (Sigrist et al, 2013)f. After some
simplifications it was introduced into the Model Code, with four levels of complexity. In this
thesis the quite simple version has been used due to limitations of the thesis – the full stress
state of section was not known. This code gave the highest resistances, laying somewhere
55
20% above BBK 04 and in vicinity of the Eurocode outcomes. To use the most complex
version of it, some big amount of data and workload is needed, but in case of structure
assessment it seems to be a good choice.
What should not be surprising, the strengths calculated using design material characteristic
values were the lowest ones. It needs to be born in mind, that the structure considered here
was 55 years old, and that concrete is a material that often gains strength with time – the
strengths obtained from testing of samples were some 80% higher than the designed values.
This is mostly due to the fact that the cement was grinded quite coarsely in those days and
the forming of the silica glue went on for a long time. Nowadays cement is grinded much
finer, so that a a similar strength increase effect cannot be expected from structures casted
today. However, the structure should be safe from very beginning of its lifetime until the
end, and at the 28 days age of concrete the strength was not as developed as after half of
century, so it must be considered by proper stating of design strength values.
The results obtained using characteristic in-situ properties are some 5-15% higher than the
design values. This is the safety margin, which can be used for better use and performance of
existing structures. However, to do so it needs to be assured that the material properties
were well examined – the safety of users needs to be crucial.
The last approach used in this thesis, with variable values of structure characteristics, should
give the results which are the closest to reality. An extended material testing should be done
to apply it to real structure assessment – in this thesis only six concrete cores were tested
giving quite low confidence level about in-situ material properties. While using this approach,
also the reliability class of structure needs to be considered, to find which level of safety is
needed. The results for β=3.8 and β=4.3 are given in this thesis. The former one is proper for
normal structures, and codes are calibrated to get it (EN 1990). The following one is the one
for bridges and other important structures, and those are the results which should be used
during structure assessment. However, the results obtained for those two safety levels varies
only by about 5%, which is smaller than code-to-code differences.
For probabilistic approach also the spacing of stirrups proved itself to be a crucial factor for
strength. Here, it was assumed that the spacing can vary by 10% from designed one, which is
merely 1.5 cm. In construction site realities such a variation of stirrups spacing is nothing
extraordinary, and none of the codes pays any special attention to this. It is possible that it is
taken into account by proper factorisation of steel strength, but also shows how important is
the precision in structure execution.
In case of all the codes, the results obtained using characteristic in-situ material properties
gives higher resistance comparing to designed one. In case of two of three codes (BBK04 and
Eurocode), the results of probabilistic approach computations are slightly lower due to
assumed stirrups spacing variation. Thanks to such a notational rising of structure class,
without any physical intervention, a lot of money can be saved by the owner.
In case of characteristic values approach, the safety is obtained by taking characteristic

strength values, which are significantly lower than mean values, and then factorising them. In
case of probabilistic approach, the safety is guaranteed by taking proper β factor, so
assuming probability of collapse which is allowable.
56
The proper assessment of existing structure showed itself to be quite complex and time
consuming process, but still it is economical and sustainable, in terms of both money and
environmental impact, remaining very important and difficult part of engineering art. That is
why the work on assessment of Kiruna Bridge will be continued and compared with the
experiment outcomes in LTU.
57
6. References
ACI 214.4R-03, Guide for Obtaining Cores and Interpreting Compressive Strength Results, American
Concrete Institute
ACI 318, BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, American Concrete Institute
Alkhrdaji, T.;Barker, M.; Chen, G.; Mu, H.; Nanni, A.; Yang, X.; Destructive and Non-Destructive
Testing of Bridge J857, Phelps Coutry, Missouri, Vol. 1, 120pp., 2001
ASCE-ACI 445, Recent Approaches to Shear Design of Concrete Structures. Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol 124, No 12, pp. 1375-1417, 1998
ASTM A370, Standard Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, American
Society for Testing and Materials
ASTM C42 / C42M – 13, Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed
Beams of Concrete, American Society for Testing and Materials
ASTM C496 / C496M - 11 Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens, American Society for Testing and Materials
ASTM A615, Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Billet-steel Bars for Concrete
Reinforcement, American Society for Testing and Materials
ASTM C617/C617M, Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, American Society
for Testing and Materials
Bagge, Niklas; Assesment of Concrete Bridges, Models and Tests for Refined Capacity Estimates,
Licentiate Thesis, Lulea Univeristy of Technology, ISBN: 9789175831633, 2014 (available at
http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/100674208/Niklas_Bagge.pdf accesed 03.01.2015)
Bagge, Niklas; Nilimaa, Jonny; Blanksvärd, Thomas; Elfgren, Lennart; Instrumentation and Full-Scale
Test of Post-Tensioned Concrete Bridge, Nordic Concrete Research, 51, pp. 61-82, ISSN: 0800-6377,
2014
Bazant, Zdenek P. and Planas, Jaime; Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle
Materials. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press., 640 pp., ISBN 0-8493-8284-X.
BBK 04, Boverkets handbok om betongkonstruktioner (In Swedish: Boverkets’ handbook on concrete
structures), 2004 (available at
http://www.boverket.se/globalassets/publikationer/dokument/2004/boverkets_handbok_om_beto
ngkonstruktioner_bbk_04.pdf accessed 03.01.2015)
BBK 94, Boverkets handbok om betongkonstruktioner (In Swedish: Boverkets’ handbook on concrete
structures), 1994
Bentz, Evan C and Collins, Michael P.; Development of the 2004 Canadian Standards Association
(CSA) A23.3 shear provisions for reinforced concrete, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 33,
No. 5, pp. 521-534, ISSN: 0315-1468, 2006
I
Bentz, Evan C.; Vecchio, Frank J.; Collins, Michael P.; Simplified Modified Compression Field Theory
for Calculating Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Elements, ACI Structural Journal V. 103, No. 4,
pp. 614-624, ISSN: 08893241, 2006
Betonghandbok Konstruktion, utgava 2 (in Swedish: Concrete handbook, Construction, vol. 2), Ed. by
Krister Cederwall, Mogens Lorentsen, Lars Ostlund, ISBN 91-7332-533-3, 1990
Blanksvärd, Thomas; Strengthening of concrete structures by the use of mineral based composites,
Licentiate Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, 237 pp., 2007 (available at
http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/438622/LTU-LIC-0715-SE.pdf accessed 03.01.2015)
Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/230151/George-Washington-Bridge,

access 28.12.2014
BS1881, British Standard, Testing Concrete, British Standards Institution
Bungey, J. H.; Millard, S. G.; Testing of concrete in structures, 3. ed., 286 pp., Blackie Academic &
Professional, London, ISBN: 0-7514-0241-9, 1996
Carneiro, Fernando Luiz Lobo; Barcellos, Aguinaldo; Resistance a la Traction des Betons, Int. Assoc.
Test. Res. Lab. Mater. Struct. RILEM Bull. 13 (1949), 1949
Chen, Chien-Hung; Structural Reliability of the Flexural Capacity of High Performance Concrete Bridge
Girders, Master of Science thesis, Ohio University, 2001
Coronelli, Dario; Condition rating of RC structures: A case study, Journal of Building Appraisal, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 29-51, ISSN: 17428262, 2007
CRD-C 164-92, Standard Test Method for Direct Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete or Mortar
Specimens, U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, Miss, USA,
1992
Elfgren, Lennart; Enochsson, Ola; Puurula, Arto; Thun, Håkan; Paulsson, Björn and Täljsten, Björn;
Testing to failure of a reinforced concrete railway bridge in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden. In “Sustainable
Bridges – Assessment for Future Traffic Demands and Longer Lives”, edited by Jan Bien, Lennart
Elfgren and Jan Olofsson. Dolnośląskie Wydawnictwo Edukacyjne, Wrocław 2007, pp 445-460. ISBN
976-83-7125-161-0, 2007 (available at www.sustainablebridges.net)
Elfgren, Lennart; Enochsson, Ola and Thun, Håkan; Field Test of a Concrete Bridge in Örnsköldsvik,
Sweden. Deliverable D 7.3, Sustainable Bridges – Assessment for Future Traffic Demands and Longer
Lives, see SB (2007), 407 pp,2007 (available at www.sustainablebridges.net)
Enright, Michael P.; Frangopol, Dan M.; Probabilistic analysis of resistance degradation of reinforced
concrete bridge beams under corrosion, Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, No. 11, pp. 960-971, ISSN
0141-0296, 1998
EN 10002-1, Metallic materials – Tensile testing- Part 1: Method of test at ambient temperature,
European Committee for Standardization
EN 12390-3, Testing hardened concrete — Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens, European
Committee for Standardization
II
EN 12390-4, Testing hardened concrete – Part4: Compressive strength – Specification for testing
machines, European Committee for Standardization
EN 12390-6, Testing hardened concrete – Part 6: Tensile splitting strength of test specimens,
European Committee for Standardization
EN 12504-1, Testing concrete in structures – Part 1: Cored specimens – Taking, examining and testing
in compression, European Committee for Standardization
EN 13791, Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete

components, European Committee for Standardization
EN 1990, Eurocode – Basis of structural design, European Committee for Standardization
Gardoni, Paolo; Der Kiureghian, Armen and Mosalam, Khalid M.; Probabilistic Capacity Models and
Fragility Estimates for Reinforced Concrete Columns based on Experimental Observations, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 128, No. 10,pp. 1024-1038, ISSN: 07339399, 2002
Giannini, Renato; Sguerri, Lorena; Paolacci, Fabrizio and Alessandri, Silvia; Assessment of concrete
strength combining direct and NDT measures via Bayesian inference, Engineering Structures Vol. 64,
pp.68-77, ISSN: 01410296 2014
ISO 6892-1, Metallic materials - Tensile testing - Part 1: Method of test at room temperature,
International Organization for Standardization
JCSS, Probabilistic Model Code, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, ISBN 978-3-909386-79-6
Jeppsson, Joakim ; Reliability-based assessment procedures for existing concrete structure; Doctoral
thesis; Lund institute of technology, ISSN: 0349-4969, 2003
Kadlecek, Vl. Sr.; Modry, S.; Kadlecek, Vl. Jr.; Size effect of test specimens on tensile splitting strength
of concrete: general relation, Materials And Structures, Vol. 35, pp.28-34, ISSN: 1359-5997, 2002
Khaleel, M. A.; Itani, R. Y.; SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING PARTIALLY PRESTRESSED CONCRETE
GIRDER BRIDGES, Computers & Structures, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 763-771, ISSN: 00457949, 1993
Khoury, Shafik; Aliabdo, Ali Abdel-Hakam; Ghazy, Ahmed; Reliability of core test – Critical assessment
and proposed new approach, Alexandria Engineering Journal (2014) 53, pp. 169-184, ISSN: 11100168,
2014
Kim, Jung J.; Taha, Mahmoud Reda; Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of Direct Tension Test for
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, Advance in Civil Engineering, V. 2014, 2014
Lee, Moo Y.; Bronowski, David R.; Hardy, Robert D.; Laboratory Constitutive Characterization of
Cellular Concrete, Sandia National Laboratories, 2004 (available at
http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2004/041030.pdf accesed 03.01.2015)
“MAINLINE (2014): MAINLINE - MAINtenance, renewal and Improvement of rail transport

Infrastructure to reduce Economic and environmental impacts”. A European FP7 Research Project
during 2011-2014 with the aim to increase the life length of existing rail infrastructure. Several
reports and guidelines are available; see http://www.mainline-project.eu/
III
Model Code 2010, Federation Internationale du Beton, 2010
Mondoringin, Mielke; Nozaki, S.; Ohtsu, M.; AE-SiGMA Analysis in Brazilian Test of Core; Concrete
research letters Vol. 2 (3), 2011
Nilimaa, Jonny; Upgrading Concrete Bridges, Post-tensioning for higher loads, Licentiate Thesis, Lulea
University of Technology, ISBN: 9789174395464, 2013
Nowak, Anadrzej S.; Collins, Kevin R.; Reliability of Structures. Second Edition, CRC Press, 407 pp.,
ISBN 9780415675758, 2013
O’ Connor, Allan; Enevoldsen, Ib; Probability based modelling and assessment of an existing post-
tensioned concrete slab bridge, Engineering Structures 30, pp. 1408-1416, ISSN: 01410296, 2008
Petkovski, M.; Crouch, R. S.; Waldron, P.; Apparatus for Testing Concrete under Multiaxial
Compression at Elevated Temperature (mac2T ), Experimental Mechanics (2006) 46, pp. 387–398,
2006
Pimentel, Mário; Joaquim, Figueiras and Brühwiler, Eugen; Safety examination of existing concrete
structures using the global resistance safety factor concept, Engineering and Structures 70, pp. 130-
143, ISSN: 01410296, 2014
Poinard, Cedric; Piotrowska, Ewa; Malecot, Yann; Daudeville, Laurent; Landis, Eric N.; Compression
triaxial behavior of concrete: the role of the mesostructure by analysis of X-ray tomographic images,
European Journal of Enviromental and Civil Engineering Vol. 16, Supp. 1, pp. 115-136, ISSN:
19648189, 2012
Puurula, Arto; Enochsson, Ola; Thun, Hakan; Nordin, Hakan; Taljsten, Bjorn; Elfgren, Lennart;
Paulsson, Bjorn; Olofsson, Jan; Full-scale test to failure of a strengthened reinforced concrete bridge:
calibration of assessment models for load-bearing capacities of existing bridges, Nordic Concrete
Research Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 131-142, 2008 (available at
http://www.vannforeningen.no/ikbViewer/Content/795747/S97%20-
%20Elfgren%20et%20al%202008-12-12_FINAL.pdf accessed 03.01.2015)
Report 11 ,Concrete Society Technical Report 11 (TR 11) Concrete core testing for strength, The
concrete society, 1976
Richardson, David N.; Point-Load Test for Estimating Concrete Compressive Strength, ACI Materials
Journal, V. 86, No. 4, pp. 409-416, 1989
Robins, P. J.; Point-Load strength test for concrete cores, Magazine of Concrete Research (London), V.
32, no. 111, pp.101-111, ISSN: 0024-9831, 1980
Rocco, C.; Guinea, G. V.; Planas, J.; Elices, M.; Review of the splitting-test standards from a fracture
mechanics point of view, Cement and Concrete Research 31 (2001) pp.73-82, ISSN: 00088846, 2001
Rocco, C.; Guinea, G. V.; Planas, J.; Elices, M.; Size effect and boundary conditions in the Brazilian
test: Experimental Verification, Materials And Structures, Vol. 32, pp. 210-217, ISSN: 13595997, 1999
Rucker, W.; Hille, F.; Rohrmann, R.; Guideline for the Assessment of Existing Structures, SAMCO
(Structural Assessment Monitoring and Control) Final Report, 48 pp., 2006
IV
Ruijie, Liu; The diameter-compression test for small diameter cores, Materials and Structures, Vol.
29, pp. 56-59, ISSN: 1359-5997, 1996
Schueremans, L.; Figeys, Wine; Heirman, Gert; Brosens, Kris; Van Gemert, Dionys; Application of
probabilistic concepts in evaluating the in site strength of constructions, 22. Internationales WTA-
Kolloquium, 2006
Sengupta, Amian K.; Menon, Devdas; Prestressed Concrete Structures, National Programme on
Technology Enhanced Learning e-learning materials (available at
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/105106117/pdf/5_Analysis_Design_for_Shear_Torsion/Section5.1.pdf
accesed 07.01.2015)
Sigrist, Viktor; Bentz, Evan; Ruiz, Miguel Fernández; Foster, Stephen; and Muttoni, Aurelio (2013):
Background to the fib Model Code 2010 shear provisions – part I: beams and slabs. Structural
Concrete, Vol 14 (2013), No 3 pp 195-203.
SS EN 12390-6, Provning av hårdnad betong – Del 6: Spräckhållfasthet hos provkroppar, Swedish

Standards Institute
SS EN 1992-1-1, Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings,
Swedish Standards Institute
STRUREL, A Structural Reliability Analysis Program-System, COMREL & SYSREL: Users Manual,
available at http://www.strurel.de/ (accessed 03.01.2015)
Sustainable Bridges (2007): Sustainable Bridges: Assessment for Future Traffic Demands and Longer
Lives, .A European FP 6 Integrated Research Project during 2003-2007. Four guidelines and 35
background documents are available at www.sustainablebridges.net: Inspection and Condition
Assessment, 259 pp; Load and Resistance Assessment of Railway Bridge, 428 pp; Guideline for
Monitoring of Railway Bridges, 83 pp; Guide for use of Repair and Strengthening Methods for Railway
Bridges, 139 pp.
TDOK 2013:0267, TRVK Bärighetsberäkning av vägbroar (Trafikverket Bearing capacity resistance of

road bridges, in Swedish), Trafikverket, 2013
Thun, Hakan; Assessment of Fatigue Resistance and Strength in Existing Concrete Structures,
Doctoral thesis, Lulea University of Technology, 187pp., ISBN: 978-91-85685-03-5, 2006 (available at
https://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/423389/LTU-DT-0665-SE.pdf. accessed 2015-01-02)
Thun, Håkan; Ohlsson, Ulf; Elfgren, Lennart; Tensile Fatigue Capacity of Concrete, Nordic Concrete
Research, Vol. 36, pp. 48-64, ISSN: 0800-6377, 2007 (available at
https://pure.ltu.se/ws/files/3422695/Article.pdf accessed 03.01.2015)
Uno, Takahiro; Fiujikake, Kazunori; Mindess, Sidney; Xu, Hanfeng; CONCRETE FAILURE MECHANISM
IN THE NITROGEN GAS TENSION TEST, 30th Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE &
STRUCTURES: 23 - 24 August 2005, Singapore, 2005 (available at
http://www.cipremier.com/e107_files/downloads/Papers/100/30/100030055.pdf accessed
03.01.2015)
V
Vandegrift, Dennis Jr.; Schindler, Anton K.; The Effect of Test Cylinder Size on the Compressive
Strength of Sulfur Capped Concrete Specimens, Highway Research Center and Department of Civil
Engineering at Auburn University, 2006 (available at
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/files/centers/hrc/IR-06-01-1.pdf accessed 03.01.2015)
Vecchio, Frank J. and Collins, Michael P., The Modified Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced
Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI Journal, March-April 1986, pp. 219-231, 1986 (available at
http://www.civ.utoronto.ca/vector/journal_publications/jp2.pdf, accessed 03.01.2015)
WP 7 participants, ed. by Lennart Elfgren, Ola Enochsson, Hakan Thun, Field Test of a Concrete Bridge
in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, Sustainable Bridges – Assessment for Future Traffic Demands and Longer
Lives report, 2008 (available at
http://www.sustainablebridges.net/main.php/SB7.3.pdf?fileitem=22708646 accessed 03.01.2015)
Zacoeb, A.; Ishibashi, K.; Point load test application for estimating compressive strength of concrete
structures from small core, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp.46-57,
ISSN: 1816949X , 2009
Zhao, Yan-Gang G. and Tetsuro, Ono; A general procedure for first/second-order reliability method
(FORM/SORM), Structural Safety vol. 21, pp.95-112, ISSN: 01674730, 1999
Zheng, W.; Kwan, A. K. H.; Lee, P. K. K.; Direct Tension Test of Concrete, ACI Material Journal, V. 98,
No. 1, pp. 63-71, ISSN 0889-325X, 2001
VI
A. APPENDIX A – Test results of concrete and reinforcement
Six 100mm concrete cylinders have been tested by axial compression, giving the compressive strength. After extraction from structure they were cut to desired
length and top and bottom surfaces grinded to assure perpendicularity and smoothness for application of compressive tests. The cores were measured and
weighted. According to EN 12504-1 Results of tests are presented in table below:
Updated Characteristic Characteristic Modulus

Specimen Concrete Ultimate
Location concrete compressive tensile of Test type Temperature
ID class strain
class strength strength elasticity
- - x MPa MPa GPa % - °C

17 12-S-S K40 K50 28,5 1,95 32 0,35 Compressive strength 20
25 34-N-S K40 K50 28,5 1,95 32 0,35 Compressive strength 20
29 34-C-S K40 K50 28,5 1,95 32 0,35 Compressive strength 20
30 34-C-S K40 K50 28,5 1,95 32 0,35 Compressive strength 20
A
EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1
Expected Specimen Diameter 1 Diameter 2 Diameter 3 Diameter 4

Comments Cut length Measure
length ID (¼ top) (¼ top) (½) (½)
- mm mm - mm mm mm mm
100 184 Yes 17 103,52 103,37 103,40 103,41
100 185 Yes 18 103,30 103,33 103,23 103,30
100 191 Yes 19 103,51 103,30 103,43 103,47
100 185 Yes 25 103,92 103,56 103,82 103,70
100 172 Yes 29 104,00 103,85 103,78 103,84
100 185 Yes 30 103,69 103,81 103,88 103,83
EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1
Length-
Diameter 5 Diameter 6 Diameter (¼ Diameter (¼ Length Gravel size
Diameter (½) Diameter Length (min) Length diameter
(¼ bottom) (¼ bottom) top) bottom) (Max) (max)
ratio
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm - mm
103,40 103,39 103,45 103,41 103,40 103,42 101,20 101,50 101,35 0,98 34,4
103,28 103,27 103,32 103,27 103,28 103,29 101,13 101,30 101,22 0,98 30,2
103,55 103,43 103,41 103,45 103,49 103,45 100,33 101,06 100,70 0,97 41,6
103,59 103,43 103,74 103,76 103,51 103,67 99,55 99,82 99,69 0,96 42,9
103,62 103,59 103,93 103,81 103,61 103,78 100,91 101,11 101,01 0,97 46,1
103,77 103,71 103,75 103,86 103,74 103,78 100,56 100,88 100,72 0,97 44,6
B
EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12390-2 EN 12390-2 EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1
Preparation methods
Location
Rebars Size rebar Date Pouring Date Drill Date Test Time Test Age (Sawing, Grinding, Storage
rebar
Planarizing)
- mm - YYYY-MM-DD YYYY-MM-DD YYYY-MM-DD HH-MM Year - -

No - - 1959-xx-xx 2014-05-13 2014-12-12 59 S+G Dry, 20°C
No - - 1959-xx-xx 2014-05-13 2014-12-12 59 S+G Dry, 20°C
No - - 1959-xx-xx 2014-05-13 2014-12-12 59 S+G Dry, 20°C
No - - 1959-xx-xx 2014-05-13 2014-12-12 59 S+G Dry, 20°C
No - - 1959-xx-xx 2014-05-14 2014-12-12 59 S+G Dry, 20°C
No - - 1959-xx-xx 2014-05-14 2014-12-12 59 S+G Dry, 20°C
EN 12504-1 EN 12504-1 EN 12390-2 EN 12390-2 EN 12390-2
Surface
Stored in water last Expected Expected Maximal Maximal
humidity at Surface condition at test Weight Density
40 h strength load load strength
test
- - - g kg/m3 MPa kN kN MPa

No Dry 2018,5 2371 43,5 365,3812 709,0 84,40910224
No Dry 2007,5 2367 43,5 364,4632 675,1 80,57563169
Uneven bottom, no influence on
No Dry failure mode 2020,5 2387 43,5 365,6168 624,4 74,28925735
No Dry 1955,0 2323 43,5 367,1853 552,3 65,43030802
No Dry 2041,5 2389 43,5 367,965 668,0 78,96947457
No Dry 2041,0 2395 43,5 367,9768 687,4 81,26028939
C
EN 12390-2 EN 12390-3 EN 12390-4
Failure mode Inappropriate failure mode Difference to standard procedure Technichian Condition before preparation
- - - - -
Bartek Sawicki
Bartek Sawicki
Bartek Sawicki
Bartek Sawicki
Bartek Sawicki
Bartek Sawicki
The pictures of samples after failure are presented below (ids visible on cores):
D
E
Five samples of stirrups has been tested in axial tension tests. Strain gauges were installed to follow the full stress-strain curves. The bars had been cut by saw
to length of 42 cm and cleaned by abrasion. Since the shape of bar section is elliptical with two longitudinal dents, two diameter were measured and dent
dimensions. The area of bar was taken as area of ellipse plus area of dents. The results are presented in table below:
Expected Expected Expected Expected

Cross-
Specimen To be Steel characteristic characteristic modulus strain at
Label Specification Location Diameter section
ID tested grade yield ultimate of ultimate
area
strength strength elasticity strength
- - - mm mm2 - MPa MPa GPa %

1 S1 1 Vert. Rebar girder 10 78,5 Ks 40 410 600 200 16
Lt
Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial

Preparati Min Initial
Predicted nominal nominal nominal nominal nominal nominal nominal
Standard Type of test on specimen specimen
force diameter diameter diameter diameter diameter diameter diameter
methods length length
1-1 1-2 1-3 1 2-1 2-2 2-3
kN - - - mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
47 ISO 15630-1 Tensile test 380 421 10,16 10,21 10,23 10,2 9,89 10,02 9,98
47 ISO 15630-1 Tensile test 380 420 10,24 10,33 10,21 10,26 9,91 9,81 9,95
47 ISO 15630-1 Tensile test 380 421 10,21 10,20 10,29 10,2333 9,88 9,85 9,52
47 ISO 15630-1 Tensile test 380 422 10,32 10,37 10,32 10,3367 9,81 9,83 9,46
47 ISO 15630-1 Tensile test 380 420 10,14 10,15 10,11 10,1333 9,64 9,91 9,66
S0 do
F
Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial
Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial
nominal nominal nominal nominal nominal nominal nominal
nominal nominal nominal nominal nominal equivalent
diameter diameter diameter rib width rib width rib width rib width
diameter 2 diameter 3 inner area rib area area diameter
3-1 3-2 3-3 1-1 1-2 1-3 1
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
9,963333 11,59 11,62 11,60 11,60333 1,64 1,83 1,60 1,69 79,82787 2,7716 82,59947 10,25519
9,89 11,37 11,65 11,33 11,45 1,67 1,63 1,59 1,63 79,72233 2,5428 82,26513 10,23441
9,75 11,86 11,80 12,14 11,93333 1,49 1,84 1,92 1,75 78,40897 3,820833 82,2298 10,23222
9,7 11,58 11,67 11,64 11,63 1,88 1,82 1,80 1,833333 78,82806 3,538333 82,36639 10,24071
9,736667 11,48 11,64 11,63 11,58333 1,65 1,67 1,68 1,666667 77,52212 3,077778 80,59989 10,1303
vc1=Lc*2.5*10- vc2=Lc*6.7*10-
4 3
Le Lo Lu
Initial Final
Min Predicted Predicted Nominal
Specimen Estimated Estimated nominal nominal
gauge yield maximal Date tested Tested by gauge
ID loading rate 1 loading rate 2 gauge gauge
length force force length
length length
YYYY-MM-
- kN kN
mm DD Name Name mm/s mm/s mm mm mm
100 1 32 47 2014-12-15 Erik Andersson 99,9 100
100 2 32 47 2014-12-15 Erik Andersson 100 100
100 3 32 47 2014-12-15 Erik Andersson 100,04 100
100 4 32 47 2014-12-15 Erik Andersson 100,2 100
100 5 32 47 2014-12-15 Erik Andersson 100 100
G
Lc FeH FeL Ft me ΔLe ReH ReL Rp0.2 Re Rm
Initial Location Validity Upper Lower Force at Slope of Extension Upper Lower 0.2 % Yield Tensile
nominal of of test yield yield fracture elastic at yield yield yield plastic strength strength
distance fracture force force part point strength strength proof
btw grips lower strength
grip
mm mm - kN kN kN Gpa mm MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
170,17 87 Ok 40,17 37,2 58,2582 213,8 0,41 486,3227 450,3661 460 460 #ADR!
164,67 117 Ok 36,41 35,37 56,72248 218,5 0,41 442,5933 429,9513 449 449 #ADR!
164,47 148 Ok 41,27 37,05 58,80313 237,1 0,4 501,8861 450,5666 484 484 #ADR!
164,17 80 Ok 39,58 37,5 56,37571 222,4 0,41 480,5358 455,2828 460 460 #ADR!
164,27 62 Ok 38,64 36,66 58,60497 208,0 0,42 479,4051 454,8393 465 465 #ADR!
Rt Ae
Yield
Fracture
point
strength
extension
MPa %
705,3096 0,41041
689,5082 0,41
715,1073 0,39984
684,4503 0,409182
727,1098 0,42
H
The stress-strain curves are presented below:
I
J
B. APPENDIX B – original design drawing
Below two drawings from original design are attached – section through girder and slab with visible
reinforcement and longitudinal alignment of prestressing cables.
A
B
C
C. APPENDIX C – calculation of shear resistance using characteristic
material properties
In the thesis there have been 5 section of girder considered. For each of them shear resistance was
computed using three standards (BBK 04, EN 1992 and Model code 2010) and two sets of
characteristic material properties (from standards and from material testing). Mathcad software was
used for the computations, and the printouts of files are presented below.
C.1. Computations with material data from standards

C.1.1. Section 1
BBK 04
b  650mm
d  1670mm
fcc.k  35.5MPa
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   23.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.6 MPa
C
fy.k
fy.d   356.522MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sv  157mm
2
A s0  2017mm

 
2
 A s0 
  min 0.02 
 b d 
  1.4 if d  0.2m
d
1.6  if 0.2m  d  0.5m
1m
d
1.3  0.4 if 0.5m  d  1m
1m
0.9 if 1m  d
fv  0.3   ( 1  50)fct.d  0.472 MPa
Vc  b  d  fv  512.503kN

0.9d
Vs  Asv  fy.d   ( sin(  )  cos (  ) )  560.859kN

s
Vs  0.2 b  d  fct.d  1
3
Vd.1  Vc  Vs  1.073 10  kN
A
3
Vd.max  0.25 b  d  fcc.d  6.423 10  kN
 
Vd  min Vd.1Vd.max  1.073 10  kN
3
EN 1992
b w  650mm
d  1670mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   23.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.6 MPa
C
fy.k
fy.d   356.522MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
  22deg
cos ( )
 2.475
sin( )
3 3
Ncp  3 90 10 kg g  2.648 10  kN
Ncp
cp   2.439MPa

bw d
z  0.9d
1  0.6 if fcc.k  60MPa
 fcc.k 
max 0.9  0.5 if fcc.k  60MPa
 200MPa 
cp
cw  1 if 0  cp  0.25fcc.d
fcc.d
1.25 if 0.25fcc.d  cp  0.5fcc.d
 cp 
2.5 1   if 0.5fcc.d  cp  fcc.d
 fcc.d

z cos ( ) 3
VRd.s  Asw fy.d    1.388 10  kN
s sin( )
fcc.d 3
VRd.max cw  b w  z 1   5.315 10  kN
( cot ( )  tan ( ) )
 
VRd  min VRd.sVRd.max  1.388 10  kN
3
Model code 2010

b w  650mm
B
d  1670mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
z  0.9d  1.503m
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
 p  50mm
kd  0.5
  (36)deg
 3
30MPa
kc  min 0.50.5
 
 fcc.k

  90deg
A sw fy.k
VRd.s   z  ( cot ( )  cot ( ) )  sin ( )  771.956kN

s S
kv  0.15
 fcc.k 
fcv  min 8MPa  MPa  5.958MPa

 1MPa 
fcv
VRd.c  kv   z b w  582.085kN

C
3
VRd.1  VRd.c  VRd.s  1.354 10  kN
fcc.k cot ( )  cot ( ) 3
VRd.max kc  b w  z  5.197 10  kN
C 2
1  cot ( )

VRd  min VRd.1VRd.max  1.354 10  kN  3
C
C.1.2. Section 2
BBK 04
b  410mm
d  1042mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   23.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.6 MPa
C
fy.k
fy.d   356.522MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sv  157mm
2
A s0  2017mm

 
2
 A s0 
  min 0.02 
 b d 
  1.4 if d  0.2m
d
1.6  if 0.2m  d  0.5m
1m
d
1.3  0.4 if 0.5m  d  1m
1m
0.9 if 1m  d
fv  0.3   ( 1  50)fct.d  0.534 MPa
Vc  b  d  fv  228.126kN

0.9d

s
Vs  0.2 b  d  fct.d  1
Vd.1  Vc  Vs  578.075kN

3
Vd.max  0.25 b  d  fcc.d  2.528 10  kN
 
Vd  min Vd.1 Vd.max  578.075kN 
EN 1992
b w  410mm
d  1042mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
D
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   23.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.6 MPa
C
fy.k
fy.d   356.522MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
  22deg
cos ( )
 2.475
sin( )
3 3
Ncp  3 90 10 kg g  2.648 10  kN
Ncp
cp   6.198MPa

bw d
z  0.9d
1  0.6 if fcc.k  60MPa
 fcc.k 
max 0.9  0.5 if fcc.k  60MPa
 200MPa 
cp
cw  1 if 0  cp  0.25fcc.d
fcc.d
1.25 if 0.25fcc.d  cp  0.5fcc.d
 cp 
2.5 1   if 0.5fcc.d  cp  fcc.d
 fcc.d

z cos ( )
VRd.s  Asw fy.d    866.154kN

s sin( )
fcc.d 3
VRd.max cw  b w  z 1   2.37  10  kN
( cot ( )  tan ( ) )
 
VRd  min VRd.s VRd.max  866.154kN 
Model code 2010

b w  410mm
d  1042mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
z  0.9d  0.938m
s  150mm
E
2
A sw  157mm
 p  50mm
kd  0.5
  (36)deg
 3
30MPa
kc  min 0.50.5
 
 fcc.k

  90deg
A sw fy.k

s S
kv  0.15
 fcc.k 

 1MPa 
fcv
VRd.c  kv   z b w  229.091kN

C
VRd.1  VRd.c  VRd.s  710.754kN 
fcc.k cot ( )  cot ( ) 3
VRd.max kc  b w  z  2.046 10  kN
C 2
1  cot ( )
 
VRd  min VRd.1 VRd.max  710.754kN

C.1.3. Section 3
BBK 04
b  410mm
d  1658mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   23.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.6 MPa
C
fy.k
fy.d   356.522MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sv  157mm
2
A s0  2017mm

 
2
 A s0 
  min 0.02 
 b d 
F
  1.4 if d  0.2m
d
1.6  if 0.2m  d  0.5m
1m
d
1.3  0.4 if 0.5m  d  1m
1m
0.9 if 1m  d
fv  0.3   ( 1  50)fct.d  0.496 MPa
Vc  b  d  fv  337.232kN

0.9d

s
Vs  0.2 b  d  fct.d  1
Vd.1  Vc  Vs  894.061kN

3
Vd.max  0.25 b  d  fcc.d  4.022 10  kN

Vd  min Vd.1 Vd.max  894.061kN  
EN 1992
b w  360mm
d  1658mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   23.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.6 MPa
C
fy.k
fy.d   356.522MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
  22deg
cos ( )
 2.475
sin( )
3 3
Ncp  3 90 10 kg g  2.648 10  kN
Ncp
cp   4.436MPa

bw d
z  0.9d
1  0.6 if fcc.k  60MPa
 fcc.k 
max 0.9  0.5 if fcc.k  60MPa
 200MPa 
G
cp
cw  1 if 0  cp  0.25fcc.d
fcc.d
1.25 if 0.25fcc.d  cp  0.5fcc.d
 cp 
2.5 1   if 0.5fcc.d  cp  fcc.d
 fcc.d

z cos ( ) 3
VRd.s  Asw fy.d    1.378 10  kN
s sin( )
fcc.d 3
VRd.max cw  b w  z 1   3.146 10  kN
( cot ( )  tan ( ) )
 
3
Model code 2010

b w  360mm
d  1658mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
z  0.9d  1.492m
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
 p  50mm
kd  0.5
  (36)deg
 3
30MPa
kc  min 0.50.5
 
 fcc.k

  90deg
A sw fy.k

s S
kv  0.15
 fcc.k 

 1MPa 
fcv
VRd.c  kv   z b w  320.069kN

C
3
VRd.1  VRd.c  VRd.s  1.086 10  kN
fcc.k cot ( )  cot ( ) 3
VRd.max kc  b w  z  2.858 10  kN
C 2
1  cot ( )
 
VRd  min VRd.1VRd.max  1.086 10  kN
3
H
C.1.4. Section 4
BBK 04
b  410mm
d  1341mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   23.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.6 MPa
C
fy.k
fy.d   356.522MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sv  157mm
2
A s0  2017mm

 
2
 A s0 
  min 0.02 
 b d 
  1.4 if d  0.2m
d
1.6  if 0.2m  d  0.5m
1m
d
1.3  0.4 if 0.5m  d  1m
1m
0.9 if 1m  d
fv  0.3   ( 1  50)fct.d  0.511 MPa
Vc  b  d  fv  281.085kN

0.9d

s
Vs  0.2 b  d  fct.d  1
Vd.1  Vc  Vs  731.451kN

3
Vd.max  0.25 b  d  fcc.d  3.253 10  kN
 
Vd  min Vd.1 Vd.max  731.451kN 
EN 1992
b w  360mm
d  1341mm
I
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   23.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.6 MPa
C
fy.k
fy.d   356.522MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
  22deg
cos ( )
 2.475
sin( )
3 3
Ncp  3 90 10 kg g  2.648 10  kN
Ncp
cp   5.485MPa

bw d
z  0.9d
1  0.6 if fcc.k  60MPa
 fcc.k 
max 0.9  0.5 if fcc.k  60MPa
 200MPa 
cp
cw  1 if 0  cp  0.25fcc.d
fcc.d
1.25 if 0.25fcc.d  cp  0.5fcc.d
 cp 
2.5 1   if 0.5fcc.d  cp  fcc.d
 fcc.d

z cos ( ) 3
VRd.s  Asw fy.d    1.115 10  kN
s sin( )
fcc.d 3
VRd.max cw  b w  z 1   2.64  10  kN
( cot ( )  tan ( ) )
 
3
Model code 2010

b w  360mm
d  1341mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
J
z  0.9d  1.207m
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
 p  50mm
kd  0.5
  (36)deg
 3
30MPa
kc  min 0.50.5
 
 fcc.k

  90deg
A sw fy.k

s S
kv  0.15
 fcc.k 

 1MPa 
fcv
VRd.c  kv   z b w  258.874kN

C
VRd.1  VRd.c  VRd.s  878.749kN 
fcc.k cot ( )  cot ( ) 3
VRd.max kc  b w  z  2.311 10  kN
C 2
1  cot ( )
 

C.1.5. Section 5
BBK 04
b  650mm
d  1830mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   23.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.6 MPa
C
fy.k
fy.d   356.522MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sv  157mm
2
A s0  2017mm

 
2
K
 A s0 
  min 0.02 
 b d 
  1.4 if d  0.2m
d
1.6  if 0.2m  d  0.5m
1m
d
1.3  0.4 if 0.5m  d  1m
1m
0.9 if 1m  d
fv  0.3   ( 1  50)fct.d  0.469 MPa
Vc  b  d  fv  557.431kN

0.9d

s
Vs  0.2 b  d  fct.d  1
3
Vd.1  Vc  Vs  1.172 10  kN
3
Vd.max  0.25 b  d  fcc.d  7.038 10  kN
 
Vd  min Vd.1Vd.max  1.172 10  kN
3
EN 1992
b w  600mm
d  1830mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   23.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.6 MPa
C
fy.k
fy.d   356.522MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
  22deg
cos ( )
 2.475
sin( )
3 3
Ncp  3 90 10 kg g  2.648 10  kN
Ncp
cp   2.411MPa

bw d
z  0.9d
L
1  0.6 if fcc.k  60MPa
 fcc.k 
max 0.9  0.5 if fcc.k  60MPa
 200MPa 
cp
cw  1 if 0  cp  0.25fcc.d
fcc.d
1.25 if 0.25fcc.d  cp  0.5fcc.d
 cp 
2.5 1   if 0.5fcc.d  cp  fcc.d
 fcc.d

z cos ( ) 3
VRd.s  Asw fy.d    1.521 10  kN
s sin( )
fcc.d 3
VRd.max cw  b w  z 1   5.37  10  kN
( cot ( )  tan ( ) )
 
3
Model code 2010

b w  600mm
d  1830mm
fct.k  2.4MPa
fy.k  410MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
z  0.9d  1.647m
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
 p  50mm
kd  0.5
  (36)deg
 3
30MPa
kc  min 0.50.5
 
 fcc.k

  90deg
A sw fy.k

s S
kv  0.15
 fcc.k 

 1MPa 
fcv
VRd.c  kv   z b w  588.788kN

C
3
VRd.1  VRd.c  VRd.s  1.435 10  kN
fcc.k cot ( )  cot ( ) 3
VRd.max kc  b  z  5.257 10  kN
C w 2
1  cot ( )
M
 
3
C.2. Computations with material data from tests

C.2.1. Section 1
BBK 04
b  650mm
d  1670mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   36.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.933MPa

C
fy.k
fy.d   383.478MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sv  157mm
2
A s0  2017mm

 
2
 A s0 
  min 0.02 
 b d 
  1.4 if d  0.2m
d
1.6  if 0.2m  d  0.5m
1m
d
1.3  0.4 if 0.5m  d  1m
1m
0.9 if 1m  d
fv  0.3   ( 1  50)fct.d  0.57 MPa
Vc  b  d  fv  619.275kN
0.9d

s
Vs  0.2 b  d  fct.d  1
3
Vd.1  Vc  Vs  1.223 10  kN
3
Vd.max  0.25 b  d  fcc.d  9.95  10  kN
 
Vd  min Vd.1Vd.max  1.223 10  kN
3
N
EN 1992
b w  650mm
d  1670mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   36.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.933MPa

C
fy.k
fy.d   383.478MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
  22deg
cos ( )
 2.475
sin( )
3 3
Ncp  3 90 10 kg g  2.648 10  kN
Ncp
cp   2.439MPa

bw d
z  0.9d
1  0.6 if fcc.k  60MPa
 fcc.k 
max 0.9  0.5 if fcc.k  60MPa
 200MPa 
cp
cw  1 if 0  cp  0.25fcc.d
fcc.d
1.25 if 0.25fcc.d  cp  0.5fcc.d
 cp 
2.5 1   if 0.5fcc.d  cp  fcc.d
 fcc.d

z cos ( ) 3
VRd.s  Asw fy.d    1.493 10  kN
s sin( )
fcc.d 3
VRd.max cw  b w  z 1   7.962 10  kN
( cot ( )  tan ( ) )
 
3
Model code 2010

b w  650mm
d  1670mm
O
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
z  0.9d  1.503m
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
 p  50mm
kd  0.5
  (36)deg
 3
30MPa
kc  min 0.50.5
 
 fcc.k

  90deg
A sw fy.k

s S
kv  0.15
 fcc.k 

 1MPa 
fcv
VRd.c  kv   z b w  724.526kN

C
3
VRd.1  VRd.c  VRd.s  1.555 10  kN
fcc.k cot ( )  cot ( ) 3
VRd.max kc  b w  z  6.959 10  kN
C 2
1  cot ( )
 
3
C.2.2. Section 2
BBK 04
b  410mm
d  1042mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   36.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.933MPa

C
fy.k
fy.d   383.478MPa

S
P
s  150mm
2
A sv  157mm
2
A s0  2017mm

 
2
 A s0 
  min 0.02 
 b d 
  1.4 if d  0.2m
d
1.6  if 0.2m  d  0.5m
1m
d
1.3  0.4 if 0.5m  d  1m
1m
0.9 if 1m  d
fv  0.3   ( 1  50)fct.d  0.645 MPa
Vc  b  d  fv  275.653kN

0.9d

s
Vs  0.2 b  d  fct.d  1
Vd.1  Vc  Vs  652.061kN

3
Vd.max  0.25 b  d  fcc.d  3.916 10  kN
 
Vd  min Vd.1 Vd.max  652.061kN 
EN 1992
b w  410mm
d  1042mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   36.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.933MPa

C
fy.k
fy.d   383.478MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
  22deg
cos ( )
 2.475
sin( )
3 3
Ncp  3 90 10 kg g  2.648 10  kN
Q
Ncp
cp   6.198MPa

bw d
z  0.9d
1  0.6 if fcc.k  60MPa
 fcc.k 
max 0.9  0.5 if fcc.k  60MPa
 200MPa 
cp
cw  1 if 0  cp  0.25fcc.d
fcc.d
1.25 if 0.25fcc.d  cp  0.5fcc.d
 cp 
2.5 1   if 0.5fcc.d  cp  fcc.d
 fcc.d

z cos ( )
VRd.s  Asw fy.d    931.644kN

s sin( )
fcc.d 3
VRd.max cw  b w  z 1   3.435 10  kN
( cot ( )  tan ( ) )

VRd  min VRd.s VRd.max  931.644kN  
Model code 2010

b w  410mm
d  1042mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
z  0.9d  0.938m
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
 p  50mm
kd  0.5
  (36)deg
 3
30MPa
kc  min 0.50.5
 
 fcc.k

  90deg
A sw fy.k

s S
kv  0.15
 fcc.k 

 1MPa 
fcv
VRd.c  kv   z b w  285.151kN

C
VRd.1  VRd.c  VRd.s  803.233kN 
R
fcc.k cot ( )  cot ( ) 3
VRd.max kc  b w  z  2.739 10  kN
C 2
1  cot ( )
 

C.2.3. Section 3
BBK 04
b  410mm
d  1658mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   36.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.933MPa

C
fy.k
fy.d   383.478MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sv  157mm
2
A s0  2017mm

 
2
 A s0 
  min 0.02 
 b d 
  1.4 if d  0.2m
d
1.6  if 0.2m  d  0.5m
1m
d
1.3  0.4 if 0.5m  d  1m
1m
0.9 if 1m  d
fv  0.3   ( 1  50)fct.d  0.599 MPa
Vc  b  d  fv  407.489kN

0.9d

s
Vs  0.2 b  d  fct.d  1
3
Vd.1  Vc  Vs  1.006 10  kN
3
Vd.max  0.25 b  d  fcc.d  6.231 10  kN
S
 
Vd  min Vd.1Vd.max  1.006 10  kN
3
EN 1992
b w  360mm
d  1658mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   36.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.933MPa

C
fy.k
fy.d   383.478MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
  22deg
cos ( )
 2.475
sin( )
3 3
Ncp  3 90 10 kg g  2.648 10  kN
Ncp
cp   4.436MPa

bw d
z  0.9d
1  0.6 if fcc.k  60MPa
 fcc.k 
max 0.9  0.5 if fcc.k  60MPa
 200MPa 
cp
cw  1 if 0  cp  0.25fcc.d
fcc.d
1.25 if 0.25fcc.d  cp  0.5fcc.d
 cp 
2.5 1   if 0.5fcc.d  cp  fcc.d
 fcc.d

z cos ( ) 3
VRd.s  Asw fy.d    1.482 10  kN
s sin( )
fcc.d 3
VRd.max cw  b w  z 1   4.601 10  kN
( cot ( )  tan ( ) )
 
3
Model code 2010

b w  360mm
T
d  1658mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
z  0.9d  1.492m
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
 p  50mm
kd  0.5
  (36)deg
 3
30MPa
kc  min 0.50.5
 
 fcc.k

  90deg
A sw fy.k

s S
kv  0.15
 fcc.k 

 1MPa 
fcv
VRd.c  kv   z b w  398.392kN

C
3
VRd.1  VRd.c  VRd.s  1.223 10  kN
fcc.k cot ( )  cot ( ) 3
VRd.max kc  b w  z  3.826 10  kN
C 2
1  cot ( )
 
3
C.2.4. Section 4
BBK 04
b  410mm
d  1341mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   36.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.933MPa

C
U
fy.k
fy.d   383.478MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sv  157mm
2
A s0  2017mm

 
2
 A s0 
  min 0.02 
 b d 
  1.4 if d  0.2m
d
1.6  if 0.2m  d  0.5m
1m
d
1.3  0.4 if 0.5m  d  1m
1m
0.9 if 1m  d
fv  0.3   ( 1  50)fct.d  0.618 MPa
Vc  b  d  fv  339.645kN

0.9d

s
Vs  0.2 b  d  fct.d  1
Vd.1  Vc  Vs  824.063kN

3
Vd.max  0.25 b  d  fcc.d  5.04  10  kN
 
Vd  min Vd.1 Vd.max  824.063kN 
EN 1992
b w  360mm
d  1341mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   36.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.933MPa

C
fy.k
fy.d   383.478MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
  22deg
V
cos ( )
 2.475
sin( )
3 3
Ncp  3 90 10 kg g  2.648 10  kN
Ncp
cp   5.485MPa

bw d
z  0.9d
1  0.6 if fcc.k  60MPa
 fcc.k 
max 0.9  0.5 if fcc.k  60MPa
 200MPa 
cp
cw  1 if 0  cp  0.25fcc.d
fcc.d
1.25 if 0.25fcc.d  cp  0.5fcc.d
 cp 
2.5 1   if 0.5fcc.d  cp  fcc.d
 fcc.d

z cos ( ) 3
VRd.s  Asw fy.d    1.199 10  kN
s sin( )
fcc.d 3
VRd.max cw  b w  z 1   3.817 10  kN
( cot ( )  tan ( ) )
 
3
Model code 2010

b w  360mm
d  1341mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
z  0.9d  1.207m
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
 p  50mm
kd  0.5
  (36)deg
 3
30MPa
kc  min 0.50.5
 
 fcc.k

  90deg
A sw fy.k

s S
kv  0.15
 fcc.k 

 1MPa 
W
fcv
VRd.c  kv   z b w  322.222kN

C
VRd.1  VRd.c  VRd.s  988.966kN 
fcc.k cot ( )  cot ( ) 3
VRd.max kc  b w  z  3.095 10  kN
C 2
1  cot ( )
 

C.2.5. Section 5
BBK 04
b  650mm
d  1830mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   36.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.933MPa

C
fy.k
fy.d   383.478MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sv  157mm
2
A s0  2017mm

 
2
 A s0 
  min 0.02 
 b d 
  1.4 if d  0.2m
d
1.6  if 0.2m  d  0.5m
1m
d
1.3  0.4 if 0.5m  d  1m
1m
0.9 if 1m  d
fv  0.3   ( 1  50)fct.d  0.566 MPa
Vc  b  d  fv  673.563kN

0.9d

s
Vs  0.2 b  d  fct.d  1
X
3
Vd.1  Vc  Vs  1.335 10  kN
4
Vd.max  0.25 b  d  fcc.d  1.09  10  kN
 
Vd  min Vd.1Vd.max  1.335 10  kN
3
EN 1992
b w  600mm
d  1830mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
fcc.k
fcc.d   36.667MPa

C
fct.k
fct.d   1.933MPa

C
fy.k
fy.d   383.478MPa

S
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
  22deg
cos ( )
 2.475
sin( )
3 3
Ncp  3 90 10 kg g  2.648 10  kN
Ncp
cp   2.411MPa

bw d
z  0.9d
1  0.6 if fcc.k  60MPa
 fcc.k 
max 0.9  0.5 if fcc.k  60MPa
 200MPa 
cp
cw  1 if 0  cp  0.25fcc.d
fcc.d
1.25 if 0.25fcc.d  cp  0.5fcc.d
 cp 
2.5 1   if 0.5fcc.d  cp  fcc.d
 fcc.d

z cos ( ) 3
VRd.s  Asw fy.d    1.636 10  kN
s sin( )
fcc.d 3
VRd.max cw  b w  z 1   8.048 10  kN
( cot ( )  tan ( ) )
Y
 
3
Model code 2010

b w  600mm
d  1830mm
fcc.k  55MPa
fct.k  2.9MPa
fy.k  441MPa
 C  1.5
 S  1.15
z  0.9d  1.647m
s  150mm
2
A sw  157mm
 p  50mm
kd  0.5
  (36)deg
 3
30MPa
kc  min 0.50.5
 
 fcc.k

  90deg
A sw fy.k

s S
kv  0.15
 fcc.k 

 1MPa 
fcv
VRd.c  kv   z b w  732.869kN

C
3
VRd.1  VRd.c  VRd.s  1.643 10  kN
fcc.k cot ( )  cot ( ) 3
VRd.max kc  b w  z  7.039 10  kN
C 2
1  cot ( )
 
3
Z
D. APPENDIX D – reliability calculations using COMREL
For each of five sections, using material properties as variable values, the reliability level depending
on shear force was computed, giving the shear resistance. Below the force-reliability graphs and
sensitivity factors are presented for all sections and each of construction codes.
D.1. Section 1
D.1.1. BBK 04
Beta
Reliability Index FLIM(1), bkk40_41cm.pti
5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
900000.00 930000.00 960000.00 990000.00 1020000.00 1050000.00 1080000.00 1110000.00 1140000.00 1170000.00 1200000.00
Ved
Representative Alphas of Variables FLIM(1), bkk40_41cm.pti
fck 0.00
fct 1.00
fsw 0.00
s 0.00
Sum of a² 1.00
D.1.2. EN 1992
A
D.1.3. Model code 2010
B
Beta Reliability Index FLIM(1), model_65cm.pti
5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
1700000.00 1720000.00 1740000.00 1760000.00 1780000.00 1800000.00 1820000.00 1840000.00 1860000.00 1880000.00 1900000.00
Ved
Representative Alphas of Variables FLIM(1), model_65cm.pti
fcc 0.72
s -0.63
fy 0.30
Sum of a² 1.00
D.2. Section 2
D.2.1. BBK 04
Beta Reliability Index FLIM(1), bkk40_41cm.pti

5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
500000.00 520000.00 540000.00 560000.00 580000.00 600000.00 620000.00 640000.00 660000.00 680000.00 700000.00
Ved
C
fck 0.00
fct 0.98
fsw 0.05
s -0.21
Sum of a² 1.00
D.2.2. EN 1992
Beta Reliability Index FLIM(1), eurocode_65.pti

5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
700000.00 720000.00 740000.00 760000.00 780000.00 800000.00 820000.00 840000.00 860000.00 880000.00 900000.00
Ved
D
fy 0.41
s -0.91
fcc 0.00
Sum of a² 1.00
Beta Reliability Index FLIM(1), model_41cm_2.pti

5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
800000.00 820000.00 840000.00 860000.00 880000.00 900000.00 920000.00 940000.00 960000.00 980000.00 1000000.00
Ved
Representative Alphas of Variables FLIM(1), model_41cm_2.pti
fcc 0.33
s -0.91
fy 0.24
Sum of a² 1.00
D.3. Section 3
D.3.1. BBK 04
E
5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
800000.00 820000.00 840000.00 860000.00 880000.00 900000.00 920000.00 940000.00 960000.00 980000.00 1000000.00
Ved
fck 0.00
fct 0.92
fsw 0.09
s -0.37
Sum of a² 1.00
D.3.2. EN 1992
F
5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
1200000.00 1220000.00 1240000.00 1260000.00 1280000.00 1300000.00 1320000.00 1340000.00 1360000.00 1380000.00 1400000.00
Ved
fy 0.58
s -0.82
fcc 0.00
Sum of a² 1.00

5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
1200000.00 1220000.00 1240000.00 1260000.00 1280000.00 1300000.00 1320000.00 1340000.00 1360000.00 1380000.00 1400000.00
Ved
G
fcc 0.55
s -0.76
fy 0.36
Sum of a² 1.00
D.4. Section 4
D.4.1. BBK 04

5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
600000.00 620000.00 640000.00 660000.00 680000.00 700000.00 720000.00 740000.00 760000.00 780000.00 800000.00
Ved
fck 0.00
fct 0.95
fsw 0.07
s -0.29
Sum of a² 1.00
H
D.4.2. EN 1992

5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
900000.00 920000.00 940000.00 960000.00 980000.00 1000000.00 1020000.00 1040000.00 1060000.00 1080000.00 1100000.00
Ved
fy 0.50
s -0.87
fcc 0.00
Sum of a² 1.00

5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
1000000.00 1020000.00 1040000.00 1060000.00 1080000.00 1100000.00 1120000.00 1140000.00 1160000.00 1180000.00 1200000.00
Ved
I
fcc 0.43
s -0.85
fy 0.30
Sum of a² 1.00
D.5. Section 5
D.5.1. BBK 04

5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
900000.00 930000.00 960000.00 990000.00 1020000.00 1050000.00 1080000.00 1110000.00 1140000.00 1170000.00 1200000.00
Ved
fck 0.00
fct 1.00
fsw 0.00
s 0.00
Sum of a² 1.00
J
D.5.2. EN 1992

5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
1300000.00 1320000.00 1340000.00 1360000.00 1380000.00 1400000.00 1420000.00 1440000.00 1460000.00 1480000.00 1500000.00
Ved
fy 0.62
s -0.79
fcc 0.00
Sum of a² 1.00
Beta Reliability Index FLIM(1), model_65cm.pti

5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
1800000.00 1820000.00 1840000.00 1860000.00 1880000.00 1900000.00 1920000.00 1940000.00 1960000.00 1980000.00 2000000.00
Ved
K
Representative Alphas of Variables FLIM(1), model_65cm.pti
fcc 0.71
s -0.63
fy 0.31
Sum of a² 1.00
L
E. APPENDIX E – about the author
Born in 1990 in Warsaw, Poland. After finishing 50th High School in
Warsaw, specialization in mathematics, physics and informatics, in
2009 started studies at Warsaw University of Technology, the faculty
of Civil Engineering.
During bachelor studies, involved in research on finite elements

method (FEM). Co- author of a series of conference papers and
reports on the use of FEM in non-destructive examination of concrete
and in fire engineering. Active participant of international
conferences in civil engineering around Europe. Cooperated with
scientists from United Kingdom, Slovenia, Romania and, during
preparation of this thesis, Sweden. Participated in COST TU0904
action. Co-founder and member of the Numerical Modelling Scientific Group at the Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology (http://knmn.il.pw.edu.pl/). Awarded prize for the
best bachelor thesis in the Institute of Building Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, WUT.
After obtaining the Bachelor of Science title, for half-a-year was involved in maintenance of bridges
and other infrastructural engineering objects in Warsaw – first as trainee in Municipal Roads
Authority in Warsaw, Division of Bridges (ZDM, Wydział Mostów), next working in Intop Warszawa
sp. z o.o.
In 2013 started European Erasmus Mundus Master Course SUSCOS_M (Sustainable Constructions
under natural hazards and catastrophic events). After staying for one semester at Université de
Liège, Belgium and another one at Universitatea Politehnica din Timișoara, Romania started to work
on above master thesis at Luleå tekniska universitet, Sweden.
After successful defending the Master of Science thesis, looking for interesting challenges in bridge
engineering anywhere in the world.

Structural Assessment of A Concrete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Assessment of A Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MASTER'S THESIS

Structural Assessment of a Concrete

In-Situ Material Properties

Master of Science in Engineering Technology

Luleå University of Technology

Structural Assessment of a Concrete Bridge

Master of Science in Engineering Technology

Luleå University of Technology

May You rest in peace.

Luleå in January 2015

Resultaten för det studerade spannets mittsnitt sammanfattas i tabellen nedan.

Na podstawie próbek betonu i zbrojenia właściwości materiałowe in-situ zostały określone za

Trzy różne podejścia zostały zastosowane do obliczenia wytrzymałości dźwigara na ścinanie:

Przy odpowiedniej ocenie wytrzymałości użytych materiałów można potwierdzić iż nośność

Właściwości materiałowe Wytrzymałość na ścinanie

Asw /Asv the cross-sectional area of stirrups

1.2. Aim and scope

Fig. 2. Viaduct near mine in Kiruna, Sweden (Bagge et al., 2014)

1.4. Outline of thesis

2.1. Basis of structure assessment

2.2. Structure reliability

2.2.1. First order reliability method (FORM)

The structural response can be described by the inequality:

R is the resistance of structure

we can reformulate the equation (3) into

to obtain the failure density distribution from Fig. 4.

The inequality (1) can be also expressed as a safety margin equation

Fig. 5. Probability density function of safety margin M (Jeppsson, 2003)

By definition of cumulative distribution function (CDF) the probability of normally distributed

where φ is standard normal function. As M is normally distributed, probability of failure can

So the reliability index is directly correlated with failure probability by relation

Tab. 1. Probabilities of failure for different reliability levels

pf 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7

2.2.2. Hasofer-Lind safety index

If the original limit state function is linear, thus

2.3. COMREL software

Fig. 6. Normalized variables and limit function (Blanksvärd, 2007).

The last quite important parameter is elasticity, calculated by

however, as the approximation is based on gradients of variables, it is prediction of a first

2.4. Shear models

Asw is the cross-sectional area of stirrups

Fig. 7. Strut-and-tie shear model from Eurocode 2

2.4.2. Model Code 2010

First, the angle θ needs to be estimated. It varies depending on stress-state of concrete

where εx is the longitudinal strain at the mid-depth which can be calculated as

Now, the shear resistance is computed as

due to crushing capacity of cracked concrete, with kc

The resistance provided by stirrups is found by

and the steel strength can be activated when

The resistance provided by aggregate interlock of concrete is given as

Vsd is a designed shear load

d is the effective beam depth

Asv is cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement

Vd is a designed shear strenght

3.1. Concrete testing

3.1.1. Chose of drilling location

Fig. 10. Core drilling in concrete (© Om Shakthi Engineering and Contractors)

3.1.3. Tests on concrete cores

3.1.3.1.1. Core size

3.1.3.1.2. Core curing

Fig. 11. 100mm concrete core after axial compressive test

3.1.3.1.3.1. Capping using calcium aluminate cement

3.1.3.1.3.3. Capping using sandbox method