Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 1

A Probabilistic Assessment Methodology for Life Cycle Analysis of Structures

Jose Campos e MATOS Isabel Brito VALENTE Paulo Sousa CRUZ

PhD Student / Lecturer Assistant Professor Full Professor
Minho University Minho University Minho University
Guimaraes, Portugal Guimaraes, Portugal Guimaraes, Portugal
jmatos@civil.uminho.pt isabelv@civil.uminho.pt pcruz@arquitectura.uminho.pt

Luis Canhoto NEVES

Assistant Professor
Universidade Nova
Lisboa, Portugal
lacn@fct.unl.pt

Summary
The life cycle analysis (LCA) of structures is a framework that evaluates its condition and safety
within the whole life through specific performance indicators. Management decisions are then taken
considering this state and in a way that cost is optimized. Used indicators are strictly correlated and
they are usually determined through a structural assessment procedure. However, this procedure is
carried of different sources of uncertainty. This paper presents one methodology for a probabilistic
assessment which considers and mitigates some of these uncertainties. This algorithm is based in
both optimization and Bayesian inference techniques. It will be applied with two structures,
respectively, a reinforced concrete and one composite beam. Two performance indicators will be
computed considering traditional probabilistic assessment techniques and this methodology
Obtained results pointed out the economic advantages of considering this methodology.
Keywords: Probabilistic Assessment Methodology; Uncertainty Sources; Optimization Algorithms;
Bayesian Inference; Reinforced Concrete Beams; Composite Beams.

1. Introduction
Structural assessment is usually performed by engineers to evaluate the real condition and safety of
an existing structure. This state is reproduced by one indicator that is used for life cycle analysis
(LCA). LCA is one framework that helps operators taking the best decision regarding the duality
maintenance vs. cost in each time instant. Thus, the accuracy of used indicators becomes one
important issue for this matter.
There exist different levels of structural assessment, and, accordingly different performance
indicators. Both condition and safety indexes are visual-inspection based, being the former used to
measure the structure remaining load-carrying capacity while the latter relates available and
required live load capacity. The reliability index is one other performance indicator used to quantify
safety level [1].
Despite the correlation between these indicators, its subjectivity degree is completely different. The
reliability index is more objective than the others as is computed through probabilistic based
techniques. First it is developed one model that tries to reproduce the assessed structure with
maximum accuracy and then this model is leaded up to failure. The reliability index will relate
resistance and loading distribution curves through one pre-established failure criterion [2].
Several sources of uncertainty are present in the structural assessment procedure [2]: (1) human
errors (e.g. during concreting, fabrication and curing processes); (2) modelling and measurement
errors; (3) physics (e.g. randomness in structure materials); (4) statistics (e.g. errors in statistic
parameters). One other point to take into account is deterioration. Structures tend to deteriorate and
structural assessment should consider this phenomena.
2 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

Accordingly, some authors started to use numerical identification and Bayesian inference
techniques in order to perform real time assessment [3, 4]. This updating procedure is performed
through the parameters that characterize material deterioration curves [3] or through the input
parameters of developed numerical model [4]. Therefore, the reliability index is continuously
updated.
The developed methodology presented in this paper for probabilistic assessment considers these
two techniques. Firstly, structural parameters are determined through one numerical identification
procedure in which the numerical curve is best fitted to experimental data. Secondly, a probabilistic
analysis is developed to obtain the structure reliability index. The probabilistic numerical model is
continuously updated, as more data is collected, through a Bayesian inference.
This methodology takes into account all previously identified uncertainty sources. Both modelling
and measurement errors are introduced in the tolerance value of identification algorithm. During
this procedure some human errors may be also mitigated. Physic sources of uncertainty are
considered in the probabilistic analysis. One Bayesian inference procedure is used to mitigate
statistic uncertainties. This technique also permits to evaluate structural deterioration.
This methodology is tested and validated with two structures, respectively, a reinforced concrete
and one composite beam. It will be computed two reliability indexes for each beam, respectively, by
applying traditional probabilistic assessment techniques or the developed methodology. Obtained
results validate and pointed out the economic advantages of developed methodology.

2. Methodology
The probabilistic assessment methodology, which organization chart is presented in Figure 1a,
combines two levels of model updating: (1) numerical identification; and (2) Bayesian inference.
While the first occurs in deterministic model version, requires a high computational cost, and, allow
updating the model itself, the second takes place in its probabilistic version, it is related to a low
computational cost, and, in this case, permit to update the resistance curves of probabilistic
numerical model input parameters.

a b
Fig. 1: Methodology: a) Organization Chart; b) Time Effect.
Accordingly, a deterministic numerical model is first developed and then calibrated through one
identification procedure. A probabilistic model is further developed considering appropriate
distribution curves for most important parameters. As more data is collected, both mean and
standard deviation parameter values are automatically updated through a Bayesian inference
procedure. Therefore, according to Figure 1b, while numerical identification may modify
meaningfully the structural resistance curve, the inference procedure not.
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 3

This methodology considers all previously identified uncertainty sources. Both modelling and
measurement errors are computed through the law of propagation of errors [5] and they are
considered as one tolerance value for numerical identification procedure. Some human errors are
mitigated with one accurate identification procedure. Physic sources of uncertainty are considered
in probabilistic analysis when attributing distribution functions to input parameters. Statistic
uncertainty sources may be reduced through Bayesian inference techniques.
Numerical identification consists in determining a numerical model that best fits experimental data.
This tuning procedure is developed till a specific value, designated by tolerance, is achieved. The
law which translate the numerical and experimental data fitting is designated by fitness curve:

( max ( y ) ⋅ n )
n
f =∑ (y − yiexp )
num 2 exp
i i (1)
i =1

being yinum the numeric results, yiexp the experimental data and n the number of evaluated points.
The optimization algorithm which was used to minimize the fitness function is the evolutionary
strategies one [6].
The probabilistic analysis is based in a Latin Hypercube simulation algorithm. Therefore, different
values are randomly generated for input parameters. This generation is developed according to each
distribution curve. This curve is usually characterized by one mean, previously determined through
numerical identification, and one standard deviation, computed according to existent bibliography
[7]. Then, one analysis is developed for each set of generated parameter values. Obtained results are
statistically processed. This way it is obtained a resistance curve for the analysed structure. This
curve is then compared with loading through a reliability index [2].
Each distribution curve may be automatically updated as more data is collected. In order to perform
it, a Bayesian inference algorithm is used. This algorithm is based in the following expression:

f ( x θ ) ⋅ h (θ )
h (θ x ) = , θ ∈Θ (2)
∫θ f ( x θ ) ⋅ h (θ ) dθ
being f(x|θ) the likelihood, characterized by a set of acquired data, h(θ) the prior distribution,
previous defined, and h(θ|x) the posterior distribution, which is updated through the prior and the
likelihood [8]. Obtained resistance curve and related reliability index is so continuously updated.

3. Reinforced concrete beam

3.1 Experimental data
The first analysed structure is one pinned-fixed supported reinforced concrete beam which is tested
up to failure in laboratory [9], according to the scheme of Figure 2a. This beam presents one span of
1.50 m (L) and a rectangular shape of 0.075 (b) × 0.150 (h) m2, being composed by a reinforcing
steel S500B and by a concrete C25/30 [10]. It is used one superior and inferior longitudinal
reinforcement of, respectively, 2φ8 (Asl = 1.005 cm2) and 3φ6 (Asl = 0.848 cm2). It is also
considered one bottom concrete cover of 2.0 cm (cinf).

a b c
Fig. 2: Reinforced Concrete Beam: a) Scheme; b) Failure Mechanism; c) Numerical Model.
4 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

Tested beam is loaded through two concentrated loads (F) spaced of 0.50 m. During the laboratory
test, the applied load, the middle span displacement, and the pinned support reaction are monitored.
Obtained failure mode is of bending with concrete crushing. The failure mechanism, presented in
Figure 2b, is characterized by two plastic hinges, one positioned at fixed support and one other
behind the point load located near pinned support.

3.2 Numerical model

One nonlinear finite element numerical model is developed with software ATENA [11] to study its
behaviour. A uniform mesh of quadrilateral elements is adopted. Concrete material behaviour is
defined by elasticity modulus (Ec), compressive strength (fc) tensile strength (ft) and fracture energy
(Gf). Steel behaviour is defined by elasticity modulus (Es) and yield strength (σy).
In a first step, modelled beam is analysed considering material [10] and geometric mean values,
indicated at Table 1. Figure 2c presents obtained deformation, crack pattern and horizontal strain
for maximum load. Obtained results validate the numerical model as they are close to measured
data being the failure mode the same of the one obtained at laboratory.

3.3 Probabilistic assessment

The numerical identification procedure gives one population constituted by a set of individuals.
Each individual is represented by a vector of identified values. One engineer judgment is then
developed to identify the best individual. Table 1 presents obtained values from this first updating
procedure. Figure 3a and 3b indicates two curves that represent the real behaviour and the one from
numerical model. The analysis of this figure permits to conclude that numerical identification
results are closer to measured data than initial ones.
Table 1: Parameter Values.
Initial Values * Numerical Identification *
Parameters
µ σ µ σ
Ec [GPa] 31.00 (30.10) 3.10 (4.79) 29.07 (28.76) 2.91 (3.36)
ft [MPa] 2.60 (2.62) 0.52 (0.31) 2.63 (2.64) 0.53 (0.31)
fc [MPa] 33.00 (30.79) 3.30 (1.38) 30.74 (30.69) 3.07 (1.16)
Gf [N/m] 65.00 (104.61) 6.50 (15.83) 66.95 (104.61) 6.70 (15.83)
Es [GPa] 200.00 (202.48) 10.00 (11.69) 189.48 (192.84) 9.47 (12.09)
σy [MPa] 560.00 (579.59) 30.00 (27.85) 574.08 (579.59) 28.70 (27.85)
cinf [cm] 2.00 (2.14) 0.40 (0.48) 2.04 (2.16) 0.41 (0.46)
b [cm] 7.50 0.75 7.15 0.72
h [cm] 15.00 1.50 13.59 1.36
* Bayesian inference values are indicated between brackets.

a b c
Fig. 3: Reinforced Concrete Beam: a) Applied Load; b) Bending Moment; c) Safety Evaluation.
In a further step the deterministic numerical model is transformed into a probabilistic one. In order
to perform that, one distribution function is defined for each input parameter. Accordingly, a
Normal distribution is adopted. Two distributions are then determined for each parameter
respectively considering, as mean value, the initial one or the one obtained through numerical
identification. The coefficient of variation is defined according to bibliography [7]. Table 1
indicates both mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) values for these two situations.
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 5

Complementary characterization tests are also developed [9]. A Bayesian inference is then used to
update both materials and bottom concrete cover distributions. Table 1 presents, between brackets,
the updated distribution statistical parameters. During the probabilistic analysis it is registered both
the failure load and the maximum bending moment at fixed support. A resistance distribution is
thus obtained for each situation (Table 2).
Table 2: Failure Load and Maximum Bending Moment.
Failure Load Maximum Bending Moment
Numerical Model
µ [kN] σ [kN] µ [kN.m] σ [kN.m]
Initial Values 28.493 3.790 5.807 0.898
Initial Values + Bayesian Inference 31.691 4.190 6.157 0.939
Numerical Identification 27.791 3.710 5.490 0.731
Numerical Identification + Bayesian Inference 29.072 3.837 5.800 0.772
Obtained resistance distributions are then used for a safety evaluation procedure. Accordingly, the
assessed beam is placed in a residential building and submitted to permanent and live loads (Figure
3c). Influence length (Linf) is of 6.00 m. A distribution is then defined for loading according to
bibliography [7]. The failure criterion is established considering a bending failure mode and
consists in one comparison between achieved bending moment due to loading and resistant one at
critical sections. Failure probability (pf) and reliability index (β) values are indicated at Table 3.
Table 3: Safety Evaluation.
Numerical Model pf β
Initial Values 1.40 × 10-5 4.20
Initial Values + Bayesian Inference 5.00 × 10-6 4.42
Numerical Identification 1.97 × 10-5 4.11
Numerical Identification + Bayesian Inference 1.30 × 10-5 4.21
The analysis of obtained results provides the following conclusions: (1) Numerical identification
indicates that structural resistance is inferior to initially predicted. This is confirmed by one inferior
concrete material quality and section height (Table 1); (2) The Bayesian inference approach points
out for one more resistant beam. This results from a higher steel material quality (Table 1) sustained
by characterization tests [9]. Nevertheless, the developed methodology furnishes, in this situation, a
value for this performance indicator closer to initial one.

4. Composite beam
4.1 Experimental data
The second structure to be evaluated is one pinned-pinned supported composite beam, tested up to
failure in laboratory [12], according to Figure 4a. This beam presents a span of 4.50 m (L). It
consists on a S275 standard laminated steel profile [13], and in a LC50/55 lightweight concrete slab
[10], connected by S235J2G3+C450 headed studs [14]. The steel profile (IPE 120) is chosen to
guarantee that the composite cross section is of class 1 [15] and that the neutral axis is located in the
steel superior flange. The concrete slab presents one 0.350 (bslab) × 0.060 (hslab) m2 section. Tested
beam is designed for total connection. In order to assure it, 8 shear studs are uniformly disposed in
half span of the beam. The distance between them is of 0.290 m (d1) and 0.170 m (d2).

a b c
Fig. 4: Composite Beam: a) Scheme; b) Failure Mechanism; c) Numerical Model.
6 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

This beam is loaded through two closely spaced (LF = 0.150 m) concentrated loads (F). During the
laboratory test it is measured the applied load and both middle and quarter span displacements. This
beam presents a failure mechanism (Figure 4b) characterized by a plastic hinge located in the region
between applied loads. A bending failure mode, governed by concrete crushing, is obtained.

4.2 Numerical model

A nonlinear finite element model is developed with software ATENA [11] to analyse its behaviour.
Due to existent symmetry, only half beam is modelled, according to Figure 4c. A uniform finite
element mesh composed by quadrilateral elements for concrete slab and steel profile, and by
interface elements, for concrete-steel connection, is adopted.
The concrete material behaviour is defined by elasticity modulus (Ec), compressive strength (fc),
tensile strength (ft) and fracture energy (Gf). Steel behaviour is defined by elasticity modulus (Es,p),
and yield strength (σy,p). A simplified equivalent steel profile, without round corners, is determined
by maintaining the same area and inertia. Thus, both web height (hweb) and flanges thickness (hfl,inf
and hfl,sup) are computed, keeping the web thickness (bweb), the flange width (bfl,inf and bfl,sup) and the
total height of the initial steel profile.
The connection between concrete slab and steel profile is characterized by one interface model. The
behaviour of the interface is defined in terms of two models for normal and shear stresses. The
constitutive laws used for these models are defined by bi-linear equations. A linear relation between
stress and uplift/slip is established, in terms of normal/shear stiffness. The interface failure is
defined by the Mohr-Coulomb criteria, relating shear and normal stresses in terms of cohesion (c)
and friction angle (φ). The friction angle is null, due to the use of concrete mould releasing agent.
The cohesion value is respectively proportional to the stud maximum load capacity.
Firstly, modelled beam is studied considering material [10, 13, 15] and geometric mean values,
indicated at Table 4. Figure 4c indicates the deformation, crack pattern in concrete slab and
horizontal strain of analysed beam for maximum applied load. Obtained results show that the model
is adequate as they are close to measured data being the failure mode the same of the one obtained
at laboratory.

4.3 Probabilistic assessment

A numerical identification procedure is first developed. Obtained results are indicated on Table 4.
Figure 5a and 5b shows two curves that represent the real and numerical behaviour. Its analysis
leads to conclude that identification results are closer to measured data than initial ones.
Table 4: Parameter Values.
Nominal values * Model identification (Failure) *
Parameters
µ σ µ σ
Ec [GPa] 25.09 (24.81) 2.51 (2.20) 23.71 (24.81) 2.37 (2.20)
ft [MPa] 3.67 (3.78) 0.73 (0.28) 3.56 (3.78) 0.71 (0.28)
fc [MPa] 58.00 (58.31) 5.80 (5.02) 59.19 (58.31) 5.92 (5.02)
Gf [N/m] 91.75 (78.33) 9.18 (7.13) 91.18 (78.33) 9.12 (7.13)
Es,p [GPa] 210.00 10.50 215.65 10.78
σy,p [MPa] 275.00 (337.61) 13.75 (37.75) 297.98 (337.61) 14.90 (37.75)
c [MPa] 3.08 (3.12) 0.92 (0.10) 3.00 (3.08) 0.90 (0.10)
bweb [mm] 4.40 0.09 5.22 0.10
bfl,sup [mm] 64.00 1.28 63.95 1.28
bslab [mm] 350.00 7.00 353.83 7.08
hfl,inf [mm] 6.60 0.13 6.64 0.13
hweb [mm] 106.80 2.14 106.89 2.14
hfl,sup [mm] 6.60 0.13 7.21 0.14
hslab [mm] 60.00 4.20 62.14 4.35
* Bayesian inference values are presented between brackets.
A probabilistic numerical analysis is further developed. This is performed by considering
randomness in input parameters. Accordingly, appropriate distribution functions are considered for
each parameter. In this situation, only Normal distributions, defined by one mean (μ) and standard
deviation (σ) value, are used. Two distributions are thus identified for each parameter, respectively,
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 7

considering as mean value the initial one or the one obtained through numerical identification. The
coefficient of variation is computed according to bibliography [7]. Table 4 indicates statistical
parameter values for these two distributions.

a b c
Fig. 5: Composite Beam: a) Quarter and b) Middle Span Displacement; c) Safety Evaluation.
Additional characterization tests are also executed [12]. One Bayesian inference is then developed
to update both materials and interface parameter distributions. Table 4 indicates, between brackets,
the updated distribution statistical parameters. During the probabilistic analysis it is recorded all
obtained failure loads. A statistical treatment of these results is performed and a resistant
distribution is thus obtained (Table 5).
Table 5: Failure Load.
Failure Load
Numerical Model
µ [kN] σ [kN]
Initial Values 19.00 2.21
Initial Values + Bayesian Inference 22.76 2.50
Numerical Identification 21.89 2.56
Numerical Identification + Bayesian Inference 24.42 2.49
Those resistance distributions are then used within a safety evaluation procedure. The assessed
beam is placed in a residential building and submitted to permanent and live loads (Figure 5c).
Influence length (Linf) is of 6.00 m. Applied load distribution is defined according to bibliography
[7]. A bending failure mode criterion is used and consists in one comparison between bending
moment due to loading and resistant one. Failure probability (pf) and reliability index (β) values are
indicated at Table 6.
Table 6: Safety Evaluation.
Numerical Model pf β
Initial Values 8.70 × 10-3 2.38
Initial Values + Bayesian Inference 3.50 × 10-3 2.70
Numerical Identification 4.40 × 10-3 2.62
Numerical Identification + Bayesian Inference 2.30 × 10-3 2.83
The analysis of obtained results provides the following conclusions: (1) Numerical identification
indicates that structural resistance is higher than initially predicted. This is confirmed by one
superior steel material quality and concrete slab thickness (Table 4); (2) The Bayesian inference
approach points out for one more resistant beam. This essentially results from a higher steel
material quality (Table 4), which is sustained by characterization tests [12]. The developed
methodology furnishes, in this situation, a value for this performance indicator superior than initial
one, indicating a structural capacity reserve which was not initially considered.

5. Conclusions
Within this paper it is presented a methodology for a probabilistic structural assessment which
considers all uncertainty sources. The methodology is validated with two structures, a reinforced
concrete and a composite beam, which are tested up to failure in laboratory. Two reliability indexes
are computed through traditional probabilistic assessment techniques and this methodology. As
conclusions it is possible to indicate that: (1) in the reinforced concrete beam example the reliability
8 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

index computed through this methodology is closer to the one obtained from traditional techniques,
but, at same time, this methodology permitted to identify one inferior concrete material quality and
section height, and one superior steel material quality; (2) in the composite beam example the
reliability index computed through this methodology is higher than the one determined through
traditional techniques, indicating a structural capacity reserve due to a superior steel material
quality and concrete slab thickness, which was not initially considered. Life cycle analysis (LCA)
frameworks are supplied by performance indicators as the reliability index. Once the indicator,
obtained from this methodology, is more robust and liable than the one computed through
traditional techniques, its consideration will lead to more economic and safe decisions. It is planned
to test this methodology with a real structure and then to integrate it into a LCA framework.

6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank FCT – Science and Technology Portuguese Foundation for the
support awarded through grant SFRH/BD/10705/2002.

7. References
[1] FRANGOPOL, D. M. and LIU, M. “Maintenance and management of civil infrastructure
based on condition, safety, optimization, and life-cycle cost”, Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 29 – 41, 2007.
[2] MELCHERS, R. “Structural Reliability — Analysis and Prediction”, 2nd ed., John Wiley and
Sons, Chichester, 1999, 400 pp., ISBN 0 4719 8771 9.
[3] ZONTA, D., ZANDONINI, R. and BORTOT, F. “A reliability-based bridge management
concept”, Structure and infrastructure engineering, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2007, pp. 215 – 235, 2007.
[4] HOSSER, D., KLINZMANN, C. and SCHNETGOKE, R. “A framework for reliability-
based system assessment based on structural health monitoring”, Structure and
infrastructure engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 271 – 285, 2008.
[5] JCGM, Report 100: “Evaluation of measurement data – guide to the expression of
uncertainty in measurement”, 2008.
[6] BEYER, H. -G. and SCHWEFEL, H. -P. “Evolution strategies: A comprehensive
introduction”, Natural computing, Vol. 1, pp. 3 – 52, 2002.
[7] JCSS - Joint Committee on Structural Safety, “Probabilistic Model Code”, Available on the
URL: http://www.jcss.ethz.ch, 2001.
[8] BERNARDO, J. M. and SMITH, A. F. M. “Bayesian theory”, Wiley series in probability
and statistics, John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
[9] MATOS, J. C., VALENTE, M. I. B. and CRUZ, P. J. S. “Uncertainty evaluation of
reinforced concrete structures behavior”, The fifth international conference on bridge
maintenance, safety and management – IABMAS 2010, Philadelphia, USA, 2010.
[10] EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: “Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for
buildings”, 2004.
[11] ČERVENKA, V., ČERVENKA, J. and PUKL, R. “ATENA – A tool for engineering analysis
of fracture in concrete”, Sädhanä, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 485 – 492, 2002.
[12] VALENTE, M. I. B. “Experimental studies on shear connection systems in steel and
lightweight concrete composite bridges”, PhD Thesis, Minho University, 2007.
[13] EN 1993-1-1. 2010. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. General rules and rules for
buildings. Mars.
[14] Nelson Bolzenschweiß-Technik 2003. European Technical Approval for NELSON-headed
studs, Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik, ETA 03/0041 ETA 03/0042 13.
[15] EN 1994-1-1. 2004. Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. General
rules and rules for buildings. December.