Course G04

Advanced Geotechnics

RELIABILITY BASIS of
STRUCTURAL/GEOTECHNICAL
DESIGN

JV RETIEF

1
 TITLE - Key Concepts
• STRUCTURE: Organized combination of
connected parts including GEOTECHNICAL
structures designed to provide resistance and
rigidity against various actions (load bearing)

• RELIABILITY: Ability of structure to fulfil specified

requirements,
– Expressed in terms of probability

• BASIS of DESIGN: Verify reliability of structure

(as designed)
2
 TOPICS
• INTRODUCTION – General
• RELIABILITY THEORY – Basic concepts and applications
• BASIS of DESIGN – Reliability Framework & Design Verification
• SANS 10160 – Development & Part 1 – Basis of Structural Design
• STANDARDIZED RELIABILITY – International Standards
Development
• COMPLEMENTARY TOPICS
– Target reliability – General practice
– Structural systems
– Structural damage/failure – Nature, role of Quality Management
– Application guidance – from Reliability to Basis of Design

• FINAL WORD
3
 1. INTRODUCTION
General Concepts
LECTURE OBJECTIVES –
• Apply reliability concepts at different levels:
• Understand underlying reliability principles of LS-D to apply properly
• Advanced application, where needed
• Advancement through research

RELIABILITY / PROBABILITY –
• Levels of reliability representation & modelling
– Design variables (based on probability models)
• CHARACTERISTIC VALUES – based on ‘specified’ information
• DESIGN VALUES – contributes (partially) to overall reliability

– Design functions (reliability models)

• Limit states; Design situations; Failure modes

– Calibration – combine information to derive design procedures

4
 RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE LEVELS
How your experience & judgement should
complement reliability based design
• Characteristic values of basic variables
– Specified – should be able to control the information
– Within experience base (1/2 – 1/10 – 1/20)
– Independent (more-or-less) of design solution

• Reliability levels – typical failure probabilities 10-3 – 10-4

– Cannot (should not!) have sufficient experience
– Extend several ‘standard deviations’ to obtain design values
– Can only be based on:
• RELIABILITY MODELLING
• COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE – some level of ‘standardized practice’
5
 RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE LEVELS
How your experience & judgement should
complement reliability based design
• Characteristic values of basic variables
– Specified – should be able to control the information
– Within experience base (1/2 – 1/10 – 1/20)
– Independent (more-or-less) of design solution

• Reliability levels – typical failure probabilities 10-3 – 10-4

– Cannot (should not!) have sufficient experience
– Extend several ‘standard deviations’ to obtain design values
– Can only be based on:
• RELIABILITY MODELLING
• COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE – some level of ‘standardized practice’
6
 PROBABILITY MODELLING
Conversion of DETERMINISTIC Structural
Mechanics to:
 Include Variability / Uncertainty

Design variables  Probabilistic variables (basic)

– Estimate mean (true, as opposed to characteristic)
– Estimate dispersion (e.g. range, uniform / triangular)
• No further information?

Voila  convert to basic variable

– Gaussian – Normal/Lognormal
7
 Random (Basic) Variables
• Variables (X) represented by probability functions
– Distribution function (F)
– Parameters (often related to moments)

• Minimum probabilistic information: 1st two moments

– Mean value μ (expected value)
– Standard deviation σ (second moment about mean)
– Then: variable described by Normal (Gaussian) distribution N(μ; σ)
• Multiplicative process: LogNormal distribution
– Normal distribution of LnX

• Extreme Value distribution important in reliability

– EV Type I (Gumbel) – largest value (max annual wind)
– EV Type II – largest value, with upper limit
– EV Type III – smallest value

• Other distributions, depending on the process to be modelled

8
 Motivation for Reliability Approach
Reliability – Definition (Harr)
• Probability of an object (item of system)
• Performing its required function adequately
• For a specified period of time
• Under stated conditions

Elements of a structure
• Induced loadings – never completely known
• Material – “collection of defects”!
– acceptable material – “fortuitous or organised collection”

Design
• Simplified process – simple but logical model, still containing essential
elements of actual system [“seek simplicity, and distrust it”]

 Reliability approach only rational manner of treating these variability's and

uncertainties
9
 Reliability Hierarchy
Probability Theory of Functions
of Random Variables

Reliability Analysis of
Structural Performance

Partial Factor Limit States

Design Verification

Structural Systems –
Robustness
10
 Theoretical Framework
Probability Reliability Design
• Interpretations • Basis: Risk • Deterministic !!
– Frequency – Probability • Framework
– Bayesian – Consequences – Reliability classes
– L states, situations
• Axioms (Annex) • Consistent proc’s
• Design variables
• Random variables • Basic variables – Classification
– Representation – Normal – Characteristic v’s
– Correlation – N-equivalent • Verification f
• Performance f – Separate {R; E}
• Function (f)
– Combinations
– Linear – Approx solutions – Partial factors
– Non-linear – Inverse  pf’s

11
 Probability
• Interpretations:
– Frequency:
• Statistical treatment  requires sufficient quantitative data of
• ALL aspects of the function and random variables
– Bayesian
• Expresses degree of belief, including experience based judgement
• Allows for combination of various sources of information

• Nature of probabilistic attributes:

– Randomness  Inherent variability (Aleatory)
– Uncertainty  Lack of knowledge (Epistemic)

• Consider the option of obtaining ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

12
 Bayes Theorem
A U
• Sample space U
• Events A & B B

• Intersection:
P( A  B)  P( A)P( BIA)  P( B)P( AIB)
Additional
• BAYES: Information
Prior : P'(A)=P(A)
P( BIA)
Posterior : P''(A)=P( AIB)  P( A)
P( B)
13
 REFERENCES - Selection
– Ang A H-S & Tang WH (1984). Probability Concepts in Engineering
Planning and Design, Volume II. Decision, Risk, and Reliability, John
Wiley & Sons

– Benjamin, J.R. and Cornell, C.A (1970). Probability, Statistics, and

Decision for Civil Engineers. McGraw-Hill

– Harr ME (1987) Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering. McGraw-

Hill.

– Baecher GB & Christian T (2003). Reliability and statistics in

geotechnical engineering. Wiley

– Day PW (2013) A contribution to the advancement of Geotechnical

Engineering in South Africa. DEng Dissertation, Stellenbosch
University.

– Phoon KK & Retief JV (editors) (2016). Reliability of geotechnical

structures in ISO 2394. CRC Press/Balkema (In press)
14
Seminal References

15
 2. RELIABILITY THEORY
Elementary & Applied
• Performance function
 expressed in probabilistic terms for basic variables

• Limit states function

 define “failure”

• Converted from probability

 semi-probabilistic (deterministic) format for operational
design

• Derive partial factors

 achieve target reliability

16
Reliability Based Performance
Probabilistic modelling of
• Resistance (R); Action effect (E)

g  RE
probability density function

σE
σR

µE µR
17
 Limit State Function
Performance function (g)
• Also a probabilistic function

0
g  RE 0
PF   (  )
-0.3

βσg   g /  g
g g  R  E
 g  ( R )  ( E )
2 2

0
µg X   X /g 18
-0.2 1.8
 EXAMPLE 0.0005

• R = N{100; 15}
0.0004

• E = N{40; 10} 0.0003

0.0002

• β = 3.33 0.0001

• PF = 0.4 x 10-3 0
-10 -5 0 5 10

0.05 0.03

0.04

0.03 0.02

0.02

0.01 0.01

0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-0.01 0
-10 10 30 50 70 90 19 110
 Geometrical Representation

Dʹ = (D-µD)/σD
g1 = R – D = 0

= (µR + RʹσR) - (µD + DʹσD)

(µR -µD)/σD
𝝁𝑹 − 𝝁𝑫
𝜷 =
(𝝈𝑹 )𝟐 +(𝝈𝑫 )𝟐 Design Point
D*
β

-(µR -µD)/σR R*
Rʹ = (R-µR)/σR

20
 Semi-Probabilistic Design
Rd  Ed  0
Rd   R (1   R  TVR )
Design values:
• Rd & Ed
– Derived from
Performance Limit Ed   E (1   E  TVE )
Function
X d   X X
• Key concept: βT
– Replacing FS X   X /g
Partial factor γX
 X  1   X  TVX 21
Partial Factor – Main Components

 X  1   X  TVX
 X  sensitivity factor
 T  target reliability
VX  CoV (dispersion)
22
 Resistance Partial Factor:
Characteristic Value Adjustment

• Normal Distribution
𝑿𝒌 𝟏 − 𝟏. 𝟔𝟒𝟓𝑽𝑿 𝑹𝒌 𝟏 − 𝟏. 𝟔𝟒𝟓𝑽𝑹
𝜸𝒎 = = 𝒐𝒓 𝜸𝑹𝒅 = =
𝑿𝒅 𝟏 − 𝜶𝑹 𝜷𝑽𝑿 𝑹𝒅 𝟏 − 𝜶𝑹 𝜷𝑽𝑹

• Lognormal Distribution
𝑿𝒌 𝒆𝒙𝒑(−𝟏. 𝟔𝟒𝟓 𝑽𝑿 ) 𝑹𝒌 𝒆𝒙𝒑(−𝟏. 𝟔𝟒𝟓 𝑽𝑹 )
𝜸𝒎 = = 𝒐𝒓 𝜸𝑹𝒅 = =
𝑿𝒅 𝒆𝒙𝒑(−𝜶𝑹 𝜷𝑽𝑿 ) 𝑹𝒅 𝒆𝒙𝒑(−𝜶𝑹 𝜷𝑽𝑹 )

23
 Allowable/Working Stress Design
• Design Function
– At working conditions Allowable
Nominal Load
Working Stress
• Advantages
– Simple to use Rn
– Captures experience  Ln
• Disadvantages
FS
– Indirect account of SAFETY
Assigned Factor
– Limited to < Experience Base >
– Cannot utilise reserve capacity
of Safety
(Based on working
– Cannot be improved of optimised experience)
24
 Limit States Design & Reliability
Semi-Probabilistic Partial Factor LS-D

A/WSD Design Values

Rn Fd  Rd  0
 Ln ( i i Fk,i )   l R( f k /  m )  0
FS
Multiple Partial Factors

25
General Reliability Theory
Extended linear functions
• Multiple basic variables
• Non-normal basic variables
• Correlated basic variables
Non-linear functions
• Geometric representation
• Iterative solving algorithms

Systems reliability – multiple failure modes

• Series & parallel systems
• Correlation of failure modes

26
 Reliability Modelling (F/SORM)
• Basic case: R – E = 0
• General linear performance function
– Uncorrelated basic variables
– Correlated basic variables
• Non-linear performance function
– Uncorrelated – iterative solution
– Correlated – special procedure (Ker-Fox)
• Non-normal basic variables
– Normal equivalent procedures
• Reliability-based design (inverse analysis)
• Numerical First Order Reliability method (FORM) solutions
27
 General Linear Performance Function
g  a0  a1 X 1  a2 X 2 .......  ai X i .....  an X n  0

a0  a11  a2 2 .......  ai i .....  an n g

 
(a1 1 ) 2  (a2 2 ) 2 ....  ( ai i ) 2 .....  ( an n ) 2  g
Design point coordinates: xi*  i   i  i
(ai i )
i  (direction cosine; sensitivity factor)
g
(1 ) 2  ( 2 ) 2 .....( i ) 2 .....( n ) 2  1
Note sign of  i through sign of ai (determining if xi*  /  i )
28
 Design Function Giving βT
• Deterministic Design Function
– derived from reliability

g  g ( xd ,1 ; xd ,2 ..... xd ,n )  0
g  g ( 1d ,1 ;  2 d ,2 ..... n d ,n )  0
xd ,i  x *
i  i    T  i
*
i

 i (1   T Vi ) *
i   i i
 i  (1   T Vi ) *
i  x / i
*
i
29
 Functions of Random Variables
• Linear function; correlated variables
n
Y   ai X i
i 1
n n
E(Y )  Y   aiE( X i )   ai  Xi
i 1 i 1
n n n
Var (Y )  E(Y  Y ) 2   ai2 Var ( X i )   ai a j cov( X i ; X j )
i 1 j  i i 1
n n
Var (Y )   ai a j cov( X i ; X j )
j i

30
 Correlated Basic Variables
g  a0  a1 X 1  a2 X 2 .......  ai X i .....  an X n

n n n n n
g   ai a j i, j i j 
i 1 j 1
 i i  2 ai a j i , j i j
( a
i 1
 ) 2

i  j j i

g

g
Where i , j is the correlation coefficient between X i and X j
Note sign of  i through sign of ai , a j and i , j

31
 Geometrical Representation
Linear function Nonlinear Function
Dʹ = (D-µD)/σD
g1 = R – D = 0 Dʹ = (D-µD)/σD
= (µR + RʹσR) - (µD + DʹσD)

(µR -µD)/σD
g1 = 0
Design Point
Design Point g2 = 0
D*
β D*
β
-(µR -µD)/σR R*
Rʹ = (R-µR)/σR
R* Rʹ = (R-µR)/σR

2 2 2
𝜇𝑅 − 𝜇𝐷  g   g   g 
𝛽 =  g2    x1     x2   ...    xn 
(𝜎𝑅 )2 +(𝜎𝐷 )2
 x1   x2   xn 32 
Non-linear Performance Function
g  g ( X 1 ; X 2 ;.... X i ;.... X n )  0

2
 g   g  2
 g   x  *
 i ;   
2
 i
 X i *  X i *
i g

g

g
 g 
  i
 X i *
xi*  i   i  i ; i  g
33
 Numerical Algorithm to Solve for β

1. Assume initial values for (x*i) (say = μi)

2. Evaluate ( ∂g/∂ Xi) & (αi) at (x*i)
3. Express (x*i) in terms of (β; αi)
4. Solve [g(x*i) = 0] to obtain (β)
5. Recalculate (x*i) from expression used in 4.
6. Iterate until (β) converges

34
 Non-linear g with Correlated Xi
• According to Ang & Tang – transformation into
uncorrelated variables required
– Transformation for each iteration to determine
design point

• Direct approximate method available (per Ker-

Fox)

– Similar to iterative process for uncorrelated Xi

– Adjusted expression for αi
35
 Generalised FOSM Method
n  g 
 

j 1  X j
  ij  X
 j
*
i 
n
 g
n
  g 
 
i 1 j 1  X i
 
 X
  ij  X  X

* 
i j
j *
 g  n  g 
   X i  

j  i  X j
  ij X

 X i
j
* *
 
n n
 g   g  n n
 g   g 
 
i 1 j 1  X i
 

  ij X  X
    

  ij X  X

 *  X j i 1 j 1  X i  *  X j
i j i j
* *

36
General FOSM Algorithm

37
 Reliability-Based Design
• Select value for βT

1. First estimate of xi*

 g 
2. Calculate   and  *

 X i  *
i

3. Recalculate x , using selected T : x  i   T  i

*
i
*
i
*
i

4. Check g ( x1* ; x2* ; .....xn* )  0

5. Iterate, from 2. at new Design Point
38
Target Reliability – Actions, Resistance
• Standardized sensitivity factors allow for
– SEPARATE STANDARDS FOR ACTIONS &
RESISTANCE

 R  sensitivity factor - Resistance

 R  T  0.8 T (Resistance target reliability)

 E  sensitivity factor - Action Effect

 E  T  0.7  T (Action target reliability) 39
 Reliability Separation:
Actions; Resistance
• Basis of design  Total level of reliability (β)
p f   ( )   (3,0)  1,3 103

• Separated into Actions & Resistance

– Actions
 E   E   0,7  3,0  2,1 p f  1,8 102
– Resistance

 R   R   0,8  3,0  2,4; p f  0,8 102

40
 Splitting of reliability level in Eurocode
Action and resistance reliability index

Reliability index 

Action reliability index Resistance reliability index

E = E  R = R 

Main action Accompanying Resistance

E = 0,7  E = 0,28  R = 0,8 
41
 LogNormal Distribution
Parameters LN( ;  )
  E(ln x)  ln X mean of ln( X )
  Var (ln x)  
2 2
ln X

Moments
1 2
E( X )   X  exp(   )
2
Var ( X )   X   X [exp( )  1]
2 2 2

42
 Generic Partial Factor Models
• Permanent Load G :
– Normal/Lognormal distribution
– Parameters: Mean µ = 1,05; CoV {0,05; 0,10; 0,15}
– Partial factor N ; LN

Normal  G  1   E TV 
Lognormal  G  EXP E TV 

43
 EV Type I (Gumbel)
fY ( y )   exp[ ( y  u )  e ( y  u ) ]    y  
FY ( y )  exp[ e ( y  u ) ]   y  

 dispersion parameter
u scale parameter

Relationship with first two moments ( Y ;  Y )

E (Y )  Y   /    0,577
 2
Var (Y )   Y 
2

6 2 44
 Generic Partial Factor Models (2)
• Variable Load Q :
– Gumbel distribution: F(y) = EXP(-EXP(y))
– Parameters:
• IMPOSED Mean µ = 0,96; CoV = 0,25
• WIND Mean µ = 0,65; CoV = 0,35
 Wind sensitive CoV = 0,50

 Q = 1-V (0,45+0,78LN  LN  PF    /Qk

PF    E T 
45
Correlation between Failure Modes
g1  c0,1  c1,1 X 1  c2,1 X 2 .......  ci ,1 X i .....  cn ,1 X n  0
g 2  c0,2  c1,2 X 1  c2,2 X 2 .......  ci ,2 X i .....  cn,2 X n  0

n
1,2    i ,1   i ,2
i 1

(ci ,1/2 i )
 i ,1/2  (direction cosine; sensitivity factor)
g
(1 ) 2  ( 2 ) 2 .....( i ) 2 .....( n ) 2  1
Correlation between failure modes derive from common basic
variables, as the sum of the product of the respective sensitivity
factors
46
 3. BASIS of STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Overview

The theory of reliability forms the conceptual

basis for standards for structural design (SSD)
To achieve acceptable levels of structural performance

• Thesis: Absolute Safety is not possible

– Conventional (deterministic) structural mechanics:
• Does not allow for taking account of inherent variability
& uncertainties (approximations)

47
 Risk-Based Metric for Semi-
Probabilistic Design
• Symbolic expressions for Risk (Ri) (Expected Outcome)
– Function of Probability of failure (PF) and
– Consequences (Co) for
– Selected scenarios (Sc)

Ri   PF  Co{Sc}
Reliability Framework
PF  P{g ( X i )  0}  (  )
(Reliability Management)
Design verification • Consequences (Co)
(Quantitative) – {Consequence Classes}
• Based on function g(Xi) • Scenarios (Sc)
– {Design Situations} 48
 BoSD – Design Management
& Verification
1.1 Conceptual basis:

Management of KNOWLEDGE & UNCERTAINTY

1.2 Quantitative basis

Operational RISK & RELIABILITY PROCEDURES

49
 Guidelines of BoSD Application
Meta-Standard considerations – Context
– Function & ownership:
• Regulatory  Professional
– Reference base & background:
• SANS 10160  Eurocode

Basis-of-Design requirements
– General requirements  Management
• Performance levels & design approach to verify compliance

– Design verification  Quantitative procedures

• General: Limit states; design situations; basic variables
• Actions: Corresponding action combinations – schemes & partial factors
• Resistance: Material “independent”; unification & consistency
50
 Reliability Perspective
Structural performance shall be considered at the
following levels of the reliability basis of design
implications:
1. Management: Pre-verification decisions
• Scope; Competence {Design; Execute};
• Reliability Class; QM level

2. Structural mechanics: Generation of input

• Analysis; system effects; ductility; etc.

3. Reliability procedures (semi-probabilistic)

• Limit states & design situations; Failure modes
• Basic variables; Characteristic values; Partial factors
51
 Function – Basis of Structural Design

• General requirements for structural performance

• Design philosophy and approach
– Verify compliance with requirements
• Limit states design with reliability-based partial factors

• Procedures for design values of actions

– Combinations and characteristic values
– Characteristic values proper presented in other Parts

• Material independent procedures for design values of

resistance
– Input to materials-based design standards

52
 Classification of Function
• Primary function in design:
– Action combination schemes for limit states

• High level function: Meta-standard requirements

– Prerequisites

• Integral function:
– Imbedded reliability framework

• Auxiliary function:
– Reliability management;
– Design by testing;
– Localised failure / robustness;
– Serviceability criteria
53
 Structural (/) Reliability Issues
ISSUE
Scope of application
Structural concept as selected
/ designed
Design on element basis:
• Reliability based on
performance of system
Performance level(s)
• Key function of reliability-
based design
Actual/modelled (notional)
reliability from experience
• Significantly lower
• Human gross error
significant cause
ASSESSMENT Basis-of-Design
Experience base for class Define scope of code
of structures of importance • Take care beyond scope
• Competently selected Suitable competence
stipulated as pre-requisite
Element/system relation Treated indirectly:
• f{structural concept} • Competence; concept;
• Advanced reliability analysis; (robustness)
Calibration of procedures Select target reliability
• To set reliability levels • Differentiated LS’s
• Approximate; generic • Structural Rel-Classes
• Failure @ execution Reliability not absolute
• Use back calibration • Residual systematic
• Relative reliability deviation of reliability
• During design • Quality management
• During execution • Robustness
requirement
54
 Multiple Functions of BoSD
BASIS of STRUCTURAL DESIGN
- Requirements – Competence & Experience
GENERAL - Reliability framework – Limit states & Design situations
- Verification procedures – Quantitative design expressions

ACTIONS RESISTANCE
Reliability Provisions Material-Independent Provisions

- Classification of actions - Multiple failure modes, provision for

- Basic variables
GENERAL - Limit states & Design
situations
- Combination schemes
- Partial factors
- Ductile/brittle failure differentiation
- Material properties as basic variables
- Alternative design formats
- Reliability class adjustment

ACTION STANDARDS MATERIALS-BASED STANDARDS

Generic Procedures per Standard
- Prediction models  characteristic
values
- Action classes
· Permanent – self-weight
· Variable actions – environmental:
Wind, Temperature
· Variable actions – use: Imposed,
Industrial
· Accidental actions – seismic
Generic Procedures (Based on Concrete)
VERIFICATION
- Specified material properties (characteristic
values)
- Partial factors
RELIABILITY MANAGEMENT
- Structural analysis & failure modes
- Detailing, e.g. compliance with ductility
assumptions
Quality control for compliance
55
 Basis of Structural Design
Partial Factor LSD – General Procedures

Unified treatment of ACTIONS & RESISTANCE

Actions
Structural Mechanics Models for Characteristic Values

Resistance
Structural Mechanics Models for Characteristic Values

Concrete Steel Composite Timber Masonry Aluminium

Actions Foundations (and Geotechnical Structures)

&
Seismic Design
Resistance 56
Effective Reliability Development

Deterministic Methods Probabilistic Methods

Selected Input
Judgement
Based

Overview of Reliability Methods

57
 4. SANS 10160
Part 1 Basis of Structural Design

• Historic development leading to Eurocode as

Reference Standard for SA Loading Code
• Action combinations – EN 1990 comparisons
• Eurocode as Reference basis – Selected
Standards; Parts; Sections
• Basis of Design Adaptations and modifications –
Accidental actions; Geotechnical design
58
 Main Historical Mile Posts
1992: Interest in Geotechnical Limit States Design  Eurocode 7?
• LSD geotechnical design conference Copenhagen – 1993

1995: SA symposium on LSD in Geotechnical Engineering

• Incompatibility of SABS 0160:1989 with EN 1991-1/1990

1998: SA National Conference on Loading

• Guidelines for revision: Home-grown, unified & harmonised

1999: SAICE WG Revision of SANS 0160:1989

2003: Consider Eurocode as Reference Standard
• Establish action combination scheme to be consistent with EN 1990 (Special)

2004: Trial implementation – BoSD; Imposed; Wind

• Scope extended based on Eurocode EN 1990/1991/1997/1998
• Part 5 Geotechnical Basis of Design and Actions added 2005

2008: SA-DNS 10160 Parts 1 – 8 drafted & published for comments

• Background Report & Seminars

2010: SANS 10160 Published 59

 Standards Development
Basis of Structural Design
Action Combination Scheme
• SABS 0160:1989 action combination scheme
similar to Eurocode special (Finnish) interpretation
of dual expression
• There is a need to improve consistency of reliability
for self-weight dominated situations
– Intended provision for geotechnical design

• Action combination scheme for SA can be

simplified (no snow, thermal, operational seismic)
Introduce simplified dual scheme STR & STR-P
 South African scheme consistent with Eurocode,
but adopted to local conditions
 SA basis of design adapted from EN 1990
 Other Eurocode Standards & Parts can also be
adapted to SA conditions
60
 Action Combination Schemes -
Alternatives

Standard Expression # Expression Simplified for Single Variable Action

SABS 0160 4 (e) 1,5Dn

4 (f) 1,2Dn  1,6Qk (Imposed)
1,2Dn  1,3Qk (Wind)
EN 1990 6.10 1,35Gk  1,5Qk ( G Gk   QQk )
6.10 (a) 1,35Gk  1,5 0Qk  1,35Gk  1,05Qk ( 0  0,7 typically)
6.10 (b) 1,35 Gk  1,5Qk  1,15Gk  1,5Qk (  0,85)
6.10 (b UK) 1,35 Gk  1,5Qk  1,25Gk  1,5Qk (  0,925)
6.10 (a-mod)  G Gk
ASCE-7 Clause 2.3.2-1 1, 4 Dn
Clause 2.3.2-2 1,2Dn  1,6Qk

61
Eurocode Options vs SA Procedures
• Alternative Eurocode options for action combinations: B – Dual scheme;
– C – Finnish interpretation
• Compared to SABS 0160 Scheme - E

62
 Eurocode Expressions: Single (E 6.10);
Dual (E 6.10 a&b) & (a-Mod)

2.4
2.4

Requirement for β Requirement for β

2.2 2.2

Expression 6.10

2.0
2.0
Expression 6.10 (a) 6.10 (b)
GSF k

GSFk
1.8
1.8

1.6
1.6

6.10(a) Modified
1.4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
χk
χk
63
 Comparison: SABS 0160:1989 &
Eurocode Dual Expressions

2.4
2.4

SABS 0160:1989 EN 1990

2.2 2.2

4 (e) 4 (f)
2.0 2.0
Expression 6.10 (a) 6.10 (b)
GSFk

GSFk
1.8
1.8

1.6
1.6

6.10(a) Modified
1.4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
χk
χk
64
New Action Combination Scheme
EN 1990 SANS 10160:2010

• SANS 10160-1 Action combination scheme consistent with

EN 1990 options
EUROCODE – South African View

• A case for taking an independent view /

assessment

• Eurocode Head Standard EN 1990 – Formal

introduction of Basis of Structural Design

• Comparison to ASCE-7 as ‘leading’ standard

• Comparison to ‘standards importing’ practice

66
 EUROCODE as Technology Base
• Advanced standard: Eurocode incorporates the most advanced procedures from its
member states, supported by extensive research over several decades.
– The introduction of a head standard to define a common reliability-based basis of design,
– advances in structural fire design,
– provision for advanced materials such as high performance concrete.

• International harmonisation: A high degree of harmonisation has been achieved,

– whilst remaining deficiencies can be clearly identified and assessed.

• Comprehensive standards in terms of structures, materials, conditions and relevant

procedures.
– Internal consistency in design is achieved across the range of structures from buildings through
bridges, reservoirs, towers,
– structural steel to geotechnical design;
– from self-weight to earthquake loads.

• Range of conditions: From the cold Nordic countries to the Mediterranean;

– institutional conditions range from member states where design standards are part of the law to
situations similar to that of South Africa.

• Selection of Eurocode Parts: All relevant to the combination of the scope of

buildings and SABS 0160:1989 were considered.
– This implied the extension of the SABS 0160 scope and consideration of nine Parts from EN 1990,
EN 1991, EN 1997 & EN 1998.
• Only the sections and procedures relevant to the scope of SANS 10160 were utilised.
67
 Eurocode – Summary of 58 Parts
Standard Buildings & General Fire Bridges Containment Industrial
EN 1990 Basis of Design Annex A1 (Normative) Buildings A2 (N) Bridges
EN 1991 Actions on structures Self-weight; Imposed Actions on
Traffic loads on
Snow Wind Thermal structures Silos & tanks Cranes & machinery
bridges
exposed to fire
Execution Accidental
EN 1992 Concrete structures General; buildings Fire design Concrete Bridges Liquid retaining
EN 1993 Steel structures General ; buildings Joints Shells Crane support
Plated I Plated II Cold formed Stainless S Fire design Steel Bridges Silos Tanks Towers & masts
Toughness Tension High strength Fatigue Pipelines Chimneyg Piling
EN 1994 Composite General; buildings Fire design Composite Bridges
EN 1995 Timber General, buildings Fire design Timber bridges
EN 1996 Masonry General Execution Simplified Fire design
EN 1997 Geotechnical design General rules
Investigation & testing
EN 1998 Earthquake General rules, actions
resistance Tower, mast,
Strengthening & repair Bridges Silos, tanks, pipes
chimney
Foundations, retaining
EN 1999 Aluminium Alloy General rules Shells
Fire design
Fatigue Sheeting
68
EN 1990 - Head Standard
EN 1990 Basis of Structural Design
Partial Factor LSD – General Procedures
(Action Combinations)

EN 1991 Actions
Structural Mechanics Models for Characteristic Values

EN 199X Resistance
Structural Mechanics Models for Characteristic Values

2 Concrete 3 Steel 4 Composite

5 Timber 6 Masonry 9 Aluminium

Actions
EN 1997 Geotechnical design
&
Resistance EN 1998 Earthquake resistance & seismic design
69
 PART 1
Basis of Structural Design
Partial factor limit states design procedures for
ACTIONS
RESISTANCE according to Materials-Based Standards

PART 2 PART 3 PART 6 PART 7 PART 8

Self-weight Cranes Machinery
Wind Thermal Execution
Imposed
Separate standards for which it is
SANS 10100 necessary
SANS 10162 to consider inter relationship
SANS 10163 SANS 10164
Concrete Steel Timber Masonry
P1 Design P1 Hot rolled P1 Limit States P1 Unreinforced
P2 Cold formed P2 Reinforced

PART 4 Seismic Actions & Earthquake Resistance

PART 5 Geotechnical Basis of Design & Actions

70
 Reference to Eurocode
• Eurocode standards serve as an important
reference and source of technology,
– to the extent that SANS 10160:2010 can be
considered to be consistent with Eurocode,
– even allowing the use of Eurocode for conditions
beyond the scope of the local standard,

• Significant differences between SANS 10160 &

Eurocode arise from differences in
– the scope of application and
– the ownership of the respective sets of standards

71
 Assessing Eurocode as Reference
for SA Loading Code
EUROCODE
Serves as reference European Standard for
implementation by Member States as:
• Harmonised MS EN Standard
– Adapted to accommodate Member State
safety & regulatory responsibility
• To serve the European political & trade
objectives
– Providing for comprehensive use
– Across wide range of institutional & natural
conditions
SANS 10160
Serves as professional code of practice to
discharge responsibility of designer towards
public and clients
• No institutional / official sanction or
sponsorship & resources
– Except for publication as industry standard
• Standard therefore needs to be optimised in
terms of development & scope of
application
– For use in general practice – selected scope
– With minimum resources for development

Fundamental differences between Eurocode and SA standards

should be observed, and provided for in using Eurocode in SA:
• Apply Eurocode selectively and optimally
– Achieve maximum harmonisation and consistency
– Adapt & scale Eurocode to South African institutional &
natural conditions
– Incremental application of Eurocode to SA structural
standards
72
 Reference to Eurocode - Adaptations
• Basis of Structural Design: Include Head Standard
equivalent to EN 1990
• Scope: Limited to Buildings & similar industrial
structures
• Actions: As provided by SABS 0160:1989 +
selected Eurocode parts
• Geotechnical design: Basis of design & Actions –
limited to buildings

73
 EN 1990  SANS 10160-1
• Scope of application
– EN 1990: General  Annex A1 Buildings;
• A2 Bridges
– SANS 10160-1: Buildings
• Compact layout – deleted alternative & advanced concepts
• Simplified procedures as required for regular practice/buildings

• Reference reliability
– Default Eurocode value βt = 3,8
– Implicitly NDP, selected by Member States
– From SABS 0160:1989  Maintain βt = 3,0
• Reliability Classes (Reference RC2)
– EN 1990: 3 classes
•  EN 1992-1-1 provides for RC2
– SANS 10160-1: 4 classes
• EN RC2 split into RC2 & RC3 (at ~ 4/5 storey buildings)
– Also for other classification systems: Quality; Robustness; etc
74
 Eurocode Parts relevant to SANS 10160

Standard Buildings & General Fire Bridges Containment Industrial

EN 1990 Basis of Design Annex A1 (Normative) Buildings A2 (N) Bridges
EN 1991 Actions on structures Self-weight; Imposed Actions on
Traffic loads on
Snow Wind Thermal structures Silos & tanks Cranes & machinery
bridges
exposed to fire
Execution Accidental

STRUCTURAL FIRE
EN 1992 Concrete structures General; buildings Fire design Concrete Bridges Liquid retaining
EN 1993 Steel structures General ; buildings Joints Shells Crane support

BRIDGES
Plated I Plated II Cold formed Stainless S Fire design Steel Bridges Silos Tanks Towers & masts
Toughness Tension High strength Fatigue Pipelines Chimneyg Piling
EN 1994 Composite General; buildings Fire design Composite Bridges
EN 1995 Timber General, buildings Fire design Timber bridges
EN 1996 Masonry General Execution Simplified Fire design
EN 1997 Geotechnical design General rules
Investigation & testing
EN 1998 Earthquake General rules, actions
resistance Tower, mast,
Strengthening & repair Bridges Silos, tanks, pipes
chimney
Foundations, retaining
EN 1999 Aluminium Alloy General rules Shells
Fire design
Fatigue Sheeting
75
 Outline of SANS 10160
– Relation to Eurocode Parts
SANS 10160 Parts Reference Eurocode Part
PART TITLE PART TITLE
1 Basis of structural design EN 1990 Basis of Structural Design
–Accidental situations EN 1991-1-7 Accidental actions: Impact & explosions

2 Self-weight and imposed EN 1991-1-1 General actions – Densities, self-

loads weight, imposed loads for buildings

3 Wind actions EN 1991-1-4 General actions – Wind actions

4 Seismic actions and general EN 1998-1 Design of structures for earthquake

requirements for buildings resistance – General rules & buildings

5 Basis of geotechnical EN 1997-1 Geotechnical design : General rules

design and actions
6 Actions induced by cranes EN 1991-3 Actions induced by cranes and
and machinery machinery

7 Thermal actions EN 1991-1-5 General actions – Thermal actions

8 Actions during execution EN 1991-1-6 General actions – Actions during

execution
76
 Updated and New Parts for SANS 10160

Updated PART 1
New Basis of Structural Design

PART 2 PART 3 PART 6 PART 7 PART 8

Self-weight Cranes Machinery
Wind Thermal Execution
Imposed

PART 4 Seismic Actions & Earthquake Resistance

PART 5 Geotechnical Basis of Design & Actions

77
 BoSD Roots for SANS 10160-5
EUROCODE SOUTH AFRICA
• ISO 2394 General • ISO/SANS 2394
principles on reliability – International harmonisation

• EN 1990 Basis of SD • SANS 10160-1

– General pfLSD – EN 1990 for BUILDINGS

• EN 1997-1 • SANS 10160-5

Geotechnical General – BoGD & Actions

78
 Outline of Part 1 – General
• Scope of application
– Defining structures: BUILDINGS & SIMILAR INDUSTRIAL
– Included & excluded actions
• Notably actions during FIRE not provided for (yet)  refer to materials
standards
– Associated standards – Materials-based design standards
• Requirements:
– General; Robustness; Reliability management;
– Design life; Durability; Quality management
• Principles of LSD: General specification of
– Limit states {ULS; SLS};
– Actions {classification; characteristic values};
– Material & product properties; Geometry;
– Geotechnical (refer to Part 5)
79
 Outline (Part 1) – Design Verification
• Combination values for actions
– Important deviation from Eurocode
• Maintain SABS 0160 Turkstra approach

• ULS design verification  Treatment of actions:

– Combination schemes & partial factors for
• {STR & STR-P; EQU; GEO; ACC}
– Strategies for accidental design situations
• {Robustness; Specified (e.g. seismic); Optional}

• SLS design verification  (1) Treatment of actions; (2)

Criteria:
– Combination schemes for
• {Irreversible; Reversible; Long-term & appearance}
– Serviceability criteria
• Criteria presented informatively in annex
• Normative clause requires justification for any deviation from
recommended criteria
80
 Outline (Part 1) – Utilities
• Design assisted by testing
 Achieving equivalent characteristic/design values
• Annexes (Informative):
– (A) Management of structural reliability
• Adjustment of procedures for reliability classes
• Provides basis for QM/QC for supervision & construction
– (B) Provision for localised failure  Robustness
• Strategies in terms of Consequence Classes
– (C) Serviceability criteria & (D) Deformation of buildings
• Adjusted in terms of extended SLS {Irreversible; Reversible; Long-term}
– (E) Design assisted by testing
• Guidelines for testing procedures & data analysis
81
 Reliability Framework
• Scope of application
– Outside which achievement of reliability needs to be
assessed
• Reference level of reliability
– Accepted level of safety for country
• Reliability differentiation
– Reliability classes for structures
• Design situations
– Given situations which are sufficiently representative of
severe conditions to which structure is expected to be
exposed during it design life
82
 Scope of Structures and Procedures
EUROCODE
Comprehensive scope dictated by
trade objectives
• Buildings and civil engineering
works
– e.g. bridges, towers
• Range of conditions across Europe
– e.g. snow, seismic
• All uses and situations
– e.g. accidental & fire
• Comprehensive actions
– e.g. traffic, cranes, silos
• All conventional structural
materials
– including geotechnical design!
SANS 10160
Maintain SABS 0160-1989
scope
• Buildings and similar
industrial structures
• Extend procedures  refer
to Eurocode
– Basis of design
– Geotechnical design,
– Thermal actions, Execution
Provide for the bulk of
standard practice
• Limit scope by
– excluding special structures
requiring specialist input
83
 Design Situations
• Limit states and design situations – differentiated
procedures for
– ULS: Time related – Persistent; Transient; Accidental
Situation related – Equilibrium; Geotechnical
– SLS: Situation related – Irreversible; Reversible:
– Long-term; Appearance

• Associated procedures for treatment of actions

– Action combination scheme  for design situations
– Partial factors (γ)
– Combination values (ψ)
84
 Extended Limit States Framework
• Persistent Normal use
Ultimate LS
• Transient Temporary conditions

• Accidental Exceptional conditions

– Seismic •Classified as accidental

• Fatigue Failure of material

• Irreversible Consequences remain

Serviceability LS
• Reversible Applies only with cause

• Long-term Develop over period of time

• Appearance

85
 Limit States & Design Situations
Limit State Design Situation

Ultimate LS Persistent Structural (STR)

Geotechnical (GEO)

Equilibrium (EQU)

Transient Execution

Accidental Unidentified – Robustness

Identified – specified (Seismic, Fire)
Optional-identified (Impact, Explosion)

Serviceability LS Irreversible

Reversible

Long-term & Appearance 86

 Reliability & Limit States
General Limit Design Specific Limit State or Reliability Specification β
State Situation Situation
Ultimate Persistent -Structural (STR) Reliability Class:
-Equilibrium (EQU) {RC1; RC2; RC3; RC4} {2,0; 3,0; 3,5; 4,0}
-Geotechnical (GEO)
Transient Adjusted for reduced reference period

Fatigue •Inspection •Treated as:

-Possible -SLS – Irreversible •{1,5}
-Not possible -As ULS •{3,0}
Accidental •General: Derived from Based on risk assessment •Selected values
-Function, occupation -Reliability implied by specification of
-Exposure accidental action Ad
-Event not expected during design life of
•Actions specified, e.g.
structure
-Imposed vehicle impact;
-Internal wind pressure
•Unidentified Robustness strategies
-Consequence Class -{CC1; CC2; CC3;CC4}
•Seismic design -No collapse limit
-{IC1; IC2; IC3; IC4}
-Damage limit
Serviceability Irreversible Effect only remedied by Increased reliability 1,5
maintenance
Reversible -Static
-Vibration Reduced reliability 0
Long-term Creep; Consolidation 87
 SANS 10160-1 Reliability Classes

Reliability Consequence of failure

class Life loss Consequences
Low: economic, social,
RC1 Low
environmental
Medium: economic, social
RC2 Medium
Considerable: environmental
Very great: economic, social,
RC3 High
environmental
Post-disaster function;
RC4
Beyond boundary
88
 Reliability Classes for Buildings
Class Consequence Examples t KF
Low loss of life, economic, Agricultural; infrequent
RC1 2,5 0,9
social; Small environmental occupancy ( storage)
Moderate loss of life,
Residential, public with
economic, social
RC2 moderate consequences 3,0 1,0
Considerable
(office buildings)
environmental
High loss of human life, Public with consequences
RC3 Very great economic, high (grandstands, concert 3,5 1,1
social, environmental halls)
Post-disaster function / Hospitals, communication
RC4 beyond the boundaries centres, fire and rescue 4,0 1,2
centres

89
 Consequences: SA & Eurocode
Class SANS 10160-1 EN 1990 Class
Low loss of life, economic, Low for loss of human life, and
RC1 social; economic, social or RC1
Small environmental environmental small or negligible
Moderate loss of life,
economic, social
RC2
Considerable Medium for loss of human life,
environmental economic, social or RC2
High loss of human life, Environmental considerable
RC3 Very great economic,
social, environmental
Post-disaster function / High for loss of human life, or
RC4 beyond the boundaries economic, social or RC3
Environmental very great
SANS 10100-5 should provide for both RC2 & RC3 (to EC7-1), but in a
differentiated manner (to SANS 10160-1) 90
 Reliability Differentiation
Accidental
Reliability
class
t Consequence
Seismic
class
Geotech
Category
Crane Class
class
CC1
RC1 2,5 low risk I 1 C1
group
Reference CC2
RC2 3,0 II 2 C2
class medium risk
CC3
RC3 3,5 III 3 C3
high risk
CC4
RC4 4,0 very high IV 4 C4
risk
91
Reliability & Related Classification
t
Accidental Seismic class Geotech
Consequence Class (Public safety) Category
Small structure; no
Single occupancy
RC1 2,5 Minor (agriculture) stability or
≤ 3 storeys
movement
Conventional
Residential, office etc;
RC2 3,0 Ordinary structure /
≤ 4 storeys
foundation
Important Ground / structure
Residential, office etc;
RC3 3,5 (schools; require
5 – 15 storeys
assembly) geotechnical input
Vital
Public in large # ; Large; unusual;
RC4 4,0 (hospital; fire;
stadia > 5 000 complex; risk;
power)

92
 Consequence Classes
(Local Failure – Robustness)
Consequence
Building type and occupancy
Class
CC1 Single occupancy residential buildings ≤ 3 storeys.
low risk group Agricultural buildings. Buildings which people rarely enter.

CC2 Buildings ≤ 4 storeys, residential, industrial, retail.

medium risk Educational buildings ≤ 2 storeys.
group Public buildings ≤ 2 storeys & ≤ 2000 m2 / storey.
Hotels, flats, apartments; retailing; educational ≤ 15 storeys.
CC3
Hospitals not exceeding 3 storeys.
high risk
Public buildings 2000 - 5000 m2 / storey.
group
Stadiums < 5000 spectators.
CC4 All CC2 & CC3 buildings where limits are exceeded.
very high risk Public buildings – Public in significant numbers.
group Stadiums > 5000 spectators.
93
 Geotechnical Categories
Buildings Procedures

1 Negligible risk in terms of overall stability “Deemed-to-satisfy” design

or significant ground movement procedures.
2 Conventional types of structures and
Quantitative design checks
foundations with no exceptional risks
as part of the structural
or loading conditions or difficult
design process.
ground conditions
3 Conventional types of structures and
Specialised geotechnical
foundations but for which the nature
design with use of
of the ground or design complexity
advanced methods.
requires specialist geotechnical input
4 Structures involving abnormal risks or in Specialised geotechnical
unusual, unstable or exceptionally design; advanced
difficult ground conditions methods; additional /
alternative rules.
94
 Design Supervision (SANS)
Design Minimum recommended requirements for
Supervision Characteristics checking of calculations, drawings and
Level specifications
Self-checking:
DSL1 Checking performed by the person who has
Basic supervision
relating to RC1 prepared the design
Procedural separate checking:
DSL2 Checking by different persons than those
Normal supervision originally responsible and in accordance with
relating to RC2
the procedure of the organisation
Third party checking:
DSL3
Extended supervision Checking performed by an organisation different
relating to RC3 from that which has prepared the design
Regulated third party checking:
DSL4 Regulated Checking performed to satisfy requirements of
relating to RC4 supervision regulatory or supervisory authority

95
 Inspection Levels (SANS)
Minimum recommended
Inspection Level Characteristics requirements for inspection
levels during execution
IL1
Basic inspection Self inspection
relating to RC1

IL2 Inspection in accordance with the

Normal inspection
relating to RC2 procedures of the organisation

IL3
Extended inspection Third party inspection
relating to RC3

Regulated third party inspection:

IL4 Inspection performed to satisfy
Regulated inspection
relating to RC4 requirements of regulatory or
supervisory authority

96
 Characteristic Values
Basic Variable General Specification Comments
ACTIONS
Permanent Nominal dimensions and mean unit Expected (average) value
masses
- large variability - not specified Principle not applied for
limited scope of structures
Variable Probability of 0,02 per annum Expected (average, mean)
maximum value, 50 years
- combination - arbitrary-point-in-time value Expected value at any time,
(ψQk) based on Turkstra rule
Accidental Specified for individual situations, Not expected during design
projects life
Fatigue According to materials standards Generally average fatigue
actions
Geotechnical According to EN 1997-1 Cautious estimate of expected
Geotechnical design – General values
97
 Characteristic Values (II)
Basic
General Specification Comments
Variable

MATERIAL & PRODUCT PROPERTIES, GEOMETRICAL DATA

Material (Xk) Prescribed probability, generally

Product (Rk) 5/95% fractile
Geotechnical According to EN 1997-1 Cautious estimate of
Geotechnical design – General expected/fractile
values
Geometry (ak) Specified dimensions on drawings Average (nominal) value
- imperfection According to materials standards Not treated in geometry
terms
98
 ULS Design Verification
• Differentiated ultimate limit state situations:
– Structural (STR): Internal failure (strength; deformation);
• STR-P – domination of permanent action
– Equilibrium (EQU): Rigid body
– Geotechnical (GEO): Strength of ground significant
• Provide for combination of STR & GEO
– Accidental (ACC): Unlikely occurrence/action during working life
• Damage accepted, but consequences to be considered
– Seismic (SEIS): Actions to verify earthquake resistance
• Action combination scheme:
– Different combination schemes apply to
• {STR&P; GEO; ACC/SEIS}
– Differentiation also derives from different partial factors γ

99
 Action Combination Scheme
Fundamental Combination:

j 1
G, j Gk , j " "  Q ,1Qk ,1 " " 
i 1
 i Qk ,i
Q ,i " " Ad

   
Permanent LeadingVariable CombinedVariable Accidental

• Applied to specific ULS by

– Appropriate partial factor γ for characteristic variables
• Permanent action Gk
• Variable action Qk
• “+” Combined load effects
• Accidental action Ad specified at design value
• Determining probability level
100
 Action Combination Scheme

• STR Verify structural resistance (Persistent;

Transient)
  G , j  Gk , j " " P " "  Q,1  Qk ,1 " "   Q,i  i  Qk ,i
j 1 i 1

• STR-P Situations where Permanent action

dominates

j 1
G, j  Gk , j "  " P "  "  Q,1  Qk ,1

101
 Action Combination Scheme
• STR Partial factors {1,2; 1,6}  Same as SABS 0160 scheme

1,2  G
j 1
k,j "  " 1,6(1,3)  Qk ,1 "  " 1,6 
i 1
i  Qk ,i

• STR-P {1,35; 1,0}  Modification of SABS 0160 {1,5; 0}

1,35  G
j 1
k,j "  " 1,0  Qk ,1

– Only one (“leading”) variable action

– Transition STR & STR-P @ [Gk = 4Qk]
– SABS 0160 @ [Gk = 5,3Qk]

• EN 1990
– Similar to: E-6.10(a)&(b) ~ {1,15; 1,5} & {1,35; 1,05}
– E-6.10 {1,35; 1,5}  Unacceptable
102
 Partial Action Factors
STR STR-P
Un-F F Un-F F
PERMANENT ACTIONS
Self-weight 1,2 0,9 1,35 -
Fluids (physical control of maximum level) 1,2 0 1,35 0
Imposed deformations due to pre-stressing 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
Other imposed permanent deformations
1,2 - 1,2 -
(e.g. settlement)
VARIABLE ACTIONS
Imposed loads: floors and roofs, balustrades 1,6 0 1,0 0
Wind action 1,3/1,5 0 1,0 0
Imposed variable deformation (e.g. temperature) 1,6 1,0 0
Overhead travelling cranes, machinery 1,6 0 1,0 0
Loads from fluids that vary with time. 1,6 0 1,0 0
Other variable loads not listed 1,6 0 1,0 0
103
 Combination Factors
Specific use ψ
Domestic and residential areas;
Public areas; Shopping areas.
0,3
Light industrial use 0,5
Industrial use 0,6
Storage areas 0,8
Traffic and parking areas for vehicles ≤ 25 kN 0,8
Traffic and parking areas for vehicles 25 – 160 kN 0,3
Fork lifts 0,6
Wind – Accompanying/SLS-Reversible 0/0,3
104
 Accidental (ACC) & Seismic (SEIS)
• General considerations
– Exceptional situation – not expected during life
– Accept damage, but not out of proportion with cause
• Design value of Accidental (Ad) & Seismic (AEd)
actions:
– Directly specified by taking CONSEQUENCES into account
• Risk = f {reliability; consequences}
– Permanent action @ characteristic value
– Variable action @ point-in-time value
– Resistance unfactored (characteristic i.e. somewhat
conservative),
• Provided sufficient ductility can be maintained

105
 Accidental Combination
• General expression (see Table for partial factors)


j 1
G, j  Gk, j " " Ad " " 
i 1
Q, i  i  Qk, i

• Practical expression

G
j 1
k, j " " Ad " " 
i 1
i  Qk, i

• Consider three situations:

• Unidentified accidental actions/Robustness – notional actions
• Specified accidental actions  as specified in Parts (seismic)
• Project-based specification  based on Risk Assessment
106
 Serviceability LS
• Design verification for serviceability is expressed in
terms of the action effects Ed and serviceability
criterion Cd :
Ed  Cd

– Therefore provision is made for

1. Action combination schemes
2. Acceptance criteria
– For the SLS
• {Irreversible; Reversible/Long-term/Appearance}

107
 SLS Combination Scheme

• IRREVERSIBLE High reliability (similar to SABS

0160)
1,1Gk , j " " 1,0(wind0,6)Qk ,1 " "  i  Qk ,i
j 1 i 1

• All other SLS Reversible; Long-term; Appearance

1,1G
j 1
k,j " " 
i 1
i  Qk ,i

108
 Criteria – Irreversible SLS
Deformation Effect Criterion
Damage at supports Span/300-
Span/500 to
Medial deflection of Partition damage Span/300
floors Partition isolated from floor
10 mm
(for span/height <3,5)
10 to 15 mm
Damage at supports Span/300
Medial deflection of
Partition damage – isolated
roofs or roof 10 – 15 mm
(for span/height<3,5)
members
Roof covering damage Span/250 – Span/125
Terminal deflection of Damage at supports Span/100
non-cantilever
horizontal members Partition damage Span/500

Terminal deflection of Damage at supports Storey height/100

vertical members Partition damage Storey height/500
109
 Reversible etc. SLS
Deformation Effect Criterion
Visible length/250
Appearance
Medial deviation of floors or 30 mm
Use (curvature) Span/300
Medial deviation of roofs or Visible length/250
Appearance
roof members or 30 mm
Terminal deviation of non-
cantilever horizontal Use (slope) Span/100
members
Terminal deviation of vertical
Appearance Storey height/250
members
Horizontal terminal deflection
Building height/500
of high-rise buildings
110
 Reliability Levels of Application
– A. Standard buildings – similar to SABS 0160,
• but with updated provisions for actions
– B. Improved standard procedures from SANS 10160
•  apply additional procedures introduced from Eurocode to SANS
10160, such as differentiated design situations
– C. Reliability-based enhancement of SANS 10160
procedures
 apply general reliability framework by adjusting the procedures for
the specific structure in accordance with the principles of reliability
– D. Specialist design
 apply Eurocode advanced procedures which are beyond the scope of
SANS 10160
– E. Specialist structures, such as geotechnical design
111
 B. Improved Performance
Apply additional Reliability Elements
• Accidental Design Situation – formalised treatment
– Seismic actions & earthquake resistance
• for standard situations  layout limits
• good practice  ductile behaviour
– Robustness requirements – consider integral structure
• Provision for unidentified actions
• Gross human error  related to quality management procedures
• Transient Design Situation  provide proper &
systematic provision for Execution (construction+)
• Thermal actions – now treated systematically

112
 C. Reliability-based Enhancement
The level of structural performance can be raised by:
• Modifying standardised normative reliability framework
– To reflect specific properties of specific structure/class of structures
– To derive specific design parameters which complies with reliability levels

• Using the principles of structural reliability from the informative procedures

allowed in SANS 10160 (& Eurocode)

• Following generic process used in compiling standard procedures

– Consult the Commentaries and Background Documentation

Such elaborate process may generally not be justified for a single structure
– May be the only way in which Reliability Classes 3 & 4 structures can be treated
– Can also be devised for a class of structure in which the design office specialises

113
 C. Advanced: Generic Process
The generic process should consist of the following steps,
Which should include proper justification, substantiation :
• Reliability levels: Adjusting reference and differentiated reliability levels
as based on the application of Risk Assessment procedures

• Design parameters: Subsequent adjustment of

– Specified characteristic values of basic (design) variables; and even
– Partial factors, where this can be justified

• Reliability framework: The use of the elaborate set of design situations

(not as stand-alone procedures, but) as
– An integral and systematic process for assessing the structure at various levels
and under various conditions

• Quality Management: Identify the critical aspects for structural

performance to
– Establish directives for an effective Quality Management program

114
 Quality Management
• QM ( Reliability): Strictly outside scope of design:
– Structural performance is closely related to limiting
• Gross & human error:
– Therefore proper QM measures are most effective in improving
performance

• Reliability ( QM): Effective QM requires identification of critical

factors
– Use reliability principles for that purpose

• QM Elements: In accordance with Reliability Class of the

structure (see SANS 10160-1 Annex A Reliability management)
– Design  increasing independence of checking/supervision
• {self; separate; 3rd party; regulated}
– Inspection  increasing independence of inspection/testing
• {self; procedural; 3rd party; regulated 3rd party}
115
Conclusions on SANS 10160 Part 1
• Principles of RELIABILITY provide a framework for
rational design procedures for Civil Engineering
Facilities (Structures; Geotechnical) across a wide
range of conditions
• SANS 10160:2010 Part 1 & Part 5 provide the basis
for consistent treatment
• Knowledge of reliability principles provides for
effective use of standardised procedures
• There is wide scope for further advancement of
reliability based design procedures
• This approach should also enhance consistency
between structural & geotechnical design
116
 5. Standardized Reliability

• Standards generating organizations

• Central role of ISO 2394

• Implementation by Eurocode

• Other related standards – ASCE-7, CSA S408, AIJ-R

• Harmonized semi-probabilistic basis of design

(ISO 22111)
117
 Reliability Standards Generating
Organizations
• JCSS – Joint Committee on Structural Safety
– CIB, ECCS, fib, IABSE, RILEM, IASS

• ISO TC98 Bases for Design of Structures

– Secretariat: Polish Committee for Standardization
»
• CEN / TC250 Structural Eurocodes:
– SC10 - EN 1990 & SC1 – EN 1991
»
• ASCE/SEI:
– ASCE/SEI 7 Minimum Design Loads For Buildings and Other Structures

• NSO: Various national standards organizations implementing

Reliability-Based approaches:
– CSA, AIJ, AS/NZS, SABS

118
 Sample of Standards related to BoSD

STANDARD STATUS COMMENTS

JCSS-PMC Model Code (1) BoSD; (2) Actions; (3) Resistance

JCSS-RAE Model Doc. Risk State-of-the-art / Best practice

ISO 2394 International Std. Principles of structural reliability

CSA S408 National Std. Guidelines for reliability-based LS-design

ISO 22111 International Std. Reference for adoption

EN 1990 Union Std. Head Standard for comprehensive set

ASCE-7 Union Std. Common standard for actions

SANS 10160-1 National Std. Head Standard – limited scope

119
 Classification of Standards Relevant
to BoSD
SEMI-PROBABILISTIC
STANDARD
ORGANIZATION
RISK RELIABILITY COMMENTS
General Operational

Pre-normative /
JCSS RAE PM-Code
Model

ISO ISO 13824 ISO 2394 ISO 22111 Reference

EUROCODE [Annex C] EN 1990 Head BoSD / General

ASCE ASCE-7 Implicit reliability

CSA CSA S408 Standard Guideline

AIJ Recommend. Standard Guideline

AUS/NZ AS/NZ 1170 Implicit Reliability

120
 ISO 2394 – Central Role
ISO 2394 General Principles on Reliability for Structures
• Leading international standard: Norm for concepts of structural reliability
• Four Editions since 1973: Evolution of these concepts
Safety Levels from
– 1973: Semi-probabilistic verification: R* ≥ S* Cost Optimization
• Expressed in terms of partial factor & characteristic value {γm; Xk}

– 1986: Elaboration: Design situations;

• Basic variables {actions; material properties; geometry};
• Format for {action combinations; resistance};
• Integrity – local failure {extreme conditions; human error}  quality control

– 1998: Upgraded & extended Closely related to

• Differentiated cause, mode & consequences of failure Eurocode & EN 1990
• Definitions include reliability f {probability}
• Guiding annexes on implementation

– 2015: Completely revised – Based fundamentally on risk principles

• Reliability levels based on risk optimization (in lieu of heuristic experience-based reliability)
• Hierarchy of decision / design approaches: Risk; Reliability; Semi-probabilistic
• Extensive set of guiding annexes
Mature Reliability principles
121
Implementation of Risk basis
 Risk-Based Metric for Semi-
Probabilistic Design
• Symbolic expressions for Risk (Ri) (Expected Outcome)
– Function of Probability of failure (PF) and
– Consequences (Co) for
– Selected scenarios (Sc)

Ri   PF  Co{Sc}
Reliability Framework
PF  P{g ( X i )  0}  (  )
(Reliability Management)
Design verification • Consequences (Co)
(Quantitative) – {Consequence Classes}
• Based on function g(Xi) • Scenarios (Sc)
– {Design Situations}122
 International Harmonization
ISO 22111 Bases of Structural Design – General Requirements
• Objectives: Convert reliability principles to operational design, using
 Semi-probabilistic partial factors LS-D
– Provide common basis for operational design
– Serve as reference for standards importing countries

• Principles: Implementation of ISO 2394 Reliability Principles

– Uncertainties & knowledge sufficient to ensure  achieving reliability
performance
– Including (i) Consequences of failure (ii) Failure modes as f {all basic variables}

• Harmonization: Based on consensus of leading standards

– Main references:
• EN 1990  Explicit BoSD (Annex C – Reliability concepts & procedures)
• ASCE-7  Direct Implementation (progressive conversion )
– Implementation guidance: Canada – CSA S408; Japan AIJ-Recommendations
– Application: Australia/New Zeeland AS/NZS 1170.1

123
 ISO 2394:2015 Annex D
Reliability of Geotechnical Structures
ISO 2394 Provision for Geotechnical Structures
• Clause 6 Uncertainty Representation &
Modelling
– Predominantly soil properties & modelling
• Annex D:
– Sources & representation
– Multivariate data
– Model factor characterization
– Implementation
Further elaboration in Annex D (in press)
 Enhance consistency between geotechnical &
structural practice
• Reliability basis for geotechnical design
• Reliability principles of ISO 2394
• Uncertainty representation
• Multivariate data characterization
• Model uncertainty
• Semi-probabilistic geotechnical design
• Direct probabilistic based geotechnical design
124
 6. Complementary Topics

• Target reliability

• Structural systems performance

• Structural failure & Quality Management

• Systematic assessment of Basis of Design

125
 6.1 Target Reliability
• Reliability expressed i.t.o. PF expressed as Target
Reliability 𝜷𝑻 = 𝚽 −𝟏 (𝑷𝑭 )
– EXAMPLE: PF = 10-3  𝛽𝑇 = 3,0; PF = 10-4  𝛽𝑇 = 3,8
– Reference performance level

• Basis for determining 𝜷𝑻

1. Obtained from back-calibration to acceptable
practice – basis for SABS 0160:1989 : 𝛽𝑇 = 3,0
2. Risk optimisation – JCSS-PMC
3. Life safety – marginal life safety cost – JCSS-RAE
• Life Quality Index (LQI)

126
 Reference Reliability
• Level of structural performance is set by
– The selection of a reference target reliability (βt) Deterministic Probabilistic Methods
• For selected conditions
– Class of buildings, practice (quality control), etc – Methods
Standard
– Ductile failure (important motivation for LS-D)
– On which procedures are based (see below again)
• Judgement based procedures
• Reliability based calibration

• Mechanisms for complying to reliability

requirements Selected Input
– Partial factors:
• Material factors {γs; γc; others}
• Model factors (in principle) Judgement
– Characteristic “bias” Based
• Basic variables (mainly material strength
properties)
• Resistance model (if mean True/Predicted
resistance > 1,0)
– Quality measures
• Achieving the specified characteristic values

127
 Target Reliability for South Africa
• South Africa / Buildings  βt = 3,0
– From SANS 10160-1
• Maintained from SABS 0160:1989
– Based on extensive calibration by Milford
– Consistent with practice in USA; Canada (amongst others)
– Allowable by Eurocode (although deviating from default)
– Defendable from ISO 2394 & JCSS PMC

• Interpretation:
 See comparison:

128
 JCSS Target Reliability 𝜷𝑻 /𝐏𝐅 (y-1)
Coarse Classification COST : Total (incl. failure) / Constr.
(typical logarithmic MINOR : 2 (agricultural, silos, masts)
scale of risk MODERATE : 2 – 5 (office, apartment)
classification) LARGE : 5 – 10 (high-rise, hospital)
> 10 : Risk-based cost/benefit (abort?)

Relative Cost Consequences of Failure

of Safety
Measure MINOR MODERATE LARGE
LARGE 3,1 / 10-3 3,3 / 5x10-4 3,7 / 10-4
NORMAL 3,7 / 10-4 4,2 / 10-4 4,4 / 5x10-6
SMALL 4,2 / 10-5 4,4 / 5x10-6 4,7 / 10-6 129
 Reference Level of Reliability - ISO 2394

Relative cost ISO 2394 Minimum values for 

of safety Consequences of failure
measures Small Some Moderate Great
High 0 1,5 (A) 2,3 3,1 (B)
Moderate 1,3 2,3 3,1 3,8 (C)
Low 2,3 3,1 3,8 4,3
A for serviceability limit states  = 0 for reversible
and  = 1,5 for irreversible states
B for fatigue limit states  = 2,3 to 3,1 depending on
Elementary principles
the possibility
Elementary principles of inspection of RISK
C of RISK
for ultimate limit states: Safety classes
 = 3,1; 3,8 and 4,3 130
 Eurocode, ISO & JCSS βt
EN 1990
Reliability Class
Ultimate LS Fatigue Serviceability LS
RC1 3,3
RC2 3,8 1,5 – 3,8 1,5
RC3 4,3
ISO 2394:1998/2015
Relative cost of
Consequences of failure
safety measures
Small Some Moderate Great
High 0 1,5 2,3 3,1
Moderate 1,3 2,3 3,1 3,8
Low 2,3 3,1 3,8 4,3
JCSS PMC
Relative cost of Consequences of failure
safety measures
Minor Moderate Large
Large 1,7 2,0 2,6
Normal 2,6 3,2 3,5
Small 3,2 3,5 3,8 131
 Differentiated Target Beta
PERFORMANCE CLASS  SOURCE
Ductile, gradual modes of failure 3,0
(Reference) Milford (1998)
Brittle, sudden modes of failure 4,0 SABS 0160-1989
Connection details between components 4,5
Safety class (SC)  Reference Class 3,1
SC – Consequences Great or Cost 3,8
ISO 2349
Moderate
EN 1990
SC – Consequences Great and Cost 4,3
Moderate
Fatigue – Inspection possible 2,3/1,5 ISO 2349 (EN 1990 – 1,5)
Fatigue – Inspection not possible 3,1 ISO 2349 (EN 1990 – 3,8)
Serviceability - Irreversible 1,5 ISO 2349, EN 1990
Serviceability - Reversible 0 ISO 2349
132
 Risk-Based Optimisation of 𝜷𝑻
• Safety expressed i.t.o. annual exceedance 𝛽𝑇

• Design: Capital investment discounted over design

life PF,50y = 1-(1-PF,1y)50 ≈ 50xPF,1y
• Assumption: Process is (totally) TIME VARIANT

• Cost optimisation:
– 𝛽𝑇 {safety; failure} │ (uncertainties)

• Representative parametric values given by JCSS-

Probabilistic Model Code (PMC)
133
 Optimised Cost & LQI
Relative Cost Consequences of Failure
of Safety
Measure MINOR MODERATE LARGE
LARGE 3,1 3,3 3,7
NORMAL 3,7 4,2 4,4
SMALL 4,2 4,4 4,7

Relative Life LQI Target

Saving Cost Reliability
LARGE 3,1
Lining up with
MEDIUM 3,7
“MINOR Consequences”
SMALL 4,2
134
 JCSS Target Reliability 𝜷𝑻 (50y)-1
Relative Cost Consequences of Failure
of Safety
Measure MINOR MODERATE LARGE
LARGE 1,7 2,0 2,6
NORMAL 2,6 3,2 3,5
SMALL 3,2 3,3 3,8

SABS 0160 / SANS

10160
NOTE: 2 Eurocode
(approximately)
Increments (default)
135
 Critical Assessment of 𝜷𝑻
• Uncertainties in selection of target level value
– Rational basis: approximate; coarse; judgement
– Intention: lower/3,0  limit; higher/3,8  mean
– Time variant effects: {Dominant; Proxy}

• Reference value serve as anchor point for

reliability framework:
– Reliability classes; design situations; consequence
classes; related/parallel classifications (seismic;
geotechnical; quality management)
136
 Operational Target Reliability
PERFORMANCE CLASS  SOURCE
Ductile, gradual modes of failure (Reference) 3,0
Milford (1988; 1998)
Brittle, sudden modes of failure 4,0
SABS 0160-1989
Connection details between components 4,5

Safety class (SC)  Reference Class 3,1

ISO 2349
SC – Consequences Great or Cost Moderate 3,8
EN 1990
SC – Consequences Great and Cost Moderate 4,3

Fatigue – Inspection possible 2,3/1,5 ISO 2349 (EN 1990 – 1,5)

Fatigue – Inspection not possible 3,1 ISO 2349 (EN 1990 – 3,8)

Serviceability - Irreversible 1,5 ISO 2349, EN 1990

Serviceability - Reversible 0 ISO 2349

137
 Limit State / Design Situation 𝜷𝑻
Hierarchy
LIMIT STATE DESIGN SITUATION EXAMPLE & COMMENT 𝜷𝑻
Serviceability Long-term; Creep; consolidation 0
appearance
Reversible Dependent on period 0 – 1,5
Irreversible Requiring repair 1,5 – 2
Ultimate Transient Adjusted Q; Consequences 3,0*
Persistent Reference case: 50y; ductile 3,0
Standard structure Brittle – sudden failure 4,0
Increasing (RC-2) & failure
consequences Connections – low cost 4,5
Severity
Accidental Risk < Persistent situation > 3,0
- Seismic PF /10; limited failure
- Fire Rational / prescriptive
- Extreme Q e.g. Wind
- Project specific e.g. Impact Risk optimum
138
Robustness Sensitivity of structure
 Critical Assessment of 𝜷𝑻 (2)
• Serving as common basis for all elements of
structural design
– Actions & effects; structural analysis
– Materials based resistance: inter-comparison;
composite; geotechnical/foundations

• Consideration of harmonisation:
– Adjust standard procedures to local conditions
(Eurocode NDP’s)

• Element based design versus system performance

– Parallel & series; combinations; effects of correlation;
139
 6.2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
(versus Element Failure)
• Design verification based on element reliability 𝜷𝑻,𝑬𝒍
– System reliability 𝜷𝑻,𝑺𝒚𝒔 is the most serious consequence of
structural failure

• Structural system – multiple failures

– Number of components – all elements of structure
– Several failure modes for a single element

• Theoretical basis of relationship between element & system:

– System arrangement of element/failure mode:
• Series: system failure if one or more elements fail
• Parallel: system failure if ALL components fail
• Combinations: subsystems of series & parallel arrangement
– Correlation – failures could be related, NOT independent
140
 Systems Concept of Structure
• Single load path for each sub-action
– Series system of elements
• Set of load paths for set of sub-actions
– Parallel system of load paths

• Elements further along load path sharing multiple

(subsets) of sub-actions
– Mixed processes, various degrees of correlation

• Structural behaviour & combined load effects

– Structural analysis model  captures system behaviour
– Sway control; transfer local effect to balance of structure
141
 Structural System – Correlation
• Correlation – degree {0  1}; also negative; number of
elements
– NOTE: FailureElement{action; resistance}
 Level of correlation much higher than it might appear
• Actions (per load case) – highly correlated
• Resistance – varying, depending on degree of commonality of sources
of variability/uncertainty: systematic effects, such as
– poor common workmanship (welding; steel fixing, concreting)
– misunderstanding structural behaviour / boundary conditions in modelling

• Uncorrelated :
– Series – cumulative failure PF = PFi ;
– Parallel – cumulative reliability PF = 1 - (1−PFi)

• Correlated, series & parallel: PF = PFmax

142
General Remarks on System Effects
• Element design verification is but a PROXY to structural
behaviour & reliability

• Series view of all failure modes (lower bound)

– System reliability significantly (unacceptably) lower
[𝛽𝑇,𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 << 𝛽𝑇,𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 ]

• Defence against such reliability performance (obviously

not realistic for typical structures)
– Degree of correlation between series failure modes –
antidote to cumulative degradation
– Effective parallel behaviour of load paths, demonstrated
even through linear elastic model – redundancy
– Utilisation of reserve capacity – ductility
143
General Remarks on System Effects (2)
• Such defence is not explicitly part of (proxy)
verification, but:
– Based on “good practice” measures to ensure
ductility, conservatism for non-ductile failure
(presumed)
– Experience based acceptance of typical structural
system behaviour

 DOES THE STRUCTURE UNDER CONSIDERATION

COMPLY TO SCOPE OF EXPERIENCE BASE?
– Scope / experience base is of VITAL IMPORTANCE
144
 Non-Linear Behaviour
Main types of non-linear behaviour
• Material: Ductility  Brittle failure
• Geometry: Stability – element to (sub)structure

Impact on structural reliability behaviour

• Load effects: Match between analysis & failure modes
• Local failure: Reserve capacity; warning of imminent
failure; effective boundary conditions
• Load paths: Redundancy effectiveness; sway behaviour
of (sub)structures; critical elements
• Robustness: Local failure effects on rest of structure
145
 Ductility
Classes of ductile behaviour (idealised) of section (translation; rotation)
• Increasing capacity beyond elastic limit
• Elastic-plastic
• Decreasing reserve capacity
• Brittle (no reserve at limit)
– E.g. steel section classes

• JCSS-PMC: Ductile  Intermediate  Brittle

P P P

Δ Δ Δ
Ductile Brittle Intermediate 146
 Ductility – Reliability Treatment
Element based design
– Not captured by generic partial material factors
– In principle to be captured by Model Partial Factor, which is not
(yet) done systematically in materials standards
• Indirectly done: Detailing (concrete; connections); section classification
(steel)
– Basis-of-design guidance – only given at general level

System design – see discussion on element/system

interrelationship
– Structural analysis  level of approximation, linear elastic etc.

Experience based performance levels, based on ELEMENT

DESIGN

ONLY APPLIES TO SCOPE OF STRUCTURES SERVING AS

REFERENCE 147
 6.3 STRUCTURAL DAMAGE/FAILURE
Matousek/Schneider:
• Structural damage – during execution
– Future use of structure not relevant

• Majority of damage ($) (90%); fatalities (#) (80%)

– Structural systems {70%($); 50%(#)},
• Temporary structures (scaffolding, etc.),
• Excavations, site installations

• If human error  Planning & design, Execution

– If P&D
 Structural analysis (40+%), Concept (18%)

148
Nature of Structural Damage/Failure (2)
Matousek/Schneider:
• Actual causes –
– Ignorance, carelessness, negligence (37%)
– Insufficient knowledge (27%)
– Underestimating influences (14%);
– Forgetfulness, errors, mistakes (10%); unjustifiably trusting
others (6%)
– Objectively unknown influences (6%)

• Errors COULD HAVE BEEN DETECTED

– 32%  careful review by next person in process
– 55%  additional checks with right strategies

• Errors the could NOT have been detected in advance – 13%

149
 Hazard Recognition;
Treatment; Acceptance

1. Hazard recognition
– Objectively known/unknown
– Subjectively recognised/not
– Taken into account/ignored

2. Applying measures
– Suitable/unsuitable
– Correctly applied/incorrectly

3. Residual risk
– Consciously accepted 10% – 15%
– Human error (unknown; not recognised; ignored; etc.) 90% – 85%

150
 Hazard Recognition; Treatment;
Acceptance – COUNTER MEASURES
(Schneider)
1. Hazard recognition
– Objectively known/unknown – RESEARCH, INVESTIGATION, EXPERIENCE
– Subjectively recognised/not – BASIC EDUCATION
– Taken into account/ignored – RESPONSIBILITY ALLOCATION

2. Applying measures
– Suitable/unsuitable – EXPERT KNOWLEDGE IMPROVEMENT
– Correctly applied/incorrectly – CONTROL MEASURES

3. Residual risk
– Consciously accepted 10% – 15%
– Human error (unknown; not recognised; ignored; etc.) 90% – 85%
•  QUALITY MANAGEMENT / ASSURANCE

151
 Quality Management & Assurance
• QM/QA is formally treated in Basis-of-Design
– Management:
• Identification of reliability aspects as f{quality}
– Assurance:
• Specific actions – Quality plan, documentation
– Control:
• Collection of information to prove compliance to criteria

• Clear relationship between QM/QA & Reliability

– Elaborated in  EN 1990; ISO 2394
152
 Quality Management & Assurance (2)
• Guidelines given in Annex A Management of
Structural Reliability (Informative)
– During various project phases
• Design supervision; Inspection during execution
• Differentiated in terms of Reliability Class: DSL-X/IL-X  RC-X
• Increasing stringency with RC

– Expressed in terms of degree of checking independence

• {Basic  Self};
• {Normal  Procedural};
• {Extended  3rd Party};
• {Regulated  Supervisory authority}
153
 Reliability & Quality Management
Design Verification  Conventional application of Standard
• Actions & Effects – adjustment of reliability procedures
• Resistance – adjustment and/or quality control
Quality Management  Increasing levels of application
1. As integral part of reliability management (e.g. attaining
characteristic values for basic variables)
2. Ensuring compliance with general requirements (e.g. levels
of competence) and assumptions on which standardised
procedures are based
3. Active management as part of optimisation (for given RC)
and/or reliability differentiation {Reliability classes;
Consequence classes; etc.}
4. Management of gross/human error as controlling
mechanism for structural reliability
154
 Reliability/Quality Interrelationship
Dependence of Reliability on Quality
• Standardised design procedures are fully
dependent on maintaining a certain quality level
Inverse relationship – deriving QM program from
reliability characteristics of structure
• Identify critical aspects for which QM program
should produce compliance verification
Experience base – QM records provide information
on which reliability procedures could be based

155
 6.4 GUIDANCE on APPLICATION
• Principles of reliability are deeply imbedded in BoSD
– Only appearing to be nominally treated explicitly (*)
– Mostly masked as judgement-based stipulation

• Thorough understanding of reliability however is

as important as structural mechanics procedures
– Except for routine design & extensive experience base

• Treatment of reliability (*)

– Highly simplified and approximate
– Yet vastly superior to experience-based judgement
156
 Systematic Assessment

The basis-of-design requirements and procedures should

be systematically reviewed in terms of:

• Client commission/brief; regulatory obligations

• Structural function, concept; material selection; etc.
• Non-standardised design processes (e.g. analysis)
• Standardised non-quantitative decisions (requirements)
• Quantitative design verification: {Actions; Resistance}

 As stipulated in Part 1
157
 Assessment per Clause
Part 1 TOPIC DISCUSSION
1 SCOPE 1. Does the project fully / sufficiently comply with
the scope to benefit from its experience base?
2. If not, where does it deviate; what measures?
4 REQUIREMENTS Design base only valid under strict conditions:
1. Competence of designer/team – judgement basis
2. Related construction experience – unknown at
design, but need to be ensured
3. Use and maintenance by owner
4.4 INTEGRITY & Additional performance level explicitly treated
ROBUSTNESS 1. Consequences of failure of particular importance
2. Higher reliability classes and/or non-standard
4.5 RELIABILITY Requirement where all aspects influencing
MANAGEMENT performance are integrated:
1. Compliance conditional on requirements; RC2
2. Adjustment required for any deviation
158
 Assessment per Clause (2)
Part 1 TOPIC DISCUSSION
4.8 QUALITY Not part of design procedure, but vital to structural
MANAGEMENT performance. Consider Q-aspects of Reliability:
1. QM provides verification of compliance with
requirements
2. QA provides planning for required actions
3. QC collection of information
5 PRINCIPLES LS-D Identification of design situations sufficiently severe &
varied for foreseen conditions to be provided for:
1. LS & design situations represent range of
performance levels
2. Set of cases defined for standard RC2
3. For {Actions(combinations); Resistance(fm)}
7; 8 ULS; SLS Design verification procedures for each design situation

159
 Reliability Management
• Differential reliability classes based on assumed
failure consequences (Risk principle)
– Generic consequences; illustrated by example
buildings

• Design measures
– Actions :  Adjust partial factors x KF
• Maintain QM levels
– Resistance:  Adjust QM levels
• In agreement with sound engineering practice

160
 Extended Design for Higher RC’s
Accidental Seismic class Geotechnical
RC t QA
consequence class (public safety) category

Small structure; no
Single occupancy Minor
RC1 2,5 Basic stability or
≤ 3 storeys (agriculture)
movement
Residential, office Conventional
RC2 3,0 Normal etc. Ordinary structure /
≤ 4 storeys foundation
Residential, office Important Ground / structure
RC3 3,5 Extended etc. (schools; require geotechnical
5 – 15 storeys assembly) input
Public in large Vital Large; unusual;
RC4 4,0 Regulated numbers (hospital; fire; complex; abnormal
Stadia > 5 000 power) risk
161
 Categorisation of
CONSEQUENCE CLASSES
CC BUILDING TYPE & OCCUPANCY
CC1 a) Single occupancy residential buildings not exceeding 3 storeys
b) Agricultural buildings
c) Buildings which people rarely enter, < 1,5 times height of building with people
CC2 a) Buildings < 5 storeys: residential occupancies, apartments, hotels, offices
b) Industrial buildings not exceeding 3 storeys
c) Retailing premises not exceeding 3 storeys < 1000 m2 floor area in each storey
d) Educational buildings not exceeding 2 storeys
e) Public buildings not exceeding 2 storeys not exceeding 2000 m2 in each storey
CC3 a) Hotels, flats, apartments, residential buildings, office buildings, 4 - 15 storeys
b) Retailing premises with more 4 – 15 storeys
c) Educational buildings exceeding 3 – 15 storeys
d) Hospitals not exceeding 3 storeys
e) Public buildings with floor areas 2000 m2 - 5000 m2 in each storey
f)Stadiums accommodating less than 5000 spectators
CC4 a) All CC2 and CC3 buildings exceeding limits on area, or number of storeys or both
b) All buildings to which members of the public are admitted in significant numbers
c) Stadiums accommodating more than 5000 spectators 162
 Resistance: Examples
Examples of the reliability
treatment of resistance:

• SANS 10160-5:2011
Basis for Geotechnical
Design and Actions

• SANS 51992-1-1 (Draft)

Design of Concrete
Structures: General Rules
and Rules for Buildings
(Adopted EN 1992-1-1)
163
 Geotechnical Design
Part 5 TOPIC DISCUSSION
1 SCOPE General scope: Buildings & similar industrial structures
1. Stipulated list of geotechnical actions
2. Exclusion of generally free standing geotechnical structures
5, 6 CLASSIFICATION Classify in terms of permanent or variable:
OF ACTIONS ; 1. Vertical earth loading; Earth pressure; Ground water; Ground
DATA movement
2. Geotechnical & geometrical data; Parameters; Design values
7 DESIGN 1. ULS: Assign EC-7 Design Approach 1 (from 3 options!)
VERIFICATION 2. SLS: Simplified procedure - mobilising low fraction of
strength; conditional on sufficient EXPERIENCE
A GEO CATEGORIES Categories (4) serve to define minimum levels for :
1. Investigations; Design; Construction control; Monitoring
2. Each activity stipulated in more detail
B PARTIAL 1. Material properties
FACTORS 2. Pile and anchor resistance factors
164
 7. FINAL WORD
• This is a good point to proceed from these general
considerations on RISK, RELIABILITY as expressed in the
BASIS of DESIGN

• To applications on GEOTECNICAL PRACTICE

– Cannot do without reliability treatment
– The challenge is how to do it in a systematic & operational
manner
– Even the most simple probability model is superior to
ignoring uncertainties (worst) or unsubstantiated
judgement

Simplify as much as possible – but NOT MORE (Einstein)

165