You are on page 1of 23

Reliability Assessment of Structural Concrete With Special Reference to Shear Resistance

By Kenneth K. Mensah
Supervisor: Prof. J.V. Retief Co-supervisor: Dr. C. Barnardo-Viljoen
Department of Civil Engineering Faculty of Engineering

Stellenbosch University

Introduction
Modern basis of design formats employ use of reliabilitybased verification
CEB-FIP 1978 Model Code JCSS Probabilistic Model Code (2001)/ ISO 2394/ Draft fib 2010 Model Code Suite of Structural Eurocodes e.g. EC 2; EC 0 lead BoSD standard

South African Concrete Code Committee chosen to follow EC 2 as basis for new code SANS 10100-1
BS 8110 on which current SABS 0100-1 is based has been withdrawn

Introduction

Objectives of Research
Map out and study the reliability framework and requirements as in EC 0 To trace the extent to which the reliability framework is implemented in deriving the EN 1992-1-1 design provisions
Use of CEB bulletins, Eurocode 2 Commentary and Worked Examples, literature e.g. Holicky, Retief and Wium (2010), Cladera and Mari (2002)

To extend the reliability framework


where abstraction or incompleteness is found in provisions for structural concrete resistance
4

Objective of presentation

Scope of investigation on shear

EC 2 shear resistance

Parameters affecting shear

EC 2 model uncertainty for shear

Correlation and Regression: Scatter Plots

10

MCFT

11

Correlation and Regression: Scatter Plots

12

Theory of Structural Reliability

13

Application to Shear Resistance

14

FORM

15

FORM

16

Performance Functions for Shear

17

Models for basic variables


Var. Xi
2

Unit 2

Distn. type 3-P LN 2-P LN N

Basic Statistics C.O.V., Std. Mean, X X Dev., X 1.65 1.14 nom. nom. 0.02 0.51 0.20 -

Bias 1

Source Thesis Thesis JCSS PMC (2001) Mirza & MacGregor (1979) as cited in Huber (2005) Thesis Holick (2009) Holick et al. (2010) / Thesis JCSS PMC (2001) JCSS PMC (2001)

2 2 -

N 3-P LN N 2-P LN N N

0.03

0.85 nom. 30 nom. nom. = + 1.645 nom. 0.85

0.0416 0.01 0.02 0.02

9 -

1 1 1 1
1

3-P LN N 2-P LN 3-P LN

30

11.645

Holick (2009)

0.01 0.1

1 1
1

Holick (2009) Holick et al. (2010) = Holick (2009)

Bias *

0.18

11.645

18

Choice of the Test Cases

19

Parameters for the test Cases


Variable Xi , () (1 bar) a/ Characteristic quantities Test case 1 157.1 300 0.9 500 30 6 10 250 350 25 19 804.25 2.5 Characteristic quantities Test case 2 157.1 125 0.9 500 30 6 10 450 350 25 19 804.25 2.5 Unit / Dimension 2 mm 2 Bias 1 1 0.94 1 1 1 1 49.35 1+ 1 1.42 1 1 -

20

Results of the Reliability Analysis


-estimate Test case Amount of shear reinforcement, No. MCFT as gpm EC 2 as gpm Test case 1 low: 0.45 5.308 3.379 Test Case 2 high: 1.8 2.876 2.485 Reliability requirements for resistance: SANS 10160-1: , = 2.4 EC 0: , = 3.04

21

Conclusions
EC 2 shear prediction model adequate for use in SA Insufficient reliability achieved for design situations with high shear reinforcement ratio for European conditions
Adjust partial factors used in design Apply different model for shear in such situations

More severe reliability results achieved when EC 2 prediction model converted for use as gpm Model uncertainty is an important factor affecting structural performance Framework for conducting full reliability analysis of EC 2 design method for shear has been established
22

Recommendations
Perform reliability analyses for more design situations Create South African databases for models of basic variables Continually extend reliability framework for structural resistance, especially with regard to reliability differentiation and other future aspects

23