Basis of Structural Design: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Twinning Latvia
Basis of Structural Design

[EN1990 – 02]
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Basis of Structural Design Universität Hannover
Introduction of myself
Name Jürgen Grünberg
Twinning Latvia
Date of birth 18 May 1944
Present position Professor of concrete structures and director of the

Institute of Concrete Construction,
University of Hannover
Consulting engineer for structural design, testing and supervision

in structural engineering, Hamburg
Key qualifications Reliability analysis in structural engineering

Material models for RC and UHPC structures
Analysis of young concrete during the hydration process
Fatigue design of concrete structures
Structural design (e.g. towers, bridges, offshore structures)
Contribution to EN 1990 (in Germany: DIN 1055-100)

Code Writing EN 1991 (in Germany: DIN 1055-1 to 10)
EN 1992 (in Germany: DIN 1045-1)

Basis of structural design [EN 1990 – 02]
Scope:
Twinning Latvia
Principles and requirements for
 safety,
 serviceability,
 and durability.
Direct application for buildings and civil engineering works
 in conjunction with EN 1991 to 1999.
Guidelines relating to safety, serviceabilty and durabilty

 for designing structures out of the scope of EN 1991 to 1999,
 to serve as reference document, e.g. for product codes.
Application also for

 the structural appraisal of existing construction,
 in developing the design of repairs,
 alterations or in assessing changes of use.
Content:
Twinning Latvia
EN1990 – Main text
Foreword
1 General
Principles
2 Requirements
and
3 Principles of limit state design
requirements
4 Basic variables
5 Structural analysis and design assisted by testing
6 Verification by the partial factor method
Direct
Annex A1 (normative) Application for buildings  EN 1991-1 application
Annex A2 (not published) Application for bridges  EN 1991-2
Annex B (informative) Management of structural reliability for construction works

Annex C (informative) Basis for partial factor design and reliability analysis
Annex D (informative) Design assisted by testing  EN 1992 to 1999

Topics:
Twinning Latvia
1. Bases of safety concept
(Principles and requirements;
explanation of terms and definitions)
2. Combinations of actions
(Verification by the partial factor method
according to the different limit states and design situations)
3. Basis for partial factor design

and reliability analysis
(probabilistic analysis)

1 Bases of safety concept
To assure the structural safety the following measures are required:
Twinning Latvia
1. Measures to avoid human errors
(Assumptions and preconditions for structural design),
2. Measures to warrant a sufficient safety margin between

action effect and structural resistance
(Basic requirements for design and execution of structures),
3. Measures to prevent potential causes of failure and/or

reduce their consequences
(Limiting or avoiding of potential damage).

1.1 Measures to avoid human errors
(Assumptions and preconditions for structural design),
1. The choice of the structural system and the design of the structure
Twinning Latvia
is made by appropriately qualified and experienced personnel.
2. Execution is carried out by personnel having the appropriate skill and
experience.
3. Adequate supervision and quality control is provided during execution
of the work, i.e. in design offices, factories, plants, and on site
4. The construction materials and products are used as specified in
EN 1990 or in ENs 1991 to 1999 or in the relevant execution standards
or reference material or product specifications.
5. The structure will be adequately maintained.
6. The structure will be used in accordance with the design assumptions.
Human errors are not covered by the safety margins defined in the
design codes!
1.2 Basic requirements for structures
Twinning Latvia
The basic requirements for structures are established in the
Interpretative Document
„Mechanical Resistance and Stability"
associated to the Construction Product Directive
published by the European Community at 21-12-1988

1.2 Basic requirements for structures
A structure shall be designed and executed in such a way that it will, during its
intended life, with appropriate degrees of reliability and in an economical way :
Twinning Latvia
 sustain all actions and influences likely to occur during execution and use,
 and remain fit for the use for which it is required.
To reach a sufficient reliability, a structure shall be designed to have adequate:

 structural resistance,
 serviceability,
 and durability.
To assure structural resistance, the following events are not allowed to occur
 collapse of the entire structure or of one structural element,
 or large deformations exceeding the limits of failure.
A structure shall not be damaged by events such as

 explosion, impact, and the consequences of human errors,
to an extent disproportionate to the original cause.
1.3 Limiting or avoiding of potential damage
In spite of these two strategies –
• Measures to avoid human errors
Twinning Latvia
• Measures to warrant a sufficient safety margin
errors cannot be excluded completely !
There is a remaining risk.
Furthermore, actions are possible which have not been considered in design,
as they are resulting
• from errors which were not detected although systematic inspections were
performed,
• from the stochastic coincidence of extreme events,
• from exceeding the loading limits during the working life,
• from hazards which are caused by persons or nature (e.g. explosions),
• from insufficient knowledge and wrong activities of persons, e.g. the users of the
structure who have not been informed about the loading limits
1.3 Limiting or avoiding of potential damage
To assure structural safety, the third strategy is to reduce the consequences of

failure and, especially, to avoid injuring and even killing of people.
Twinning Latvia
Therefore, potential damage shall be avoided or limited by appropriate choice
of one or more of the following :
• avoiding, eliminating or reducing the hazards to which the structure can be

subjected;
• selecting a structural form which has low sensitivity to the hazards considered;
• selecting a structural form and design that can survive adequately the
accidental removal of an individual member or a limited part of the
structure, or the occurrence of acceptable localised damage;
• avoiding as far as possible structural systems that can collapse

without warning;
• tying the structural members together.

1.4 Principles of limit state design
Limit state Ultimate Serviceability
Requirements Safety of people Functioning of the structure
Safety of the structure Comfort of people
Twinning Latvia
Appearance of construction
Verification Loss of static equilibrium Stress limitation
criteria Failure by strength limitation Crack propagation
Loss of stability Deformations
Failure by fatigue Vibrations
Design Persistent and transient Rare or characteristic
situations Accidental Frequent
Seismic Quasi-permanent
Action effects Design value of action effects Design value of action effects
(destabilising actions, (stresses, crack widths,
internal forces) deformations)
Resistance Design value of resistance Serviceability criterion

(stabilising actions, (permissible stresses,
material strengths, crack widths, deformations)
cross area resistances)

1.5 Representative values
Characteristic values of actions ( Fk ):
Twinning Latvia
 Action codes (EN 1991)
Characteristic values of material properties ( Xk ):

 construction specific design codes (EN 1992 to EN 1999)
 according material codes (EN 206 etc.)
Characteristic values of actions
The characteristic values of permanent actions Gk

generally are their mean values.
The characteristic values of variable actions Qk
generally are their 98 %-quantiles for the reference period of 1 year.

Other representative values of variable actions
… shall be defined as products of a characteristic value Qk

and a combination factor i (  1,0 ).
Twinning Latvia
1. Combination value: Qrep,0 = 0  Qk
The factors 0 are chosen such, that the failure probabilities for the
action effect resulting from combination of actions and from a single
action are adequate.
2. Frequent value: Qrep,1 = 1  Qk

with a limited duration or frequency of being exceeded
within the reference period.
3. Quasi-permanent value: Qrep,2 = 2  Qk

determined as the value averaged on the reference period.
In case of fatigue other representative values may be considered.

Comparison of representative values of a variable action
Twinning Latvia
Design value Qd = Q  Qk
Characteristic value Qk
Combination value 0  Qk
Frequent value 1  Qk
Quasi-permanent value 2  Qk

1.5 Representative values
Characteristic values for material properties
Twinning Latvia
… generally are defined as quantiles of a statistical distribution,
for instance:
• as 5 %-quantiles of material strength parameters,
• as mean values of structural stiffness parameters,
• as upper nominal values for determination of indirect actions.

1.6 Design values
Design values of actions
Twinning Latvia
Fd  Ed   f  Frep  F  Frep
Frep represents either Gk, Qk or Qrep.
Design values of material properties
Xk Xk Xk
Xd   or Xd   
Rd   m M M
The conversion factor  takes into account

volume and scale effects,
effects of moisture and temperature,
etc.

1.6 Design values
Relations between individual partial factors
Twinning Latvia
Uncertainty of f
representative values
of actions F
Actions and
action effects Ed
Model uncertainties
Structural resistances Rd
M
Uncertainty of material
properties m

1.6 Design values
Design values of geometrical data
Twinning Latvia
ad  anom or ad  anom   a
Nominal values anom
Deviations a ( e.g. in case of geometrical imperfections )
Design values of action effects
The action effects (E) are the answers of the structure to the actions (F),
depending on the geometrical data (a) and the material properties (X).
General format:
Ed  E  Fd,1,Fd,2,...,a d,1,a d,2,..., X d,1, X d,2,...

Applying partial factors, the following formats can be derived:
1. General format:
Twinning Latvia
Ed   Ed  E   g,1  Gk,1,  g,2  Gk,2 ,...,  q,1  Qrep,1,  q,2  Qrep,2 ,... 
2. Formats for combination of actions in non-linear analysis:
2.1. The action effect Ed increases more than the leading action Qk,1:
Ed  E   G,1  Gk,1,  G,2  Gk,2 ,...,  Q,1  Qk,1,  Q,2  Qrep,2 ,... 
2.2. The action effect Ed increases less than the leading action Qk,1:
  G,1  G,2  Q,2 
Ed   Q,1  E   Gk,1,  Gk,2 ,...,Qk,1,  Qrep,2 ,... 
  Q,1  Q,1  Q,1 
3. Format only to be used in linear-elastic structural analysis:
Ed   G,1  EGk,1   G,2  EGk,2  ...   Q,1  EQrep,1   Q,2  EQrep,2  ...

1.6 Design values
Formats for combination of actions in non-linear analysis
Twinning Latvia
EQd,1
HQd,1 > Q,1  HQk,1 a) above proportionality

(Arch structure)
linear
HQk,1
NQd,1 = Q,1  NQk,1 b) below proportionality

NQk,1
(Suspension bridge)
Q1
Qk,1 Qd,1 = Q,1  Qk,1
Predominant action effect EQd,1 = E (Qk,1; Q,1) in non-linear structural analysis

1.6 Design values
Design values of resistances
Twinning Latvia
The resistances (R) depend on the geometrical data (a)
and the material properties (X).
General Format:
Rd  R  ad,1,ad,2 ,... Xd,1, X d,2,...

Applying partial factors, the following formats can be derived:
1. Format applying divided partial factors:
Twinning Latvia
1  X X 
Rd   R 1  k,1 ,  2  k,2 ,...,a nom,1 ,a nom,2 ,...
 Rd   m,1  m,2 
2. Format applying integrated partial factors:

 Xk,1 Xk,2 
Rd  R 1  , 2  ,...,anom,1,anom,2 ,...
 M,1 M,2 
3. Format applying on partial factor R for structural resistance:
1   R 
Rd   R  1  X k,1  R ,  2  X k,2  ,...,a nom,1 ,a nom,2 ,...
R   M,1  M,2 
• Application: e.g. non-linear structural analysis of reinforced concrete structures

1.7 Verification of limit states
by the partial factor method
It shall be verified that,
Twinning Latvia
 in all relevant design situations,
 no relevant limit state is exceeded
when the design values for actions or action effects and resistances are
used in the design models.
For the selected design situations and the relevant limit states the
individual actions for the critical load cases should be combined using the
 characteristic values or other representative values in combination with
 partial factors (F; M) and other factors (e.g. combination factors i).
However, actions that cannot occur simultaneously should not be

considered together in combinations.

Verification formats for Ultimate Limit states (ULS)
Twinning Latvia
The following ultimate limit states shall be verified as relevant:
a) EQU: Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of it

considered as a rigid body
b) STR: Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure, one

of its members or the foundation,
where the strength of construction materials governs
c) GEO: Failure or excessive deformation of the soil

where the strengths of the soil or rock are significant in providing
resistance
d) FAT: Fatigue failure of the structure or structural elements
(Note: For fatigue design see EN 1992 to EN 1999)

Verification formats for Ultimate Limit states (ULS)
Twinning Latvia
• Limit state of static equilibrium (EQU)
(e.g. overturning, buoyancy, lifting off)
Verification of a structure considered as a rigid body:
Ed,dst  Ed,stb
Ed,dst Design value of the effect of

destabilising actions
Ed,stb Design value of the effect of

stabilising action (= gravity resistance)

• Limit state of structural failure (STR)
Twinning Latvia
(rupture, excessive deformation)
Verification of a structural cross area, member or joint:
Ed  R d
Ed Design value of the effect of actions (internal forces, stresses)

Rd Design value of the structural resistance (bearing capacity)
• Limit state of static equilibrium involving the resistance of

anchoring structural members
 G,STR,sup /  G,EQU,sup  Ed,dst  Ed,stb   Rd,anch
Furthermore, the limit state of structural failure has to be verified

with respect to the anchoring structural member

Verification formats for Serviceability Limit states (SLS)
Twinning Latvia
Ed  Cd
Ed Design value of the effects of actions

(e.g. deformation, stress)
Cd Limiting design value of the effects of actions

specified in the serviceability criterion
(e.g. limiting values of deformations, stresses, etc.)

2 Combinations of actions
2.1 Single actions for buildings
Twinning Latvia
Permanent actions Gkj; Pk Variable actions Qki
1. Self-weights Gk 1. Imposed loads, life loads Qk,N
2. Snow and ice loads Qk,S
2. Prestressing Pk 3. Wind loads Qk,W
3. Earth pressure Gk,E 4. Thermal actions Qk,T
4. Fluid pressure, permanent Gk,H 5. Fluid pressure, variable Qk,H
6. Indirect actions,
caused by uneven settlements Qk,
Accidental actions Ad
Seismic actions AEd

2.1 Single actions for buildings
• Generally, the self-weights of the structure and of the fixed equipment,
Twinning Latvia
as permanent loads, may be united to one common single action Gk.
• In case of a limit state of static equilibrium, the permanent actions

have to be subdivided into their unfavourable and their favourable
parts ( Gk,dst,j and Gk,stb,j).
• Generally, all the imposed loads and life loads within one building
 coming from different categories of use appearing there 
are assembled to one multi-component action QN,k.

2.2 Ultimate Limit States (ULS)
Persistent and transient design situations (fundamental combinations)
• General format
Twinning Latvia
 
Ed  E    G,j  G k,j   p  Pk   Q,1  Q k,1    Q,i
  0,i
 Q k,i 
 j 1 i 1 
(special formats in non-linear structural analysis, see 1.6)
• Format used only in linear-elastic structural analysis
Ed  
j 1
G,j
 E Gk,j   p  E Pk   Q,1  E Qk,1    Q,i   0,i  E Qk,i
i 1
Leading variable action effect:
 Q,1  1   0,1   EQk,1  Max.   Q,i  1   0,i   EQk,i 

Alternatively for STR and GEO limit states,
the less favourable of the following formats may be applied:
• Alternative format, general
Twinning Latvia
 
a) Ed  E    G,j  Gk,j  P  Pk    Q,i   0,i  Qk,i 
 j 1 i 1 
 
b) Ed  E    G,j   j  Gk,j  P  Pk   Q,1  Qk,1    Q,i   0,i  Qk,i 
 j 1 i 1 
• Alternative format, used only in linear-elastic structural analysis
a) Ed  
j 1
G,j  EGk,j  P  EPk  
i 1
Q,i   0,i  EQk,i
b) Ed  
j 1
G,j   j  EGk,j  P  EPk   Q,1  EQk,1    Q,i   0,i  EQk,i
i 1
j Reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions Gk,j

(j = 0,85 indicative)
Accidental design situations
Twinning Latvia
• General Format
 
EdA  E    GA,j  Gk,j   pA  Pk  A d  1,1  Qk,1    2,i  Qk,i 
 j 1 i 1 
• Format only used in linear-elastic structural analysis
EdA  
j 1
GA,j  EGk,j   PA  EPk  E Ad  1,1  EQk,1    2,i  EQk,i
i 1
 1,1   2,1   EQk,1  Max.  1,i   2,i   EQk,i 

Seismic design situations
Twinning Latvia
• General Format
 
EdE  E   Gk,j  Pk  Ι  A Ed    2,i  Qk,i 
 j 1 i 1 
• Format only used in linear-elastic structural analysis:
EdE  E
j 1
Gk,j  EPk  Ι  E AEd    2,i  EQk,i
i 1

2.3 Serviceability Limit States (SLS)
Formats for linear-elastic structural analysis (normal case)
Twinning Latvia
Rare (characteristic) combination
normally used for irreversible limit states
(e.g. remaining deformations):
Ed,rare  E
j 1
Gkj  EPk  EQk1  
i 1
 0i ∙ EQki
1  01   EQk1  Max. 1  0i   EQki 

2.3 Serviceability Limit States (SLS)
Frequent combination
normally used for reversible limit states
Twinning Latvia
(e.g. corrosion attack on reinforcement in cracked concrete):
Ed,frequ  E j1
Gkj  EPk  11  EQk1    2i  EQki
i1
 11   21   EQk1  Max.  1i   2i   EQki 
Quasi-permanent combination
Normally used for long-term effects and the appearance of the structure
(e.g. deformations of the structure):
Ed,perm  E
j 1
Gkj  EPk    2i  EQki
i 1

2.4 Fatigue Limit State (FLS)
 The level of the design values of actions
Twinning Latvia
– including the relevant numbers of load cycles –
corresponds to the Serviceability Limit State (SLS).
 The level of the design values of material resistances

– depending on the numbers of load cycles –
corresponds to the Ultimate Limit State (ULS).
 For fatigue design, the combinations of actions

depend on the kind of material and, therefore,
are given in EN 1992 to EN 1999.

2.5  factors for buildings (recommended values)
Action 0 1 2
Imposed loads in buildings (see EN 1991-1-1)
Twinning Latvia
Category A: domestic, residential areas 0,7 0,5 0,3
Category B: office areas 0,7 0,5 0,3
Category C: congregation areas 0,7 0,7 0,6
Category D: shopping areas 0,7 0,7 0,6
Category E: storage areas 1,0 0,9 0,8
Category F: traffic areas, vehicle weight  30 kN 0,7 0,7 0,6
Category G: traffic areas,30 kN < v. weight  160 kN 0,7 0,5 0,3
Category H: roofs 0 0 0
Snow and ice loads
Sites located at altitude H > 1000 m above sea level 0,7 0,7 0,2
Sites located at altitude H ≤ 1000 m above sea level 0,5 0,2 0
Wind loads 0,6 0,2 0
Temperature (non-fire) in buildings 0,6 0,5 0

2.6 Partial factors F applied to actions (recommended values)
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) Actions Symbol Situation

P/T A
Twinning Latvia
A) Loss of static permanent, unfavourable G,sup 1,10 1,00
equilibrium (EQU) favourable G,inf 0,90 0,95
in case of G,sup 1,05 1,00
small deviations G,inf 0,95 0,95
variable, unfavourable Q 1,50 1,00
accidental A - 1,00
B) Failure of the structure, Permanent, unfavourable G,sup 1,35 1,00
one of its members or favourable G,inf 1,00 1,00
of the foundation (STR)
variable, unfavourable Q 1,50 1,00
accidental A - 1,00
C) Failure of the soil permanent G 1,00 1,00
ground failure or loss of Variable, unfavourable Q 1,30 1,00
stability of a slope (GEO) accidental A - 1,00

Differentiation of design values of permanent actions
Loss of static equilibrium (EQU)
Twinning Latvia
The characteristic values of all the permanent actions are separated
into two parts:
• all the parts acting unfavourably are multiplied by the factor G,sup;
• all the parts acting favourably are multiplied by the factor G,inf.
Failure of the structure, one of its members, or of the foundation (STR)
All the characteristic values of one independent (single) permanent

action Gk are multiplied by one unique factor G:
• by G,sup, if the resulting effect of Gk is unfavourable,
• by G,inf, however, if the resulting effect of Gk is favourable.

Design of structural members (footings, piles, basement walls, …) (STR)
involving geotechnical actions and the resistance of the ground (GEO)
Approach 1
Twinning Latvia
Applying design values according to Limit State B (STR) as well as to
Limit State C (GEO) – in two separate calculations – to the geotechnical
actions as well as to the other actions on/from the structure.
Approach 2
Applying design values only according to Limit State B (STR)
to the geotechnical actions as well as to the other actions on/from the
structure.
Approach 3
Applying design values according to Limit State C (GEO) to the
geotechnical actions and, simultaneously, design values according to
Limit State B (STR) to the other actions on/from the structure.
The use of approaches, either 1 or 2 or 3, is chosen in the National Annex.

Design of structural members (footings, piles, basement walls, …) (STR)
involving geotechnical actions and the resistance of the ground (GEO)
Advantage of Approach 2:
Twinning Latvia
The limit states STR and GEO are clearly separated.
So the structural and geotechnical verifications can be performed
independently.
 Structural verification:
Applying design values only according to Limit State
B) Failure of the structure (STR)
to the geotechnical actions as well as
to the other actions on/from the structure.
 Geotechnical verification:
The limit state C) Failure of the soil (GEO)
– e.g. ground failure or loss of stability of a slope –
should be verified in accordance with EN 1997.

3 Basis for partial factor design
and reliability analysis
3.1 Overview of reliability methods
Twinning Latvia
Historical methods First Order Full probabilistic
Reliability Method methods
Empirical methods
FORM (Level II) (Level III)
Calibration Calibration Calibration
Semi-probablistic
methods
(Level I)
Method b
Method c
Partial factor design

Method a

Most of the partial factors and -factors established in the present

Eurocodes are generated by calibration (c) of the partial factor method
Twinning Latvia
(Level  ) to the traditional procedures for verification (a).
In both the Level  and Level  methods the measure of reliability should
be identified with the survival probability Ps:
Ps =  () = (1 – Pf),
where Pf is the failure probability for the considered failure mode and
within an appropriate reference period.
Pf =  (– )
 is the cumulative distribution function

of the standardised Normal distribution
 is the reliability index

Relation between  und Pf
Twinning Latvia
Pf 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7
 1,28 2,32 3,09 3,72 4,27 4,75 5,20
If the calculated failure probability is higher than the target value n:
Pf >  (– n),
then the structure is considered unsafe!

Target values of reliability index  for structural members
Twinning Latvia
Limit state Target reliability index
1 (1 year) 50 (n = 50 years) 1)
Ultimate (RC 2) 4,7 3,8
Fatigue 1,5 to 3,8 2)
Serviceability
(irreversible) 3,0 1,5
Ps,n    n    1    Ps,1 

n n
1)

2) Depends on degree of inspectability, reparability and damage tolerance

Reliability differentiation in ultimate limit states (see Annex B)
Twinning Latvia
Reliability class Target reliability index
(Consequences Class) 1 (1 year) 50 (n = 50 years) 1)
RC 3 (CC 3) 5,1 4,3
RC 2 (CC 2) 4,7 3,8
RC 1 (CC 1) 4,3 3,3
Ps,n    n    1    Ps,1 

1) n n

Partial factors given in EN 1990 to 1999 are based on RC 2

Definition of consequences classes (see Annex B)
Twinning Latvia
Consequences Consequences for loss of human life,
Class or economic, social or environmental consequences
CC 1 Low: agricultural buildings, green houses
CC 2 Medium: Residential and office buildings
CC 3 High: Grandstands, public buildings, concert halls

Quality assurance (see Annex B)
Twinning Latvia
Consequences Reliability Design supervision Inspection level
Class Class level
CC 1 RC 1 Self-checking Self inspection

Checking by Specified inspection
CC 2 RC 2 different persons procedures
CC 3 RC 3 Third party checking Third party inspection

3.2 R-E-Model
Twinning Latvia
R = structural resistance
E = resulting action effect

3.2 R-E-Model
Distribution densities of R and E:
Twinning Latvia
fR(r)
fR,E(r,e)
r
e
fE(e)
3.2 R-E-Model
Distribution densities of R and E:
Twinning Latvia
If E and R are stochastically independent, then:
fR,E(r,e) = fR(r) · fE(e)
fR(r)
fR,E(r,e)
r
e
fE(e)
3.2 R-E-Model
Failure probability:
Twinning Latvia
Pf = ∫ f (r,e) · de ∙ dr = ∫ f (r) · fE(e) · de ∙ dr
Z<0 R,E Z<0 R
mR  Limit state function:

R
Z = r–e = 0
fR,E(r,e)
r
fR(r)
Failure part:
Z<0
fE(e) E e
mE
Distribution densities and limit state straight line (in the standardised space)
Precondition: e and r are stochastically independent and standard normally distributed
r  mR
Twinning Latvia
r̂ 
σR
f ( r̂ , ê ) =
fR ( r̂ )  fE ( ê ) = const. êd  αE  β
e  mE
ê 
σE

r̂d  αR  β Design point: yd
Survival part Failure part:

Pf = ∫Z<0 fR( r̂ ) · fE(ê) · dê ∙ dr̂
Limit state straight line: Z = β – αR∙ r̂ + αE∙ ê

3.2 R-E-Model
Reliability parameters
Twinning Latvia
 σR  σE
Sensitivity factors αR  ; αE 
σR  σE
2 2
σ R2  σ E2
mR  mE
Reliability index 
R2  E2
Design values (in the original space)
rd  mR  σR  αR  β and ed  mE  σE  αE  β

3.3 Approach for calibration of design values
Resulting action effect ed and structural resistance rd are separated.
According sensibility factors E and R are assessed by fixed values with
Twinning Latvia
respect to the limit state expressed in standardized coordinates.
r  mR
r̂ 
 σR σE
max
min  σR
max  
r̂  αR  β  e  mE
ê 
σE
ê  αE  β
Survival part:
Z>0 Design point: yd
σE
min Failure part: Z < 0
σR
Limit state straight line
σE σE σE
For limit state straight lines within the interval min   max
σR σR σR
Twinning Latvia
the sensibility factors are fixed by: R = – 0,8 and E = + 0,7
Therefore, the design values can be determined as follows:
rd  FR1   R      FR1    0,8    

ed  FE1   E      FE1    0,7    
Then, the partial factors can be defined, each in relation to the
according characteristic values:
E = ed / ek
R = rk / rd

Partial factors for variable actions (Gumbel distributions)
Twinning Latvia
2,50 Q E  50 = 0,7  3,8
 S;  W
2,00
N
1,50
Wind and Snow Loads

1,00
Imposed Loads
0,50
VQ (VN; VS; VW)
0,00
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40

Sensibility factors E1 and E2 in case of two simultaneous actions (e1, e2)
e 2  mE2 êdi  0,4  αE  β
ê2 
Twinning Latvia
Survival part: σ E2
Z>0 Limit state straight line
E E2 = 0
σ E2
for 1  0
σ E1
1,077E êd  αE  β
e1  mE1
êdi  0,4  αE  β  = 22,5 ê1 
σ E1
E1 = 0 E1 = E2
êd  αE  β Design points: ed1; ed2

 = 22,5 Failure part: Z < 0
σ E1
Limit state straight line for 0  1
σ E2
In this case, the global sensibility factors E und R are multiplied by the
Twinning Latvia
accompanying sensitivity factors Ei und Ri.
Design values on the safe side result, if

E1 = R1 = 1,0 is used for the leading value, and
Ei = Ri = 0,4 is used for the accompanying value
Design values of accompanying basic variables:
 
rdi  FRi1   Ri  R     FRi1    0,32    
edi  FEi1   Ei  E      F    0,28    

1
Ei

Combination of two actions (e1, e2)
Twinning Latvia
Design value of the leading action:
ed  FE1    E      FE1    0,7    
Design value of the accompanying action:

edi  F    Ei   '     F1   0,4   ' N1 
Ei    
N1
1

Ei  
where ‘ is the reliability index referred to the basic time interval T1
and N1 is the number of basic time intervals during the design working life
Combination factor: 0 = edi / ed

Design working life
Twinning Latvia
Indicative design working life (EN 1990, 2.3)
Design working Indicative design Examples

life category working life (years)
1 10 Temporary structures (1)
2 10-25 Replaceable structural parts, e.g.

gantry girders, bearings
3 15-30 Agricultural and similar structures
4 50 Building structures and other

common structures
5 100 Monumental building structures, bridges,
and other civil engineering structures
1) Structures or parts of structures that can be removed with a view to being re-used should
not be considered as temporary.

Combination factors 0,i for variable actions Qi
Twinning Latvia
1,00 0,i
0,90
50 years Design
5 years
3 months working life:
0,80 1 month
12 days T = 50
0,70 3 days
E = 0,7
0,60
N1 = 1 50 = 3,8
0,50
0,40
N1 = 10
0,30 N1 = 600
0,20 N1 = 1500
0,10 N1 = 6000 N1 = 200

0,00 VQ
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60


Basis of Structural Design: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basis of Structural Design: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Twinning Latvia

Basis of Structural Design

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Present position Professor of concrete structures and director of the

Consulting engineer for structural design, testing and supervision

Key qualifications Reliability analysis in structural engineering

Contribution to EN 1990 (in Germany: DIN 1055-100)

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Guidelines relating to safety, serviceabilty and durabilty

Application also for

Annex B (informative) Management of structural reliability for construction works

Annex D (informative) Design assisted by testing  EN 1992 to 1999

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

3. Basis for partial factor design

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

2. Measures to warrant a sufficient safety margin between

3. Measures to prevent potential causes of failure and/or

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

„Mechanical Resistance and Stability"

associated to the Construction Product Directive

published by the European Community at 21-12-1988

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

To reach a sufficient reliability, a structure shall be designed to have adequate:

A structure shall not be damaged by events such as

There is a remaining risk.

• from exceeding the loading limits during the working life,

• from hazards which are caused by persons or nature (e.g. explosions),

To assure structural safety, the third strategy is to reduce the consequences of

• avoiding, eliminating or reducing the hazards to which the structure can be

• avoiding as far as possible structural systems that can collapse

• tying the structural members together.

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Resistance Design value of resistance Serviceability criterion

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Characteristic values of actions ( Fk ):

Characteristic values of material properties ( Xk ):

Characteristic values of actions

The characteristic values of permanent actions Gk

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

… shall be defined as products of a characteristic value Qk

2. Frequent value: Qrep,1 = 1  Qk

3. Quasi-permanent value: Qrep,2 = 2  Qk

In case of fatigue other representative values may be considered.

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Characteristic values for material properties

• as 5 %-quantiles of material strength parameters,

• as mean values of structural stiffness parameters,

• as upper nominal values for determination of indirect actions.

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Design values of actions

Frep represents either Gk, Qk or Qrep.

Design values of material properties

The conversion factor  takes into account

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Relations between individual partial factors

Structural resistances Rd

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Design values of geometrical data

Design values of action effects

Ed  E  Fd,1,Fd,2,...,a d,1,a d,2,..., X d,1, X d,2,...

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Grünberg

Formats for combination of actions in non-linear analysis