International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)

Volume 2 Issue 3, June 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190

83
www.ijaert.org
Reliability Analysis of Solid Concrete Slabs Reinforced with
Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (Cfrp)
1
OKORO, E. E.,
2
ABEJIDE, O. S.,
3
OLOWOSULU, A. T.,
4
ABUBAKAR, I.
1,2,3,4
Department of Civil Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
ABSTRACT
The reliability of CFRP reinforced concrete solid slabs is
investigated in this paper. The procedure of the First
Order Reliability Method (FORM), is used for the
computation of the reliability indices, with varying load
ratios for bending, deflection and shear criteria with slab
thicknesses in the practical range of 100mm--250mm.
Typical results obtained for continuous slabs of equal
spans indicate the intrinsic reliability and corresponding
probability of failure of the slabs designed to CAN/CSA
S806-02 (2002) prediction. It is observed that the
reliability level of the slab is non-uniform at any of the
criterion examined for the depth of slab and span chosen.
In general, the safety of the slab is endangered with
increasing load ratios in all the criteria and thicknesses
investigated. The safety criterion is violated in bending
for all the thicknesses of slab examined by the safety
index, which is less than 2.0. However, the criterion for
safety is satisfied in shear and deflection for all slab
thicknesses up to a load ratio of 0.6, except in 225mm
and 250mm thick slabs where it is violated for
deflection, being less than 2.0 at a load ratio of 0.2. At
none of the load ratios considered is the safety index
negative for deflection and shear criteria except for
bending. This suggests that for CFRP reinforced
concrete solid slabs, once the bending criterion for safety
is satisfied, deflection and shear criteria are met
automatically, when the current prediction is used.
Hence, there is the need to optimize this prediction in a
stochastic environment in order to achieve reliable slabs
with adequate and appropriate safety, and with possible
modifications to the current formulation for design.
Keywords: CFRP, FORM, reliability, solid concrete
slabs.
1. INTRODUCTION
When a structure is loaded it will respond to the
load in a manner which depends on the type and
magnitude of the load, as well as on its strength and
stiffness. It is an axiom in engineering that the goal of
structural design is to achieve a structure which fulfills
the requirements of the client at reasonable cost and
whose resistance capacity is greater than the load
demands placed on it. The reliability of a structure,
therefore, is an important factor in the design procedure
since it quantifies the probability that a structure will
fulfill its design requirements [1]. The basic requirement
therefore, for an efficient structural design, is that the
response of the structure should be acceptable for
various specifications. Therefore, whether the response
of the structure to the load is judged satisfactory or not,
depends on the requirements which the structure must
satisfy. However, the fulfillment of the requirements is a
task that is fraught with uncertainties which are inherent
in structural design. [2] opined that resistance and loads
influences cannot be described by deterministic
quantities in the presence of uncertainties, being
stochastic. Because uncertainties create a range of
possible resistance and load values and introduce the
possibility that the applied load will exceed the capacity
of the structure, there is the risk of unacceptable
performance for structures, which is the probability that
failure may occur [3][2]. Nearly every variable
considered in design is uncertain to varying degrees. In a
deterministic approach, design is based on specified
minimum material properties and specified load
intensities. However, it has been recognized [4] that
specifications of minimum material properties involve
high degree of uncertainty. Also, detailed description of
reasonable load intensities is difficult and uncertain in
deterministic method. These types of uncertainties,
combined with several similar forms of uncertainty,
result in an uncontrolled risk, which portends failure
hazard for the structure. However, no structure or
building system can be absolutely risk-free or 100% safe
because of uncertainties in demands on the system, and
in engineering properties of construction materials [5].
There are values of probability of failure that are
accepted as being good enough depending on the
horizon of time that the structure is supposed to function,
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)
Volume 2 Issue 3, June 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190
84
www.ijaert.org
as well as its importance. This is defined in Eurocode
Basis of Structural Design [6].
It is a fact that total structural safety cannot be
achieved no matter what is done or the amount of
investment on the structure [4]. Furthermore, no measure
of the safety or reliability of the structure can be
obtained with deterministic approach. Risk, though
impossible to completely be eliminated, can be reduced
to acceptable levels, through good engineering design,
by accounting for the inherent uncertainties in design.
Measuring the safety of a structure by its reliability
makes the reliability a useful decision parameter [6].
In this paper the performance functions for the
limit states of rectangular solid slabs singly-reinforced
with Carbon Fibre-Reinforced Plastics (CFRP) were
developed. The failure modes considered are the
bending, shear and deflection criteria. Each safety
margin is obtained by equating the resistance of the slab
and the load effect calculated by elementary structural
analysis, the basic variables are identified and their
statistical characteristics obtained from literature. First
Order Reliability Method (FORM) was used to evaluate
the safety indices of the slab at varying values of the
basic variables.
2. FIRST ORDER RELIABILITY
METHOD (FORM)
Structural design is traditionally based on
deterministic analysis; however, due to many sources of
uncertainty, which is inherent in structural design, there
is the risk of unacceptable performance for structures,
which is defined as the failure probability [6]. In
structural design, the reliability of a structural
component is evaluated with respect to one or more limit
states. Since there are different limit states which can be
defined based on structural requirements, the
performance of an engineering structure or system can
be measured with regards to these limit states and the
levels of reliability associated with them [7]. The limit
state function returns a negative value under system
failure conditions and a positive value when the system
is stable. Thus, reliability may be defined as the
probability of a performance function g(X) greater than
zero, i.e. P{g(X) > 0} [8]. In other words, reliability is
the probability that the random variables X = (X
1
,
X
2
,.., X
n
) are in the safe region that is defined by
g(X) > 0. The probability of failure is defined as the
probability P{g(X) < 0}. Or it is the probability that the
random variables X = (X
1
, X
2
,.., X
n
) are in the
failure region that is defined by g(X) < 0. A reliability
analysis entails the calculation of failure probability. If
the joint probability density functions pdf of X is ( ),
the probability of failure is evaluated with the integral
[8]:
P
f
= P{g(X) < 0} =
}
<0 ) (
) (
x g
x
dx x f (1)
The reliability is computed using:
= 1 = {g( ) > 0} =
}
<0 ) (
) (
x g
x
dx x f (2)
A fundamental problem in structural reliability
theory is the computation of the multi-fold probability
integral of Equation (1). Difficulty in computing this
probability has led to the development of various
approximation methods, which are based on the fact that
the failure condition is expressed as a function of several
random variables. Of these methods, the most commonly
used are the First-Order Reliability Method (FORM).
The First-Order Reliability Method, in which the Taylor
series expansion of the performance function g(X) is
linearized at some point, was employed in this paper.
The idea is to ease the computational difficulties through
simplifying the integrand of ( ) and approximating
the performance function g(X). With the simplification
and approximation, solutions to Equations (1) and (2)
will be easily obtained.
The FORM is an analytical approximation in
which the Taylor series expansion of the performance
function g(X) is lnearized at some point, say point (Y*
1
,
Y*
2
,Y*
M
) on the failure surface rather than at the
mean (Abejide, 2004). It aims at finding the most likely
failure point or design point denoted as u*, which is
the closest point (see Figure 1) to the origin in the
standard space lying on the limit-state g(x) = G(u) = 0.
The procedure is basically as follows [7][8]:
(i) Achievement of the simplification through
transforming the random variables from their original
random space into a standard normal space. Given that
the limit state and its variables are:
= ( , , . , (3)
the random variables are transformed first to reduced
uncorrelated variables with zero mean and unit variance.
That is:
, )
Yi
Yi i
i
Y
U

= (4)
where,
Yi
and
Yi
are respectively, the mean and
standard deviation of the basic random variable,
i
Y . The
transformation from Y
i
to U
i
is based on the condition
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)
Volume 2 Issue 3, June 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190
85
www.ijaert.org
that the cumulative density functions (cdfs) of the
random variables remain the same before and after the
transformation. Thus, Y
i
and U
i
can be related by the
expression:
) ( ) (
i i
U Y F u = (5)
in which u( . ) is the cdf of the standard normal
distribution and ) (
i
Y F is the random variable. This type
of transformation is called Rosenblatt. The transformed
standard normal variable is then given by:
, ) j
i i
Y F U
1
u = (6)
For example, for a normally distributed random variable
Y ~N( ,), Equation (6) yields:
, ) j

=
(
]
1

|
.
|

\
|
u u = u =

Y Y
Y F U
i
1 1
(7)
(ii) In order to further make the probability
integration easier to be evaluated, the integration
boundary ( ) = 0 is also approximated by a Taylor
power series expansion of Equation (6) in
correspondence with the checking point vector Y * and
considering linear terms only. Thus:
, ) j , ) j , )
*
1
1
i i
Y
i i i
Y Y Y F
Y
Y F U
(
]
1

c
u c
+ u =

(8)
where the notation
Y
i
Y
(
]
1

u
c
c
1
indicates that the
derivatives are calculated at the point having coordinates
Y*
I
. By the rules of derivative of the inverse function,
Equation (8) becomes Equation:
, ) j
, ), )
, ) j , )
* 1
* *
* 1
i
i i i
i i
Y F
Y Y Y f
Y F U

u

+ u =

(9)
where , ) f and , ) denote the probability densities
corresponding to the cumulative distributions , ) F and
, ) u respectively. Rearranging Equation (10), we
obtain:
, ) , ) j , ) j
, )
, ) j , )
, )
*
* 1
*
* 1 * 1
*
i
i
i
i i
i i
Yi
Y F
Y F
Y f
Y F Y F
Y Y
U

u
(
]
1

u u

=

(10)
Comparison between Equation (4) and Equation (10)
indicates that:
, ) , ) j , ) j
, )
(
]
1

u u
=

*
* 1 * 1
*
i
i i
i i Yi
Y f
Y F Y F
Y Y U

(11)
and
, ) j , )
, )
*
* 1
i
i
i
Y F
Y F

u
=

(12)
Lastly, in terms of u
i
the safety domain boundary can be
expressed in the form:
, ) 0 , .......... , ,
3 2 1
=
n
u u u u g (13)
The parameter, , defined as the minimum distance to
the failure surface from the origin in the reduced
coordinate system (Fig 1) can be determined iteratively,
assuming the transformed limit state is capable of
differentiation, by solving the following equations:
, ) 0 .. .......... , ) ... .......... , (
2 1
* *
2
*
1
= =
n n
g u u u g
(14)
where,

=
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
=
n
i u
i
u
i
i
U
g
U
g
1
2
*
*

; (15)
i = 1, 2, , n
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)
Volume 2 Issue 3, June 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190
86
www.ijaert.org
Target reliability index is the most important
design factor in a reliability-based design method.
Having obtained a satisfactory value of the minimum
distance, corresponding to convergence of the
iterative process, the operational probability of failure P
f
can be computed from:
, ) u =
f
P (16)
Or
, )
f
P
1
u = (17)
Thus, the derivation has assumed independent random
basic variables. If Y
i
are correlated, they must be
transformed to uncorrelated random variables.
3. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Reliability analysis is a tool that assists the
design engineer to take into account all possible
uncertainties during the design and construction phases
and lifetime of a structure in order to calculate its
probability of failure [1][9][10]. The overall aim is to
quantify the reliability of structures under consideration,
and the uncertainties associated with the resistances and
loads [11]. The structural performance is assessed by
means of models based on physical understanding and
empirical data. Due to idealizations, inherent physical
uncertainties and inadequate or insufficient data, the
models themselves and the parameters entering the
models such as material parameters and load
characteristics are uncertain. Structural reliability theory
takes basis in the probabilistic modelling of these
uncertainties and provides methods for the quantification
of the probability that the structures do not fulfill the
performance criteria [12].
3.1 Limit State Equations
Equations (18), (19) and (20) are limit state
equations for bending, shear and deflection respectively,
used for the computation of safety levels of a continuous
CFRP solid slab:
j 2 . 35 4 . 23
192 002 . 0 02 . 1
0098 . 0
75 . 0 ) (
2
2 '
'
+
(
]
1

=
L Q
b f b f
A E
d A f X G
k
c c
frp frp
frp frp
(18)
, )
(
]
1

(
]
1

+ =
bd
L Q
S
d E A
d b f X G
x
frp frp
w c
88 . 0 709 . 0
0015 . 0
12 . 0 ) (
'

(19)
, )
EI
L Q
d
L
EI
wL
d
L
X G
k
384
6 . 1 2 .. 1 5
384
5
) (
4 4
+
= =

(20)
Where
frp
f --- tensile strength of FRP
frp
A ---area of fibre-reinforced plastics (FRP)
frp
E ---modulus of elasticity of FRP
'
c
f --- compressive strength of concrete
b---breadth of slab
d---effective depth of slab
L---effective span of slab
Q
k
--- live load on slab
--- load ratio (G
k
/Q
k
)
I---moment of inertia
E---modulus of elasticity of concrete.
w---uniformly distributed load on slab.
S----spacing of stirrups.
3.2 Statistical Properties of Design Parameters
From literature, it was found that statistically,
dead load is typically treated as a Normal distribution
variable, and live load, Gumbel distribution variable
(Extreme Type I) [13]. It was revealed also that all
geometric variables are normally distributed, while
concrete strength and strength of steel are assumed to be
Lognormally distributed [7]. For FRP materials,
research [13] has investigated the statistical distribution
of FRP bars by testing several distribution types to
determine the most appropriate statistical representation.
Chi-square statistical test conducted by [13] revealed
that the Weibull distribution (Extreme Event Type III)
can adequately represent FRP bar material properties,
which confirms previous findings for composite
laminates [14]. It is important, however, to note that
regardless of the distribution of the individual variate, it
is the distribution of the safety margin , ) S R , that is
important in the calculation of the probability of failure,
f
P [7]. It is also worthy of note that in the second
moment reliability method, the parameters of interest are
means and variances. TABLE 1 shows values of relevant
parameters for the basic variables used in this paper.
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)
Volume 2 Issue 3, June 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190
87
www.ijaert.org
TABLE 1: Essential Design Parameters Used in the Paper
S/N BASIC VARIABLE MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
COEFFICI
ENT OF
VARIATIO
N
PROBABILI
TY
DISTRIBUT
ION
1 Compressive strength of concrete, f
cu
30N/mm
2
4.5N/mm
2
0.150 Lognormal
2 Tensile strength of CFRP, f
frp
2250N/mm
2
67.5N/mm
2
0.030 Weibull
3 Area of CFRP, A
frp
50.265mm
2
0.75mm
2
0.015 Normal
4 Breadth, b 1000mm 50mm 0.050 Normal
5 Effective depth, d 150mm 68.46mm 0.456 Normal
6 Live load, Q
k
2.25N/mm
2
0.645mm 0.287 Gumbel
7 Length, L 4500mm 1080mm 0.240 Normal
8 Characteristic strength of links, f
frpv
692N/mm
2
19.4N/mm
2
0.003 Weibull
9 Cross-sectional area of links, A
frpv
38.48mm
2
3.36mm
2
0.015 Normal
10 Spacing of links, S
v
250mm 2.25mm 0.009 Normal
11 Elastic modulus of CFRP, E
frp
147GPa 4.41N/mm
2
0.030 Weibull
12 Modulus of elasticity of concrete E
c
26 x 10
3
N/mm
2
7.8 x10
2
N/mm
2
0.030 Lognormal
13 Moment of inertia, I 2.81 x 10
8
mm
4
8.43 x 10
6
mm
4
0.030 Normal
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Results
The First Order Reliability Method (FORM)
coded in a FORTRAN module [15], was used for the
calculation of the reliability indices of the CFRP
reinforced concrete solid slabs with varying load ratios
for the criteria and thicknesses considered. Typical
results obtained for continuous slabs of 4500mm equal
spans are shown in Figs 2 to 8, which clearly indicate the
intrinsic reliability and corresponding probability of
failure of the slabs designed to [16].
4.2 Discussion
It is clear from Figs 2 to 8 that the reliability
levels of the slabs are non-uniform at any of the criterion
examined for the depth of slab and span chosen. In
general, the safety of the slab is endangered with
increasing load ratios in all the criteria and thicknesses
investigated. The safety criterion is violated in the
bending criterion for all the thicknesses of slab examined
by the safety index, which is less than 2.0, as has been
predicted by [16]. In fact, the safety indices for 100mm,
125mm, 150mm, 175mm and 200mm thick slabs are
even less than 1.0 (Figs 2 to 6). The intrinsic safety
index even has a negative value, thus implying that there
is no safety at all, which means that the continuous slabs
with these thicknesses and 4500mm spans will collapse.
However, the criterion for safety is satisfied in
shear and deflection criteria for all slab thicknesses up to
a load ratio of 0.6, except for 225mm and 250mm thick
slabs where it is violated for deflection, being
less than 2.0 at a load ratio of 0.2. At none of the load
ratios considered is the safety index negative for
deflection and shear criteria except for bending. This
suggests that for CFRP reinforced concrete solid slabs,
once the bending criterion for safety is satisfied,
deflection and shear criteria are met automatically.
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)
Volume 2 Issue 3, June 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190
88
www.ijaert.org
5. CONCLUSION
The work investigates the reliability of CFRP
reinforced concrete solid slabs. The criteria considered
in the investigation are bending, deflection and shear,
and the First Order Reliability Method (FORM) has been
employed for the calculation of the safety levels with
varying load ratios. It is noticed that the reliability levels
of the slabs are not uniform at any of the criteria
investigated for the thicknesses of slab and span
selected. The span selected is typical of a residential and
average commercial building. In general, the safety of
the slab is jeopardized with increasing load ratios in all
the criteria and thicknesses investigated. The safety
criterion is not satisfied in bending for any of the
thicknesses and span of slab examined. The intrinsic
safety index even has a negative value, thus implying
that there is no safety at all, which means that the
continuous slabs with these thicknesses and span will
collapse in flexure.
However, the criterion for safety is satisfied in
shear and deflection for all slab thicknesses up to a load
ratio of 0.6, except for 225mm and 250mm thick slabs
where it is violated for deflection, being less than 2.0 at
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT)
Volume 2 Issue 3, June 2014, ISSN No.: 2348 8190
89
www.ijaert.org
a load ratio of 0.2. The load ratio of 0.6 means that the
slab will support a live load that is 60% more than its
self-weight or dead load. At none of the load ratios
considered is the safety index negative for deflection and
shear criteria except for bending. This suggests that for
CFRP reinforced concrete solid slabs, once the bending
criterion for safety is satisfied, deflection and shear
criteria are met automatically, when the current
prediction is used. Hence, there is the need to optimize
this prediction in a stochastic environment in order to
achieve reliable slabs with adequate and appropriate
safety, and with possible modifications to the current
formulation for design.
REFERENCES
[1] Tsompanakis, Y. and Papadrakakis, M. (2000),
Robust and Efficient Methods for Reliability-
Based Structural Optimization, Computational
Methods for Shell and Spatial Structures,
Institute of Structural Analysis and Seismic
Research, National Technical University,
Athens, Greece.
[2] Atadero, R. A. (2006), Development of Load
and Resistance Factor Design for FRP
Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete
Structures, A dissertation for Doctor of
Philosophy Degree, University of California,
San Diego.
[3] Daloglu, A. and Togan, V. (2006), Reliability
and Reliability-Based Design Optimization,
Turkish Journal of Engineering and
Environmental Science, 237-249, Koradeniz
Technical University, Trabzon- Turkey
[4] Thoft-Christensen (1984), Structural Reliability,
Proceedings of Safety and Reliability in
Europe, Pre-launching Meeting of ESRA, Ispra,
Italy. Island.
[5] Osorio, P., Odenbreit, C. and Vrouwenvelder, T.
(2010), Structural Reliability Analysis of Quay
Walls With Steel Sheet Piles, PIANC MMX
Congress Liverpool, UK.
[6] DNV, (1992), Structural Reliability Analysis of
Marine Structures. Det Norske Veritas, Hvik.
[7] Abejide, O. S. (2004), Improving the Ultimate
Resistance Moment of Singly Reinforced,
Concrete Solid Slabs, Ph.D. Thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University,
Zaria, Nigeria.
[8] Du, X. (2005), First Order and Second
Reliability Methods, Probabilistic Engineering
Design,University of Missouri-Rolla.
[9] Eldred, M. S. and Bichon, B. J. (2006), Second-
Order Reliability Formulations, in
DAKOTA/UQ, 47th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,
Newport, Rhode.
[10] Lee, Y. K. and Hwang, D. S. (2008), A Study on
the Techniques of Estimating the Probability of
Failure, Journal of Chungcheong Mathematical
Society, Vol 21, No 4. Republic of Korea.
[11] Fico, R (2007), Limit States Design of Concrete
Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars, Ph.D
Programme in Materials and Structures
Engineering XX Cycle, University of Naples
Federico II.
[12] Faber, M. H. and Sorensen, J. D. (2002),
Reliability Based Code, Joint Committee on
Structural Safety, Swiss Institute of Technology,
Zurich, Switzerland.
[13] Kulkarni, S. (2006), Calibration of Structural
Design of Concrete Members Reinforced with
FRP Bars, Thesis for the Degree of Master of
Science in Civil Engineering; Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Pune, India.
[14] Okeil A., El-Tawil S, and Shahawy M. (2002),
Flexural Reliability of Reinforced Concrete
Bridge Girders Strengthened with CFRP
Laminates, Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Vol.7, No. 5.
[15] Gollwitzer, S., Abdo, T. and Rackwitz, R.
(1988), First Order Reliability Method (FORM)
manual, RCP, Munich, Germany.
[16] CAN/CSA-S6-02, 2002, Design and
Construction of Building Components with
Fibre-Reinforced Polymers, CAN/CSA S806-
02, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale,
Ontario, Canada.
[17] Ellingwood, B. (1978) Reliability Bases of Load
and Resistance Factor for Reinforced Concrete
Design, National Bureau of Standards, Building
Science Series 110, Washington, D. C.