Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Chapter 2
RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
probabilistic methods, which consider all parameters and the relations among
them as random variables; they are difficult to carry on and they need a very
sophisticated mathematical procedure; they also need a great amount of data
about loads, material properties etc.;
strength requirement;
stiffness requirement.
In some cases, like seismic design, ductility requirements need also to be fulfilled.
( 2.1 )
fy
( 2.2 )
35
actual nominal yielding stress fy in equation (2.2) could be lower than presumed;
(1.2)):
a
( 2.3 )
where and a are the calculated and the allowable deformation respectively.
Critical remark
The method considers only a simultaneous increase of the loads that can
unfavourably affect a correct analysis of the reliability, especially when permanent
loads (dead loads) are significantly smaller than the imposed ones (live loads).
( 2.1 )
36
=W
according to the values given in table 2.1, draw the histogram in figure 2.1,
noticing that the normalized area of any rectangle on the histogram represents
the ratio:
fi =
ni
n
= i
n ni
( 2.2 )
( 2.3 )
Interval of
association
Frequency of
results
Calculation
mean value xm (N/mm2)
dispersion D (N2/mm4)
fi xi
(xi xm)2
fi (xi xm)2
220 240
230
20
0.0500
11.500 4140.923
207.0461
240 260
250
19
0.0475
11.875 1966.923
93.4288
260 280
270
59
0.1475
39.825
592.923
87.4560
280 300
290
140
0.3500
101.500
18.923
6.6228
300 320
310
101
0.2525
78.275
244.923
61.8429
320 340
330
40
0.1000
33.000 1270.923
127.0923
340 360
350
21
0.0525
18.375 3096.923
162.5884
D=746.0775
s = (D)0,5 = 27.3144
37
fi
35%
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
25%
15%
5%
10%
5%
5%
fy
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
=1
( 2.4 )
x m = fi x i
( 2.5 )
i =1
D = s2 = fi (x i x m )
( 2.6 )
i =1
f (x x )
i =1
( 2.7 )
1
f (x ) =
e 2
s 2
( 2.8 )
38
( 2.9 )
( 2.10 )
The fractil p is defined as that value of the yield stress for which there is a probability
p for the yield stress to be inferior to that value.
By noting:
v=
s
xm
( 2.11 )
( 2.12 )
f(x)
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
inferior fractil
( p = 2.28% )
0.002
0
x = fy
fy,k
ks
fy,m
Fig. 2.2. Gaussian function of probability density for the yielding limit randomness
The European code EN 1990 [10] distinguishes between resistance and strength.
The resistance is defined in EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.15) as the capacity of a
member or component, or a cross-section of a member or component of a structure,
to withstand actions without mechanical failure e.g. bending resistance, buckling
resistance, tension resistance. Strength is used in EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.16) to
express the mechanical property of a material indicating its ability to resist actions,
usually given in units of stress.
39
( 2.13 )
where:
L
Example:
q D2
8
superior fractil
0.005
0
F
Fm
ks
Fk
( 2.14 )
The characteristic value Fk, depending on the loads, may be written as:
Fk = Fm + k s
( 2.15 )
40
f(S)
f(R)
( 2.16 )
f(R)
f(S)
0.015
0.01
0.005
S, R
0
Fig. 2.4. Example of reliability safety analysis
41
EN 1991
EN 1992
EN 1993
EN 1994
EN 1995
EN 1996
EN 1997
EN 1998
EN 1999
A limit state can be defined as the state beyond which the structure no
longer fulfils the relevant design criteria (EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.12)).
There are two categories of limit states:
1. ultimate limit states, which are states associated with collapse or with other
similar forms of structural failure and they generally correspond to the maximum
load-carrying resistance of a structure or structural member (EN 1990 [10] (def.
1.5.2.13)). Ultimate limit states are related to the safety of people and/or the
safety of the structure (EN 1990 [10]). It is to consider here:
42
2. serviceability limit states, which refer to the normal use of the structure and
correspond to conditions beyond which specified service requirements for a
structure or structural member are no longer met (EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.14)).
Serviceability limit states are related to:
43
the appearance,
the comfort of users, or
the functioning of the structure (including the functioning of machines or services),
or that cause damage to finishes or non-structural members;
b) vibrations;
the appearance,
the durability, or
the functioning of the structure (EN 1990 [10]).
2.2.6.3. Actions
44
45
( 2.17 )
Frep = Fk
( 2.18 )
where:
a partial factor for the action which takes account of the possibility of
unfavourable deviations of the action values from the representative values.
1. According to the Romanian code STAS 10101/0A-77, two design situations are
considered:
Fundamental combination
n P + n C + n n V
i
( 2.21 )
Special combination
P + C + n
i
d
i
Vi + E1
( 2.22 )
46
ng = 1
ng = 0,9
ng = 0,8
nid is a factor representing the long lasting part of a variable action; nid < 1.
The ultimate limit states are usually examined considering the effects of the
design values of actions, while for serviceability limit states the characteristic
values of actions are generally used.
2. EN 1990 [10] uses design situations to express the requirements to be fulfilled
for each limit state. Design situations (EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.2)) are sets of
physical conditions representing the real conditions occurring during a certain
time interval for which the design will demonstrate that relevant limit states are
not exceeded.
The design working life (EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.8)) is the assumed period for
which a structure or part of it is to be used for its intended purpose with
anticipated maintenance but without major repair being necessary. Values of the
design working life are given in table 2.2. Design situations are defined as
follows:
situation that is relevant during a period of the same order as the design
working life of the structure; it refers to the conditions of normal use of the
structure;
situation that is relevant during a period much shorter than the design working
life of the structure and which has a high probability of occurrence; it refers to
temporary conditions applicable to the structure, e.g. during execution or
repair;
situation involving exceptional conditions of the structure or its exposure, including fire, explosion, impact or local failure; it refers to exceptional
conditions applicable to the structure or to its exposure, e.g. to fire, explosion,
impact or the consequences of localised failure;
47
Table 2.2. Indicative design working life (EN 1990 [10] Tab. 2.1)
Design
working
life
category
Indicative
design
working life
(years)
Examples
10
10 to 25
15 to 30
50
100
(1) Structures or parts of structures that can be dismantled with a view to being reused should not be considered as temporary.
According to EN1990 [10], three types of combinations of actions are to be
considered when designing steel members:
for
persistent
and
transient
design
situations
(fundamental
G, j
j 1
j 1
i >1
( 2.19b )
k, j
j 1
( 2.19a )
( 2.20 )
k, j
j 1
P A Ed 2,i Qk,i
i >1
( 2.21 )
= combined with;
The value for and factors may be set by the National annex. Some examples
of recommended values of factors for buildings are given in table 2.3. The
values adopted in the Romanian National Annex are given in table 2.4.
Table 2.3. Values of factors for buildings (EN 1990 [10] Tab. A.1.1)
Action
49
0,7
0,7
0,7
0,7
1,0
0,7
0,5
0,5
0,7
0,7
0,9
0,7
0,3
0,3
0,6
0,6
0,8
0,6
0,7
0,5
0,3
0,71)
0,7
0,5
0,2
Norway, Sweden
Remainder of CEN Member States, for sites located at altitude H
> 1000 m a.s.l.
Remainder of CEN Member States, for sites located at altitude H
_ 1000 m a.s.l.
Wind loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-4)
Temperature (non-fire) in buildings (see EN 1991-1-5:2005)
NOTE The values may be set by the National annex.
* For countries not mentioned below, see relevant local conditions.
0,7
0,5
0,4
0,5
0,2
0,6
0,6
0,2
0,5
0
0
Table 2.4. Values of factors for buildings (EN 1990 [10] Tab. NA A.1.1)
Action
50
1,4 (D + F)
1,2 (D + F + T ) + 1,6 (L + H) + 0,5 (L r or S or R )
1,2 D + 1,6 (L r or S or R ) + (0,5 L or 0,8 W )
1,2 D + 1,6 W + 0,5 L + 0,5 (L r or S or R )
( 2.26 )
Fa = flood load
H
Lr
W = wind load
S
= snow load
= self-straining force
= earthquake load
( 2.22 )
being:
D
Fa = flood load
L
Lr
W = wind load
51
= snow load
= earthquake load
fk
M
( 2.27 )
where:
fk
fk
M
( 2.28 )
Rk
M
( 2.23 )
where:
Rk characteristic value of the resistance;
M partial factor for a material property.
In the limit state method (also called the method of extreme values), the
probabilistic condition in equation (2.16) p < pu is replaced by:
52
Sd Rd
Ed Rd
( 2.29 )
(EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.8))
( 2.24 )
which means that the maximum probable internal design effort Ed does not exceed
the minimum probable design resistance capacity Rd. In equation (2.24):
Sd = S(niFi)
strength of steel.
where:
Ed the design value of the effect of actions such as internal force or moment,
resulted from load combinations like (2.19), (2.20), (2.21) or (2.22), depending
on the design code that is used;
Rd the design value of the corresponding resistance.
( 2.25 )
where:
Ed the design value of the effect of actions specified in the serviceability criterion,
resulted from appropriate load combinations;
Cd the limiting design value of the relevant serviceability criterion.
The most common serviceability limit state to be checked is the deformation
check. It will be verified that:
d a
( 2.26 )
where:
d = (Fi) is the design deformation, calculated using the characteristic (nominal)
appropriate values of actions;
53
1. At present, the limit state method is the design method provided in most of the
important codes.
2. It represents a more accurate model compared to the allowable stress method
because it separates the material randomness from the load randomness and it
accepts different approaches for different types of loads.
( 2.27 )
( 2.28 )
Sd
=0
Rd
( 2.29 )
In equations (2.28) and (2.29) E = 0 is the reliability function, expressing (Fig. 2.5):
Safety
range
E<0
EsE
Xi
mE
limit hypersurface E = 0
Xn
Fig. 2.5. The reliability index method (level 2)
54
1
m
= E
vE
sE
( 2.30 )
( 2.31 )
In equations (2.30) and (2.31) mE and sE are the mean value and, respectively, the
standard deviation of the function E.
Figure 2.5 shows the physical significance of the reliability index E which
represents in hyper-space E the distance calculated in standard deviations sE
between the point with the abscissa mE and the point with the abscissa E = 0,
located on the random hyper-surface which defines the border between safe and
unsafe behaviour, corresponding to a certain probability pu = p(E).
The properties of the main statistic characteristics for two variables, X1 and
X2, are given in table 2.5.
mY
DY
vY
X1
mX1
DX1
vX1
CX1
CmX1
C2 DX1
vX1
X1 C
mX1 C
DX1
m X1 v X!
m X1 C
X1 + X2
mX1 + mX2
DX1 + DX2
X1 X2
mX1 mX2
DX1 + DX2
X1 X2
mX1 mX2
m2X1 D X1 + m2X 2 D X 2
v 2X1 + v 2X 2
55
X1 / X2
mX1 / mX2
1
m2X 2 D X1 + m2X1 D X 2
2
mX2
v 2X1 + v 2X 2
For the two models presented above, the reliability index , taking into
account the relations in table 2.5, becomes:
S R =
ln
S
R
mR mS
DR + DS
( 2.32 )
m
ln R
m
= S
v R2 + v S2
( 2.33 )
Table 2.6 shows a correspondence between the index and the probability pu of
losing the safety for SR (S and R normal distributions) and lnS/R respectively (S
and R lognormal distributions).
The American code ASCE/SEI 710 [37] provides the reliability lnS/R index
(2.33) and the following targets were selected:
=3
( 2.34 )
SR; lnS/R
SR; lnS/R
pu
10-1
1,29
1,0
1,59 10-1
10-2
2,33
1,5
6,68 10-2
10-3
3,09
2,0
2,27 10-2
10-4
3,72
2,5
6,21 10-3
10-5
4,27
3,0
1,35 10-3
10-6
4,75
3,5
2,33 10-4
10-7
5,20
4,0
3,17 10-5
10-8
5,61
4,5
3,40 10-6
10-9
6,00
5,0
2,90 10-7
10-10
6,35
5,5
1,90 10-8
Example 2.1.
Calculate the index SR and lnS/R for the beam in figure 2.6:
q
56
I24; W y = 354cm3
L = 6m
q L2
M=
12
Fig. 2.6. Example 2.1
Given:
mean value:
mq = qm = 20kN/m
mean value:
mRc = Rm = 294N/mm2
dispersion:
DRc = 744N2/mm4
2
mM mq L
20 60002
=
=
= 169,5 N mm2
W 12 W 12 354 103
Dq = m2q v 2q = 20 2 0,12 = 4 N2 mm 4
2
L2
L2
6000 4
D = D
q =
Dq = 2
4 = 287,3 N2 mm 4
2
6
12 354 10
12 W 12 W
v =
D
287,3
=
= 0,1
m
169,5
DRc
744
=
= 0,093
mRc
294
mR mS
m m
294 169,5
= Rc
=
= 3,877 > 3,0
DR + DS
DRc + D
744 + 287,3
ln
S
R
m
m
294
ln R
ln Rc
ln
m
m
169,5
= S = =
= 4,033 > 3,0
2
2
2
2
vR + v S
v Rc + v
0,093 2 + 0,12
Remarks
( 2.35 )
which expresses the condition E > 0 (S > R); u is a risk a priori accepted.
2. At present, this method is used especially to calibrate the partial safety factors in
the limit state method and the coefficients ni in the load combinations; in the
future it is to be expected that the index method will replace the limit state
method.
3. In order to improve the index method two tendencies are to be observed in
scientific works:
( 2.36 )
58