Cap 2 2015
-
Upload
andreea-calin -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
0
Transcript of Cap 2 2015
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
1/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
35
Chapter 2
RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
2.1. GENERAL ASPECTS
In order to check the safety of a structure it is necessary to assess whether a
dangerous situation, able to make the structure unusable, might be reached due to
some extreme events. There are three types of methods to make the analysis of
steel structure reliability:
deterministic methods, which consider all parameters with their deterministic
values;
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.;
semi-probabilistic methods, which use probabilistic models to establish the
values for actions and capacities but they compare them using deterministic
models; most of present day design codes for steel structures use such methods.
Generally, when checking the safety of a structural element or of a whole
structure, the following requirements are to be satisfied:
strength requirement;
stiffness requirement.
In some cases, like seismic design, ductility requirements need also to be fulfilled.
2.2. ALLOWABLE STRESS METHOD (DETERMINISTIC METHOD)
In this method the strength requirementis expressed by the following relation:
all ( 2.1 )
In this equation (2.1) the allowable stress allis given by:
c
fyall= ( 2.2 )
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
2/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
36
where c is a global safety coefficient taking into account the following possibilities:
actual nominal loads considered in calculating the effective stress in equation
(2.1) could be greater than assumed;
actual nominal yielding stress fyin equation (2.2) could be lower than presumed; fabrication and/or erection may produce unfavourable effects.
The stiffness requirementis expressed by the following equation (same as
(1.2)):
a ( 2.3 )
where and aare the calculated and the allowable deformation respectively.
Critical remarkThe 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).
2.2. PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY
2.2.1. Probabilistic bases
A more rational approach to analyse the problem of structural reliability safety
is a probabilistic one. In such a model of analysis, all the parameters whose
uncertainty can influence the reliability of structures, especially those ones
concerning resistance and loads, are considered as random variables. Generally, the
management of the reliability of a construction is governed by codes like EN 1990
[10]or ISO 2394:2015 [36].
2.2.2. Resistance randomness
The resistance R(s) of a structural member with respect to a certain internal
force S (N, M, V, T) may be expressed in a general form by:
( ) ( )dR,fsR = ( 2.1 )
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
3/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
37
where is the cross-sectional characteristic corresponding to the internal force S,
i.e.:
= A for members in tension;
= W for members in bending.For industrially fabricated steel structural members, the cross sectional
characteristic may be considered as a deterministic value. The yield stress fymust
be considered as a random variable.
The following steps are to be followed to define the random variable x = fy:
consider the results on a sample of n = nitensile specimen tests (i.e. n values of
yield stress fy);
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:
==
i
iii
n
n
n
nf ( 2.2 )
where niis the number of samples satisfying the condition:
fy,i< x fy,i+ fy ( 2.3 )
where fy= 20 N/mm2
as shown in figure 2.1.
Table 2.1.Example of values of the yielding limit fy
Results association Frequency ofresults
Calculation
mean value xm(N/mm2)
dispersion D(N2/mm4)
Interval ofassociation
Intervalcentral
values xi
Absoluteni
Relativefi fixi (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
n= 400 fi= 1,0 xm= 294.35 D=746.0775s= (D)0,5= 27.3144
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
4/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
38
05% 5%
15%
35%25%
10%5%
00.10.2
0.30.4
220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Fig. 2.1.Histograms corresponding to the values in table 2.1
It is to observe that any rectangle f i represents the relative frequency of the
results (simple probability) and in this case the normalized area of the whole
histogram is:
1fi = ( 2.4 )
calculate the mean value:
=
=n
1i
iim xfx ( 2.5 )
(for the case in table 2.1, xm= 294N/mm2)
calculate the dispersion:
( )=
==n
1i
2
mii2 xxfsD ( 2.6 )
(for the case in table 2.1, D = 746N2/mm4)
calculate the standard deviation:
( )=
=n
1i
2
mii xxfs ( 2.7 )
(for the case in table 2.1, s = 27,3N/mm2
)The values xmand s define the random variable.
The histogram in figure 2.1 may be represented by the normal (Gaussian)
function of probability density described by (Fig. 2.2):
( )
2m
s
xx
2
1
e2s
1xf
= ( 2.8 )
The characteristic value of the yield stress fymay be defined in a probabilistic
manner by the following relation:
fy
fi
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
5/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
39
skff m,yk,y = ( 2.9 )
Codes usually accept k = 2, which represents a probability of 2,28% (inferior
fractil p) that the yield stress will not be inferior to fy,k. It means:
s2ff m,yk,y = ( 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:
mx
sv = ( 2.11 )
where vis the coefficient of variation, equation (2.10) becomes:
( )v21ff m,yk,y = ( 2.12 )
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
Fig. 2.2.Gaussian function of probability density for the yielding limit randomness
The European code EN 1990 [10]distinguishes between resistanceand 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.
f(x)
inferior fractil
( p = 2.28% )
x = fy
fy,k ks
fy,m
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
6/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
40
2.2.3. Force randomness
The internal force S(Fk) in a certain cross-section of a structural member, with
regard to the type of load and the structural model of calculation, may be written as:
S(Fk) = (L) ( 2.13 )
where:
L represents the acting loads;
are formulas derived from accepted principles of structural model of calculation.
Example:
For a simply supported beam, the maximum bending moment is:
8DqMS
2
max,Ed ==
In this case, the load L = q is considered to be the random variable:
x = L = q
( ) x8
Dx
2
=
A histogram may be drawn in the same way as described for steel randomness,
determining the mean value Fmand the standard deviation sfor loads (Fig. 2.3).
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
Fig. 2.3.Gaussian function of probability density for force randomness
Accepting the formula as deterministic, equation (2.13) becomes:
S(Fk) = S(L) ( 2.14 )
The characteristic value Fk, depending on the loads, may be written as:
skFF mk += ( 2.15 )
f(F)
superior fractil
F
Fm Fkks
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
7/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
41
Codes usually accept k = 1,645, corresponding to a 5% probability for the value Fkto
be exceeded (superior fractil p).
2.2.4. Reliability Safety analysis
Basically, to assess the reliability safety of a structure in the probabilistic
concept means to check that the probability pof exceeding a given limit state is not
greater than an a priori chosen probability pu, depending on the consequences of
reaching that limit state (Fig. 2.4).
p pu ( 2.16 )
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
Fig. 2.4.Example of reliability safety analysis
2.2.5. Probabilistic methods
Basically, three methods are to be considered:
the semi-probabilistic method (level 1);
the reliability index method (level 2);
the exact probabilistic method (level 3).
2.2.6. The semi-probabilistic limit states method (level 1)
2.2.6.1. The Eurocodes
f(S)f(R)
S, R
f(S) f(R)
P
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
8/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
42
Structural EUROCODESis a set of harmonised technical rules for the design
of construction works in Europe. In a first stage, they were intended to be an
alternative to the national design codes and, at present, they are replacing the
former national rules. There are ten families of standards, each one consisting of
several parts:
EN 1990 Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design
EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
EN 1993 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
EN 1994 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures
EN 1995 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures
EN 1996 Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures
EN 1997 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
EN 1998 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
EN 1999 Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures
2.2.6.2. Limit states
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:
loss of equilibrium of the structure or any part of it, considered as a rigid
body;
failure by excessive deformation, transformation of the structure or any
part of it into a mechanism, rupture, loss of stability of the structure or any
part of it, including supports and foundations;
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
9/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
43
failure caused by fatigue or other time-dependent effects (EN 1990 [10]).
The following ultimate limit statesshall be verified as relevant:
a) EQU: Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of it considered
as a rigid body, where: minor variations in the value or the spatial distribution of actions from a
single source are significant, and
the strengths of construction materials or ground are generally not
governing;
b) STR: Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural
members, including footings, piles, basement walls, etc., where the
strength of construction materials of the structure governs;
c) GEO: Failure or excessive deformation of the ground where the strengths
of soil or rock are significant in providing resistance;
d) FAT: Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members (EN 1990 [10])
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 statesare related to:
the functioning of the structure or structural members under normal use;
the comfort of people;
the appearance of the construction works.
NOTE 1 In the context of serviceability, the term "appearance" is concerned with
such criteria as high deflection and extensive cracking, rather than aesthetics.
NOTE 2 Usually the serviceability requirements are agreed for each individual
project (EN 1990 [10]).
Two types of serviceability limit states can be mentioned:
irreversible serviceability limit states(EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.14.1))
serviceability limit states where some consequences of actions exceeding
the specified service requirements will remain when the actions are
removed;
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
10/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
44
reversible serviceability limit states (EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.14.2))
serviceability limit states where no consequences of actions exceeding the
specified service requirements will remain when the actions are removed.
The verification of serviceability limit states should be based on criteria concerning the
following aspects:
a) deformations that affect the comfort of people;
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;
that cause discomfort to people, or
that limit the functional effectiveness of the structure;
c) damage that is likely to adversely affect
the appearance, the durability, or
the functioning of the structure(EN 1990 [10]).
2.2.6.3. Actions
An action(F) (EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.3.1)) can be:
a) Set of forces (loads) applied to the structure (direct action);
b) Set of imposed deformations or accelerations caused for example, by
temperature changes, moisture variation, uneven settlement or earthquakes
(indirect action).
The effect of an action (E) (EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.3.2)) designates effect of
actions (or action effect) on structural members, (e.g. internal force, moment, stress,
strain) or on the whole structure (e.g. deflection, rotation).
Actions shall be classified, according to EN 1990[10], by their variation in time as follows: permanent actions (G), e.g. self-weight of structures, fixed equipment and road surfacing, and
indirect actions caused by shrinkage and uneven settlements;
variable actions (Q), e.g. imposed loads on building floors, beams and roofs, wind actions orsnow loads;
accidental actions (A), e.g. explosions, or impact from vehicles(EN 1990 [10]).
Actions shall also be classified:
by their origin, as direct or indirect,
by their spatial variation, as fixed or free, or
by their nature and/or the structural response, as static or dynamic.
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
11/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
45
1.5.3.3permanent action(G)
action that is likely to act throughout a given reference period and for which the variation in
magnitude with time is negligible, or for which the variation is always in the same direction
(monotonic) until the action attains a certain limit value
1.5.3.4variable action (Q)
action for which the variation in magnitude with time is neither negligible nor monotonic
1.5.3.5accidental action (A)
action, usually of short duration but of significant magnitude, that is unlikely to occur on a given
structure during the design working life
NOTE 1 An accidental action can be expected in many cases to cause severe consequences unless appropriate measures are
taken.
NOTE 2 Impact, snow, wind and seismic actions may be variable or accidental actions, depending on the available
information on statistical distributions.
1.5.3.6seismic action (AE)action that arises due to earthquake ground motions
1.5.3.8fixed actionaction that has a fixed distribution and position over the structure or structural member such that the
magnitude and direction of the action are determined unambiguously for the whole structure or
structural member if this magnitude and direction are determined at one point on the structure or
structural member
1.5.3.9free actionaction that may have various spatial distributions over the structure
1.5.3.11static actionaction that does not cause significant acceleration of the structure or structural members
1.5.3.12dynamic actionaction that causes significant acceleration of the structure or structural members
1.5.3.13quasi-static action
dynamic action represented by an equivalent static action in a static model.(EN 1990 [10])
2.2.6.4. Values of actions
P The characteristic value (Fk)
of an action is its main representative value and shall be specified: as a mean value, an upper or lower value, or a nominal value (which does not refer to a
known statistical distribution) (see EN 1991);
in the project documentation, provided that consistency is achieved with methods given in EN1991.
1.5.3.16combination value of a variable action (0Qk)
value chosen - in so far as it can be fixed on statistical bases - so that the probability that the effects
caused by the combination will be exceeded is approximately the same as by the characteristic value
of an individual action. It may be expressed as a determined part of the characteristic value by using a
factor 01
1.5.3.17frequent value of a variable action (1Qk)
value determined - in so far as it can be fixed on statistical bases - so that either the total time, withinthe reference period, during which it is exceeded is only a small given part of the reference period, or
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
12/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
46
the frequency of it being exceeded is limited to a given value. It may be expressed as a determined
part of the characteristic value by using a factor 11
1.5.3.18quasi-permanent value of a variable action (2Qk)
value determined so that the total period of time for which it will be exceeded is a large fraction of the
reference period. It may be expressed as a determined part of the characteristic value by using a factor
21
1.5.3.19accompanying value of a variable action (Qk)value of a variable action that accompanies the leading action in a combination
NOTE The accompanying value of a variable action may be the combination value, the frequent value or the quasi-
permanent value.
1.5.3.20representative value of an action (Frep)value used for the verification of a limit state. A representative value may be the characteristic value
(Fk) or an accompanying value (Fk).(EN 1990 [10])
The design value Fdof an action is expressed by:
repfd FF = (EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.1a)) ( 2.17 )
where:
krep FF = (EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.1b)) ( 2.18 )
Fk the characteristic value of that action (2.15);
Frep the relevant representative value of that action;
f a partial factor for the action which takes account of the possibility of
unfavourable deviations of the action values from the representative values.
is either 1,00 or 0, 1or 2 (EN 1990 [10]).
2.2.6.5. Load combinations (combinations of actions)
1. According to the Romanian code STAS 10101/0A-77, two design situations areconsidered:
Fundamental combination
++ iigiiii VnnCnPn ( 2.21 )
Specialcombination
1idiii EVnCP +++ ( 2.22 )
In equations (2.21) and (2.22):
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
13/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
47
ng is a factor taking into account the probability of simultaneous action of a
number of variable actions (Vi) at their highest intensity:
ng= 1 for one Vi;
ng= 0,9 for two or three Vi; ng= 0,8 for four or more Vi.
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 situationsto 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.
Thedesign 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:
a persistent design situation (EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.4)) is a design
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;
a transient design situation (EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.3)) is a design
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;
an accidental design situation (EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.5)) is a design
situation involving exceptional conditions of the structure or its exposure, in-
cluding 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;
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
14/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
48
a seismic design situations (EN 1990 [10] (def. 1.5.2.7)) is a design
situation involving exceptional conditions of the structure when subjected to a
seismic event.
Table 2.2.Indicative design working life(EN 1990 [10] Tab. 2.1)
Designworking
lifecategory
Indicativedesign
working life(years)
Examples
1 10 Temporary structures (1)
2 10 to 25 Replaceable structural parts, e.g. gantry girders,bearings
3 15 to 30 Agricultural and similar structures
4 50 Regular buildings and other regular structures
5 100 Monumental building structures, bridges, and othercivil engineering structures
(1) Structures or parts of structures that can be dismantled with a view to being re-used 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
combinations), the most unfavourable of:
>
1i
i,ki,0i,Q1,k1,01,QP
1j
j,kj,G QQPG
(EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.10a)) ( 2.19a )
>
1i
i,ki,0i,Q1,k1,QP
1j
j,kj,Gj QQPG
(EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.10b)) ( 2.19b )
for accidentaldesign situations
( ) >
1i
i,ki,21,k1,21,1d
1j
j,k QQorAPG
(EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.11b)) ( 2.20 )
for seismicdesign situations
>
1i
i,ki,2Ed
1j
j,k QAPG
(EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.12b)) ( 2.21 )
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
15/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
49
In relations (2.19), (2.20), (2.21) the meanings are as follows:
= the combined effect of;
= combined with;
Gk,j= characteristic value of permanent actionj;
P = relevant representative value of a prestressing action;
Qk,1= characteristic value of the leading variable action 1;
Qk,i= characteristic value of the accompanying variable action i;
Ad = design value of an accidental action;
AEd= design value of seismic action EkIEd AA = ;
AEk= characteristic value of seismic action;
I = importance factor, given in EUROCODE 8 (EN 1998-1)[11];
G,j = partial factor for permanent actionj;
P = partial factor for prestressing actions;
Q,i = partial factor for the variable action i;
0 = factor for combination value of a variable action;
1 = factor for frequent value of a variable action;
2 = factor for quasi-permanent value of a variable action;
= a reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions G.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 0 1 2
Imposed loads in buildings, category (see EN 1991-1-1)Category A: domestic, residential areasCategory B: office areasCategory C: congregation areasCategory D: shopping areasCategory E: storage areasCategory F: traffic area
vehicle weight 30kNCategory G: traffic area
30kN < vehicle weight 160kN
Category H: roofs
0,70,70,70,71,00,7
0,7
0,71)
0,50,50,70,70,90,7
0,5
0
0,30,30,60,60,80,6
0,3
0
Snow loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-3)* Finland, Iceland, 0,7 0,5 0,2
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
16/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
50
Norway, SwedenRemainder 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.
0,7
0,5
0,5
0,2
0,4
0
Wind loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-4) 0,6 0,2 0Temperature (non-fire) in buildings (see EN 1991-1-5:2005) 0,6 0,5 0
NOTE The values may be set by the National annex.
* For countries not mentioned below, see relevant local conditions.
Table 2.4.Values of factors for buildings (EN 1990 [10] Tab. NA A.1.1)
Action 0 1 2
Imposed loads in buildings, category (see SR EN 1991-1-1:2004
and its National Annex)Category A: domestic, residential areasCategory B: office areasCategory C: congregation areas
C1: Areas with tablesC1.1 areas in schools, reading roomsC1.2 medical laboratories and offices, computer rooms etc.C1.3 cafs, restaurants, dining halls, receptions
C2 Areas with fixed seatsC3 Areas without obstacles for moving peopleC4 Areas with possible physical activitiesC5 Areas susceptible to large crowds
Category D: shopping areasCategory E: storage areasCategory F: traffic area
vehicle weight 30kNCategory G: traffic area
30kN < vehicle weight 160kN
Category H: roofs
0,70,70,7
0,71,00,7
0,7
0,71)
0,50,50,7
0,70,90,7
0,5
0
0,30,30,6
0,60,80,6
0,3
0
Snow loads on buildings (see SR EN 1991-1-3:2005 and itsNational Annex)
All sites
0,7 0,5 0,4
Wind loads on buildings (see SR EN 1991-1-4:2006 and itsNational Annex)
0,7 0,2 0
Temperature (non-fire) in buildings (see SR EN 1991-1-5:2005)* * *
1)See SR EN 1991-1-1:2004, 3.3.2(1).
* Values of factors will be available after the completion of SR EN 1991-1-5:2005National Annex.
According to the American codes ASCE 798 [3] (the latest version is from 2010)
and LRFD[4], the following combinations shall be investigated:
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
17/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
51
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
H6,1E0,1D9,0
H6,1W6,1D9,0
S2,0L5,0E0,1D2,1
RorSorL5,0L5,0W6,1D2,1
W8,0orL5,0RorSorL6,1D2,1
RorSorL5,0HL6,1TFD2,1
FD4,1
r
r
r
++
++
+++
+++
++
+++++
+
( 2.26 )
being:
D = dead load (Pi+ Ci)
F = load due to fluids with well-defined pressures and maximum heights
Fa = flood load
H = load due to lateral earth pressure, ground water pressure or pressureof bulk materials
L = live load (Viimposed loads)
Lr = roof live load
W = wind load
S = snow load
T = self-straining force
E = earthquake loadR = rain water or ice
3. According to the American code ASCE/SEI 710 [37]:
( )
( ) ( )
( )
E0,1D9,0W0,1D9,0
S2,0LE0,1D2,1
RorSorL5,0LW0,1D2,1
W5,0orLRorSorL6,1D2,1
RorSorL5,0L6,1D2,1
D4,1
r
r
r
++
+++
+++
++
++
( 2.22 )
being:
D = dead load (Pi+ Ci)
F = load due to fluids with well-defined pressures and maximum heights
Fa = flood load
L = live load (Viimposed loads)
Lr
= roof live loadW = wind load
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
18/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
52
S = snow load
E = earthquake load
R = rain water or ice
2.3.6.5. Material design properties
The design value Rdof a material property is generally defined as:
M
kd
fR
= ( 2.27 )
where:
fk = characteristic value of the considered material property;
M = partial safety factor for the considered material property.For the design strength Rof a structural steel, equation (2.27) becomes:
M
kfR
= ( 2.28 )
being ( )v21ff mk = (see equation (2.15)).
2.2.6.6. Design resistance
The ability of the cross-section, member or structure to withstand the effects
of loads is expressed by means of the resistance that includes the strength of the
material (fk). The design resistance Rdis generally defined as:
M
kd
RR
= (EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.6c)) ( 2.23 )
where:
Rk characteristic value of the resistance;
M partial factor for a material property.
2.2.6.7. Ultimate limit state
In the limit state method (also called the method of extreme values), the
probabilistic condition in equation (2.16) p < puis replaced by:
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
19/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
53
SdRd ( 2.29 )
EdRd (EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.8)) ( 2.24 )
which means that the maximum probable internal design effort Eddoes not exceed
the minimum probable design resistance capacity Rd. In equation (2.24):Sd= S(niFi) is the internal design effort, calculated using design values of actions
and taking into account respectively the load combinations in eqs.
(2.21) and (2.22) or (2.23), (2.24) and (2.25) or (2.26), depending on
the code;
Rd = R(Rk/M) is the corresponding design resistance, calculated using the design
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.
2.2.6.8. Serviceability limit state
Depending on the serviceability criterion that is checked, the following
checking relation is used:
EdCd (EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.13)) ( 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:
da ( 2.26 )
where:
d= (Fi) is the design deformation, calculated using the characteristic(nominal)
appropriate values of actions;
ais an allowable deformation given in codes or requested by the owner.
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
20/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
54
2.3.6.8. Conclusive remarks
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.
2.3.7. The reliability index method (level 2)
In a general form, equation (2.25) becomes at limit:
Sd= Rd ( 2.27 )
Equation (2.31) may be written:
in the subtract model Rjanitin Cornell as:
E = Sd Rd= 0 ( 2.28 )
in the logarithmic model Freudenthal Rosenblueth as:
0R
S
lnE d
d
== ( 2.29 )
In equations (2.28) and (2.29) E = 0 is the reliability function, expressing (Fig. 2.5):
E < 0 : safety range;
E > 0 : unsafe range;
E = 0 : the border between safety and unsafe range.
Fig. 2.5.The reliability index method (level 2)
Xi
Xj
Xn
Unsafe rangeE > 0
SafetyrangeE < 0
space E
limit hypersurface E = 0
mE
fE
EsE
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
21/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
55
In the case of a simple internal effort S(= N, M or Q), the reliability index Eis
defined as the reverse of the coefficient of variation vEof the function E:
E
E
E
Es
m
v
1== ( 2.30 )
Equation (2.30) may be written as:
0sm EEE =+ ( 2.31 )
In equations (2.30) and (2.31) mEand sEare 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.
Table 2.5.Main statistic characteristics
Y mY DY vY
X1 mX1 DX1 vX1
C C 0 0
CX1 CmX1 C2DX1 vX1
X1 C mX1C DX1Cm
vm
1X
!X1X
X1+ X2 mX1+ mX2 DX1+ DX22X1X
2
2X
2
2X
2
1X
2
1X
mm
vmvm
+
+
X1 X2 mX1 mX2 DX1+ DX2
2X1X
2
2X
2
2X
2
1X
2
1X
mm
vmvm
+
X1X2 mX1mX22X
22X1X
21X DmDm +
2
2X
2
1X vv +
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
22/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
56
X1/ X2 mX1/ mX2 2X2
1X1X
2
2X2
2X
DmDmm
1+ 2
2X
2
1X vv +
For the two models presented above, the reliability index , taking intoaccount the relations in table 2.5, becomes:
SR
SRRS
DD
mm
+
= ( 2.32 )
2S
2R
S
R
R
Sln vv
m
mln
+
= ( 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/Rrespectively (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:
loadingearthquake+live+deadunder75,1
loadingwind+live+deadunder5,2
loadingsnowand/orlive+deadundersconnectionfor5,4
loadingsnowand/orlive+deadundermembersfor3
=
=
=
=
( 2.34 )
Table 2.6.Correspondence between the index and the probability pu
pu 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 SRand lnS/Rfor the beam in figure 2.6:
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
23/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
57
Fig. 2.6.Example 2.1
Given:
for the loading:
mean value: mq= qm= 20kN/m
variation factor: vq= 0,1
for the steel in use:
mean value: mRc= Rm= 294N/mm2
dispersion: DRc= 744N2/mm4
Calculate for the loading q (S):
2
3
22
qM mmN5,1691035412
600020
W12
Lm
W
mm =
=
==
42222q
2qq mmN41,020vmD ===
42
622
4
q
222
mmN3,28741035412
6000D
W12
Lq
W12
LDD =
=
=
=
1,05,169
3,287
m
Dv ===
Calculations for the material (R):
mRc= 294N/mm2
DRc= 744N2/mm4
093,0294
744
m
Dv
Rc
Rc ===
Calculate the index SR(2.32):
0,3877,33,287744
5,169294
DD
mm
DD
mm
Rc
Rc
SR
SRRS >=
+
=
+
=
+
=
Calculate the index lnS/R(2.33):
L = 6m
12
LqM
2=
I24; Wy= 354cm3
-
7/23/2019 Cap 2 2015
24/24
2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES
0,3033,41,0093,0
5,169
294ln
vv
m
mln
vv
m
mln
2222Rc
Rc
2S
2R
S
R
R
Sln
>=+
=+
=+
=
Remarks1. In this method, the general condition p pu(2.16) is replaced by:
u ( 2.35 )
which expresses the condition E > 0 (S > R); uis 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:
a more adequate location of points on the hyper-surface E = 0;
an extension of the method to various non-normal distributions.
2.3.8. The probabilistic method (level 3)
In this method the reliability analysis is based on the general condition p pu
(2.16), where p is the probability of E > 0, being:
( ) 0R,,R,R;S,,S,SE n21n21 =KK ( 2.36 )
a function of random variables Siand Riand puan accepted risk, depending on the
consequences.
At present this method is used only in scientific works.