2.

RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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 requirement is expressed by the following relation:
all

( 2.1 )

In this equation (2.1) the allowable stress all is given by:

all =

fy

( 2.2 )

35

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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 fy in equation (2.2) could be lower than presumed;

fabrication and/or erection may produce unfavourable effects.

The stiffness requirement is expressed by the following equation (same as

(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).

2.2. 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:
R (s ) = f (, R d )

( 2.1 )

36

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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 fy must

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 = ni tensile 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:
fi =

ni
n
= i
n ni

( 2.2 )

where ni is 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

Interval of
association

Frequency of
results

Interval Absolute Relative

ni
fi
central
values xi

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

n = 400 fi = 1,0 xm= 294.35

D=746.0775
s = (D)0,5 = 27.3144

37

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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

Fig. 2.1. Histograms corresponding to the values in table 2.1

It is to observe that any rectangle fi represents the relative frequency of the

results (simple probability) and in this case the normalized area of the whole
histogram is:

=1

( 2.4 )

calculate the mean value:

n

x m = fi x i

( 2.5 )

i =1

(for the case in table 2.1, xm = 294N/mm2)

calculate the dispersion:

n

D = s2 = fi (x i x m )

( 2.6 )

i =1

(for the case in table 2.1, D = 746N2/mm4)

calculate the standard deviation:

s=

f (x x )

i =1

( 2.7 )

(for the case in table 2.1, s = 27,3N/mm2)

The values xm and 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):
1 x xm

1
f (x ) =
e 2
s 2

( 2.8 )

The characteristic value of the yield stress fy may be defined in a probabilistic

manner by the following relation:

38

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

f y,k = f y,m k s

( 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:
f y , k = f y, m 2s

( 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 )

where v is the coefficient of variation, equation (2.10) becomes:

f y , k = f y , m (1 2 v )

( 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. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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:

S = M Ed ,max =

q D2
8

In this case, the load L = q is considered to be the random variable:

x=L=q
D2
(x ) =
x
8
A histogram may be drawn in the same way as described for steel randomness,
determining the mean value Fm and the standard deviation s for loads (Fig. 2.3).
f(F)
0.02
0.015
0.01

superior fractil

0.005
0

F
Fm

ks
Fk

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:

Fk = Fm + k s

( 2.15 )

40

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

Codes usually accept k = 1,645, corresponding to a 5% probability for the value Fk to

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 p of 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
0.02

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

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

41

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

Structural EUROCODES is 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;

42

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

failure caused by fatigue or other time-dependent effects (EN 1990 [10]).

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, 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 states are 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;

43

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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 or
snow 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.

44

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

1.5.3.3 permanent 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
1.5.3.4 variable action (Q)
action for which the variation in magnitude with time is neither negligible nor monotonic
1.5.3.5 accidental 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.

1.5.3.6 seismic action (AE)

action that arises due to earthquake ground motions
1.5.3.8 fixed action
action 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
1.5.3.9 free action
action that may have various spatial distributions over the structure
1.5.3.11 static action
action that does not cause significant acceleration of the structure or structural members
1.5.3.12 dynamic action
action that causes significant acceleration of the structure or structural members
1.5.3.13 quasi-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 EN
1991.
1.5.3.16 combination 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 0 1
1.5.3.17 frequent 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, within
the reference period, during which it is exceeded is only a small given part of the reference period, or

45

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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 1 1
1.5.3.18 quasi-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
2 1
1.5.3.19 accompanying 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 quasipermanent value.

1.5.3.20 representative 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 Fd of an action is expressed by:

Fd = f Frep

(EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.1a))

( 2.17 )

Frep = Fk

(EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.1b))

( 2.18 )

where:

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, 1 or 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 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 )

In equations (2.21) and (2.22):

46

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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 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:

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, 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

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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)
Design
working
life
category

Indicative
design
working life
(years)

Examples

10

10 to 25

Replaceable structural parts, e.g. gantry girders,

bearings

15 to 30

Agricultural and similar structures

50

Regular buildings and other regular structures

100

Monumental building structures, bridges, and other

civil engineering structures

Temporary structures (1)

(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

combinations), the most unfavourable of:

G, j

j 1

Gk, j P P Q,1 0,1 Qk,1 Q,i 0,i Qk,i

i >1

(EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.10a))

G, j Gk, j P P Q,1 Qk,1 Q,i 0,i Qk,i

j 1

i >1

(EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.10b))

( 2.19b )

for accidental design situations

k, j

j 1

P A d (1,1 or 2,1 ) Qk,1 2,i Qk,i

i >1

(EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.11b))

( 2.19a )

( 2.20 )

for seismic design situations

k, j

j 1

P A Ed 2,i Qk,i
i >1

(EN 1990 [10], rel. (6.12b))

48

( 2.21 )

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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 action j;

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 A Ed = I A Ek ;
AEk = characteristic value of seismic action;
I

= importance factor, given in EUROCODE 8 (EN 1998-1) [11];

G,j = partial factor for permanent action j;

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

Imposed loads in buildings, category (see EN 1991-1-1)

Category A: domestic, residential areas
Category B: office areas
Category C: congregation areas
Category D: shopping areas
Category E: storage areas
Category F: traffic area
vehicle weight 30kN
Category G: traffic area
30kN < vehicle weight 160kN
Category H: roofs
Snow loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-3)* Finland, Iceland,

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

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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

Imposed loads in buildings, category (see SR EN 1991-1-1:2004

and its National Annex)
0,7
0,5 0,3
Category A: domestic, residential areas
0,7
0,5 0,3
Category B: office areas
0,7
0,7 0,6
Category C: congregation areas
C1: Areas with tables
C1.1 areas in schools, reading rooms
C1.2 medical laboratories and offices, computer rooms etc.
C1.3 cafs, restaurants, dining halls, receptions
C2 Areas with fixed seats
C3 Areas without obstacles for moving people
C4 Areas with possible physical activities
C5 Areas susceptible to large crowds
Category D: shopping areas
0,7
0,7 0,6
Category E: storage areas
1,0
0,9 0,8
Category F: traffic area
0,7
0,7 0,6
vehicle weight 30kN
0,7
0,5 0,3
Category G: traffic area
30kN < vehicle weight 160kN
0,71)
0
0
Category H: roofs
Snow loads on buildings (see SR EN 1991-1-3:2005 and its
National Annex)
0,7
0,5 0,4
All sites
Wind loads on buildings (see SR EN 1991-1-4:2006 and its
0,7
0,2
0
National Annex)
*
*
*
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 1991-1-5:2005
National Annex.
According to the American codes ASCE 798 [3] (the latest version is from 2010)
and LRFD [4], the following combinations shall be investigated:

50

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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 )

1,2 D + 1,0 E + 0,5 L + 0,2 S

0,9 D + 1,6 W + 1,6 H
0,9 D + 1,0 E + 1,6 H
being:
D

= dead load (Pi + Ci)

= 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 pressure

of bulk materials

= live load (Vi imposed loads)

Lr

= roof live load

W = wind load
S

= snow load

= self-straining force

= earthquake load

= rain water or ice

3. According to the American code ASCE/SEI 710 [37]:

1,4 D

1,2 D + 1,6 L + 0,5 (L r or S or R )

1,2 D + 1,6 (L r or S or R ) + (L or 0,5 W )

1,2 D + 1,0 W + L + 0,5 (L r or S or R )

( 2.22 )

1,2 D + 1,0 E + L + 0,2 S

0,9 D + 1,0 W
0,9 D + 1,0 E

being:
D

= dead load (Pi + Ci)

= load due to fluids with well-defined pressures and maximum heights

Fa = flood load
L

= live load (Vi imposed loads)

Lr

= roof live load

W = wind load

51

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

= snow load

= earthquake load

= rain water or ice

2.3.6.5. Material design properties

The design value Rd of a material property is generally defined as:

Rd =

fk
M

( 2.27 )

where:
fk

= characteristic value of the considered material property;

M = partial safety factor for the considered material property.

For the design strength R of a structural steel, equation (2.27) becomes:
R=

fk
M

( 2.28 )

being f k = f m (1 2 v ) (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 Rd is generally defined as:
Rd =

Rk
M

(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 < pu is replaced by:

52

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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)

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:
Ed Cd

(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:
d a

( 2.26 )

where:
d = (Fi) is the design deformation, calculated using the characteristic (nominal)
appropriate values of actions;

a is an allowable deformation given in codes or requested by the owner.

53

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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:

E = ln

Sd
=0
Rd

( 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.

Xj
fE
Unsafe range
E>0
space E

Safety
range
E<0

EsE

Xi

mE

limit hypersurface E = 0
Xn
Fig. 2.5. The reliability index method (level 2)

54

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

In the case of a simple internal effort S (= N, M or Q), the reliability index E is

defined as the reverse of the coefficient of variation vE of the function E:
E =

1
m
= E
vE
sE

( 2.30 )

Equation (2.30) may be written as:

mE + E sE = 0

( 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.

Table 2.5. Main statistic characteristics

Y

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

m2X1 v 2X1 + m2X 2 v 2X 2

m X1 + m X 2

X1 X2

mX1 mX2

DX1 + DX2

m2X1 v 2X1 + m2X 2 v 2X 2

m X1 m X 2

X1 X2

mX1 mX2

m2X1 D X1 + m2X 2 D X 2

v 2X1 + v 2X 2

55

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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

for members under dead + live and/or snow loading

= 4,5 for connections under dead + live and/or snow loading

( 2.34 )

= 2,5 under dead + live + wind loading

= 1,75 under dead + live + earthquake loading

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 SR and lnS/R for the beam in figure 2.6:
q
56

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

I24; W y = 354cm3
L = 6m
q L2
M=
12
Fig. 2.6. Example 2.1

Given:

for the loading:

mean value:

variation factor: vq = 0,1

mq = qm = 20kN/m

for the steel in use:

mean value:

mRc = Rm = 294N/mm2

dispersion:

DRc = 744N2/mm4

Calculate for the loading q (S):

m =

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

Calculations for the material (R):

mRc = 294N/mm2
DRc = 744N2/mm4
v =

DRc
744
=
= 0,093
mRc
294

Calculate the index SR (2.32):

S R =

mR mS
m m
294 169,5
= Rc
=
= 3,877 > 3,0
DR + DS
DRc + D
744 + 287,3

Calculate the index lnS/R (2.33):

57

2. RELIABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

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

1. In this method, the general condition p pu (2.16) is replaced by:

u

( 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:

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:
E(S1, S2 ,K, Sn; R1, R2 ,K, Rn ) = 0

( 2.36 )

a function of random variables Si and Ri and pu an accepted risk, depending on the

consequences.
At present this method is used only in scientific works.

58