See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262843371

Reliability Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete Structures

Conference Paper · November 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 206

4 authors, including:

Ibrahim Assakkaf Hasan J. Karam

University of Maryland, College Park Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research
35 PUBLICATIONS   262 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

American Society of Mechanicanl Engineering (ASME) View project

US Navy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ibrahim Assakkaf on 08 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Reliability Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete Structures
Hasan A Kamal, Ibrahim A Assakkaf, Hasan J Karam and Naser O Al-Enezi
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Energy and Building Research Center, Infrastructure Risk and Reliability
Program, Kuwait City, Kuwait

Abstract. The performance, serviceability and structural integrity of an existing multi-story reinforced
concrete structural system of a commercial complex are assessed. The complex was constructed around three
decades ago in Kuwait city, Kuwait. Kuwait is located in the northwest corner of the Arabian Gulf Peninsula.
Its urban area is located close to the coastal side of the country. Kuwait’s environment is characterized as a
typical desert environment. It is considered harsh and severe environmental conditions that have a direct
impact on the durability of reinforced concrete structures. The purpose of the assessment is determining the
degradation level, estimating the strength of the structural components, and providing assessment methodology
for the structural frame system of the existing complex. The non-destructive tests (NDT) and destructive tests
(DT) are conducted, in addition to performing structural analysis for the concrete frame systems. In this paper,
reliability method is used to assess the safety and performance of some critical structural components of the
reinforced concrete frame system. Reliability method is then used to assess the system safety and performance
taking into consideration the relationship among the structural components. Probabilistic parameters are used
for estimating the probability of failure and safety index for the structural components and system. The
reliability method is found efficient for estimating the safety of existing structural systems, according providing
important information for decision maker to properly and efficiently maintain or rehabilitate the system.

1 Introduction Reliability methods are probability-based

Safety and functionality are important
considerations for the design of structural systems. In a
typical layout, a structural system usually consists of
basic structural components that are connected in some
regular interactions for the purpose of achieving specific
functional and performance requirements. The
functionality of the structural system depends on the
functionality of the individual components in the system.
This paper involves the assessment and evaluation
of reinforced concrete structural elements, such as a beam
and/or a column, of an aging complex building in Kuwait
City. Concrete structural elements and components
should be given more attention because of the rapid
deterioration of these elements and components due to
harsh and severe environment such that those found in
the State of Kuwait region and neighbouring GCC
countries.
Kuwait’s environment is aggressive that is
characterized as a typical desert environment. It is
considered harsh and has severe environmental
conditions that have a direct impact on the durability of
reinforced concrete structures. It is characterized by
extreme temperature variation and humidity cycles; also,
by severe ground and ambient salinity with high levels of
chlorides and sulphates in soil and groundwater.
approaches that are used in assessing the performance
and safety of structural components or systems.
Reliability is defined as the probability that the
component or the system meets some specified demands
for specified time period under specified environmental
conditions. Therefore, the reliability is the ability of a
structural system to fulfil its design purpose for some a
specified time period. The probability approaches in the
reliability analysis take into account the uncertainties in
the structural component variables or the system as a
whole. Uncertainties are inherent in the component
strength random variables and in the corresponding
loading effects.
The structural system may fail due to the failure of
one or more structural components in the system. A
failure mode in the system is considered as the
combination of the structural component failures that lead
to the failure of the whole structural system. Identifying
the failure modes in a structural system is important for
appropriate design and maintenance of the structural
system.
Correlations among the basic structural
components can have significant impacts on the
reliability of structural systems and also impacts on the
failure modes in the system. The correlations can be due
to common material properties, common construction
 CMSS-2013
practices, or common loading effects that affect several
components in the system.
2 Reliability Assessments
2.1 Definition
Reliability is a probabilistic approach used to assess and
evaluate the performance of structural systems. The
reliability of a structural system can be considered as the
probability of satisfactory functioning of the structure
under extreme loading conditions for a specified time
period under specified environmental conditions. A
structural system is considered as a collection of
components that are connected in some regular
interaction or dependence for proper functioning of the
system. The connections between the system
components define the relationships among the
components in the system. The reliability of the whole
structural systems is a function of the reliabilities of the
individual basic structural components composing the
system. In order to assess the reliability of the whole
structural system, the reliability of the basic individual
components should be assessed first. Based on the
relationships among the components in the system, the
reliability of the whole structural system can be assessed.
2.2 Reliability of Structural Components
The structural components are the major elements in
structural systems. The basic structural component
strength is a function of some random variables such as
the material properties and the component geometric
dimensions. The loading effects on the components and
the system are functions of the loading conditions such as
dead load, live load, wind load, and snow load. The
reliability of each component in the system is the
probability that the strength of the component exceeds the
applied loadings on the same component. Thus, the
probability of failure of the component is the probability
that the strength of the component is less than the applied
loadings on the component.
The performance function of a structural component, Z,
describes the performance of the component and is
defined as
Z  R  L  g ( X 1 , X 2 , X 3 ,, X n ) (1)
where R is the component strength; L is the applied loads
on the component; g . is the performance function of
the component that describes the relationship between R
and L; and X 1 , X 2 , X 3 ,, X n are n basic random
variables for R and L. The performance function is
expressed such that failure of the structural system
component results in a negative sign of the function (i.e.
Z < 0), survival of the system component results in a
positive sign for the function (i.e. Z > 0), and limit-state
results in Z = 0 (see Figure 1).
There are several methods for assessing the reliability of
basic structural components as outlined by Ayyub &
McCuen (2003). The presented methods are the moment-
based methods and the simulation-based methods. The
moment-based methods are the first-order reliability
method and the advanced second moment method. The
simulation-based methods are the direct Monte Carlo
simulation method and the variance reduction techniques.
Strength (R)
Probability Density Function
Load (L)
Performance
Function (Z)
Failure Probability
(Area for Z < 0)
Random Value
Fig. 1. Frequency Distribution of Resistance R and Load L,
and the Combined Performance Function Z
2.3 Reliability of Structural Systems
The accuracy of structural system reliability is dependent
on the accuracy of the individual structural components
that make up the whole system. It also depends on the
correlations among the basic random variables of the
components. Therefore, it is a function of the reliabilities
of the individual basic structural components composing
the system. The relationship among the components in
the system and the degree of redundancies are important
aspects in reliability assessment of systems. Several
methods are available and be used to assess the reliability
of a structural system based on the relationship among
the system components. The fault tree analysis is used in
this study for assessing structural reliability of systems.
The fault tree is a graphical logical diagram describes
the interrelationships of the basic structural components
that are composing the system and leads to the
occurrence of the predefined undesired top event in the
tree. For structural engineering systems, the undesired
top event is defined as the structural system failure. The
Fault tree analysis identifies the failures (faults) that
could lead to the occurrence of the undesired top event.
Therefore, the fault tree shows the different failure modes
(the sequence of basic component failures) that lead to
the system failure. Figure 2 shows a model of fault tree
diagram with union and intersection gates and with basic
structural components as B1, B2, B3, and B4.
 CMSS-2013
Fig. 2. Fault tree diagram.
2.4 Simulation
Due to the advent of state-of-the-art fast computers and
vast advancement in the computational methods,
simulation methods can used effectively for assessing the
reliability of a structural system. Simulation is the
process of conducting experiments on a model instead of
applying experiments directly on the system or the
components. A model, physical or mathematical, is a
representation of the real system or the component for the
purpose of studying its performance. Monte Carlo
simulation is the most common simulation technique.
Monte Carlo simulation deals with non-probabilistic
system using probabilistic methods to probabilistically
assess output variables of interest.
3 Case Study
3.1 Description
The data selected in this case study are real data
characterizing the existing strength property of plain
concrete used in the construction of the aging complex
building under evaluation. This building was built about
30 years ago, and it is located in a high-capacity
residential area in Kuwait City, State of Kuwait. The
complex consists of a main commercial building and a
number of towers used mainly as offices. The structural
system of the complex building consists of reinforced
concrete frame that comprises beams, columns and slabs.
A study was made to assess and evaluate the current
status of the reinforced concrete structural elements of the
whole building for safety and functionality purposes. In
this study, destructive testing (DT) and non-destructive
testing (NDT) were conducted to estimate the existing
compressive strength of concrete.
In destructive testing, several 10-cm and/or 12-cm
diameter concrete core samples were extracted from
various reinforced concrete structural elements of the
main frame system of the building. Table 1 shows the
compressive strengths of selected concrete core
samples, which were extracted from various structural
elements of the building.
Table 1. Compressive strengths of selected concrete core
samples that were extracted from various structural
elements of the complex building
Sample ID Location fc (MPa)
B-05 Basement 11.87
F-07 Ground 16.21
F-12 Ground 21.15
D-04 Mezzanine 16.57
F-09 First 10.44
It is to be noted that some of the original structural
design details containing the drawings of the building
were not available. Those drawing that were available
were not clear at the time of conducting this assessment
and evaluation of the complex building. Examples of the
unavailable information includes, but limited to, (1)
Columns/walls sizes and reinforcement schedule at
ground floor and above, (2) Beams sizes and
reinforcement schedule at all building levels, and (3) No
reference for the design code of practice used in the
building design. On the other hand, plain concrete,
reinforced concrete, and reinforcement steel strengths
were found in the structural drawings to have values of
120 kg/cm2, 250 kg/cm2, and 2400 kg/cm2 (235 MPa),
respectively.
Other needed information for the structural analyses
such as the loading criteria (dead, live, etc.), sizes of
structural elements, i.e., beams, columns, slabs, and
schedule and diameters of reinforcement steel bars were
assumed by experts. The assumptions were based on
information that was available in the structural drawings
provided by the owner and/or detected from site
visits/investigations, and also from common engineering
practices for similar buildings. Table 2 shows
representative and assumed values for loads used in the
evaluation of the complex building. It is to be noted that
the loading criteria of Table 2 was established to be close
as possible to the actual loading conditions in the current
stage when the structural assessment was made.
3.2 Statistical Quantification of Data
In reliability analysis the statistics of the main random
variables are required. These statistics include the mean
and standard deviation of strength and load effects as
well as the distribution types of the basic random
variables contained in the performance function or design
equation under study. Therefore, the mean, standard
deviation, and distribution type of each random variable
need to be identified and quantified. Table 3 gives
statistical and probabilistic values for strength random
variables that are used in the performance function
equations, which are required to perform the reliability
analyses for assessing and evaluating the structural
 CMSS-2013

Table 2. Representative values of dead and live loads

used in the structural analyses. components of the aging complex building. Table 4
Assumed provides statistical information on load random variables,
Dead Loads
Value namely the dead and live loads and their distribution
Structural elements 24 kN/m3 types.
External façade block walls 15 kN/m
Internal block walls 10 kN/m 3.3 Statistical Analysis of Existing Concrete Strengths
Partitions inside offices 3 kN/m
Floor finishing at commercial levels 2 kN/m2
Floor finishing at office levels 1.5 kN/m2 The destructive tests included extracting concrete core
Live Loads samples, in a random manner, from various structural
Commercial levels 5 kN/m2 components of the building for the purpose of evaluating
Office levels 2.5 kN/m2 the existing plain concrete strengths of the different
1.0 kN/m2 structural components of the aging building. More than
100 samples of cylindrical concrete cores were collected
Roof level (no mechanical equipment) and analyzed for evaluating the equivalent cube
compressive strength of concrete for each sample
obtained (see Table 1). These values of concrete
Upper stairs roof 10 kN/m2 compressive strength were further analyzed both
statistically and probabilistically to give the necessary
parameters needed for the reliability analyses. The result
Table 3. Statistical and probabilistic information on of the analysis showed that for all samples the average or
strength variables for columns. mean value of the concrete strength is 17.3 MPa, with a
Distribution minimum value of 6.3 MPa, a maximum value of 36.7
Variable Mean COV (%)
Type MPa, and a COV of 3.07%. It was also concluded from
fc’ 17.3 (MPa) 3.09 Lognormal the probabilistic analysis that the compressive strength of
fy 235 (MPa) 7.00 Lognormal concrete is to follow a Lognormal distribution, as shown
 0.0148 n/a n/a in Figure 3.
r 0.7692 n/a n/a
d 325 (mm) n/a n/a
Ag 100,000 n/a n/a 4 Results and Discussion
mm2 Reliability analysis was performed to estimate the
Ast 1,206 mm2 n/a n/a
average reliability indices ’s and/or failure probabilities
PF’s for selected and representative weak structural
elements of the complex building, namely beams and
Table 4. Statistical and probabilistic information on dead columns, and compare them to the corresponding values
and live loads for columns. of those indices adopted by international code standards.
Distribution Also, to calculate the partial safety factors (PSF’s) based
Variable Mean COV (%)
Type on current implied reliability indices according to
MD 40883 N-m 10 Normal international standards. These PSF’s could be used when
ML 54000 N-m 18 Normal there are any remedial structural measures that might take
PD 1780 N 10 Normal place to fix the weakened structural elements of the
PL 2350 N 18 Normal complex building.
The results of the reliability analysis are shown in
Tables 5 and 6. Randomly selected beams and columns
were considered in this analysis. FORM was used to
compute both the reliability indices and failure
probabilities, and also the partial safety factor for
specified and recommended reliability indices ’s.
These partial safety factors can be used in the de-
sign equation when redesigning the structural elements
(beam or column) with insufficient strength. The limit
state functions for a beam and a column can be
converted, using the PSF’s of Table 6, to design
equations as follows:

2
 d (1) f y 
rd (1) f y  d    (1.1) M  (1.4 ) M
L (2)
 1.7 ( 0.85) f c'  D

Figure 3. Histogram of compressive strength of concrete

showing Lognormal distribution fit.
 CMSS-2013

Table 5. Mean values of reliability index  and The study of the structural analyses conducted also
corresponding failure probability Pf for selected Beams indicates that a big portion of these elements need to be
and columns of the complex Building fixed. As an example, Table 8 shows the post analysis of
 Pf columns for some sections of the complex building.
Beams 1.32 0.097
Columns 1.72 0.062 The system reliability of the whole building can be
estimated using system reliability as was discussed
earlier. Fault tree analysis is required to perform such an
analysis. Also, values for correlations among all various
Table 6. Partial safety factors ’s and ’s based on structural components are needed for such analyses.
prescribed and recommended reliability indices of 3 for However, for simplicity and since we are dealing only
beams and 4 for Columns with two structural components, that is, reinforced beams
Element Limit State and columns, the structural components were considered
fc’ fs D L
Equation uncorrelated, and therefore the fault tree analysis for
Beam Eq. 1 0.85 1.00 1.1 1.4 computing the overall reliability index  for the building
Column Eq. 2 0.67 0.97 1.3 1.6 was based on utilizing the principle of two components in
series. Hence, the computed reliability index  for the
whole building was found to be 2.5 and the
Table 7. Post Analysis for Column Evaluation corresponding failure probability Pf is 0.006.
Tower Tower Tower
1 2 3 5 Conclusions
Overall Number of 381 411 485
(100%) (100%) (100%) The First-Order Reliability Method (FORM) is a
Columns
powerful tool that can be employed to assess and evaluate
Number of Safe Columns the reliability of a structural component or system as well
307 340 471
(No Need for Any Repair (80.6%) (82.7%) (97.1%) as to develop and establish partial safety factors. In this
Works) study, FORM was utilized to compute the average
Number of Columns reliability indices and average failure probabilities of
Over-stressing by less 27 24 14 structural elements of an aging complex building, such as
than 10% (Needs Minor (7.1%) (5.85%) (2.9%) beams and columns to assess and evaluate their
reliabilities. It was obvious from the extremely low
Repair Works)
values of Pf’s that these elements, if not promptly
Number of Columns remedied, they could initiate risk and potential for both
Over-stressing by More 47 47 0 local collateral damage and possibly human loss. Local
than 10% (Needs Major (12.3%) (11.45%) (0%) damage is emphasized herein because component
Repair Works) reliability was utilized in the analysis rather than system
reliability, which basically considers the whole building
as a unit or a system, and consequently could have
provided more rigorous and accurate results. In addition,
local damage might and might not occur because of
 
0.80 0.85(0.67) f cAg  Ast   (0.97) f y Ast  (1.3) PD  (1.6) PL redundancy of structural elements and components of the
(3) building.
Also, FORM was used to develop the needed partial
where  = As/bd, As = cross sectional area of safety factors for the aging structural components, i.e.,
reinforcement steel, r = b/d, b = width of rectangular beams and columns for specified and recommended
section of the beam, d = distance from the center of reliability indices according to the international
reinforcement to upper edge of the rectangular section of standards. The partial safety factors were calculated for
the beam, fy = yield strength of steel, fc = compression several randomly selected cases that cover a wide range
strength of concrete, MD = moment due to dead load, ML of weak beams and columns of the building. They were
= moment due to live load, where Ag = gross area of computed for a target reliability index of 0 equals 3 for
column section, Ast = longitudinal steel area, fc beams and 4 for columns. The resulting partial safety
=compressive strength of concrete, fy = yield strength of factors, as provided in Table 6, can be used to redesign or
steel, PD = axial dead load, and PL = axial live load. strengthen these structural elements using Eqs. 1 and 2.
The results of the reliability analysis show that the For future studies on cases similar to this one, it is
computed reliability indices and/or the failure recommended that other structural components such as
probabilities values are extremely much lower than that joints, one-way slabs, two-way slabs, and other structural
expected from the international standards and the components should be considered in the reliability
structural engineering communities, indicating that these analysis. Also, other types of loading, such as wind,
structural elements are seriously weak, and are seismic, dynamic, etc., should be taken under
structurally unsafe to function properly and carry out the consideration.
presumed intended loads.
 CMSS-2013

Although system reliability has its own merit in 8. Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T. V., MacGregor, J.
producing more accurate results and fairly predicting the G., and Cornell, C. A., 1980. “Development of a
remaining life of the building, it requires more rigorous probability Based Load Criterion for American
and detailed analysis and it can be costly and time National Standard A58,” U.S. Department of
consuming. Also it requires more probabilistic Commerce, Washington, DC.
information and statistics on strength, loads, materials, 9. Kumamoto, H. & Henley, E. 1996. Probabilistic
method of construction, etc., that might not be all Risk Assessment and Management for Engineers
available for performing such an analysis in a proper and and Scientists. New York: IEEE, Inc.
straightforward manner. System reliability involves 10. McCormac, J. C. and Nelson, J. K., 2006.
evaluating and assessing the whole building as a unit “Design of Rein-forced Concrete – ACI 318-05
rather than individual structural components and Code Edition,” 7th Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
elements. This method is recommended and justified if Inc.
money and time are not a problem, and if all the above 11. Modarres, M. 1993. What Every Engineer
mentioned needed in-formation and data for this analysis Should Know About Reliability and Risk
are available. Analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
12. Paul, J. H. 2002. Repair, Renovation and
In this study, system reliability was performed for
Strengthening of Concrete Structures,
demonstration purposes. With this respect, two structural
“Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete
components, namely reinforced beams and columns, were
Structures,” Mexico City, September 11-13.
considered to be uncorrelated. Also, the fault tree
13. Whitney, C. S., 1942. "Plastic theory of
analysis for computing the overall failure probability Pf
reinforced concrete design." Proceedings ASCE,
for the whole building was based on utilizing the
Transactions ASCE, 107, 251-326.
principle of two components in series. Hence, the
computed Pf for the whole building was found to be
0.006 with a corresponding reliability index  of 2.5.

References

1. ACI, 2005. “American Concrete Institute,”

Structural Code for Concrete Construction,
U.S.A.
2. Ang, A. H-S. and Tang, W. H., 1990.
“Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning
and Design,” Volume 2, Decision, Risk and
Reliability. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
USA.
3. ASME 1997. Fault Tree Handbook. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
4. Assakkaf, I. A., 2004 “ENCE 454 Lecture Notes
– Design of Concrete Structures,” Department of
Civil and Environ-mental Engineering,
University of Maryland, College Park, Spring
2004.
5. Assakkaf, I. A., 2012. “Reliability Design of
Doubler Plates for Sea Tankers,” Proceedings of
the International Conference on Civil
Engineering and Building Materials (CEBM),
November 17-18.
6. Ayyub B. M. and McCune, R. H., 2003.
“Probability, Statistics and Reliability for
Engineers and Scientists.” Chapman and
Hall/CRC Press LLC, Florida.
7. Ayyub, B.M., Assakkaf, I., Atua, K., Engle, A.,
Hess, P., Ka-raszewski, Z., Kihl, D., Melton, W.,
Sielski, R.A., Sieve, M., Waldman, J., and
White, G. J. 1998. “Reliability-based Design of
Ship Structures: Current Practice and Emerging
Technologies,” Research Report to the US Coast
Guard, SNAME, T & R Report R-53.

View publication stats