Reliability in the performance‐based concept of <i>fib</i> Model Code 2010

Vliet, Agnieszka Bigaj‐van; Vrouwenvelder, Ton

doi:10.1002/suco.201300053

Cited by 20 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering the model uncertainty characteristics given in Table for Level III, the variation of model uncertainty factor with target reliability is displayed in Figure for beams with stirrups and α R = 0.32, that is, “non‐dominant resistance variable” according to ISO 2394 and fib bulletin 80 . The range of β represents the target lifetime levels commonly associated with the Ultimate Limit States for new and existing structures …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty in shear resistance models of reinforced concrete beams according to fib MC2010

Sýkora

Krejsa

Mlčoch

et al. 2018

Structural Concrete

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Load bearing capacity can be predicted by appropriate modeling of material properties, geometry variables, and uncertainties associated with an applied model for the failure mechanism under consideration. The submitted study investigates shear resistance model uncertainties for reinforced concrete beams with and without shear reinforcement, considering large test databases and various levels of approximation offered by fib Model Code 2010. Model uncertainty is treated as a random variable and its characteristics are obtained by comparing test and model outcomes. The sensitivity of model uncertainty with respect to basic variables is analyzed. For beams with stirrups, Level III is recommended for practical applications. Its predictions are shown to be independent of the amount of shear reinforcement and have reasonable bias and dispersion around test results. For beams without shear reinforcement, the use of Level II is advisable and a distinction between lightly reinforced and moderately to heavily reinforced beams should be made. K E Y W O R D S fib model code 2010, model uncertainty, partial factor, reinforced concrete, shear reinforcement, shear resistance 1 | INTRODUCTIONAdequate description of the uncertainties in resistance models was recognized as one of key issues in reliability investigations of new and existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures. 1 Particularly when description of load effects and structural responses is highly complex, and operational procedures are based on simplified approaches, model uncertainty may dominate structural reliability and its quantification and explicit inclusion in reliability analysis is required. 2 Such cases can be identified by the lack of consensus amongst experts; alternative models used in research studies and practical applications; and different levels of approximation (LoA) 3 introduced in design codes. This is the case with shear resistances of RC structures, recognizing that shear strengths predicted by different design codes for a particular beam or section can vary by factors of more than two. 4 Shear resistances of beams have stimulated an extensive debate over recent decades, as there is not yet an international consensus on which variables are important, 5 which mechanisms govern 6,7 and how to codify existing understanding. 8 Features of several models for shear resistances of beams with and without special shear reinforcement (hereafter referred to as "shear models" for brevity) were investigated and improvements proposed. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] The complexity of shear transfer actions and modeling was recognized and described in detail in References 16,17.Model uncertainty as an indicator of the difference between model and real structural resistances was explicitly addressed by Russo et al 10 who analyzed the uncertainty associated with the models in EN 1992-1-1 18 and American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318M-08. 19 Bentz et al 4 were focused on the ACI procedure and two approaches belonging to the Modified Compression Field Theory. The recent

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty in shear resistance models of reinforced concrete beams according to fib MC2010

Sýkora

Krejsa

Mlčoch

et al. 2018

Structural Concrete

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature, design principles based on limit states, service life and probabilistic measures are typically referred to as probability-or reliability-based (Cornell 1969, Hasofer & Lind 1974, Vrouwenvelder 2013 and performance-based (Ellingwood 2008, Bigaj-van Vliet & Vrouwenvelder 2013.…”

Section: Serviceability Limit Statementioning

confidence: 99%

A quantification of the modelling uncertainty of non-linear finite element analyses of large concrete structures

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, extensive bibliographical references indicate that when performing the treatment of cores by different standards, variable results are obtained in the estimation of the in situ strength, and therefore in the conformity of the concrete under study. It is important to remember that the requirements specified for a structure should always refer to the fulfilments of the essential needs of the stakeholders …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to remember that the requirements specified for a structure should always refer to the fulfilments of the essential needs of the stakeholders. 8…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations of in situ concrete strength by European Standard and American Code

Gavilán

Filho

2017

Structural Concrete

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Europe and United States exert a worldwide influence in the field of concrete control, proof of this is that many countries adopt their regulations, due to lack of own regulations. When there are problems with concrete strength, cores are used, and this situation usually involves two or more parties with different views on the proper interpretation of the core results. An experimental study was carried out, with five lots of prototypes concrete slabs of 20, 30, and 35 MPa specified strength, 210 cylinders of 10 × 20 cm, 296 cores of 10 cm diameter, and slenderness 2, as well as temperature and maturity control. Estimated strength of cores and cylinders was compared according to the criteria of European standards UNE‐EN 13791 and the American code ACI 318. Tests were performed at 3, 5, 7, and 28 days. It is concluded that the European and American regulations present similar results for concretes with specified strength between 30 and 35 MPa, whereas in the range of 16–30 MPa, the European standard is more rigorous than the American Code, being the latter more favorable to the concrete producer.

show abstract

Reliability in the performance‐based concept of fib Model Code 2010

Cited by 20 publications

References 10 publications

Uncertainty in shear resistance models of reinforced concrete beams according to fib MC2010

Uncertainty in shear resistance models of reinforced concrete beams according to fib MC2010

A quantification of the modelling uncertainty of non-linear finite element analyses of large concrete structures

Variations of in situ concrete strength by European Standard and American Code

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About