8 vues

Transféré par ganesh

- Upload 34.doc
- Design
- 37000 CVPD
- MEL 311 Instruction Sheet
- Boiler Tube Leak Study
- PQD 3 (2016/2017)
- pc817
- Siemens Power Engineering Guide 7E 237
- Accelerated Testing Systems
- Reliability Analysis of Shear Strength of A
- 1465_PDF_C01
- [J10] 2013 Assessment of Structural Reliability of Bridge Beams Based on Measured Symptoms
- Upload 32.doc
- 9783319147765-c2
- Using Finite Element Analysis to Study the Effects of Weapon Shock on Optomechanical Systems
- 54 Fatigue
- 3A Appendix- IfP-Flow Discharge Equipment Reliability
- C5587_ToshibaSemiconductor
- OFFSHORE CONCRETE STRUCCTURES.PDF
- 150141 m 173100

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

Prestressed Beams at

Serviceability Limit States

Antoine E. Naaman

Professor of Structural Design

Department of Civil Engineering

Mechanics and Metallurgy

University of Illinois at Chicago

Chicago, Illinois

Amnuayporn Siriaksorn

Project Engineer

SRISUTEP

Engineering Company, Ltd.

Thailand

C

onventional design methods re-

quire that a structure be designed quires the knowledge of the entire dis-

so that its predicted capacity is larger tributions of resistance and loads (Level

than the specified design loads. In this III approach) and is, therefore, quite

approach (called Level I Design) it is complex and tedious to apply; the other

assumed that all variables and factors one (Level II), called the first order

are deterministic and their values ex- second moment (FOSM) method, has

actly known. It is generally accepted, been proven to apply with little diffi-

however, that the basic variables used culty to any type of structural mem-

in the prediction equations such as ber.s,s,io,11,14.15.16.18

materials properties, section geometry, The Level II approach requires the

and the like are random variables and knowledge of only the mean and vari-

thus are characterized by a probability ance of the distributions of the resis-

distribution function. tance and load, and it has been shown

The concepts of reliability theory are to lead to results not significantly dif-

being increasingly applied in structural ferent from the more exact Level III

engineering not only to assess the approach. In the FOSM method a

probability of survival of a structure but safety index or reliability index, 6i, is

also to determine rational values of load needed as an input variable specified

and resistance factors prescribed by by the code authority.

various building codes. 119 Two design Although in a number of previous

methods have been so far proposed to studies the reliability index /3 has been

account for the probabilistic nature of obtained for concrete or steel structures

66

at the ultimate limit state, 7' 9' 13, 17,i 8, 2o lit-

tle has been done to evaluate /f3 at ser-

viceability limit states. In this investi-

gation the reliability index /3 of partially

prestressed concrete beams at six ser-

viceability limit states is evaluated. The

reliability index a

is directly related to

the probability of failure or unservice-

ability where failure does not necessar-

ily refer to collapse but to violation of

any code specified limit; hence it im-

plies abnormal levels of maintenance

and repair during service life.

The six states considered are: maxi-

mum crack width, short- and long-term

deflection and fatigue stress ranges in

the concrete, the reinforcing steel and

the prestressing steel. In order to pro-

vide a basis of comparison, 3 was also

partly evaluated at the ultimate flexural

strength limit state where it is related to

the probability of failure or collapse.

In order to determine the /3 values for

typical design situations, the method

called Code Calibration 12,21 is used. Re-

sistance prediction equations at each

serviceability limit state are developed

in terms of moments. A Monte Carlo

simulation model is used to compute

the statistical properties of the resis-

tance at each limit state. The statistical

properties of the load are collected from

Determination of

available literature22 -29 and used in the Reliability Index

evaluation of the reliability index. In classical reliability theory the total

The effects of many parameters on load (S) and the resistance (R) are con-

the observed values of the reliability sidered random variables; thus they can

index a are analyzed. They include the be characterized by their probability

effect of various types of beam cross distribution functions. Assuming S and

sections (representative of those used R are dimensionally consistent, the

in the American precast prestressed in- failure event is described by the rela-

dustry), span length, magnitude of live tion:

loads, amount of non-prestressed rein-

forcement and some important materi- R < S (1)

als properties such as concrete com- or

pressive strength. A systematic com-

parison with the boundary cases of fully RS<0 (2)

reinforced or fully prestressed beams is A new random variable m termed

also presented. A summary of the safety margin or reliability margin can

method used and results obtained is be defined [see Fig. 1 (top)] as:

given next. Detailed information can be

found in Ref. 30. m =RS (3)

f(S) I f (R)

S x LOAD i i PR R s RES

rF w = R- g --^

H-

!^

I

ISM s /R- g

QM - R^Qg

-H

0 16*

m= Margin of Safety

Fig. 1. Illustration of concept of reliability index.

and survival is associated with m > 0.

The mean value of m and its standard ! - Rim = 0 (7)

deviation can be derived from those of

R and S as follows:The above equation at equality com-

bined with Eqs. (4) and (5) can be used

(4) to determine /3:

Mm = AR - s

An - As

(8)

Qm = QR + - QS (5) Qm QR + Qs

value of the probability of survival (or bility index" or safety index. It is the

reliability), that is m _- 0, it may be re- distance from the mean of the prob-

quired that the mean value of m be ability distribution function of n to the

larger than or equal to a coefficient /6 origin in standard deviation units [see

times its standard deviation, that is: Fig. 1 (bottom)].

In the above treatment "failure" does

A. a0m (6) not necessarily mean collapse (or the

68

Table 1. Serviceability Limit States Considered and Their

Specified Limitations.

limitation*

No. Symbol Description

0'4 f. -

stress range 2

fatigue stress range 20.0 ksi

fatigue stress range 0.1 fD

deflection 180

6 add Additional long-term l

deflection 240

but may also imply unserviceability or properties (p., v) of these variables are

violation of a serviceability limit state defined.

such as a maximum deflection limita- 3. The value of each limitation for

tion or a maximum crack width limita- each limit state is selected from current

tion. The serviceability limit states con- codes or recommended practices, e.g.,

sidered in this study are described in the allowable maximum crack width is

the next section. taken as 0.016 in. (0.41 mm) for maxi-

The following steps were followed to mum crack width limit state as per the

evaluate the reliability index /3 of rein- ACI Code (see Table 1).

forced, prestressed and partially pre- 4. Using Steps 1, 2 and 3, and apply-

stressed beams at each serviceability ing a Monte Carlo simulation method,

limit state: the statistical properties of the resis-

1. The resistance prediction equa- tance ( p

., o) of the beam at each ser-

tions of the partially prestressed con- viceability limit state are computed.

crete member at any serviceability limit 5. Statistical data on live loads are

state are derived so that the resistance collected from available literature.

has the same unit as the applied loads Their statistics (L , o) are determined.

(i.e., moment as a function of crack Similarly, the statistical properties of

width or deflection limit). The method dead load (D , 0 D ) are determined.

and equations developed in Ref. 31 6. From Steps 4 and 5, the reliability

were used. The resistance at each limit index, /3, of the beam at each limit state

state is expressed in terms of basic vari- is calculated using Eq. (8).

ables and allowable maximum limita- A detailed description of the above

tion at that limit state. procedure is given in Ref. 30. The last

2. Statistical data on the variables three steps are clarified further in the

used in the equations developed in following sections.

Limit States Statistical Properties of

Resistance

"When a structure or structural ele-

ment becomes unfit for its intended In general if a random variable can

purpose it is said to have reached a be expressed in function of other (basic)

limit state."16 Limit states are generally variables, its mean value and COV

divided into two categories, ultimate (coefficient of variation) can be esti-

limit states and serviceability limit mated by expanding the function in a

states. Taylor series about the mean values of

Ultimate limit states are related to the other (basic) variables, truncating

a structural collapse of part or all of higher order terms, and taking the ex-

the structure. They are points that lie pectations of that function. Thus, its

on the failure surface of the structure, mean and COV can be expressed in

such as ultimate moment, ultimate terms of the means and COV's of the

shear, ultimate ductility, etc. Service- basic variables which appear in the

ability limit states are related to dis- function.

ruption of the functional use of the This approximation is reasonably ac-

structure, and/or its damage or deteri- curate, provided that the COV's of the

oration during service. Examples in- basic variables are not too large and the

clude excessive cracking, leakage, and equation is not highly nonlinear.11,13

deflections which lead to abnormal However, the above approach could not

maintenance and/or repair levels during be applied to compute the mean and

service. the COV of the resistance of partially

In this study the reliability of par- prestressed concrete beams at each ser-

tially prestressed beams was evaluated viceability limit state since the predic-

at six serviceability limit states. They tion equation of the resistance cannot

are summarized in Table 1 where the be always expressed in closed form.

limitations used in the parametric anal- In this study, relationships between

ysis for each limit state are also given. the resistance of partially prestressed

These limitations are in accordance beams at serviceability limit states and

with the ACI Building Code, 32 or vari- corresponding loading conditions were

ous ACI recommended practices. Also, first developed and expressed in .terms

in a limited number of cases and for of moments. The statistical properties

comparative purposes the reliability of the basic variables present in these

index at ultimate flexural strength limit relationships were collected from avail-

state was evaluated. able technical literature. 7,11, 13,20, 33 37

A note is in order here and is related Selected properties used in the relia-

to the manner in which the limit state bility analysis are summarized in Table

fatigue was handled. Fatigue limit state 2. A Monte Carlo simulation where val-

can be classified either as: (1) an "ulti- ues of the basic variables are selected at

mate limit state" because failure by random was used to determine the

fatigue results in the collapse of the mean and the coefficient of variation of

member or (2) a "serviceability limit the resistance. Each simulation com-

state" because it occurs during service prised 200 iterations.

loads and may have secondary effects Since the coefficient of variation (SR)

on other serviceability limit states 'such of the resistance obtained from the

as increases in crack widths, deflections Monte Carlo simulation fails to include

and debonding. Here the second ap- sources (such as incomplete informa-

proach was used. The meaning of /3 in tion, insufficient data, inaccuracy of

that case is clarified below in the sec- prediction equations, etc.) that contrib-

tion under "RESULTS." ute to the total variability (E R ) of the re-

fZ^7

Table 2. Summary of Statistical Properties of Variables Used in the Reliability analysis.

Distribution

Variables used Mean, COV., fl Remarks

L 32 J

h,h fh Normal hR g to h+ 8 4

6.4 Fi

0.045

Normal dp to d1 + 16 0.04 8

11 I1

l,a Normal ^",a" -

32 16

nominal = 33

CE Normal 33.6 0.1217 E, =CEO (y, ) 15 f^

nominal = 7.5

Cry Normal 9.374 0.0938 f, = CJ r f^

yc Normal yc 0.03

nominal = 0.8

Cf^ 1 Normal 0.6445 0.073 f , = C,^tf,

Beta 1.07fR-1.19fv 0.09-0.15

A, Normal 0.9A,1, 1.01 A,. 0.015 0.04

E, Normal Ee 0.024 0.033

A, Normal 1.01176Ap81, 0.0125 APS = 0.153 in?

fp Normal 1.0387 fp R 0.0142 fpn = 270 ksi

fp Normal 1.027f,,,,, 0.022 f,, = 240 ksi

EP$ Normal 1.011 EP,, 0.01 E,,,, = 29000 ksi

Cf1 =0.7

C,, , Normal Cffin 0.08 f., = C f scfn,,

C, , =0.83

C, Normal CrSen 0.08 f8, = CfBefaf

considered. The prediction error, ER , for study are given in Table 3. Two limits

each limit state can be estimated as the are shown for the limit states "crack

coefficient of variation of the ratio of width" and "additional long-term de-

experimentally observed to theoreti- flection" reflecting various experimen-

cally predicted resistance values. tal results analyzed. The total variabil-

Table 3. Prediction Errors of the weight of the structure. A normal

Assumed for Each Limit distribution with a coefficient of varia-

State. tion of 0.1 was assumed for the super-

imposed dead load, if any. In a treat-

Limit State eR

ment similar to that of the resistance,

Wmax 0.1or0.2 the mean D and the coefficient of vari-

ation SD of dead load were obtained

fc r 0.05

from the simulation; a prediction error

}rr 0.05 ED = 0.1 was considered leading to a

total coefficient of variation of dead

ftr 0.05

load given by:

DLL 0.05

SZD = Sp + Ep (10)

Ladd 0.1 or 0.2

Live loads are generally associated

with moving or movable loads such as

occupants and furniture. The intensity

ity, R, of the resistance was then ob- of maximum live load depends on the

tained from: type of occupancy, the tributary area

and the projected service life of the

SZR = Ss + ER (9)

structure. Live load intensity is in gen-

where eral measured as the equivalent uni-

SR = value of coefficient of variation formly distributed load which is the

obtained from the Monte Carlo load that wiII produce the same load

simulation. It is affected by effect as the actual loads. Based on

inherent randomness and live load survey data, 23, 26 probabil-

variabilities of the basic istic models of live loads and/or

variables their statistical characteristics were de

Eg = prediction error veloped 20.21,22.24,27

Ravindra, et al,12 expressed the mean

t, and variance (or coefficient of varia-

tion (IL ) of lifetime maximum live load

Statistical Properties of as functions of tributary area and num-

ber of tenancies (Table 4). A prediction

Loading error E L = 0.1 was included in the

Loads can be considered random evaluation of the coefficient of variation

variables and are generally divided into

L. Their proposed values of L and 11L

two groups termed "dead load" and were adopted in this study and led to

"live load." the consideration of sixteen sets of val-

The "dead load" comprises the ues of (L, (I,) depending on tributary

weight of the structure itself and the areas and number of tenancies.

weight of non-structural elements

(often called superimposed dead load)

attached to the structure such as parti-

Parametric Analysis

tions, curtain walls and the like. A In order to determine the reliability

number of studies have suggested val- index /3 of partially prestressed concrete

ues of mean and coefficient of variation beams, the following input parameters

of "dead load. " 11 , 12, 14,15,21 These are were studied (see Table 5 and Fig. 2):

summarized in Ref. 30. Eight different beam cross sections that

In this study, however, a Monte Carlo are representative of sections widely

simulation was used to generate from used by the precast prestressed con-

the basic random variables the statistics crete industry in the United States; for

72

Table 4. Mean and COV. of Lifetime Maximum Office Live Load,

PL (PSf), flL'

Number of L Tributary area, sq ft

tenancies or

f' L 50 350 800 1200

1

OL 0.8360 0.5787 0.5295 0.4900

2

flL 0.4800 0.3736 0.3544 0.3350

5

S2L 0.3640 0.3160 - 0.2970 0.2880

10

SZL 0.3544 0.2970 0.2880 0.2880

each beam three values of partial pre- highest values of the mean, and the

stressing ratio (PPR) were explored, lowest and highest value of the COV.

namely, PPR = 0 (corresponding to These led for each beam and each

fully reinforced concrete), PPR = 1 limit state to six sets of values of mean

(corresponding to fully prestressed con- (,) and coefficient of variation (a,,) of

crete) and PPR = optimum (corre- the resistance. In evaluating the relia-

sponding to partially prestressed con- bility index /3, only the lowest and

crete with one limit state binding?9 highest values of both R and SIR were

various span lengths and representative used leading essentially to four combi-

live loads were also considered. In all, nations of R and d2R for each applied

64 different beam designs were ana- loading (s and fl.).

lyzed each for six different serviceabil- The mean value (s) and coefficient

ity limit states. In some cases the relia- of variation ((l. ) of the load S were de-

bility index at ultimate flexural strength termined from corresponding statistics

limit state was also determined. of dead load and live load as:

A note is in order to understand the

N-s = MAD + AL (11)

way in which the results of the para-

metric analysis were gathered.

Ors = QD + o (12)

In collecting from a multitude of

source s,7.11,13,20,33.37 information on the

^s(13)

mean and COV (coefficient of variation

jig

defined as v/) of the basic variables, it

was generally found that a range be- where v stands for standard deviation.

where

tween two extreme values could be The statistics of dead load (D , SID)

identified for each variable. In this were obtained from a Monte Carlo

study a Monte Carlo simulation run of simulation in a treatment similar to that

the resistance was used for each of the used for the resistance R (see preceding

following six combinations of statistics section). In evaluating s , fl, and (3

of the variables: the lowest, mean and four sets of (p.s , f1D ) were considered

SINGLE T BEAM DOUBLE T BEAM

I\J

BEAM

00000000-

HOLLOW CORED SLAB

Beam Type of Live load* Span length, 1 (ft)*

No. beam lb per ft PPR Remarks

30 40 50 60 70

0 X X X

Ex. Single-T 400 Optimum X X X X

1 X X X

0 X

1 4 DT 14 200 Optimum X L= 35 ft

1 X

0 X X

2 8 DT 20 400 Optimum X X X X

1 X X

0 X

3 8 DT 24 400 Optimum X

1 X

0 X

4 8 ST 36 400 Optimum X

1 X

0 X

5 10 ST 48 500 Optimum X L = 100 ft

1 X

0 X X X X X

6 Rectangular 50 Optimum X X X X

slab 1 X X X X X

0 X X X X

7 Hollow- 200 Optimum X X X X

core slab 1 X X X X

74

Table 6. Average values of Reliabili ty Index fi for All Beams.

maximum minimum me an

Maximum crack

width, Wm a z 0.2 3.4204 0.7729 2.5265

Concrete fatigue

stress range, 0.05 3.8512 0.9890 2.6466

icT

Non-prestressed

steel fatigue 0.05 2.3917 1.2137 1.5480

stress range,

Jrr

Prestressing

steel fatigue 0.05 3.3612 1.9779 2.4116

stress range,

i t,.

Immediate live

load deflection, 0.05 5.9008 3.4526 4.7303

'&LL

term deflection,

0.2 2.3348 0.3953 1.8322

Doaa

lowest and highest D with lowest and averaged for all beams leading to an av-

highest SZo. erage minimum, average maximum, and

The intensity of maximum live load average mean oft (Table 6).

depends on the type of occupancy, the

tributary area and the projected service

life of the structure. To account for

RESULTS

these parameters, the 16 different sets The results reported in Table 6 rep-

of values of (PL , SZL ) recommended in resent in a way, at each serviceability

Ref. 12 were considered in evaluating limit state, average ranges of reliability

s and U. (Table 4). Hence, in com- indexes /3 for the precast prestressed

puting the mean and coefficient of vari- concrete industry as a whole, assuming

ation of load (s, 11, ) from Eqs. (11-13), the current ACI Code is used. They are

64 combinations of dead and live load plotted in Fig. 3 and compared to simi-

statistics (4 x 16 = 64) were considered lar data generated for one beam (the ex-

for each beam and each limit state. ample beam) at ultimate flexural

To evaluate the reliability index 13, strength limit state.

the 64 combinations of statistics of load It can be observed that (1) for each

S were associated with the four combi- serviceability limit state the reliability

nations of statistics of resistance R. For index spans a relatively wide range of

each beam and each limit state, the values reflecting uncertainties in the

minimum, maximum, and mean value data and/or the prediction equations, (2)

AVERAGE RELIABILITY INDEX /3

2 3 4 5

MAXIMUM CRACK WIDTH

I I MEAN

MINIMUM MAXIMUM

FATIGUE CONCRETE

_ (1)4

W

J I- FATIGUE PRESTRESSING STEEL

H-4---i

4 c1- J

j

W

U a

i

LIVE LOAD

W ( j

N

LONG TERM

J

a

O:

FULLY PRESTRESSED

-i

W W

m PARTIALLY PRESTRESSED

W

ZCl' W I I I

a w FULLY REINFORCED

MEAN

JD W I (

UNSERVICEABILITY OR

FAILURE PROBABILITY ASSUMING NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

prestressed concrete beams.

76

serviceability limit states are on the av- the following causes: (1) fatigue is a

erage more critical than ultimate critical design condition and should be

flexural strength limit states, and (3) on controlled better, (2) the design limita-

the average, among various service- tions are too stringent, and (3) the qual-

ability limit states, fatigue in the steel ity control and workmanship associated

(reinforcing on prestressing steel) is with the influencing variables are poor.

most critical. To better focus on the value of /3 for a

While there is little ambiguity about fatigue limit state, the COV of in-

the meaning of /3 at ultimate flexural fluencing variables can be reduced by

stength limit state which implies failure improving their quality control and

or collapse, the meaning of /3 at service- workmanship (such as achieved in the

ability limit states is more subtle. This precast prestressed concrete industry)

is particularly true for fatigue since and the fatigue stress range limit can be

fatigue can be classified either as a ser- relaxed to reflect actual experimental

viceability limit state or as an ultimate data instead of a code limitation.

limit state. Reaching a serviceability limit state

Let us consider, for instance, the av- does not imply collapse of the struc-

erage mean value of p = 1.548 obtained ture; however, it may lead to "extensive

in Table 6 at the non-prestressed steel damage" and for all practical purposes

fatigue stress range limit state for which "failure." For instance, exceeding the

a code stress range limit of 20 ksi (138 maximum allowable crack width in a

MPa) was used. Assuming a normal liquid retaining structure may lead to

distribution for the safety margin leads extensive leakage and practically fail-

to a probability of 6 percent of exceed- ure of the structure to perform the ser-

ing the code limit each time the random vice it is intended for. Similarly, ex-

variable live load is applied. As the ceeding an allowable deflection does

code limit of 20 ksi (138 MPa) does not not lead to the collapse of a beam but

represent the real fatigue resistance of may lead to the failure of non-structural

the steel material for 2 million cycles of elements attached to it. Hence, the

load repetition (assumed representative meaning of reliability at any service-

of service life), the above probability ability limit state should be examined

does not necessarily imply failure dur- with the proper perspective.

ing service life or 2 million cycles. Typical results of the variation of the

Let us assume that the non-pre- reliability index a with each of the pa-

stressed steel fatigue stress range limit rameters studied (PPR, span length,

of 20 ksi (138 MPa) is changed to 30 ksi live load) are shown in Figs. 4 to 7 and

(207 MPa) to reflect the actual resis- are explained in the conclusions. More

tance of the material up to 2 million cy- detailed information can be obtained

cles. The corresponding mean value of from Ref. 30.

/3 becomes 2.32 (see Ref. 30) and the

probability of exceeding the stress CONCLUSIONS

range limit for each load application is

about 1 percent; it also implies that The following conclusions were

there is a 1 percent chance of failure by made (see Ref 30) in relation to the re-

fatigue of the steel during service -life or liability index /3 of partially prestressed

prior to 2 million cycles of load appli- beams; note that not all these conclu-

cation. sions are supported in the figures of

Note that the values of /3 obtained at this paper.

the three fatigue limit states (Table 6 1. The serviceability limit state

and Fig. 3) are relatively low. This may which controls the design in the deter-

be due to either one or a combination of ministic procedure is not necessarily

the one that controls in the reliability 2. The /3 values for rectangular

approach. This is because in the prob- beams are much lower than those for

abilistic approach, the uncertainties in typical T-beams in most of the service-

the values of the basic variables are ability limit states considered. Thus,

taken into account. the probability of failure or un'service-

EXAMPLE BEAM

Limit State For:

1. Maximum crack width (Wm.)

2. Concrete fatigue stress range (fe,)

3. Nonprestressed steel fatigue stress range (f)

4. Prestressing steel fatigue stress range (ftr)

5. Immediate live load deflection (15 LL)

6. Additional long-term deflection (ate)

X-8

W 5

0

Z

} 6

5

J_ 2

. 6

m 4

Q 2

J

W 3^ X04

2

spy

TYPICAL TBEAM(EXAMPLE BEAM)L=70

W

0

Z

>-

I-

-j

In

Q_

J

W

Iz

Fig. 4. Typical variation of the reliability index with the partial prestressing ratio.

78

ability of rectangular beams (or one- at both "additional long-term deflec-

way slabs) is generally greater than the tion" limit state and "maximum crack

probability of failure or unserviceability width" limit state decrease substan-

of typical T-beams (Fig. 4). tially when PPR decreases.

3. For typical T-beams and for rec- 5. Everything else being equal, it

tangular beams, the p values at "addi- appears that when the span length in-

tional long-term deflection" limit state creases, the /3 values increase at the

decreases substantially when the partial "maximum crack width," "non-pre-

prestressing ratio (PPR) decreases. stressed steel fatigue stress range" and

Smaller variations in the f3 values are "prestressing steel fatigue stress

observed at other limit states (Fig. 4). range," limit states and decrease at the

4. For hollow-core slabs, the /3 values "concrete fatigue stress range," "im-

EXAMPLE BEAM

Limit State For:

1. Maximum crack width (Wma,,)

2. Concrete fatigue stress range (fcr)

3. Nonprestressed steel fatigue stress range (fi)

4. Prestressing steel fatigue stress range (f)

5. Immediate live load deflection (A)

6. Additional long-term deflection (A)

T

5

X

W 8

Z

}

6 5

J 6 .

m

2

J

W 4 6

2

4

2

4 a

0 50 60 70

SPAN LENGTH, L (ft)

Fig. 5. Typical variation of the reliability index with span length.

EXAMPLE BEAM

x

W

0

Z_

} 4

F-

_.

m

Q 2

J

W

-2

30 40 31) 60 70

Fig. 6. Reliability index at maximum crack width limit state for various PPR (example

beam).

mediate live load deflection" and "ad- PPR) and the corresponding probability

ditional long-term deflection" limit of failure assuming a normal distribu-

states (Figs. 5 and 6). tion for the safety margin are (see Table

6. Everything else being equal, it 6), respectively, 4.11 and 2 x 10- g at

appears that when the nominal live "maximum crack width" limit state;

load increases, the /6 values increase at 2.65 and 400 x 10- 5 at "concrete fatigue

"maximum crack width" and "pre- stress range"; 1.55 and 6100 x 10- 5 at

stressing steel fatigue stress range" "non-prestressed steel fatigue stress

limit states and decrease at "concrete range" limit state; 2.41 and 800 x 10- 5 at

fatigue stress range" and "additional "prestressing steel fatigue stress range"

long-term deflection" limit states (Fig. limit state; 4.73 and 0.1 x 10- 5 at "im-

7). mediate live load deflection" limit

7. The average /3 values for all par- state; and 2.77 and 280 x 10-5 at "addi-

tially prestressed beams (at optimum tional long-term deflection" limit state.

80

EXAMPLE BEAM

Limit State For:

1. Maximum crack width (W)

2. Concrete fatigue stress range (fa)

3. Nonprestressed steel fatigue stress range (ff)

4. Prestressing steel fatigue stress range (ftr)

5. Immediate live load deflection (ALL)

6. Additional long -term deflection (a)

6

S 5

X

W

Z

6.

2- 6

>-

I-

-J 3 I. 4

LYE

2

J

W 4.

3 3

Fig. 7. Typical variation of the reliability index with nominal live load.

8. Serviceability limit states in rein- ticularly true for crack width and

forced, prestressed and partially pre- long-term deflection.

stressed concrete beams are more criti- In the analysis of stresses static

cal than their ultimate flexural strength short-term loading was assumed. The

limit state. Violating serviceability limit effect of time on redistribution of

states generally leads to abnormal stresses was not considered. Substantial

maintenance and repair levels during changes in stresses and crack widths

service and may lead, for all practical occur when creep and shrinkage of

purposes, to failure. concrete are considered in the analysis

It is finally observed that reliability- of the section.

based design (Level II approach) can There is a need to develop a proce-

be successfully applied to prestressed dure where the cumulative damage due

and partially prestressed concrete to fatigue under the repetitive applica-

beams provided an appropriate relia- tion of random levels of live loads can

bility index, /3, is recommended by the be accounted for in the reliability anal-

code for each limit state and provided ysis. Such cumulative damage should

the mean and the COV values of resis- affect not only the fatigue life of the

tance and loads are known. materials involved but also other ser-

viceability limit states such as crack

widths, debonding and deflection.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FURTHER STUDY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The limitations at various service- This study is based on the PhD thesis

ability limit states used in this investi- of A. Siriaksorn prepared under the di-

gation were taken from the 1977 ACI rection of the senior author. It was sup-

Code. In general, these limitations are ported in part by a Research Fellow-

lower bound values to actual data. It ship Award from the Prestressed Con-

appears that a more accurate estimate of crete Institute and by the University of

reliability at these limit states would be Illinois at Chicago. Their support is

achieved if actual data were used in- gratefully acknowledged. The authors

stead of code limitations. are also indebted to Dr. James G. Mac-

There is a need to develop a method Gregor of the University of Alberta for

to incorporate in the reliability analysis his careful review of and constructive

the often great uncertainty associated comments on the first draft of this

with a prediction equation. This is par- paper.

your discussion to PCI Headquarters by July 1, 1983.

82

REFERENCES

1. Freudenthal, T. V., Garrelts, J., and Design," Journal of the Structural Divi-

Shinozuka, M., "The Analysis of Struc- sion, ASCE, V. 100, No. ST9, Sept. 1974,

tural Safety," Journal of the Structural pp. 1789-1811.

Division, ASCE, V.92, No. ST1, Feb. 13. Ellingwood, B., "Statistical Analysis of

1966, pp. 267-325. RC Beam Column Interaction," Journal

2. Warner, R. F., and Rabaila, A. P., of the Structural Division, ASCE,

"Monte Carlo Study of Structural V. 103, No. ST7, Proc. Paper 13061, July

Safety," Journal of the Structural Divi- 1977, pp. 1377-1388.

sion, ASCE, V. 94, No. ST12, Proc. 14. Ellingwood, B., "Reliability-Based Cri-

Paper 6275, Dec. 1968, pp. 2847-2859. teria for Reinforced Concrete Design,"

3. Shah, H. C., "The Rational Probabilistic Journal of the Structural Division,

Code Format," ACI Journal, Proceed- ASCE, V. 105, No. ST4, Proc. Paper

ings, V. 66, No. 9, Sept. 1969, pp. 689- 14480, April 1979, pp. 713-727.

697. 15. Ellingwood, B., "Reliability of Current

4. Sexsmith, R. B., and Nelson, M. F., Reinforced Concrete Designs," Journal

"Limitations in Application of Prob- of the Structural Division, ASCE,

abilistic Concepts," ACI Journal, Pro- V. 105, No. ST4, Proc. Paper 14479,

ceedings, V. 66, No. 10, Oct. 1969, pp. April 1979, pp. 699-712.

823-828. 16. Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T. V., Mac-

5. Benjamin, J. R., and Lind, N. C., "A Gregor, J. G., and Cornell, C. A., "De-

Probabilistic Basis for a Deterministic velopment of a Probability-Based Load

Code," ACI Journal, Proceedings, V. 66, Criterion for American National Stan-

No. 11, Nov. 1969, pp. 857-865. dard A58," National Bureau of Standards

6. Cornell, C. A., "A Probability-Based Special Publication 577, U.S. Depart-

Structural Code," ACI Journal, Pro- ment of Commerce, Washington, D.C.,

ceedings, V. 66, No. 12, Dec. 1969, pp. June 1980, 228 pp.

974-985. 17. Shinozuka, M., and Yao, J. T. P. (Edi-

7. Allen, D. C., "Probabilistic Study of tors), "Probabilistic Methods in Struc-

Reinforced Concrete in Bending," ACI tural Engineering," Proceedings of the

Journal, V. 67, No. 12, Dec. 1970, pp. ASCE Symposium, St. Louis, Oct. 1981,

989-993. American Society of Civil Engineers,

8. Ang, A. H.-S., "Structural Risk Analysis 1981, 409 pp.

and Reliability-Based Design," Journal 18. Galambos, T. V., Ellingwood, B., Mac-

of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 99, Gregor, J. G., and Cornell, C. A., "Prob-

No. ST9, Proc. Paper 10011, Sept. 1973, ability-Based Load Criteria: Assessment

pp. 1891-1910. of Current Design Practice," Journal of

9. Galambos, T. V., and Ravindra, M. K., the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 108,

"Tentative Load and Resistance Factor No. ST5, May 1982, pp. 959-977.

Design Criteria for Steel Buildings," 19. Ellingwood, B., MacGregor, J. G.,

Structural Division Research Report No. Galambos, T. V., and Cornell, C. A.,

18, Washington University, St. Louis, "Probability-Based Load Criteria: Load

Missouri, Sept. 1973. Factors and Load Combinations," Jour-

10. Ang, A. H.-S. and Cornell, C. A., "Relia- nal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V.

bility Bases of Structural Safety and De- 108, No. ST5, May 1982, pp. 978-997.

sign," Journal of the Structural Divi- 20. Grant, L. H., Mirza, S. A., and Mac-

sion, ASCE, V. 100, No. ST9, Proc. Gregor, J. G., "Monte Carlo Study of

Paper 10777, Sept. 1974, pp. 1755-1769. Strength of Concrete Columns," ACI

11. Ellingwood, B., and Ang, A. H.-S., "Risk Journal, V. 75, No. 8, Aug. 1978, pp.

Based Evaluation of Design Criteria," 348-358.

Journal of the Structural Division, 21. Siu, W. W. C., Parimi, S. R. and Lind,

ASCE, V. 100, No. ST9, Proc. Paper N. C., "Practical Approach to Code

10778, Sept. 1974, pp. 1771-1788. Calibration," Journal of the Structural

12. Ravindra, M. K., Lind, N. C., and Siu, Division, ASCE, V. 101, No. ST7, Proc.

W., "Illustrations of Reliability-Based Paper 11404, July 1975, pp. 1469-1480.

22. Peir, J.-C. and Cornell, A. C., "Spatial ments for the degree of Doctor of Phi-

and Temporal Variability of Live losophy, Chicago, Illinois, 1980. See

Loads," Journal of the Structural Divi- also Report No. 80-1 by A. Siriaksorn

sion, ASCE, V. 99, No. ST5, Proc. Paper and A. E. Naaman, Department of Mate-

9747, May 1973, pp. 903-922. rials Engineering, June 1980, 126 pp.

23. Siu, W. W. C., and Lind, N. C., "Some 31. Naaman, A. E., and Siriaksorn, A.,

Aspects of Office Design Live. Loads," "Serviceability-Based Design of Par-

Journal of the Structural Division, tially Prestressed Beams," Part 1: PCI

ASCE, V. 99, No. ST11, Nov. 1973, pp. JOURNAL, V. 24, No. 2, March-April

2245-2258. 1979, pp. 64-89; Part 2: PCI JOURNAL,

24. McGuire, R. K., and Cornell, C. A., V. 24, No. 3, May-June 1979, pp. 40-60.

"Live Load Effects in Office Buildings," 32. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code

Journal of the Structural Division, Requirements for Reinforced Concrete

ASCE, V. 100, No. ST7, Proc. Paper (ACI 318-77)," American Concrete In-

10660, July 1974, pp. 1351-1366. stitute, Detroit, Michigan, 1977.

25. Culver, C. G., "Live Load Survey Re- 33. Ellingwood, B., "Reliability Bases of

sults for Office Buildings," Journal of Load and Resistance Factors for Rein-

the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 102, forced Concrete Design," National Bu-

No. ST12, Dec. 1976, pp. 2269-2284. reau of Standards Building Science Se-

26. Ellingwood, B., and Culver, C., "Analy- ries 110, Washington, D.C., 1978.

sis of Live Loads in Office Buildings,"

34. Mirza, S. A., and MacGregor, J. G.,

Journal of the Structural Division,

"Variations in Dimensions of Rein-

ASCE, V. 103, No. ST8, Aug. 1977, pp.

forced Concrete Members," Journal of

1551-1560.

Structural Division, ASCE, V. 105, No.

27. Corotis, R. B., and Jaria, A. V., "Sto-

ST4, Proc. Paper 14495, April 1979, pp.

chastic Nature of Building Live Loads,"

751-766.

Journal of the Structural Division,

ASCE, V. 105, No. ST3, Proc. Paper 35. Mirza, S. A., and MacGregor, J. G.,

14441, March 1979, pp. 493-510. "Variability of Mechanical Properties of

Reinforcing Bars," Journal of the

28. Dunham, J. W., "Design Live Load in

Buildings," Transactions, ASCE, V. 112, Structural Division, ASCE, V. 105, No.

Paper No. 2311, 1947, pp. 725-744. ST5, Proc. Paper 14590, May 1979, pp.

921-937.

29. "Minimum Design Loads in Buildings

and Other Structures," American Na- 36. Pauw, A., "Static Modulus of Elasticity

tional Standards Institute, A58.1, 1972. of Concrete as Affected by Density,"

30. Siriaksorn, A., "Serviceability and Re- ACI Journal, V. 32, No. 6, Dec. 1960, pp.

liability Analysis of Partially Prestressed 679-687.

Concrete Beams," Thesis presented to 37. Price, W. H., "Factors Influencing Con-

the University of Illinois at Chicago Cir- crete Strength," ACI Journal, V. 22,

cle in partial fulfillment of the require- No. 6, Feb. 1951, pp. 417-432.

84

APPENDIX - NOTATION

steel profile to support of concrete

Ap3 area of prestressing steel in f(x) = probability distribution

ir

tension zone function of x

A. = area of non-prestressed tension f allowable stress range under

reinforcement repeated service load in

b = width of upper flange of a concrete

flanged member f m dn = minimum stress in concrete

b.. = web width of flanged member feu = ultimate strength of

bt = lower flange width of a flanged

member f prestressing steel

py = specified yield strength of

C." = coefficient associated with prestressing steel

modulus of elasticity of fr = modulus of rupture of concrete

concrete (see Table 2) f r = stress range under repeated

Cfci = coefficient associated with service load in non-prestressed

f8e

compressive strength of tension steel

concrete at transfer (Table 2) = effective stress in prestressing

Crr = coefficient associated with steel, after losses

modulus of rupture of concrete f8i = initial stress in the prestressing

(see Table 2) steel immediately after transfer

Cfoe = coefficient associated with ftr = stress range under repeated

effective prestress in steel service load in prestressing

(see Table 2) steel

Cf. = coefficient associated with L = specified yield strength of non-

initial prestress prestressed steel

Coy = coefficient of variation h = overall thickness or depth of

dr = distance from extreme member

compression fiber to centroid hrl = thickness of upper flange of

of prestressing steel flanged member

20 = distance from extreme h f2 = thickness of lower flange of

compression fiber to centroid flanged member

of non-prestressed tension l = clear span length of member

reinforcement L = live load

= depth of area of concrete tensile m = margin of safety

zone associated with crack n = subscript for nominal value

width prediction equation PPR = partial prestressing ratio

D = dead load R = resistance

eo = eccentricity of prestressing S = total load

force with respect to centroid W,nax = maximum crack width

of section at midspan (3 = reliability index

el = eccentricity of prestressing Ye = unit weight of concrete

force with respect to centroid S = inherent coefficient of

of section at supports variation

E,, = modulus of elasticity of & o4d = additional long-term deflection

'

concrete A,, = immediate live load deflection

Ep3 = modulus of elasticity of e = prediction error

prestressing steel = mean value

E, = modulus of elasticity of non- (1 = total coefficient of variation

prestressed tension steel o- = standard deviation

- Upload 34.docTransféré parganeshrud
- DesignTransféré parBalasrinivasan Murugan
- 37000 CVPDTransféré parmiesty
- MEL 311 Instruction SheetTransféré parHari Harsha
- Boiler Tube Leak StudyTransféré parRavi Chandar
- PQD 3 (2016/2017)Transféré parGiuseppe La Placa
- pc817Transféré parjet_media
- Siemens Power Engineering Guide 7E 237Transféré parmydearteacher
- Accelerated Testing SystemsTransféré parAvinash Agrawal
- Reliability Analysis of Shear Strength of ATransféré partruenotesrakesh
- 1465_PDF_C01Transféré parOkiPetrus Hutauruk LumbanBaringin
- [J10] 2013 Assessment of Structural Reliability of Bridge Beams Based on Measured SymptomsTransféré parLuca Zanotti Fragonara
- Upload 32.docTransféré parganeshrud
- 9783319147765-c2Transféré parzabiruddin786
- Using Finite Element Analysis to Study the Effects of Weapon Shock on Optomechanical SystemsTransféré parvarshasdm1987
- 54 FatigueTransféré parbharathvg8096
- 3A Appendix- IfP-Flow Discharge Equipment ReliabilityTransféré parMehdi Alaoui Chrifi
- C5587_ToshibaSemiconductorTransféré parmaka153
- OFFSHORE CONCRETE STRUCCTURES.PDFTransféré parfchavesmartins
- 150141 m 173100Transféré pardavidmuttath
- reliability engineer or quality engineer or reliability analystTransféré parapi-121302977
- Recompress 2017Transféré paridiotstrial
- 2SD768 DatasheetTransféré parDilJalaay
- Stress Analysis and Evaluation of a Rectangular Pressure VesselTransféré parmatodelanus
- Crack Growth Study of Dissimilar Steels (Stainless - Structural) ButtweldedTransféré parSuryaAdiThama
- IJETAE_0213_74Transféré parJuan M
- 2sd768.pdfTransféré parOsvaldo Chimbas
- modelsim.pdfTransféré parRajesh Malik
- Loads in Bridge Design as per CSA S6-06Transféré parAyaz Malik
- 2SB562Transféré partrankot

- IS 2090 :1983Transféré parganesh
- IJRET20150407019.pdfTransféré parganesh
- IJRET20150407019.pdfTransféré parganesh
- Tests on Concrete QualityTransféré parganesh
- 001-0013.pdfTransféré parganesh
- 001-0013.pdfTransféré parganesh
- 001-0013.pdfTransféré parganesh
- 001-0013.pdfTransféré parganesh
- 001-0013.pdfTransféré parganesh
- Batching of concreteTransféré parganesh
- Steel design 1232Transféré parMike James
- IJRET20150407019.pdfTransféré parganesh
- Lecture 19Transféré parPonnada Markandeyaraju
- Lecture 19Transféré parPonnada Markandeyaraju
- InFocusDocs_BIS list of corrections.pdfTransféré parpjuvvadi
- InFocusDocs_BIS list of corrections.pdfTransféré parpjuvvadi
- UNIT-I (Part-1) IntroductionTransféré parArijit Dey
- Linear Elasticity II 01 BucklingTransféré parAshok Babu Parimi
- Linear Elasticity II 01 BucklingTransféré parAshok Babu Parimi
- FEM-Design Plate 13_2014-02-13Transféré parganesh

- Reliability for SISTransféré parAnonymous E3sSdt851X
- 2SA1312_datasheet_en_20140301.pdfTransféré parkale
- pt66 questionsTransféré parGodwin Momah
- Reduction of Random Variables in Structural Reliability AnalysisTransféré parAbdul Hamid Hamat
- OM_c.pdfTransféré parcartar
- SpinningTransféré parRafid Ratul
- Fries R. - Reliable Design of Medical Devices (2nd edition)(2006)(475s).pdfTransféré parParrex Parra
- Ie 514{Elective II} Id[Eo623]Transféré partmcoachingcentre
- Maintenance UNIT - 1Transféré parrajeshkannah
- Handbook Incose Se Hdbk v2 r07 Released 2002 03Transféré parbronsone
- FG Wilson Power Wizard 1.0Transféré parpresertec
- Yuan FuqingTransféré parLungani Sibindi
- r_serie_katalog_e(100929)Transféré parNo1jhk
- 2SA970Transféré parsteffato
- 167900 Conceptual Framework[1]Transféré parjeankahora
- Palmgren Revisited - A Basis for Bearing Life PredictionTransféré parahemerly
- A Note on Quality the Views of Deming, Juran, And Crosby_group_1BTransféré parHimanshu Rawat
- U-ENS00011Transféré parASADDirvi
- Measuring Improvisation - Tom Van Eerde (s0138371) Incl BijlagesTransféré parAndreea Francu
- Performance and Reliability of WHRUsTransféré parErik Koh
- Dissertation Draft Rajon SENT (1)Transféré parshahinazad10
- P200Transféré parMohammed Aatif
- reliability_str_init.pdfTransféré parocchitya
- 60141Transféré parY.K. Chen
- Data Quality ChallengeTransféré parYusuf Rangwalla
- Condition Monitoring ,UAE DUBAITransféré parNitheesh Abdul Rahman
- Information Technology ControlsTransféré parzomozorax
- IST Year 9-10 Project DevelopmentTransféré pardan964
- SLS Secondary Meter System Improvement - Phase 2 DSPTransféré parNofrialdie
- Estimating Motor Life Using MCa Predictive MeasurementsTransféré parjizu