Structural Reliability and the Basis of Design for Concrete Structures

K. K. Mensah, J.V. Retief & C. Barnardo

Stellenbosch University Institute of Structural Engineering

ABSTRACT: A survey is presented on the application of the principles of structural reliability in standardised
design of concrete structures. The ultimate objective of the survey is to consider the way in which reliability is
applied in Eurocode EN 1992 with a view of determining its suitability for adoption in South Africa. Al-
though clear guidance is given in EN 1992 on reliability management related to some aspects of quality con-
trol, little guidance is given related to various aspects of the various design situations identified in EN 1990. It
is demonstrated that EN 1992 can suitably provide for the performance requirements set by the South African
Loading Code SANS 10160:2010, which is consistent with EN 1990.

1 INTRODUCTION only nominal treatment of basis-of-design require-

The performance of a structure or a structural com-
ponent refers to its behaviour as a consequence of
actions to which it is subjected. In the past genera-
tion of design codes various design philosophies
were used that incorporated safety methods that had
no rational basis. This could result in designs that
were uneconomical, usually treating uncertainties in
design to arise principally from either actions or the
resistance part of structural mechanics formulations.
Uncertainty is however inherent not only from both
the action and resistance part of mechanical formula-
tions, but can arise from aspects such as modelling
uncertainty and geometrical imperfections.
Partial factor limits states design was developed
and promoted as the design philosophy for later de-
sign codes of practice. This format somewhat cor-
rectly attributes uncertainty in structural mechanics
formulations or limit state functions to both the re-
sistance and action components. This innovation led
to the design and construction of structures that not
only possessed a more rational basis, but also
achieved improved consistency in performance, as
compared to former design philosophies.
However, partial safety factors used in limit state
design verifications are still derived mainly by ex-
pert judgement and by reference to sound traditional
designs, thereby lacking the appropriate rational and
scientific basis/treatment that they require.
2 THE PROBLEM STATEMENT & APPROACH
In materials-based design standards the emphasis is
on the various modes of structural behaviour, with
ments.
One of the motives of this research will be to re-
view the European design code for concrete struc-
tures EN 1992-1-1:2004 in order to assess and de-
termine to what extent aspects that require reliability
verification has been achieved.
2.1 General procedures for concrete design
The general reliability requirements stipulated in ba-
sis-of-design standards such as ISO 2394:1998, EN
1990:2002 and SANS 10160:2010 providing for de-
sign situations, limit states, and associated reliability
levels, differentiation and management should be
applied across the range of procedures for structural
concrete design.
The general procedures for concrete design then
entail the way in which provision is made for suffi-
cient reliability of structural resistance. This is typi-
cally done through schemes of partial factors and
specification of characteristic values for basic vari-
ables applicable to the design procedures.
2.2 Application in specific standards
Eurocode can be viewed as a general set of reference
standards which need to be made operational as na-
tional standards through the selection of Nationally
Determined Parameters in National Annexes. An
equivalent process for the adoption of EN 1992 as
South African standard would predominantly consist
of the selection of an appropriate reliability scheme
suitable to local conditions and practice.
2.3 Two step reliability assessment process
The reliability assessment of a future South African
concrete standard could therefore consist firstly of
reviewing the degree to which EN 1992 complies
with and applies reliability principles as set out in
EN 1990; and secondly to calibrate it in accordance
with SANS 10160-1 requirements, including re-
quired levels and classes of reliability for the re-
stricted scope of building structures (Retief &
Dunaiski 2009).
3 STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE
General requirements for structural performance are
stipulated in the basis-of-design section of a standard
or set of standards, such as EN 1990:2002 in the
case of Eurocode or SANS 10160-1:2010 for South
African standards. In the case of partial factor limit
states design, performance requirements are ex-
pressed in terms of design situations to be consid-
ered, limit state principles and the associated reli-
ability levels.
A significant part of the basis-of-design proce-
dures stipulates action combination schemes for the
various design situations and limit states. Stipulation
of resistance basis-of-design requirements are pre-
sented at a high level of abstraction, providing for
the diverse characteristics of structural material,
ranging from structural steel, through concrete, to
geotechnical design.
3.1 General performance requirements for
resistance
The general structural performance requirements as
stipulated in EN 1990 is summarised in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of structural performance requirements
Design Situations βT Resistance
Serviceability Limit State (SLS)
Long-term Action values, combi-
Reversible nations differentiated
Irreversible 1.5 - Resistance Rk
Ultimate Limit State(ULS) – Equilibrium (EQU); Struc-
tural (STR); Geotechnical (GEO); Fatigue (FAT))
Reference (Persistent) RC2 3.8 βT,R = 0.8*3.8 = 3.0
Reliab Differentiation RC1 3.3 Actions: γF.KFI
Resistance: Preferred
RC3 4.3 - Quality measures
Transient – actions n-adjust No resistance change
Reliability management Allow γM adjustment
Accidental: action specified (PA) - Resistance Rk
Robustness: notional action - Ductility, ties, etc
Target reliability levels as expressed in terms of
the reliability index (βT) are given in informative an-
nexes, firstly for ULS Reliability Class 2 (RC2),
then for differentiated classes RC1 & RC3. Values
are implemented nationally by member states. The
extensive treatment of actions based on the interpre-
tation of these requirements, is discussed for exam-
ple by Holický et al (2009).
3.2 Structural resistance performance
The corresponding performance requirements for
structural resistance for the various design situations
are also summarised in Table 1. The only case where
a target level of reliability is set is for ULS RC2. The
following observations on structural resistance can
be made from Table 1:

Reliability management: Provision is primarily
made in EN 1990 for adjustment of reliability lev-
els, including resistance, in accordance with risk
principles. Quality management is stated as an es-
sential component of reliability management, in-
cluding adjustment of material partial factors to
reflect the efficiency of control measures.

Reliability differentiation: Although EN 1990
allows a simple adjustment of actions through an
Importance Factor KFI the preferred way to adjust
for reliability classes is through quality control
measures.

Serviceability: Performance levels are set by SLS
criteria, with structural behaviour determined at its
characteristic value Rk.

Accidental/robustness: Performance levels are
set by accidental actions stipulated at a given
probability (PA), essentially at characteristic resis-
tance, requiring sufficient ductility & redundancy.
Structural resistance performance is therefore di-
rectly linked to reliability through quantitative partial
factor limit states procedures only for the ULS RC2
case. All other design situations and limit states are
treated in an indirect manner, with quality control
(QC) measures playing a central role.
3.3 Structural concrete resistance
Although the Eurocode EN 1992:2004 Design of
concrete structures does include a section of the ba-
sis of design, the stipulations strictly present an ap-
plication of EN 1990 requirements, with the princi-
ples for the performance of concrete structures left to
background references, such as the Commentary
(ECP 2008) and fib Model Code 2010 (FIB 2009).
Reliability related guidance provided by EN 1992-1-
1 includes the following:

Reliability differentiation: Procedures are con-
sidered to the reliability of RC2 structures; no fur-
ther guidance is given on the treatment of other re-
liability classes, other than reference to EN 1990.

Partial factor modification: Lower values for
material partial factors {γs; γc} for steel and con-
crete are allowed, if justified by measures to re-
duce uncertainty; based on control of geometry,
 particularly critical sections, and concrete
strength.

Robustness: Provision is made implicitly for suf-
ficient ductility, mainly through detailing rules; ty-
ing systems are provided to ensure the availability
of alternative load paths in case of local failure.
A minimal system of partial material factors are
used to provide for sufficient reliability across a
wide range of structural concepts (reinforced,
prestressed, lightweight, unreinforced, composite);
configurations (beams, slabs, columns, walls, foun-
dations); failure modes (flexure, axial, shear, torsion,
stability) and their combinations. Numerous assump-
tions, simplifications, empirical constants and other
measures are imbedded in the design procedures,
without explicit treatment of reliability. Although
provision is made for modelling factors to provide
for these effects, this is not applied transparently.
It is therefore somewhat surprising that the atten-
tion given to the reliability assessment of structural
resistance is nowhere as extensive as it is for actions
on structures. This situation is however not unique to
structural concrete, but applies also other structural
materials.
4 RELIABILITY IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Reliability management
Reliability management consists of differentiation of
reliability classes in accordance with EN 1990 and
adjustment of material factors in accordance with
quality measures from EN 1992-1-1.
By using the representative models for variability
of steel and concrete from the Eurocode 2 Commen-
tary (ECP 2008), improved QC is represented by
changing the coefficient of variability for model un-
certainty, geometry and strength from {2,5%; 5%;
4%} to {1.5%; 2.5%; 4%} for steel; from {5%; 5%;
15%} to {4%; 2.5%; 10%} for concrete respectively.
Figure 1 presents graphs indicating the partial fac-
tors for steel and concrete {γs; γc} as a function of
the target reliability for the two cases of standard
practice and improved QC measures in accordance
with these adjustments.
The partial factors are shown in figure 1 specifi-
cally for (i) The target levels of reliability for the
three reliability classes RC1 – RC3 from EN 1990;
(ii) Adjusted for improved QC as implied by EN
1992-1-1 Annex A. These two sets of partial factors
represent the alternative measures available for reli-
ability management. It is clear that improved QC
measures are effective in managing reliability.
The values for {γs; γc} of {1.09; 1.37} for im-
proved QC for RC2 can be compared to values of
{1.05; 1.35} indicated by EN 1992-1-1 Annex A.
This indicates that substantial credit is given for im-
proved QC in the Eurocode procedures.
1.70 Steel
Concrete
1.60
Steel (QC)
1.50 Concrete (QC)
Partial Factor
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
RC 1 RC2 RC3
1.00
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Target Beta
Figure 1. Partial factors for steel and concrete based on ECP
model; showing three reliability classes RC1, RC2 & RC3.
A more critical issue is the conversion of EN
1992-1-1 procedures for RC2 to other reliability
classes, in particular for the important case of RC3
structures. The combined effect of upwards adjust-
ment of partial factors for a higher level of reliabil-
ity, together with implementing QC measures and
taking credit for such, as indicated by the bold arrow
in figure 1, indicate the effectiveness of the QC
measures in requiring reduced partial factors {1.11;
1.43} even though the reliability class is raised.
It should be noted that this adjustment does not
merely represent a compensation measure to main-
tain the reliability level, as stated in EN 1990 Annex
B. If credit is taken for improved QC measures, the
revised partial factors need to be again adjusted up-
wards for RC3 structures, as indicated in figure 1.
No clear guidance is given in EN 1992-1-1 on this
matter, and in EN 1990 only the principles are given.
4.2 Other considerations related to reliability
Although requirements for serviceability, accidental
design situations, structural integrity and robustness
are not expressed explicitly in reliability based par-
tial factor terms for structural behaviour/resistance,
as indicated in table 1 (except that γc = 1.2 is stipu-
lated for accidental resistance), these limit states
form an integral part of structural performance.
The serviceability limit state often controls the
design, particularly in modern larger and more slen-
der structures using higher strength materials.
Due to large uncertainties in the serviceability
performance of structures, reliability based optimisa-
tion can be used to derive suitable design proce-
dures. Performance levels are however mainly con-
trolled by the somewhat arbitrary serviceability
criteria. No explicit reliability treatment of service-
ability behaviour of the structure is evident in the
procedures.
 Specific attention is given to ductile behaviour
since it is generally accepted that a much higher
level of reliability is required for brittle failure
modes. The provision of sufficient ductility is one of
the critical measures to ensure sufficient robustness
of the structure. Provisions for ductility is largely
done through rules for detailing, for which there are
a wide range of requirements, with little obvious
linking to reliability management.
5 PROVISION FOR SOUTH AFRICAN
CONDITIONS
An objective of this paper is to assess the suitability
of EN 1992-1-1 for adoption and to provide for the
basis-of-design requirements of SANS 10160:2010.
Since SANS 10160 is fully compatible with EN
1990 no difficulties should be expected. The most
important reliability related adaptations are to main-
tain the previous local reference target level of reli-
ability of βT = 3.0, which is still in accordance with
Eurocode procedures, somewhat compensated for by
a more elaborate set of reliability classes RC1 –
RC4. This classification system is explained and mo-
tivated by Retief & Dunaiski (2009).
The required values for {γs; γc} for the four reli-
ability classes RC1 – RC4 is shown in Figure 2. It
should be noted that although RC2 serve as refer-
ence, with βT = 3.0, RC2 & RC3 in fact represent a
division of the Eurocode RC2, generally at buildings
of four and five storeys.
The overall results show that partial factors of
{1.15; 1.5} would be conservative, confirming the
results of a separate analysis by Holický et al (2010).
This is true even for higher reliability classes, pro-
vided that improved QC measures are applied; as
should be the case for more important structures.
1.70 Concrete
Steel (QC)
1.60
Concrete (QC)
1.50 Steel
Partial Factor
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00 RC1 RC2 RC3
2 2.5 3 3.5
Target Beta
Figure 2. Partial factors for steel and concrete for SANS 10160
(RC1 – RC4) based on ECP model parameters.
Partial factors of {1.10; 1.4} should suffice
throughout the various reliability classes, provided
that improved QC measures are applied to RC3 &
RC4; for RC1 there is clearly an option of reducing
the partial factors, particularly for concrete.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The essential Eurocode performance requirements
for structural concrete have been reviewed, firstly to
establish the degree to which principles of structural
reliability are used explicitly in stipulating design
procedures; secondly to assess the way in which
these procedures can be adopted for South African
conditions.
On the one hand Eurocode establishes an elabo-
rate scheme of design situations and limit states in
the overall management of structural performance,
with extended treatment of actions, which applies
also to resistance in general and specifically to struc-
tural concrete.
On the other hand a rather simple scheme of par-
tial factors is employed to cover a very broad scope
of design procedures for concrete resistance. A
scheme of model factors should serve to make the
embedded effects of assumptions, expressions and
hosts of parameters more transparent and manage-
able from a reliability perspective.
A reliability review of the Eurocode procedures
for concrete design in terms of South African basis-
of-design requirements provide confirmation of the
suitability of EN 1992-1-1 for local use, and guid-
ance on how to implement such adoption.
REFERENCES
ECP (2008). Eurocode 2 Commentary. Downloaded 2008
http://www.ding.unisannio.it/ricerca/gruppi/ingciv/ceroni/co
mmentario_EC2_2004.pdf
EN 1990:2002. Basis of structural design. European Committee
for Standardization (CEN) Brussels, 2002.
EN 1992-1-1:2004. Design of concrete structures – General
rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Stan-
dardization (CEN) Brussels, 2004.
FIB (2009). Draft fib Model Code 2010.
Holický, M., Retief, J.V. & Dunaiski, P.E. (2009). The reliabil-
ity basis of Eurocode. In Retief, J.V. & Dunaiski, P.E. (Edi-
tors) Background to SANS 10160. SUN MeDIA, ISBN
978-1920338-10-7.
Holický, M., Retief, J.V. & Wium, J.A. (2010). Partial factors
for selected reinforced concrete members. Paper accepted
by SAICE Journal, 4 March 2010.
ISO 2394:1998. General principles on reliability for structures.
International Organisation for Standardisation.
RC4 Retief, J.V. & Dunaiski, P.E. (2009). The limit states basis of
4 4.5 structural design for SANS 10160-1. In Retief, J.V. &
Dunaiski, P.E. (Editors) Background to SANS 10160. SUN
MeDIA, ISBN 978-1920338-10-7.
SANS 10160:2010. Draft South African Standard: Basis of
structural design and actions for buildings and industrial
structures Part 1 Basis of structural design. South African
Bureau of Standards, Pretoria.