Eurocode 2s Variable Strut Inclination

Method for Shear, its modelling

uncertainty, and reliability calibration
Presented at:
fib symposium Engineering a Concrete Future: Technology,
Modeling & Construction
Dan Panorama Hotel
Tel-Aviv, Israel
22nd 24th April, 2013

Paper by: K.K. Mensah, J.V. Retief & C. Barnardo-Viljoen

Department of Civil
Engineering
1
Faculty of Engineering
Stellenbosch University
 Outline of the Presentation

1.Introduction

2.Common factors affecting shear vs. account of design models

3.Objectives of the presentation

4.The Eurocode 2 (EC 2) Variable Strut Inclination Method (VSIM):
Design function

Unbiased function

5.Statistical assessment of the Model Factor ()

vs. ranges of common parameters affecting shear

6.Test Cases used for the initial FORM analysis of the EC 2 VSIM procedure

7.Results of the FORM analysis

and

8.General observations, implications and conclusions 2

 Introduction
South Africa is on the advent of
adopting EC 2 as local design
standard
Reliability based investigations
have been commissioned to
support the adoption process
Basis of Structural Design (BoSD)
design requirements for resistance
can be found in:
SANS 10160-1 for South Africa (SA)
EN 1990 for Eurocode
Both standards give specifications for
Reference Class RC2 structures
SANS 10160-1 based on EN 1990
SANS 10160-1 stipulates for RC2
structures
is the reference level of reliability
EN 1990 stipulates for RC2
structures
Both standards specify the
following resistance requirement:
is a partial factor covering resistance model
uncertainties
is any partial factor applied to material
property to cater for uncertainties
FORM method can be used to determine the
values of appropriate partial factors
3
 Factors affecting shear vs. design models
Some
common factors known to influence
shear behaviour (ACI-ASCE Committee
on shear and torsion, 2009):
1. Shear span-to-depth () ratio
2. Concrete compressive strength ()
3. Amount of flexural reinforcement ()
4. Geometry ( and loading conditions of
the member or section
= beam width ; = effective depth &
= height of member/section
5. Size of the coarse aggregates
6. Amount of shear reinforcement
provided for design
; = area of shear links (2-legs); width of the
member & spacing
Simplified models usually used for the
stirrup design of routine members and
structures
Neglects secondary parameters
Quick, easy to use and reduces design errors
Therefore essential to calibrate such models to
achieve safe and economic performance
across scope of application
The EC 2 VSIM is a simple model that
is in some agreement with physical
reality, however:
It does consider the direct contribution of to shear
resistance
No direct account taken of
Stirrup design may impose stricter anchorage
requirements than just considering flexural
resistance.
It is a sectional design model
Does not account for full member shear resistance
(changes of shear with )
4
 Objectives of the presentation

1. To show that the modelling uncertainty associated with the unbiased EC 2

VSIM is systematically sensitive to

2. To illustrate how the modelling uncertainty can be rationally taken into

account during reliability and sensitivity analyses
A first step towards rational calibration usually treated nominally

3. To show that modelling uncertainty dominates the reliability performance of

EC 2s VSIM
Model uncertainty is therefore a critical aspect to consider particularly for cases of uncertain
performance and high variability like for shear

4. To share insights on how to properly account for modelling uncertainties

during the calibration of partial safety factors for the EC 2 VSIM
This, however, has implications for partial factors { beyond stirrup design. It affects the safety format
used for RC design in general

5
Importance of stirrups

6
 The EC 2 VSIM (Design function, )

Design condition: V Rd,s V Rd,max

VRd,s is the stirrup contribution to shear resistance
VRd,max represents the upper limit to shear resistance set to avoid pre-mature web-crushing of concrete
struts
The limit on affects the performance of the VSIM. For
capacity predictions (European Concrete Platform 2008):
; ;

where ; 7
 Unbiased stirrup contribution ()
No consideration of safety elements to provide the VSIMs best estimate
From design function, the characteristic values () are expressed by their mean values ()
Partial factors () are not included in the design equation or associated design models

and are the only characteristic values in the design expression

In effect, is expressed by its mean value ; is expressed by
All other design variables are nominal quantities () e.g. A sw, s, bw etc.

is the strut angle based on unbiased parameters; also based on unbiased parameters

The modelling uncertainty associated with the model is reflected by an assessment of

the Model factor:

represents the failure of a laboratory experimental beam (Simply supported; 1 or 2 span loads)
compared to a Database of 222 tests. All tests obeyed the condition ; Diagonal tension failures (+
Shear compression / stirrup yield by strain gauge measurements)

8
 Descriptive statistics of Database & MF

Descriptive statistics of the database

Descriptive
statistics
Min. 76 95 12.0 0.50 0.21 2.5
Max. 457 1200 125.4 4.54 2.62 5.4
Std. Dev. 81 185 22.6 1.02 0.48 0.6

Descriptive statistics of

Mean
Min. Max. Std. Dev., CoV, Skewness Distribution
()

0.59 1.65 3.21 0.51 0.31 0.48 3P-LN*

*3-Parameter Log-normal distribution. Determined based on the Kolmogorov-smirnov statistic

9
 Inconsistent trend of vs.
3.5

3.0

2.5
MF

2.0 _=1.65 ; _=0.51

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

w fyw [MPa]

10

More consistent trends of the (, , , )
3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5
MF

2.0

MF
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
a/d fc [MPa]

3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0

MF
MF

1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
l [%] d [mm]

11
 ParametersfortheTestCases
FORM analysis applied to two beam
sections of representative geometry
No. Unit X X X Distn.

motivated by vs. trend 1 nth basic 1.65 0.51 0.31 3P-LN

Test Case 1 (TC1) var.

2 157.1 nom. - 0.02 N

Test Case 2 (TC 2) 300* /

3 nom. - 0.03 N
125**

4 0.9 0.85 - 0.04 3P-LN

5 500 nom. - 0.01 N

6 30 nom. 9 - 2P-LN

7 16 nom. - 0.02 N

8 10 nom. - 0.02 N

250* /
9 + 1.645 30 - 3P-LN
450**

10 350 nom. - 0.01 N

11 0.85 0.85 - 0.1 2P-LN

12 25 + 1.645 0.18 3P-LN

* Xk for TC1 / **Xk for TC2

12
 PerformanceandLimitStateFunctions(LSF)
forFORManalysis
Performance concept The direction cosine ) of any basic
random variable:
}
is an appropriate General Probabilistic Model
(GPM)
is the design value of resistance
; where (EN 1990)

for the EC 2 VSIM found by The LSF is explicitly described by:

applying FORM to the LSF:

Average value of ( 1.65 & 0.51) applied during FORM

assessment of TC1 & TC2
is not subject to any confines; assumes calculated value

13
 FORMResults:&

The results of the FORM analyses are

given in the Table below: M
F
m

X
fy
w
Test
Case
TC1 3.3 0.9954 1
TC1 3.3 0.9954 1 2.4 3.04
TC2 2.3 0.9897 1 2.4 3.04
TC2 2.3 0.9897 1

0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2

TC1 is sufficient according to both SANS and w fyw [MPa]
EC requirements; opportunity to optimise 1
according to SANS

X
TC2 marginally meets the SANS
requirement; it is insufficient according to EN
0.1
requirements

The clearly dominates the reliability

performance of the EC 2 VSIM 0.01
0.6 0.8 1 w1.2 1.4
fyw [MPa] 1.6 1.8 2
Parametric Plots for vs. for (1) 250 MPa 14
steel, and (2) 450 MPa steel
 GeneralobservationsandImplications
is a prominent source of uncertainty affecting reliability performance
Use of the specific values for each TC (and not average value) is unlikely to yield significant differences in the
and values
The results are therefore sufficiently representative for the TCs

A simplified GPM is possible, based only on the MF (time-saver!)

MF only random variable; all others treated deterministically (

should be calibrated accordingly and incorporated into and

The best way to do this is to apply a separate factor stirrup design
Incorporating it into and could in reliability performance issues for other modes of resistance

The inconsistent performance of against implies a similar trend for the GPM
The GPM for stirrup resistance could therefore be improved by using a more accurate analytical formulation
like the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT)
Partial factors cannot be derived in this instance but provides insight into relative performance of the VSIM-
based GPM. An MCFT-based or similar GPM could, however, be used to establish design limits for specified values
of and

15
 Conclusions
The unbiased stirrup contribution () of the Eurocode 2 VSIM has been shown to yield
inconsistent trends of the at varied
Very conservative at low to mildly unconservative at higher values
Performance of the VSIM is based on the limits placed on esp. at low
Model should be calibrated to both SANS 10160-1 (= 2.4) and EN 1990 (= 3.04) performance
requirements

FORM analysis applied to TC1 (0.45 MPa) & TC2 (1.8 MPa) to assess the safety
performance (achieved ) of the Eurocode 2 VSIM procedure
Analysis done using average value of (MF = 1.65 ; MF = 0.51)
Initial assessment done en-route to achieve improved model of GPM for stirrup-reinforced RC members
Performance is generally satisfactory (R = 3.3 for TC1 & R = 2.3 for TC2), particularly for SANS
performance requirements. Implications for EN performance requires attention.
Direction cosines ( for both TCs indicate that the reliability performance of VSIM dominated by
the MF (> 0.98)
effective reliability performance best achieved by deriving partial factor (Rd) for MF
Due to dominating influence of MF, VSIM-based GPM can be simplified to be dependent on distribution of MF only

for stirrup design should be appropriately calibrated and accounted for in the
conventional and factor for RC design.
How to achieve this is an issue that still requires further investigation and attention
16
THANK YOU!

17