PCA R&D Serial No.

2558

Reliability-Based Calibration for Structural Concrete

by Andrzej S. Nowak and Maria M. Szerszen

Portland Cement Association 2001 All rights reserved

Executive Summary
The report documents Phase 1 of research carried out in conjunction with calibration of the Building Code Requirements for Stnxctural Concrete (ACI 318-99).Calibration was needed to determine the resistance factors corresponding to load factors specified by

ASCE 7 Standard on Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (1998).
The work covered the selection of representative structural types and materials,
development of load and resistance models, reliability analysis, and selection of the target reliability index, and selectian of resistance factors. The components include reinforced concrete beams and prestressed concrete beams, in flexure and shear, slabs, columns, tension members, and plain concrete, The load components include dead load, live load, snow, wind and earthquake. The statistical parameters for loads are based on the information available in literature. Load combinations are modeled using so called Turkstras Rule. Resistance parameters are determined on the basis of material tests and other factors (fabrication and professional factors).

The data base was provided by industry

representatives covering ordinary ready mix concrete, plant-cast concrete, high-strength concrete, light-weight concrete, reinforcing steel bars, and prestressing steel strands. The test results were plotted on the normal probability scale for an easier analysis. The comparison with previous tests (1970s) confirmed that there is an improvement in quality of materials, in particular, it is observed that variation of strength is reduced. The statistical parameters of resistance are calculated by Monte Car10 simulations. The results indicate that the improved quality of materials justify the recommendation of a higher value of resistance factor. The major difference between the older data and recent results is for the strength of concrete and yield strength of reinforcing bars. It was observed that the safety margin in strength of concrete, in terms of the bias factor (ratio

of mean to nominal value), decreases for higher values of strength. The statistical

11

..

parameters of prestressing strands calculated Erom the test data confirmed a continued trend of a very low variation. Reliability indices are calculated for structural components designed using the load factors specified by ASCE 7 Standard (1998), and for several possible values of the resistance factor. For comparison, reliability analysis is also performed for components designed according to the current ACI 318-99 Code. The calculations are carried out for
the new developed statistical models for load and resistance, as well as for the statistical

parameters of resistance used in previous studies. The target reliability index was selected for each group of structural components and load combinations. There are considerable differences between the reliability of different
types of components, depending also on the nominal (design) strength of material.

Reliability indices are lower for slabs and for load combinations involving wind and earthquake. The acceptance criteria for resistance factors, @, is closeness to the target reliability index.

The recommended value of resistance factor for flexural members is 9 = 0.90, for shear $
= 0.85, for tied columns 9 = 0.75, for spiral columns 9 = 0.80, and for plain concrete 9 = 0.65. However, additional work is required to verify resistance factors for slabs and
eccentric columns, and for load combinations with environmental loads. This work is planned for Phase 2 of the study.

111

...

List of Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 1
3
5

2. Calibration Procedure ..........................................................................

3 . Structural Types and Materials., ..............................................................
4 Load and Load Combinations Models ........................................................

4.1. Dead load.............................................................................. 8 4.2. Live load ................................................................................8 4.3. Snow load ............................................................................. 10 4.4. Wind load ............................................................................. 11 4.5 Earthquake load ....................................................................... 11 4.6.Load combinations.................................................................. 12 5 Resistance Models ...............................................................................

14

18 5.1.1. Ordinary concrete...................................................... 18 5.1.2. High strength concrete ................................................... 20 5.1.3. Light weight concrete................................................... 22 5.1.4 Recommended Material Factors. M. for Concrete Strength.........23 5.2. Material Factor for Steel......................................................... 25 5.2.1. Reinforcing steel ...................................................... 25 5.2.2. Prestressing steel ......................................................... 26 5.2.3. Recommended Material Factors. M. for Steel Strength............. 28 5.3 Fabrication Factors .................................................................. 29 5.4 Professional Fact0rs .................................................................29 5.5 Statistical Parameters of Resistance ................................................ 30
6. Reliability Analysis Procedures............................................................

5.1. Material Factor for Concrete.......................................................

36 39

7. Reliability Indices for Selected Structures and Materials.................................

....................................................................... 9. Resistance Factors ............................................................................... 10.Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................... 11. References................................................................................. Appendix A-1 . The CDFs of f, for Ordinary Concrete....................................

8.Target Reliability Index

66
69
70

72 A-1 A-31
A-59

Appendix A-2 . The CDFs off, for High-Strength Concrete......................... Appendix A-3 . The CDFs of fc for Light Weight Concrete............................. Appendix B-1 . The CDFs of fy for Reinforcing Steel ....................................

B-1

Appendix 18-2. The CDFs of Breaking Stress for Prestressing Steel .................. B-16

iv

Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by the Portland Cement Association (PCA), represented by
Basile G. Rabbat, and co-sponsored by the Precasflrestressed Concrete Institute, represented by L.S. (Paul) Johal. Their sponsorship is gratefully acknowledged.

The m t r a test data were compiled by: National Ready Mix Concrete Association aeil
(NRMCA) staff and Consultant Richard D. Gaynor; Michael F. Pistilli, Prairie Group;
Steve H. Gebler, Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc.; David P. Gustafson, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI); and Roger J. Becker, Spancrete Industries,

Inc. The statistical analysis of the material test data was discussed at Project Meetings
with an Ad Hoc Group of representatives of industry: Roger J. Becker (Spancrete), David

N.Bilow (PCA), David P. Gustafson (CRSI), and Basile G. Rabbat (PCA.).

Valuable comments were also obtained from members of ACI Committee 318, in
particular, James G. MacGregor, Gary J. Klein (Chairman, 318 Sub C), James R. H r i , ars

and S.K. Ghosh,

Special thanks are due to Pascal Laumet, a visiting student from Blaise Pascal University

in France, for his assistance in computations. Thanks are also due to Weilin Wang, a
graduate student at the University of Michigan, for his help.

1. Introduction
The report documents the results of research work on calibration of the Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99), The load and load combination factors specified in ACI 318-99 Code have not been changed since the 1950s. In the meantime, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issued ASCE 7 Standard on Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (1998). This Standard specifies loads and load combinations with corresponding load factors based on a probabilistic analysis using the statistical data on load and resistance parameters available

a in 1970s (Ellingwood et al. 1980). ASCE 7 Standard w s adopted as a basis for the
design of steel structures by the American Institute of Steel Construction, (AISC LRFD
Code 1994) and wood structures by the American Forest & Paper Association and

American Wood Council (LRFD Manual for Engineered Wood Construction 1996). The objective of this study is to determine the resistance factors that are consistent with load

and load combination factors specified by A X E 7 Standard. The proposed design process, known as Limit States Design, requires a set of load and
resistance factors for each appropriate limit state formulated for several different modes

of possible structural behavior during design and service life of structures. Considered
limit state design criteria cover possible cases for design of reinforced concrete and

prestressed concrete structural elements.

The philosophy of design according to limit states is based on the assumption of equilibrium between applied loads and structural response called a resistance of the structure. The safety margin is the difference between two sides of equilibrium equation, formulated as a limit state function. Load and resistance parameters involve a considerable degree of uncertainty and can be treated as random variables. Therefore, reliability is a rational measure of structural performance. The reliability analysis

m t o s have been considerably developed in the last 30 years, and the available ehd
procedures are presented in textbooks and reports (e.g. Ellingwood et al. 1980, Melchers 1987, Ayyub and McCuen 1997, and Nowak and Collins 2000).

The major steps in the code calibration procedure include the development of load and resistance models. The statistical parameters for load components, in particular dead load and live load in buildings, were considered in the 1970s, and they are summarized by Ellingwood et al. (1980). Other loads and load combination models are presented in textbooks (e.g. Nowak and Collins 2000). It is assumed that the available load and load combination models are adequate for reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete components. The resistance factors depend strongly on the statistical parameters of
material properties and dimensions. Therefore, the main focus of this study is the

verification of resistance models,

A considerable database is gathered on material strength: ordinary concrete, lightweight

concrete, high-strength concrete, reinforcing steel, and prestressing steel. The test results
were provided by industry, and the selection of sources was coordinated by organizations

including Concrete Reinforcing Stee1 Institute, National Ready M i x Concrete Association, Portland Cement Association, and PrecastPrestressed Concrete Institute. The obtained test results are analyzed to determine the cumulative distribution functions

and other statistical parameters. The developed resistance model has a strong influence on the selection of resistance factors.
The reliability analysis plays an important role in the calibration. A wide spectrum of resistance factors,

0, is

considered. For each value of @, the required resistance (load

carrying capacity) is determined using the design formula with load and resistance factors, and then reliability indices are calculated. This process is continued for various Components, materials, and load combinations. Finally, the resistance factors are selected based on closeness to the target reliability index.

2. Calibration Procedure
The procedure used is this study includes the following steps.

Step 1 Representative structural types and materials

The structural types and materials must be selected for consideration in the calibration.
The new resistance factors will be applicable to the design of structural concrete as

covered by the current ACI 318-99.

The selection involves also selection of

representative spans, spacings, dimensions, and reinforcement ratios. For the representative structural types and materials, typical load component ratios are also identified.

Step 2 Load and load combination models

The statistical models for load components are needed for the reliability analysis. For

time-varying loads, two components are considered: arbitrary-point-in-time value, and

maximum life-time value. The models include mean value, coefficient of variation, and

cumulative distribution function (CDF'). It is assumed that the available data base for loads is sufficient for the purpose of this calibration, and no new research is required (just

data search in literature). For load combinations, Turkstra's rule is applied (Turkstra 1970; Nowak and Collins 2000). Step 3 Resistance models

This is one of the most important steps of this calibration. It was observed that the data
base on material properties available in literature is inadequate. The quality of materials (concrete and steel) has improved over the years and it is not reflected in the design formulas, in particular resistance factors. Therefore, this step of calibration includes the collection of new material test results, and the development of statistical models for resistance based on these results.

Step 4 Reliability analysis procedures

The available reliability analysis procedures are presented in the literature (e.g. Nowak and Collins 2000). This step involves the selection of the most efficient approach. The acceptability criteria include accuracy and simplicity, as the reliability analysis must be
repeated m n times. ay

Step 5 Reliability indices for the current code (ACI 318-99)

The procedure developed in Step 4 will be applied to calculate the reliability indices for

the considered structural types and materials, for various ratios of load components,
designed exactly according to ACI 318-99. The analysis is performed for two sets of statistical models for resistance: (a) based on the material test data f o 1970s and early rm
1980s, and (b) based on new material test data provided by the industry.
i

Step 6 Target reliability index

This is an important step. Based on the reliability indices calculated in Step 5 , the target
reliability index is selected. The theoretical selection criteria include consequences of failure, and cost of increasing/decreasing safety margin by a unit. In practice, the most important criterion is the current practice.

Step 7 Resistance factors for the new code

The final step in this calibration is calculation and selection of resistance factors for the considered limit states, and the design using the load factors specified in ASCE-7 Standard. The acceptance criterion is closeness to the target reliability index, selected in Step 6. It is assumed that the resistance factors are rounded to the nearest 0.05. The

reliability indices are calculated for the proposed resistance factors, and compared with
the target values.

3. Structural types and materials

This study deals with structural types and materials that are covered by the ACI 318-99
Code.

31 Structural Types .

The considered structural types include:

Flexural members (beams)

Slabs
Compression members (columns) Tension members

32 Limitstates .
The considered limit states include:
Bending moment capacity (beams and slabs) Shear capacity (beams) Axial compression capacity (columns) Tension capacity (tension members) 3.3 Materials The considered materials include: Ordinary concrete Light-weight concrete (weight < 115 lbs/ft3) High-strength concrete (with f > 6,500 psi)

6
Reinforcing steel bars Prestressing steel strands The analysis is performed for reinforced c-ncre e and prestressed concrete s rUCtural elements in flexure, compression, tension, shear and torsion. Plain concrete elements are
also considered as a group of structural elements in flexure, compression, shear and

bearing.
With regard to fabrication, two categories of concrete materials are considered: Plant-cast, fabricated in a plant, precast Cast-in-place, ready mix, constructed on site

0 0

There are important differences in the quality of concrete, quality of workmanship, curing

procedures, and tolerances in dimensions. In this calibration, it is assumed that quality of

m t r a s and workmanship is at the average level. aeil

4. Load and Load Combinations Models

The major load components considered in this study include: D=deadload L=liveload

S=snow
a

W=wind E=earthquake

J this study, the basic load case is a combination of dead load and live load. Also n

considered are combinations including wind or earthquake.

The statistical parameters of load components are determined based on the load models
available in literature. parameters: Each load component can be described by the following

m=meanvalue

h = bias factor, or ratio of the mean to nominal (design) value

o =standarddeviation
V = coefficient of variation (V = CT / m)

In addition, variation of a load component can be described by the cumulative

distribution function (CDF). For time varying loads (live load, snow, wind, earthquake),
two random variables are considered:

Arbitrary-point-in-time load component Maximum 50 year load component

8
The fmt variable represents value of the load effect at any arbitrarily selected moment. For example, in case of earthquake, the mean value of this load component is zero, as most of the time there is no seismic activity, with the exception of very few occurrences lasting 1-2 minutes. On the other hand, the other variable represents the maximum load effect caused by an earthquake within the time period of 50 years. The parameters (bias factor and coefficient of variation) are determined for both variables.

4.1 Dead Load

Dead load is the weight of structural and permanently attached non-structural components. Variation in the dead load, which affects statistical parameters, is caused by variation in gravity weight of materials (concrete and steel), variation of dimensions (tolerances in design dimensions), and idealization in analytical models. It w s observed a that the degree of variation is different for factory-made (precast) and cast-in-place components. Therefore, bias factor and coefficient of variation are smaller for factorymade elements than for cast-in-place components.
In this study, it is assumed that dead load is normally distributed with the parameters

given in Table 4-1 (Ellingwood et al. 1980; Now& 1999).

Category of component Factory-made (precast) Cast-in-place

4.2 Live load

Bias factor
1.03

Coefficient of variation
0.08

1.05

0.10

The nominal (design) live load is assumed to be as specified by ASCE 7 Standard. For
the influence area exceeding 400 ft2, live load (psf) is reduced according to the following
l), formula (Fig. 4-

where:

Lo = unreduced live load (psf) obtained from the ASCE 7-98,

A, = influence area (ft2).

"4

I0

I I

Figure 4.2- 1, Mean maximum 50-year live load as a function of influence area.

The statistical parameters of live load depend on type of occupancy and influence area.
The available survey data is mostly for office buildings. It was observed that the
coefficient of variation decreases with increasing influence area.

The statistical parameters of arbitrary-point-in-time live load in office buildings are given
in Table 4-2 (EUingwood et al. 1980). It is assumed that the maximum 50 year live load has the statistical parameters given in Table 4-3 (Ellingwood et al. 1980). A wide range of coefficients of variation were considered by different researchers, as shown in the table. In the reliability analysis, the
statistical parameters of 50 year maximum live load

are: bias factor, h = 1.0, and

coefficient of variation, V = 0.18.

10

Table 4-2. Statistical Parameters of Arbitrary-point-in-time Live Loads in Offices Influence area (ft2)
200 400 1,000

Bias factor
0.24
0.24

Coefficient of variation

0.80
0.65

0.24
0.24

0.50
0.45
0.40

5,000
10,000

0.24

Table 4-3.Statistical Parameters of Maximum 50 Year Live Loads in Offices Influence area Bias factor
1 .oo

Coefficient of variation Range

Assumed
0.20

200
400
1,000

0.14-0.23

1.oo
1.oo 1.oo

NIA
0.13-0.18 0.10-0.16

0.18
0.14 0.12

5,000 10,000

1.oo

0.09-0.16

0.10

4.3 Snow load The nominal (design) snow load is assumed to be as specified by ASCE 7 Standard. The snow load effect is depends on geographical location and it is a function of several parameters including slope of the roof, and exposure factor. The statistical parameters are based on the data provided by Ellingwood et al. (1980) and Ellingwood and

Rosowsky (1996).
The snow model is based on Northern states, and it is assumed conservatively that the snow on the ground is for 26 weeks per year. Accordingly, it is assumed that the arbitraty-point-in-time snow load has bias factor, h = 0.20, and V = 0.87. The maximum

50 year snow load has bias factor, h = 0.82, and V = 0.26.

11

4.4 Wind load

The nominal (design) wind load is assumed to be as specified by ASCE 7 Standard. The wind load effect depends on geographical location and is a function of several parameters including wind speed, gust factor, and exposure factor. The statistical parameters are based on the data provided by Ellingwood et al. (1980).

In this study, it is assumed that the arbitrary-point-in-time wind load is negligible (bias
factor is close to zero). The maximum 50 year wind load has bias factor, h = 0.78, and V

= 0.37.
4.5 Earthquake load

The nominal (design) earthquake load is assumed to be as specified by ASCE 7 Standard.

The earthquake load effect also depends on geographical location, and it is a function of
the ground motion, distance from the fault, local geological conditions, and structural

parameters. The statistical parameters are based on the data provided by Ellingwood et
al. (1980).

In this study, it is assumed that the arbitrary-point-in-time earthquake load is negligible

(bias factor is equal to zero). The analysis is performed for the Western United States, and it is assumed that the maximum 50 year earthquake load has bias factor, h = 0.66 and
V = 0.56 (Ellingwood and Rosowsky 1996).

12

4.6 Load combination models

The total load effect, Q, is a sum of Idad components,

Q=D+L+S+W+E

(4-2)

All load components except dead load are time-variant. The effect of a combination of
time-varying loads can be calculated using the Turkstra's Rule (Turkstra 1970; Nowak

and Collins 2000). Turkstra observed that the total 50 year load takes a maximum value
when one of the components reaches its maximum 50 year value, and other load components take arbitrary-point-in-time values.

In case of the load combinations considered in this calibration, using Turkstra's Rule, the
following formula is obtained for the maximum 50 year load effect,

where subscript max = maximum 50 year value, and apt = arbitrary-point-in-time value. The arbitrary-point-in-time value for 'W and E is negligible, so WaPt and Eaptcan be eliminated from Eq. 4-3. Therefore,

The mean total load, Qmn, is equal to the maximum sum of the mean values of load components in Eq. 4-4. The statistical parameters of the total load depend on the load component ratios. The reliability analysis is performed for a wide range of ratios, however, in the selection of

13
resistance factors the frequency of occurrence of various load ratios in engineering practice was considered.

The statistical parameters for load components are summarized in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Statistical Parameters for Load Combinations
Load Component
Arbitrary-Point-in Time Load
Max 50 Year Load

Bias
Dead Load (cast-in-place)

cov
0.10
0.08

Bias

cov
0.10

1.05 1.03
0.24

1.05
1.03
1.oo

Dead Load (plant cast)

Live Load

0.08
0.18

0.65

Snow
Wind

0.20
0.00

0.87
0.00

0.82
0.78

0.26
0.37

Earthquake

0.00

0.00

0.66

0.56

14

5. Resistance Models
Resistance of a structural component, R, is a function of material properties and dimensions. R is a random variable due to various categories of uncertainties. It is convenient to consider R as a product of three factors,
R=R,MFP

where R = nominal (design) value of resistance, ,

M = materials factor representing material properties, in particular strength, modulus of

elasticity, cracking stress, and chemical composition.

F = fabrication factor representing dimensions and geometry of the component, including

cross-section area, moment of inertia, and section modulus.

P = professional factor representing the approximations involved in the structural analysis

and idealized stress/strain distribution models. The professional factor P is defined as the ratio of the test capacity (representing the actual in-situ performance) to analytically predicted capacity (according to the model used in calculations). The statistical parameters for M, F and P were considered by various researchers and the results were summarized by Ellingwood et al. (1980). For the flexural capacity and shear capacity of bridge girders, the bias factors and coefficients of variation of M were determined by simulations (Nowak 1999), based on the material test data available in early 1990s. However, it has been observed that the quality of materials such as reinforcing steel and concrete has improved over the years. Therefore, in this study the material test data base has been updated. The collection and processing of the new data is one of the major contributions of this project.
The new test data serves as a basis for determining the statistical parameters for the

material factor, M.

It is assumed that the variability of material properties and

dimensions correspond to the average quality of construction expected in practice. Longterm changes in concrete and steel affecting strength are not considered.

15

The literature review and interviews with the leading experts (MacGregor and Galambos) did not reveal any new information on the other two factors, F and P. Therefore, in most
cases, statistical parameters for F and P are taken from the previous study (Ellingwood et

al. 1980).

In general, the mean value of resistance, mR, can be calculated from the following

formula,

where

= bias factor for M, hp = bias factor for F, and hp = bias factor for P.

The coefficient of variation of R, VR, is

The statistical parameters of material factor, M, are determined from the test data
provided by the industry. The tests were performed by producers of materials and submitted to the Project Team at the University of Michigan through the associations representing the industry. The request for data was submitted with a questionnaire. The respondents were asked to provide information on any bias in the data, confirm if any samples were not included in the data base, provide information on source of test data and confirm if the samples are from the same plant or ready mix facility, and if the samples are from the same project. All respondents confirmed that the data was collected
as unbiased and representative for their production.

The obtained test data is plotted in the normal probability paper. It is a convenient way to present cumulative distribution functions (CDF). It allows for an easy evaluation of the most important statistical parameters as well as type of distribution function. The construction and use of the normal probability paper is described in textbooks (Benjamin

and Cornell 1979; Nowak and Collins 2000). An example of the normal probability
paper is shown in Fig. 5-1. The horizontal axis represents the basic variable, in case of considered test data, it is the strength of the sample. Vertical axis is the inverse normal probability scale, and it represents the distance f o the mean value in terms of standard rm deviations. It can also be considered as the corresponding probability of being exceeded. The relationship between the vertical scale (distance in terms of standard deviations) and probability is given in Table 5-1.

Distance from the mean value in terms of standard deviations

4

Corresponding probability 0.9999683

0.99865

3
2
1

0.9772
0.841
0.5 0.159

0
-1

-2
-3
-4

0.0228
0.00135

O.OOOO3 17

The basic properties of the normal probability paper include: Any normal distribution function is represented by a straight line
Any straight line represents a normal distribution function

The mean value can be read directly from the graph, it is at the intersection of the straight line representing a normal CDF and horizontal axis (passing through 0 on
the vertical scale), as shown in Fig. 5-1.

Standard deviation, 0, also be read directly from the graph, as shown in Fig. can
5-1.

17

3l
1
...

--...

-*-.......---.."..

...........
Mean value

"

... "..*..

// / !

Fig. 5-1. Normal Distribution Function on the Normal Probability Paper.

The test data plotted on the normal probability paper can be analyzed by observing the shape of the resulting curve representing CDF. If the curve is close to a straight line, then the variable can be considered as a normal random variable. From the reliability point of
view, for material strength, the most important part of the CDF is the lower tail.

18

5.1 Material Factor for Concrete

Three categories of concrete are considered: ordinary concrete, light weight concrete, and high-strength concrete. For ordinary concrete a distinction is made between ready mix concrete and plant-cast concrete. The data base includes results of standard cylinder tests. Most of the tests are for 28 day compressive strength, however, for high-strength concrete also 56 day strength tests are available.
5.1.1 Ordinary concrete

The test data for ordinary concrete was obtained from ready mix companies and precasting plants. Ready mix concrete data base includes f, from 3,000 psi to 6,000 psi,

and for plant-cast concrete f, is f o 5,000 psi to 6,500 psi. rm

The cumulative distribution functions (CDF) off, are plotted on the normal probability
paper in Fig. 5-2 for ready mix concrete, and Fig. 5-3 for plant-cast concrete. The CDFs include all the available samples ( r mdifferent sources). The plotted distributions can fo be considered as normal functions, in particular this applies to f, = 3,000 psi and 4,000 psi. The statistical parameters (the mean values and coefficients of variation) of f, and number of samples are listed in Table 5-2 for ready mix concrete and Table 5-3 for plantcast concrete. The bias factor, h , is calculated as the ratio of mean and nominal values and it is also shown in the tables. For comparison, in the previous studies the bias factor
was h = 0.95 and V = 0.15 (Ellingwood et al. 1980).

The CDFs for each file in the data base of the ordinary concrete are presented in Appendix A- 1.

19
+fc +fc

= 3,000psi +Pc = 4,500 psi +fc

= 3,500 psi +fc = 5,000 psi +fc

= 4,000 psi = 6,000 psi

4'
- p 1

!i

ii z -1

P c - -2
-3
I I I I I I I

I
4

I
5

1 1
10

strength [kri]

Figure 5-2. CDF's for ordinary ready mix concrete.

-+f'c = 5,000psi --e f'c = 5,500 psi

-A-

f'c = 6,000psi + f'c = 6,500psi +

3 2
1

0
-1 -2
-3
-4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
strength [ksi]

Figure 5-3.CDF's for ordinary plant-cast concrete.

20

fc

Number of samples

Mean f, 4,060 psi 4,240 psi 4,940 psi 5,125 psi 5,730 psi 6,700 psi

Bias factor, h 1.35 1.21

1.235

V
0.10

3,000 psi 3,500 psi 4,000 psi 4,500 psi 5,000 psi

88
25

0.10
0.10
0.10

116
28

1,14 1.15
1.12

30
30

0.10 0.10

6,000 psi
c

Table 5-3.Statistical Parameters for Ordinary Plant-Cast Concrete

5.1.2. High strength concrete

The test data for high strength concrete (at least 7,000 psi) w s obtained from precasting a
rm plants. The high strength concrete data base includes f, f o 7,000 psi to 12,000 psi.

The cylinder compression strength was tested after 28 days and 56 days. The number of samples in the data base is given in Table 5-4. The CDFsoff, for high strength concrete are plotted in Fig. 5-4 for 28-days and in Fig.
5-5 for 56 days. The corresponding statistical parameters are presented in Table 5-5. The

CDFs of fc for each file containing high strength concrete test data are shown in
Appendix A-2.

21

fc

Number of samples
28 days
56 days

7,000 psi

210 753
73

58
428

8,000 psi
9,000 psi 10,000 psi 12,000 psi

N/A
238
190

635
38 1

f,

28 days

56 days

M a f, en
7,000 psi

Bias factor
1.19

V
0.115
0.090

M a f, en
10,433 psi 8,717 psi

Bias factor
1.49

V
0.080

8,342 psi
8,745 psi
10,4 13 psi 11,283 psi 12,442 psi

8,000 psi
9,000 psi 10,OOO psi 12,000 psi

1.09
1.16
1.13

1.09

0.095

0.100

N/A

N/A
1.18 1..17

NIA

0.115
0.105

11,805 psi

0.105
0.105

1.04

14,008 psi

+fc = 7,000 psi +Pc 4 P c = 10,000 psi +fc

= 8,000 psi +Pc

= 12,000 psi

= 9,000 psi
I

I
4

- 3 s
i3 5 0
2

2 2 3 1

:
g

-1

1 -3 - -4
0 1
2

-2

3 4

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
strength 69 28 day [ksll

Figure 5-4. CDFs off, for the high strength concrete, 28 days. The

22
+fc
4

= 7,000 +fc psi

= 8,000psi +fc

= 10,000psi *fc

= 12,000 psi

e g 1
- 0

= 2 a

E p

- -3
E

-1

-2

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
strength @ 56 day [kri]

Figure 5-5. The CDFsof fe for the high strength concrete, 56 days..

5.1.3 Light weipht concrete The light weight concrete data base consists of compression cylinder test results, f, values (28 days) for nominal f, from 3,000 psi to 5,000 psi. The CDFs of f, for light weight concrete are plotted in Fig. 5-6. The corresponding statistical parameters and numbers of samples are presented in Table 5-6. In addition, the CDFs for each data file are shown in Appendix A-3.

23
fc = 3,000psi -8- fc = 3,5000psi +- fc = 4,000psi +fc = 5,000psi
4 -

I
I I

10

strength [ksl]

Figure 5-6. The CDFs off, for light weight concrete.

fc

Number of samples 219

42

Mean f,
4,306 psi
5,421 psi

Bias factor
1.44

3,000 psi

0.185
0.135

3,500 psi

1.55

1 I

4,OOOpsi
5,oOOpsi

140

368

1 1

5,191 psi

5,500psi

1 1

1.30
1.10

1 I

0.170

0.070

I 1

5.1.4 Recommended Material Factors, M. for Concrete Strength

The test data was analyzed to determine the parameters of material factor for calibration

of the ACI 318-99 Code. The bias factor for ready mix concrete varies from h = 1.35 for fc = 3,000 psi to h = 1.12 for f, = 6,000 psi. For plant-cast concrete bias factor is from h

= 1.38 for fc = 5,000 psi to h = 1.14 for f, = 6,500 psi, However, it was observed that in
the latter case, most often the mix is designed for one day strength, and in the result, material is over-designed for 28 day strength. For high strength concrete, there is a

24

scatter of bias factors, from h = 1.19 for f, = 7,000 psi to h = 1.04 for f, = 12,000 psi, but with h = 1.09 for f, = 8,000 psi for tests after 28 days, and f o h = 1.49 for f, = rm

7,000 psi to h = 1.17 for f, = 12,000 psi for tests after 56 days. For light weight

rm , concrete, the bias factor varies f o h = 1.44 for f, = 3,000 psi to h = 1.10 for f = 5,000
psi.

Based on the test results, it is recommended to use the bias factor for concrete strength,
f,, as shown in Fig. 5-7. The same bias factor is recommended for ready mix, plant-cast,
high-strength, and light weight concretes. For comparison, the bias factors obtained f o rm the test data are also shown in Fig. 5-7.
1.8

1.6
1.4

Ei 1.0
w 0.8

i i

1.2

0.0
0.4

0.2
0.0
0

9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3

fc [ksi]

Fig. 5-7. Recommended Bias Factor for Compressive Strength of Concrete, fc

The coefficient of variation of concrete strength, fc, observed in the test data is rather uniform. Therefore, it is recommended for this calibration to use V = 0.10 for all considered types and grades of concrete. The bias factors for concrete strength are applicable for the cylinder tests. The strength
of concrete in the actual structural component is lower by 10-15%. Therefore, in the

Monte Carlo simulations to determine the resistance of components, the compressive strength of concrete is assumed to be 0.85 fc.

25
5.2. Material Factor for Steel

Two categories of steel matei-ds are considered: rein. orcing bars and prestressing strands. The test data for yield strength of reinforcing rebars and breaking stress of prestressing strands were provided by the manufacturers. The distribution functions are plotted on the normal probability paper and the statistical parameters are presented in tables.

5.2.1. Reinforcing steel

rm Reinforcing steel grade 60 ksi was investigated with bar diameters f o #3 to #11. The
CDFs of yield strength, fy, are plotted in Fig. 5-8. The statistical parameters of fy are
summarized in Table 5-7. There is no trend observed in the relationship between the
strength and diameter of the rebar. In addition, the CDFs for individual data files are

shown in the Appendix B-1. For comparison, the bias factor for f,, used in previous
studies was h = 1.125, and coefficient of variation, V = 0.10 (Ellingwood et al. 1980).

Bar size
#3 (9.5 mm)
#4 (12.5 mm)

Number of samples

Mean yield fy
(ksi)

Bias factor

V
0.04

72

72.0 68.7 67.5

69.1

1.20
1.145 1.125 1.15 1.165 1.145 1.15 1.14 1.145

79
116 38 29 36

0.065
0.04 0.05

#5 (15.5 mm)

#6 (19 mm)
#7 (22 mm)
#8 (25 mm)

69.9
68.75

0.05
0.05

#9 (28 mm)

28
5
13

69,05 68.25 68.75

0.05
0.04
0.035

#10 (31 mm)

#11 (34.5 mm)

26

30 .
0 .y

r
20 .
1.0

g L

m
E

z
Q

E 0
p
E

0.0
-1.0

-2.0
-. 30 0
10

20

30

40

50

80

70

80

90

Fy [ksi] Fig. 5-8. The CDFs of fy for reinforcing bars, fy = 60 ksi.

5.2.2. Prestressing steel

Two grades of prestressing steel strands were investigated: 250 ksi and 270 ksi. For grade
250 h i , four strand diameters were considered, from 1/4 in to 1/2 in, and for grade 270, three diameters, from 3/8 in to 1/2 in. The CDFs of the breaking stress are plotted in Fig.

5-9 for grade 250 ksi, and in Fig. 5-10 for grade 270 ksi. In some of the tests the samples
were loaded up to a certain predefined limit, and if they passed the test then only the

maximum load was recorded (they were not loaded to failure). This is reflected in the
shape of the curves representing the CDFs. The statistical parameters of fy for the two considered grades are summarized in Table 58. For comparison, the statistical parameters used in previous studies for grade 270 ksi are h = 1.040 and V = 0.025.

27 Table 5-8. Statistical Parameters of Breaking Stress for Prestressing Strands

Grade
250 ksi

Size
114 (6.25 mm)
318 (9.5 mm)

Number

Mean fr

Bias Factor
1.07
1.11

V
0.01

of samples
11

[ksi]
268
277

83
114

0.025
0.007
0.03

7/16(11 mm) 1/2 (12.5 mm)

269 285

1.08 1.14
1.06

115 54
30

270 ksi

3 8 (9.5 mm) 7/16 (11 mm)

1/2(12.5 mm)

287
288

0.03
0.01

1.07
1.04

190

282

0.025

-strands

#3/8

- - - - strands

#1/4

- - - - - .- strands #5/16 -----strands

#7/16

- - - - - strands #I12

20

40

80

80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320

Breaking Stress [ksi]

Figure 5-9, CDF's of Breaking Stress for Prestressing Strands;Grade 250 ksi,

28

-strands #3/8 - - - - strands #7/16 - - - - - - - strands #1/2

3
2

s'
h
CI
Y

J
0
U

UI

s
#
E

-l

- -2
-3
0

20

40

60

80

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320

Breaking Stress [ksi]

Figure 5-10. CDF's of Breaking Stress for Prestressing Strands; Grade 270 ksi.

5.2.3. Recommended Material Factors, M, for Steel Strength

The bias factors for reinforcing steel bars vary f o h = 1.125 to h = 1.20, with all sizes rm except of two being within 1.14-1.165. Therefore, the recommended bias factor for f,,

rebars is h = 1.145. The coeffcient of variation of fy varies from V = 0.035 to V = 0.065.

The recommended coefficient of variation off,, for this calibration is V = 0.05. The bias factors for prestressing strands vary from h = 1.04 to h = 1.14. For this calibration it is recommended to use h = 1.045. The coefficient of variation varies from V

= 0.007 to V = 0.03. It is recommended to use V = 0.025.

29

53 Fabrication Factors .
Fabrication factor, F, represent the variation in dimensions and geometry (see Eq. 5-1). The recommended statistical parameters are based on previous studies by Ellingwood et
al. (1980).

For the dimensions of concrete components the recommended parameters are listed in
Table 5-9. Table 5-9. Statistical Parameters of Fabrication Factor for Dimensions of Concrete. Item Width of beam, cast-in-place Effective depth of a reinforced concrete beam
~

Bias factor

1.01

0.04
0.04

0.99
1.oo

Effective depth of prestressed concrete beam Effective depth of a slab, cast-in-place

L

0.025 0.12
0.06

0.92
1.oo

Effective depth of a slab, plant-cast Effective depth of a slab, post-tensioned

0.96
1.005

0.08
0.04

Column width and breadth

For steel components, reinforcing bars and prestressing steel strands, the bias factor of
dimensions is h = 1.O and V = 0.01. The area of reinforcing steel, A,, is also treated as a practically deterministic value, with h = 1.0 and V = 0.015.
5.4 Professional Factors

Professional (analysis) factor, P, represents the variation in the ratio of the actual resistance and what can be analytically predicted using accurate material strength values (see Eq. 5-1). Most of the statistical parameters of P are based on the previous study by Ellingwood et al. (1980), recently confirmed by two of the co-authors. The values recommended for this calibration are listed in Table 5-10.

30
Table 5-10. Statistical Parameters of Professional Factor, P Item Bias factor
1.02

V
0.06
0.10

Beam, flexure
Beam, shear Slab

1.075
1.02

0.06
0.08

Column, tied
Column, spiral Plain concrete

1.oo

1.05 1.02

0.06

0.06

5.5 Statistical Parameters of Resistance

The parmeters of resistance, R, were calcul ted by Mon e Carlo simula ions, using the statistical parameters determined for M, I and P. Material parmeters for concrete : (ordinary concrete, high strength concrete and light weight concrete) were established based on the cylinder test data. The relationship between the concrete strength measured on test cylinders and the concrete strength in the actual structure. is included in the resistance model. In particular, a reduced value of the bias factor is used in design equations. The coefficients of variation for both concrete strengths (cylinder tests and actual structure) are assumed to be the same. The actual concrete strength in structure can differ from job to job, but these job-specific differences are included in the fabrication and professional factors ( h and hp). The data on concrete strength used in the calibration ~
was obtained from different sources (from different construction sites andor different

concrete mix plants) so it includes the batch-to-batch variation, that is higher than withintest variation. The investigated data also includes variation caused by different testing methods (data comes from different labs) and different mix and ingredients.
A formula for resistance (load carrying capacity) is formulated for each of the considered

structural components and materials. The considered parameters include: Strength of concrete, fc, for ordinary concrete, high strength and light weight

31

Yield strength of reinforcing steel Breaking stress of prestressing steel strands

Various reinforcement ratio for each case (between minimum and maximum
allowed by the ACI 318-98 Code) Dimensions of the cross section (width, breadth and effective depth) Construction type (cast-in-place and plant-cast) Resistance formulas are presented using the following notation:
A, :Area of reinforcement, in2,

4 : Area of shear reinforcement within a distance s , in'.

A, : Gross area of section, i n 2 . A , : Area of steel in a column, in2.

fy : Specified yield strength of reinforcement, psi. f 'c : Specified compressive strength of concrete, psi.
a b b, d
s
: Depth of equivalent rectangular stress block, in.

: Width of compression face of member, in. : Web width, in. : Effective depth = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement, in. : Spacing of shear reinforcement measured along the longitudinal axis of the structural member, in.

Flexure:

R = (A, x fy [ d

-] ;
Oc

(5-4)

where: a = A J , 0.85f b
The reinforcement ratios considered in this study were: for beams p = 0.6-1.6%,and for slabs p = 0.26-0.33%

The statistical parameters of flexural resistance were determined by Monte Car10 simulations, and the following parameters were treated as random variables:

32

Shear:

v, =v, +v,
where:

Vc = 2Jf,b,.d

and

V, = 4 . f 4
S

The spacing of shear rebars considered in this study was 6-12 in. The statistical parameters of shear resistance were determined by Monte Carlo simulations, and the following parameters were treated as random variables:

CaDacitv of axiallv loaded columns:

R,, = 0.85f', - Asr)+f,A,, (A,

where:

A, = b x d
The reinforcement ratios for columns considered in this study were p = 2.75-4.85%
The statistical parameters of resistance for axially loaded columns were determined by Monte Carlo simulations, and the following parameters were treated as random variables:
A,,
f'c,

fy, , d b

Resistance of plain concrete:

where: AdA1 is the ratio of the area the load is applied to the area the load is transmitted, as shown in Fig. 5-1 1, and:
A, =bXd

33

Fig. 5-11. Area A, and A2 for Plain Concrete in Compression as per Eq. 5-7.

The statistical parameters of resistance of plain concrete were determined by Monte Carlo simulations, and the following parameters were treated as random variables:

In addition to the listed parameters, the Monte Carlo simulations also included the
professional factor P, as given in Table 5-10.
The cumulative distribution function (CDF) of resistance is obtained by generating about

400,000 values of R for each considered design case. This served as a basis to calculate
the mean of R, mR, standard deviation,
OR,

and coefficient of variation, VR. The

resistance simulations for all selected design cases (17) were performed for ordinary concrete and various reinforcement ratios for beams, slabs and columns. It was found that the reinforcement ratio has only a small effect on the parameters of resistance.

34
In addition, simulations of resistance were performed for components w t the high ih

strength concrete and light weight concrete, because the bias factors and coefficients of

variation for the high strength concrete (for samples tested after 56 days) and light weight
concrete significantly differ f o those of the ordinary concrete. Reliability indices were rm

also calculated using the resulting parameters.

The obtained results were. reviewed to determine the range of the bias factor, its mean,

and coefficient of variation, as listed in Table 5- 11. The simulations were also performed

for the statistical parameters of M used in 1970s and early 1 9 8 0 ~ ~ the results are and
referred to as Old material data. The results of simulations carried out using the
statistical parameters of M developed in this study are denoted as New material data.

35
Table 5-1 1. Statistical Parameters of Resistance, R.
Structural type and limit state Old material data

Range of values

New material data

WC beam cast-in-place, flexure WC beam plant cast, flexure

FUC beam cast-in-place, shear

WC beam plant cast, shear PIS beam plant cast, flexure

PIS beam plant cast, shear
WC slab cast-in-place

WC stab plant cast

PIS slab plant cast

Post-tensioned slab cast-inplace

WC column cast-in-place. tied WC column plant cast, tied

RIC column cast-in-place,

spiral
WC column plant cast, spiral

PIS column plant cast, tied

PIS column plant cast, spiral

Plain concrete, flexure, shear

36

6. Reliability Analysis Procedures

The limit state functions are formulated for the considered structural components and
limit states. The reliability analysis is performed for two design codes ASCE-7 Standard (with resistance factors to be determined in this calibration), and ACT 3 18-99 Code.

The design formula specified in the AXE-7 Standard is, 1.4 D < @ R

1 2 D + 1 . 6 L cCpR .
1.2

D + 1.6 L + 0.5 S < @ R

1.2 D + 0.5 L + 1.6 S < $ R 1.2 D i- 1.6 W + 0.5 L + 0.5 S < Cp R 1.2 D -I-1.0 E + 0 5 L + 0.2 S < Cp R .
0.9 D - (1.6 W or 1.0E) c 9R

I addition, wind load is multiplied by the directionality factor, 0.85. n

The design formula specified by ACI 3 18-99 Code is

1.4 D + 1.7 L c Cp R

0.75 (1.4D + 1.7 L + 1 7 W) < 9R .

0.9 D + 1.3 W < @ R

0.75 ( . D + 1.7 L + 1.87 E) < Q R 14

(6-2)

In the ACI 318-99 formulas, it is implied that snow load is included in the live load.

37
The general format of the limit state function is,

g=R-Q=O

(6-3)

Structural performance is measured in terms of the reliability index,

p,

defined as a

function of the probability of failure, PF,

p = -@-'(PF)
where W' = inverse standard normal distribution function.
The reliability analysis procedure used in this calibration includes the following steps:
(1) Input data:
Structural type and limit state Nominal values of load components: D, L, S, W and E Load and resistance factors: YD, YL, ys, Yw, YE, Q The load factors are available, but Q factor is to be determined. However, there is limited number of possible values for @ factor (they are rounded to the nearest O.OS), therefore, calculations are carried out for several possible values of @.

(2) Calculate load parameters: the mean total load, Q, and VQ.

(3) Calculate nominal resistance, for ASCE 7-98 f o formula (6-1), and for ACI 318rm 99 from formula (6-2),
R = (factored load) /Q
(4)Determine the statistical parameters of R, using Table 5-11.

38

(5) Calculate the reliability index using the following formula,

where mR = mean resistance; m~ = mean load effect; OR = standard deviation of resistance and OQ = standard deviation of load effect.

39

7, Reliability Indices for Selected Structures and Materials

The reliability analysis is performed following the procedure described above. The calculations are performed for the considered structural types and limit states. The resistance is determined using formulas in Eq. 6-1 and 6-2, for the ASCE-7/98 and the existing ACI 318-99 Code, respectively. The former is denoted as Proposed design, and the latter as Existing design. The statistical parameters used in computations are as described in this Report. For the existing design, the analysis is carried out for two sets of parameters: old material data, and new material data. For the proposed design, several values of$ factor were considered.

The analysis is performed for the following load combinations:

D -t L,
D+L+S,
D+L+W,

D+L+E,
D + L + S f W,
D+L+S+E. The calculated reliability indices are presented in Table 7- 1 for D f L, for the ACI 3 1899, and for the new load factors ( A X E 7). For each type of structural component and material, three values of resistance factor are considered. The results are presented for ordinary concrete, high strength concrete and light weight concrete. For an easier overview of the reliability indices, the average values of

p are listed in Table 7-2.

The

results for load combination of D + L + S are shown in Table 7-3 and 7-4.

The range of reliability indices presented in tables was selected depending on structural
component and D/(D+L) ratio.
= from 0.40 to 0.90.

The load ratios are selected as follows: for beams

D/(D+L) = from 0.3 to 0.7, for slabs D/(D+L) = from 0.3 to 0.6 and for columns D/(D+L)

40

41

Table 7-2. Average Values of the Reliability Indices for Load Combination, D + L.

42 teliability Indices for Load Combination, D + L + S .

Old material data Existing design 1.4 D+1.7 L
New material data, Proposed design 1.4 D or 1.2 D+1.6 L4.5 S Resistance

P
flexure

I Ordinary I

High strength

I Light weight

1
WC beam plant cast, flexure
PIS beam plant cast, flexure

PIS beam plant cast,shear

WC slab cast-in-place

E C slab plant cast U

P/S slab plant cast

R/C column cast-in-place, tied

R/Ccolumn cast-in-place,
spiral

R/ccolumn plant cast, spiral

P/Scolumn plant cast, tied

I P/Scolumn plant cast, spiral

Plain concrete, flexure, shear

43

Table 7-4. Average Values of the Reliability Indices for Load Combination, D -t L -IS.

44

The spread-sheet calculations and reliability indices plotted vs. D/(D+L) are shown in Fig. 7-1 through 7-21, for D+L, D+L+S, D+L+W, D+L+E, and D+L+S+E. The resulting

ps vary depending on type of component, limit state, and load ratio. For

the proposed design, the results are presented for selected three values of @ factor.

It is observed that reliability indices for slabs are lower than for beams, and this applies to existing design and proposed design. In slabs, there is a considerable uncertainty about the actual effective depth, and the reliability index is very sensitive to any departure from the specified value of the depth. Effective depth in concrete slabs is usually very s a l ml (compared to that of a beam), and even small reduction can drastically reduce reliability index. However, the overall reliability of the slab is considerably higher than the calculated value due to load sharing. The reliability analysis is performed for a 1 ft (or 1
m) wide segment of the slab. Slab as a structural system can be considered as a parallel

system of interacting (load sharing) segments. The reliability index of the slab treated as a system is similar, or larger than that of a beam. Some of the reliability indices for load combinations including wind and earthquake are low. This is due to very large coefficients of variation of W and E. These load combinations models will be revised in Phase 2 of the calibration.

WC Beam, Cast-in-place, FIexure new old D/(D+L) D L S Q Q 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.60 1.70 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 1.67 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 1.64 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 1.61 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 1.58 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.40 1.55 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.36 1.52 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1.32 1.49 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 1.46 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.43 1.oo 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.40

D+L old mR new datddesign mR 0 9 0.90 0.85 .5 2.104 2.004 2.116 2.240 2.067 1.954 2.063 2.184 2.030 1.904 2.010 2.128 1.993 1.854 1.957 2.072 1.956 1.804 1.904 2.016 1.919 1.754 1.851 1.960 1.881 1.704 1.798 1.904 1.844 1.653 1.745 1.848 1.807 1.603 1.692 1.792 1.770 1.578 1.666 1.764 1.733 1.754 1.851 1.960

sQ 0.180 0.162 0.146 0.130 0.116 0.104 0.096 0.091 0.091 0.096 0.105 average beta
mQ 1.000 1.005 1.010 1.015 1.020 1.025 1.030 1.035 1.040 1.045 1.050

VQ 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10

beta new 0.85 4.62 4.66 4.68

beta
0.90 4.28 4.32 4.34
0.95 3.96 3.99 4.00 otd 0.90

3.58
3.60 3.62

4.09 3.90 4.47 4.55.

3.70 3.51 4.10 4.19

3.32 3.13 3.74 3.83

3.28 3.13 2.95

3.54

Rx: R a H . L W em
Old W t . D.t. l k1 Exhthg h l p n , Cia4 In Plim

e
7 6

1 -5 .E4

i3 a
2
1

0 0.0 0.1 0 2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

arlau

Fig. 7- 1. Reliability Indices Calculated for W C Beam Made of Ordinary Concrete or D+L Load Combination

D+L WC Beam, Plant Cast, Flexure new old old mR new datddesign D/O+L D t S Q Q mR 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.60 1.70 2.131 2.029 2.142 2.268 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 1.67 2.093 1.979 2.089 2.212 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 1.64 2.055 1.928 2.035 2.155 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 1.61 2.018 1.877 1.982 2.098 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 1.58 1.980 1.827 1.928 2.041 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.40 1.55 1.943 1.776 1.874 1.985 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.36 1.52 1.905 1.725 1.821 1.928 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1.32 1.49 1.867 1.674 1.767 1.871 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 1.46 1.830 1.624 1.714 1.815 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.43 1.792 1.598 1.687 1.786 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.40 1.755 1.776 1.874 1.985

beta beta new old mQ sQ VQ 0 8 0.90 0.95 0.90 .5 1.000 0.180 0.18 4.93 4.57 4.22 3.37
1.003 .006 .009 ,012 ,015 .018 .021 1.024 1.027 1.030 0.162 0.145 0.128 0.113 0.099 0.087 0.079 0.075 0.076 0.082 0.16 0.14

5.00 4.63 4.28 3.38

5.06 4.69 4.33 3.39

0.07 0.07

4.79 4.37 3.96 3.16 4.64 4.22 3.80 3.06

average beta
IW B u m , Fkrum old Shtlrtlcal Data
IW B.un.F l u u n New Stalbtw D.l.. Pmpowd b d g n PIvllurl,sIQ6L

e
7
6

Exlrtlng k l g n . Plant C u t

a
7

n
p

$ 5

g4

p 4
2 3 2
1

Z i

= 3

2
1

*02 0.3

0.90

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0 0.0 0.1 a 4 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.0

1.0

rw y

?ig. 7-2. Reliability Indices Calculated for RIC Beam Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

R/C Beam, Cast-in-place, Shear new old D/D+L D L S Q Q 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.60 1.70 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 1.67 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 1.64 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 .48 1.61 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 .44 1.58 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 .40 1.55 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 .36 1.52 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 .32 1.49 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 28 1.46 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.43 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.40

D+L old mR new datddesign mR 0.90 0.85 0.80 2.318 2.187 2.315 2.460 2.277 2.132 2.257 2.399 2.236 2.077 2.200 2.337 2.195 2.023 2.142 2.276 2.154 1.968 2.084 2.214 2.113 1.913 2.026 2.153 2.073 1.859 1.968 2.091 2.032 1.804 1.910 2.030 1.991 1.749 1.852 1.968 1.950 1.722 1.823 1.937 1.909 1.913 2.026 2.153

beta

new
mQ sQ 1.000 0.180 1.005 0.162 1.010 0.146 1.015 0.130 1.020 0.116 1.025 0.104 1.030 0.096 1.035 0.091 1.040 0.091 1.045 0.096 1.050 0.105 average beta

beta old
0.85 4.24 4.25 4.24
0.90 0.85 3.97 3.98 3.98 4.00 3.97 4.02

VQ 0.80 0.18 4.52 0.16 4.53 0.14 4.52 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 3.98 0.09 3.85 0.10 4.29

3.67 3.35 3.72 3.52 3.21 3.58 3.99 3.70 3.41 07

RII:beam, Shear, Old SWCUml Data. E l l d n g Deslgn, Cost In Place

6

7 6
X

5
4

E 3

3
2
1

0 0.0 kl

0.2 0 3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 .

WbU

Fig. 7-3. Reliabilty Indices Calculated for W

C Beam Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

WC Beam, Plant cast, Shear new D/D+L D L S Q 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.60 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.40 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.36 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1.32 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40

old
Q 1.70 1.67 1.64 1.61 1.58 1.55 1.52 1.49 1.46 1.43 1.40

old mR 2.340 2.299 2.257 2.216 2.175 2.134 2.092 2.051 2.010 1.968 1.927

D+L mR new datddesign 0.90 0.85 0.80 2.208 2.338 2.484 2.153 2.279 2.422 2.098 2.221 2.360 2.042 2.163 2.298 1.987 2.104 2.236 1.932 2.046 2.174 1.877 1.987 2.111 1.822 1.929 2.049 1.766 1.870 1.987 1.739 1.841 1.956 1.932 2.046 2.174

beta beta new old VQ 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.85 mQ sQ 1.000 0.180 0.18 4.68 4.40 4.12 4.11 1.003 0.162 0.16 4.70 4.41 4.13 4.15 1.006 0.145 0.14 4.72 4.42 4.14 4.18 .009 0.128 0.13 .012 0.313 0.11 .015 0.099 0.10 .018 0.087 0.09. .021 0.079 0.08 .024 0.075 0.07 4.34 4.03 3.71 4.02 1.027 0.076 0.07 4.24 3.92 3.60 3.91 1.030 0.082 0.08 4.71 4.41 4.12 3.77 average beta

WC bum S h m ,Old SbUstIcml Data, Exrrtlng D.llpn Plmi C.rl

8 7 6

6
5 4

j
g n

2
c

3
2
1

3
2
1

0.0 0.1 0.2 0 . 3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8

0.S

1.0

m u

ar(D+u

Fig. 7-4. Reliability Indices Calculated for W C Beam Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

PIS Beams, Plant ast, Flexure

D/D+L D 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.70 0.70 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 1.oo 1.00

D+t
old mR new datddesign mR 0.95 0.90 0.85 1.953 1.826 3.927 2.040 1.919 1.780 1.879 1.989 .884 1.734 1.831 1.938 .850 1.689 1.783 1.887 .815 1.643 1.734 1.836 .781 1.597 2.686 1.785 .746 1.552 1.638 1.734 .712 1.506 1.590 1.683 1.677 1.461 1.542 1.632 1.643 1.438 1.518 1.607 1.608 1.597 1.686 1.785
sQ 1.000 0.180 1.003 0.162 -006 0.145 .009 0.128 .012 0.113 .015 0.099 .018 0.087 .021 0.079 3.024 0.075 1.027 0.076 1.030 0.082 average beta

new Q 1.00 0.00 1.60 0.90 0.00 1.56 0.80 0.00 1.52 0.70 0.00 1.48 0.60 0.00 1.44 0.50 0.00 1.40 0.40 0.00 1.36 0.30 0.00 1.32 0.20 0.00 1.28 0.10 0.00 1 2 .6 0.00 0.00 1.40

old
Q 1.70 1.67 1.64 1.61 1.58 1.55 1.52 1.49 1.46 1.43 1.40

beta new

mQ

VQ 0 8 0.90 .5 0.18 4.45 4.06 0.16 4.53 4.12 0.14 4.60 4.t8 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 4.32 3.83 3.35 4.21 .1 0.07 4.14 3.65 3.17 4 0 0.08 4.90 4.43 3.97 3.75

beta old 0.95 0.90 3.69 3.98 3.74 4.08 3.78 4.17

a
7
6

PIS b a r n , F W u n old stluslicd Dntn ExMlng Dalgn, Plant b

t
8

M Bum. F l u u n New sd.Lwcal Dmt4 P r o p o d D N b n P h l cart, sso.5L

7

5
4

5
4

3 2
1
0

3
2 1

*-

= 0.90

0.0 0.1 0.2 0 3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.9 1.0

0
0.0 0.1 0 2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.S

1.0

Fig. 7-5. Reliability Indices CalcuIated for P/S Beam Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

P/S Beam, Plant cast, Shear new D/D+L D L S Q 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.60 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.40 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.36 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1.32 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40

old Q 1.70 1.67 1.64 1.61 1.58 1.55 1.52 1.49 1.46 1.43
3.40

D+L old mR new dataldesign mR 0.90 0.85 0.80 2.260 2.123 2.248 2.388 2.220 2.070 2.191 2.328 2.180 2.017 2.135 2.269 2.140 1.963 2.079 2.209 2.100 1.910 2.023 2.149 2.061 1.857 1.967 2.090 2.021 1.804 1.910 2.030 1.981 1.751 1.854 1.970 1.941 1.698 1.798 1.910 1.901 1.672 1.770 1.881 1.861 1.857 1.967 2.090

beta

beta

new
mQ 1.000 1.003 1.006 .009 .012
sQ 0.180 0.162 0.145

old
0.85 4.25 4.28 4.29

VQ 0.80 0.18 4.55 0.16 4.58 0.14 4.59

0.90 3.96 3.98 3.99

0.85 4.23 4.29 4.33

0.128 0.113 .015 0.099 .OlS 0.087 .021 0.079 1.024 0.075 1.027 0.076 1.030 0.082 average beta

0.08 0.07 0.07

6 4 3.71 4.31 1 3 3.54 4.22 4.10 3.76 3.42 4.09

0.08
ul

0 7 6

0
7
6

$ 5

5
4

1 3
2
1

3
2
IM. .

0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.9 1.0

0
0.0

0.1 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7

0.6

(s I

1.Q

Wac)

WW

Fig. 7-6. Reliability Indices Calculated for P/SBeam Made o Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination f

Slabs WC, Cast-in-place, Flexure new old D/D+L D L S Q Q 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.60 1.70 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 1.67 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 1.64 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 1.61 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 1.58 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.40 1.55 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.36 1.52 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1.32 1.49 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 1.46 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.43 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1-40 1.40

D+L old mR new dataldesirrn mR 0.95 0.90 0.85 1.987 1.814 1.915 2.027 1.952 1.769 1.867 1.977 1.917 1.723 1.819 1.926 1.882 1.678 1.771 1.875 1.847 1.633 1.723 1.825 1.812 1.587 1.675 1.774 1.777 1.542 1.627 1.723 1.742 1.496 1.580 1.673 1.707 1.451 1.532 1.622 1.672 1.428 1.508 1.596 1.636 1.587 1.675 1.774

beta new
sQ VQ 0.85 1.000 0.180 0.18 2.97 1.005 0.162 0.16 2.93 1.010 0.146 0.14 2.89 1.015 0.130 0.13 1.020 0.116 0.11 1.025 0.104 0.10 1.030 0.096 0.09 1.035 0.091 0.09 1.040 0.091 0.09 2.29 1.045 0.096 0.09 2.19 1.050 0.105 0.10 2.59 average beta 2.7

beta old
0.90 2.75 2.72 2.67 0.95 0.90 2.54 2.59 2.50 2.58 2.45 2.55

mQ

2.04 1.78 2.20 1.93 1.67 2.10 2.35 2.11 1.98

7 6
6

p 4 f 3

! f
a
I

5 4

3
2
I
0

2
1

0.0 0.1 0 2 0 3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 .

0 . 0

0.1

0.2 0.3 a 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 03 1.0 4

WD+U

w w

Fig. 7-7. Reliability Indices Calculated for W C Slab Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

Slabs R E , Want cast, Flexure

L s 1.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.20 0.00

D+L otd mR new datddesign mR 0.95 0.90 0.85 2.165 1.977 2.087 2.210 2.126 1.928 2.035 2.155 2.088 1.878 1.983 2.099 2.050 1.829 1.931 2.044 2.012 1.780 1.878 1.989 1.974 1.730 1.826 1.934 1.935 1.681 1.774 1.878 1.897 1.631 1.722 1.823 1.859 1.582 1.670 1.768 1.8211.557 1.644 1.740 1.783 1.730 1.826 1.934

new old
Q 1.60 1.56 1.52 1.48 1.44 1.40 1.36 1.32 1.28

beta new
mQ 1.000 1.003 1.006 1.009 1.012 1.015 1.018 1.021 1.024 1.027 1.030

beta

old
0.90 4.38 4.43 4.48
0.95 4.03 4.08 4.12

D/D+L 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Q 1.70 1.67 1.64 1.61 1.58 1.55 1.52 1.49 1.46 0.90 0.90 o.ia 0.00 1.26 1.43 1-00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.40
D 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

sQ 0.180 0.162 0.145 0.128 0.113 0.099

0.087 0.079

0.075 0.076 0.082 average beta

I

VQ 0.85 0.18 4.74 0.16 4.80 0.14 4.86 0.13 0.1 1 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 4.56 0.07 4.41

0.90 3.77 3.81 3.83

4.13 3.72 3.66 3.98 3.56 3.53 .66 4.27 3.38

WcSWbo, M r u m Nr sI.thtlt.l D4t2 Ropoud .

Plant cnt s0.x

arb

6
7
6

* 3

i 3
E 4
2
1

0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0

R1

0 2 0.3 OA 0.5 0.0 0.7 04 0.S 1.0

aro

wQ4

Fig. 7-8. Reliability Indices Calculated x WC Slab Ma e of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

Slabs P/S, Plant cast, Flexure

D+L

new D/D+L D L S Q 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.60 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.40 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.36 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1.32 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40

oJd

Q
1.70 1.67 1.64 1.61 1.58 1.55 1.52 1.49 1.46 1.43 1.40

old mR new datddesign mR 0.95 0.90 0.85 mQ

1.989 1.954 1.919 1.884 1.849 1.814 1.778 1.743 1.708 1.673 1.638 1.811 1.765 1.720 1.675 1.629 1.584 1.539 1.494 1.448 1.426 1.584 1.911 1.863 1.816 1.768 1.720 1.672 1.624 1.577 1.529 1.505 1.672

beta new
VQ 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09

sQ 2.024 1.000 0.180 1.973 1.003 0.162 1.922 1.006 0.145 1.872 1.009 0.128 1.821 1.012 0.113 1.771 1.015 0.099 1.720 1.018 0.087 1.669 1.021 0.079 1.619 1.024 0.075 1.594 1.027 0.076 1.771 1.030 0.082 average beta

beta old 0 8 0.90 0.95 0.90 .5

4.47 4.06 3.68 4.35 4.55 4.13 3.74 4.48 4.63 4.20 3.79 4.62

0.08
0.07 0.07 0.08 4.38 3.86 3.36 4.85 4.19 3.67 3.17 4.62
w
wl

8
7

7
6

fE

5
4

3
2
1

I:
0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.D 1.0

1 1 5

2
1
-a .m

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

0.0 0.1 a2

0s ai

0.5 0.8 a7 0.9

0s

1.0

w w

rn

Fig. 7-9. Reliability Indices Calculated for P/SSlab Made o Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination f

Post Tensioned Stabs, Cast-In-place

new old
D/D+L 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

D+L

D L S 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.20 0.80 0.00 0.30 0.70 0.00 0.40 0.60 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.60 0.40 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

Q 1.60 1.56 1.52 1.48 1.44 1.40 1.36 1.32 1.28 1.26 1.40

Q 1.70 1.67 1.64 1.61 1.58 1.55 1.52 1.49 1.46 1.43 1.40

old mR new datddesign mR 0.95 0.90 0.85 1.815 1.654 1.746 1.848 1.783 1.613 1.702 1.802 1.751 1.571 1.658 1.756 1.719 1.530 1.615 1.710 1.687 1.489 1.571 1.664 1.655 1.447 1.528 1.617 1.623 1.406 1.484 1.571 1.591 1.364 ,440 1.525 1.559 1.323 .397 1.479 1.527 1.302 .375 1.456 1.495 1.447 .528 1.617

mQ
1.000 1.005 1.010 1.015 1.020 1.025 1.030 1.035 1.040 1.045 1.050

sQ
0.180 0.162 0.146 0.130 0.116 0.104

0.096

0.091 0.091 0.096 0.105 average beta

VQ 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10

beta new 0.85 2.63 2.59 2.54

0.90 2.40 2.36 2.31

0.95 2.18 2.13 2.08

beta old 0.90 2.54 2.54 2.52

1.88 1.61 1.33 2.12 1.77 1.49 1.21 3.98 2.21 1.95 1.69 1.84

Post -tensfoned Slab, Old Statistical Data, Existlng Design Cast fn Place
6
7
6

Post-tensloned Slabs, New Statlsffcal Data, Proposed Design Cast In Place, S=0.5L
8
7

e
5
4

5
4

3
2 1
0

3
2 1

a0 0.1 0 2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.0 1.0

0.0
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7

0.6

0.9

1.0

Waq

Fig. 7-10. Reliability Indices Calculated for Post Tensioned Slab Made ofOrdinary Concrete for D+L h a d Combination

WC Columns, Cast-in-place, Tiel new D/D+L D t S Q 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.60 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.40 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.36 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1.32 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.oo 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40

D+t
beta

old
Q 1.70 1.67 1.64 1.61 1.58 1.55 1.52 1.49 1.46 1.43 1.40

old mR new datddesign mR 0.75 0.70 0.65

2.688 2.641 2.594 2.546 2.499 2.451 2.404 2.356 2.309 2.261 2.214 2.688 2.621 2.554 2.486 2.419 2.352 2.285 2.218 2.150 2.117 2.352

new

beta old
0.70 0.75 0.70
5.27 5.28 5.28 5.26 4.97 4.99 4.99 4.97 4.14 4.15 4.15 4.14

mQ
1.000

2.880 3.102 2.808 3.024 2.736 2.946 2.664 2.869 2.592 2.791 2.520 2.714 2.448 2.636 2.376 2.559 2.304 2.483 2.268 2.442 2.520 2.714

.005
.010 .015

.020
.025 .030 1.035 1.040 1.045 1.050

sQ 0.180 0.162 0.146 0.130 0.116 0.104 0.096 0.091 0.091 0.096 0.105

VQ 0.65 0.18 5.57 0.16 5.58 0.14 5.58 0.13 5.56 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09

0.10

average beta

I
6

P 5
4

3
2
1

0
0.0

mi

0.2

0.3

a4

a5

0.0

a 7

0.0

0.e

1.0

rYaU

4g. 7- 1. Reliability Indices Calculated for R/CColumn Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination 1

WC columns, PIant cast, Tied

new old

D+L
beta

old mR new datddesign D/D+L D L S Q Q mR 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.60 1.70 2.676 2.671 2.862 3.082 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 1.67 2.629 2.604 2.790 3.005 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 1.64 2.582 2.537 2.719 2.928 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 1 6 2.535 2 4 1 2.647 2.851 .1 .7 0 4 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 1 5 2.487 2.404 2.576 2.774 .0 .8 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1 4 1.55 2.440 2.337 2.504 2.697 .0 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1 3 1.52 2.393 2.270 2.432 2.620 .6 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1 3 1.49 2.346 2.204 2 3 1 2.543 .2 .6 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1 2 1.46 2.298 2.137 2.289 2.465 .8 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1 2 1.43 2.251 2.103 2.254 2.427 .6 1 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.40 2.204 2.337 2.504 2.697 .0 .0

new
mQ sQ VQ 1.000 0.180 0.18 1.003 0.162 0.16 1.006 0.145 0.14 1.009 0.128 0.13 1.012 0.113 0 1 .1 .0 1.015 0.099 0 1 1.018 0.087 0 0 .9 1.021 0.079 0.08 1.024 0.075 0.07 1.027 0.076 0.07 1.030 0.082 0.08

beta old

0.65 57 .1 57 .3 5.74 57 .5

0.70 0.75 5.39 5 0 .8 5.42 5 1 .1 5.43 5.12 5.44 5 1 .3 .42 5 1 .1 5.39 5 0 .8 5.33 5.02

0.70 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.20 4.19 4.17 4.14

average beta
WC Columlu, T*d 0.R.. In sompmlon), New St.UrllU1 D8ta. PmpoHd Dsdgn Pb74 C n L m . 5 L

5.75 5.44 5.14 3 8 .3 5 49 .

a
7

i
2 I
r

4
3
2 1
0

0.0 0.1 0 2

0.3 0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7 0.0

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7 0.8 0.B

1.0

WD+U

Fig. 7-12. Reliability Indices Calculated for W C Column Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

WC Columns, Cast-in-place, Spiral

new old

D+L

beta
old mR newdataldesign

new VQ

beta old

D/D+L D L S Q Q mR 0.80 0.75 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1 6 1.70 2.641 2.632 2.807 .0 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 1 6 2.594 2.566 2.737 .7 .4 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 1 6 2.547 2.500 2.667 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 1 6 2.501 2.435 2.597 .1 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 1.58 2.454 2.369 2.527 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.40 1.55 2.408 2.303 2.457 0.60 0.60 0 4 0.00 1.36 1.52 2.361 2.237 2.386 .0 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1.32 1 4 2.314 2.171 2.316 .9 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 1.46 2.268 2.106 2.246 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.43 2.221 2.073 2.211 1 .oo 1.00 0.00 0.00 1 4 1.40 2.175 2.303 2.457 .0

0.70 mQ sQ 3.008 1.000 0.180 2.933 1.005 0.162 2.858 1.010 0.146 2.782 1.015 0.130 2.707 1.020 0.116 2.632 1.025 0.104 2.557 1.030 0.096 2.482 1.035 0.091 2.406 1.040 0.091 2.369 1.045 0.096 2.632 1.050 0.105 average beta

0.18 01 .6 0.14 0.13

0.70 0 7 0.80 .5 5 8 5.54 5.22 .6 5 8 5.57 5.25 .9 5.90 5.58 5.27 5.90 5.58 5.27 56 5.24

07 .5 43 .9 44 .1 4.42 4.42 4.40

0.10 5 7 5.40 5.08 3.89 .3

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9 1.0

WW

4g. 7-13. Reliability Indices Calculated for R/C Column Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

R C Columns, Plant cast, Spiral

new O/D+L 0 L S Q 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.60 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 0.20 0.20 0.80 0,OO 1.52 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.40 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.36 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1.32 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40

D+L
beta

old Q 1.70 1.67 1.64 1.61 1.58 1.55 1.52 1.49 1.46 1.43 1.40

old mR new datddesign

rn8 2.620 2.574 2.528 2.482 2.435
0.80 2.646 2.580 2.514 2.448 2.381 2.315 2.249 2.183 2.117 2.084 2.315 0.75 2.822 2.752 2.681 2.61i 2.540 2.470 2.399 2.328 2.258 2.223 2.470

new
mQ sQ VQ 0.70 0.75 1.000 0.180 0.18 6.16 5.81
1.003 0.162 1.006 0.145 1.009 0.128 1.012 0.113 1.015 0.099 1.018 0.087 1.021 0.079 1.024 0.075 1.027 0.076 1.030 0.082 average beta 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 6.20 6.25 6.27 8 5.86 5.90 5.93 5.94 5.92 5.87 5.78 5-64 5.53 6.35 6.01 6-1 5.78 3

2.389
2.343 2.297 2.250 2.204 2.158

0.70 3.024 2.948 2.873 2.797 2.722 2.646 2.570 2.495 2.419 2.381 2.646

beta old 0.80 0.75 5.48 4.42 5.53 4.44 5.57 4.47 5.60 4.48 5.60 4.48 5.59 4.46 5.53 4.43

5.44 4.38
5-29 5.17 5.68 5.44 4.31 4.21 4.09 4.38

8
7

f
1

'
3
2
1
, I d 1

0
0.0
0.i

I
1.0
0.0 0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8

0.9

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.8

0.3

0.8 0.9

1.0

WW)

Wac)

Fig. 7-14. Reliability Indices Calculatei lor W C Column Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

P1S Columns, Plant cast, Tied L S 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00
new old Q Q

D+L
old mR new datddesign mR 0.75 0.70 0.65 1 7 2.470 2.304 2.469 2.658 .0 1.67 2.426 2.246 2.407 2.592 1 6 2.383 2.189 2.345 2.526 .4 1 6 2.339 2.131 2.283 2.459 .1 1.58 2.296 2.074 2.222 2.393 1.55 2.252 2.016 2.160 2.326 1.52 2.208 1.958 2.098 2.260 1 4 2.165 1 9 1 2.037 2.193 .9 .0 1.46 2 1 1 1.843 1.975 2.127 .2 1 4 2.078 1.814 1.944 2.094 .3 1.40 2.034 2.016 2.160 2.326
beta beta new old VQ 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.70 mQ sQ 1.000 0.180 0.18 5.54 5.14 4.75 5.00 1.003 0.162 0.16 5.59 5 1 4.80 5 0 .9 .9 1.006 0.145 0.14 5.64 5.23 4.84 5.16 1.009 0.128 0.13 5 6 5 2 4.86 5.22 .7 .6

D/D+t D

1.60 15 .6 1.52 14 .8 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1 4 .0 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.36 0.70 0 7 0.30 0.00 1.32 .0 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40

1.012 0.113 0.11 1.015 0.099 0.10 1.018 0.087 0 0 .9 1.021 0.079 0.08 1.024 0.075 1.027 0.076 1.030 0.082 0.08

5.68 56 .6 56 .1 55 .1

5.27 5.25 51 .9 5.09

average beta

5 7 5.35 4.95 4.82 .6 55 .1 67 5 2 .1

a
7
6

7
6

5 4

5 4

3
2
1

3
2
t
0 0.0

0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.7

0.6 0.9

I.0

0.1

02

03 .

0.4

0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8

0.S

1.0

I
I

3 g . 7-15. Reliability Indices Calculated for P/S Column Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

P/S Columns, Plant cast, Spiral

D/D+L

D+L otd mR new datddesign mR 0.80 0.75 0.70

new old Q Q

beta new

beta
old

0.00 0.00 1 0 0.00 1.60 1.70 2.421 2.266 2.417 .0 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1 5 1 6 2.378 2.209 2.357 .6 . 7 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 1.64 2.335 2.153 2.296 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 1 6 2.293 2.096 2.236 .1 0.40 0.40 0 6 0.00 1.44 1.58 2.250 2.039 2.175 .0 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1 4 1.55 2.207 1.983 2.115 .0 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.36 1 5 2.164 1.926 2.055 .2 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1 3 1 4 2.122 1 8 9 1.994 .2 .9 .6 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 1.46 2.079 1.813 1.934 0.90 0.90 0.10 0 0 1.26 1.43 2.036 1.784 1.903 .0 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.40 1.994 1.983 2.115

2.590 2.525 2.460 2.395 2.331 2.266 221 .0 2.137 2.072 2.039 2.266

VQ 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.75 mQ sQ 1.000 0.180 0.18 6.18 5.70 5.24 5.52

1.003 0.162 1.006 0.145 1.009 0.128 1.012 0.113 1.015 0.099 1.018 0.087 1 0 1 0.079 .2 1.024 0.075 1.027 0.076 1.030 0.082 average beta

0.16 6.30 5.81 5.35 0.14 6.41 5.91 5.44 0.13 6.51 6 0 5.53 .1 .08 5.60 .I2 5.62 .I0 5.60 .OO 5.49 .9 6.34 5.81 5 2 6.19 5 6 5.12 .5 0.08 6.84 6.33 5.84 6.48 5 9 5.45 .6

5.66 58 .0 5.93 6.04 6.12 6.16 6.13 6.03 5.85 5.59 6.05

6
7

!i5
4

3
2 1

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

0.5

0.8

0.7

011

aa

1.0

011 0.1

02 0.3

0.4

o.s a6

0.7 0.8 0.8

ID

ww

-1

Fig. 7- 16. Reliability Indices Calculated for PIS Column Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

Plain concrete, Cast-in-place, Flexure, Compression,'Shear

D+L
mQ 1.000 1.005 1.010 1.015 1.020 1.025 1.030 1.035 1.040 0 0 3 .9 1.045 0.096 1.050 0.105 average beta

new old old mR new datddesign D/D+L D L S Q Q mR 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.60 1.70 2.626 2.526 2.720 2.947 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.56 1.67 2.580 2.463 2.652 2.873 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.52 1.64 2.533 2.399 2.584 2.799 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.48 1.61 2.487 2.336 2.516 2.726 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.00 1.44 1.58 2.440 2.273 2.448 2.652 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.40 1.55 2.394 2.210 2.380 2.578 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.36 1 5 2.348 2.147 2.312 2.505 .2 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.00 1.32 1.49 2.301 2.084 2.244 2.431 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.00 1.28 1.46 2.255 2.021 2.176 2.357 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.00 1.26 1.43 2.209 1.989 2.142 2.321 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.40 2.162 2.210 2.380 2.578

beta beta old new sQ VQ 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.65 0.180 0.18 6.46 6.00 5.56 5.79 0.162 0.16 6.53 6.07 5.63 5.91 0.146 0.14 6.58 6.12 5.68 6.01 0.130 0.13 6.62 6.16 5.71 6.09 0.116 0.11 6.62 6.16 5.71 6.14 0.104 0.096 0.091

6
6

7 7
8

i 5
z4

is

$ 3
2 1
0 0.0
0.1 02 0.3
0.4

1;
2
t

0
0.5
0.6
0.7 0.8

0,s 1.0 WW

0.0

O.?

0 2 0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7

0.8

0.D

1.0

w w

Fig. 7-17. Reliability Indices Calculated for Plane Concrete Element Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L Load Combination

RIC Beam, Cast-in-place, Flexure new old D/(D+L) D L S Q Q

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.10 0.90 3.00 0.20 0.80 3.00 0.30 0.70 3.00 0.40 0.60 3.00 0.50 0.50 3.00 0.60 0.40 3.00 0.70 0.30 3.00 0.80 0.20 3.00 0.90 0.10 3.00 1.00 0.00 3.00
5.30 5.37 5.44 5.51 5.58 5.65 5.72 5.79 5.86 5.93 6.00 6.80 6.77 6.74 6.71 6.68 6.65 6.62 6.59 6.56 6.53 6.50

D+L+S old mR new dataldesign mR 0.95 0.90 0.85 8.417 6.639 7.008 7.420 8.380 6.727 7.100 7.518 8.343 6.814 7.193 7.616 8.305 6.902 7.285 7.714 8.268 6.990 7.378 7.812 8.231 7.077 7.471 7.910 8.194 7.165 7.563 8.008 8.157 7.253 7.656 8.106 8.120 7.340 7.748 8.204 8.083 7.428 7.841 8.302 8.046 7.516 7.933 8.400

beta
mQ sQ 2.700 0.658 2.781 0.655 2.862 0.652 2.943 0.650 3.024 0.648 3.105 0.646 3.186 0.646 3.267 0.646 3.348 0.646 3.429 0.647 3.510 0.648 average beta

new VQ 0.85 0.24 5.06 0.24 5.06 0.23 5.05 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.20 5.01 0.20 5.00 0.19 4.98 0.19 4.96 0.18 4.94 5.03

0.90 0.95
4.75 4.45 4.75 4.45 4.74 4.44

beta old 0.90 4.77 4.69 4.61

4.69 4.68 4.66 4.64 4.62 4.71

4.38 4.37 4.35 4.32 4.30 4.40

4.28 4.19 4.11 4.02 3.92 4.37

RfC Beam, Flexure Old Statirtlcal Data Exlsting Derlgn, Cast in Place

a
7

RH:Beam, Flexun New Statlstlcal Data, Proposed Derlgn Cast In Pbw. SEO.5L

gs 5

g4
I

n
I

z3

mi

2
1

0.0

0.1

Of

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.6

1.0 D/(D+L)
0.0

0 0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.B

WD+U

0.9

1.0

Fig. 7-18. Reliability Indices Calculated for RIC Beam Made of Ordinary Concrete for D+L+S Load Combination

WC Beams, Flexure
D/(D+L) D

Cast in place new old old R

D+t+W

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

0.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 4.58 5.10 0.10 0 9 0.00 3.00 4.65 5.08 .0 0.20 0.80 0.00 3.00 4.72 5 0 .6 0.30 0.70 0.00 3.00 4.79 5.03 0.40 0.60 0.00 3.00 4.86 5.01 0.50 0.50 0.00 3.00 4.93 4.99 0.60 0.40 0.00 3.00 5.00 4.97 0.70 0.30 0.00 3.00 5.07 4.94 0.80 0.20 0.00 3.00 5.14 4.92 0.90 0.10 0 0 3.00 5.22 4.90 .0 1.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 5.28 4.88

R new datddesign new beta 0.90 0.95 0.90 0 8 . 5 mQ sQ VQ 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.90 6.313 5.737 6.056 6.412 2.580 0.880 0.341 3 6 3.37 3.10 3.23 .5 6.285 5.825 6.148 6.510 2 6 1 0.877 0.330 3.66 3.37 3.11 3.14 .6 6.257 5.912 6.241 6.608 2.742 0.875 0.319 3.67 3.38 3.fl 3.06 6.229 6.000 6.333 6.706 2.823 0.873 0.309 6.201 6.088 6.426 6.804 2.904 0.872 0.300 6.173 6.175 6.519 6.902 2.985 0.871 0.292 3 6 .8 6 6 1 7.000 3.066 0.870 0.284 .1 6.146 6.263 6.118 6.351 6.704 7.098 3.147 0.870 0.277 6.090 6.439 6.796 7.196 3.228 0.870 0.270 3.67 3.37 3.08 2.53 6.062 6.526 6.889 7.294 3.309 0.871 0.263 3.67 3.36 3.07 2.43 6.034 6.614 6.981 7.392 3.390 0.872 0.257 3 6 3.35 3.06 2.34 .6
average beta
1
01
W WC Beam, Fkxure Hew Ststlrtkal Data, P r o p s e d Dsaign Cast In Pbce. S=O.SL. W d 5 L

old beta

tUC Beam, Flexure Old StcrtisElcal Data Exlstlng Deslgn, Cast In Place
B

7
6

* 3 [ r

# 5

s4

v 3
2 1
0

0.0

0.1

02

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

WW

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.0

1.0

WD+L)

Fig. 7- 19. Reliability Indices Calculated for R/C Beam Made o Ordinary Concrete for D+L+W Load Combination f

WC Beams,Flexure
D/(D+L) D

Cast in place D+L+ E new old old R R new datddesign

old

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

0.00 1.00 0.00 3 0 3 5 5.48 .0 .0 0.10 0.90 0.00 3.00 3 5 5.46 .7 0.20 0.80 0.00 3.00 3.64 5.44 0.30 0.70 0.00 3.00 3.71 5.41 0.40 0.60 0.00 3.00 3.78 5.39 0.50 0.50 0.00 3.00 3.85 5.37 0.60 0 4 0.00 3.00 3.92 5.35 .0 .2 0.70 0.30 0.00 3.00 3.99 5 3 0.80 0.20 0.00 3.00 4.06 5.30 0.90 0.10 0.00 3.00 4.13 5.28 1.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 4.20 5.26

0.90 6.784 6.756 6.729 6.701 6.673 6.645 6.617 6.589 6.561 6.534 6.506

09 .5 4.384 4.472 4.560 4.647 4.735 4.823 4.910 4.998 5.086 5.173 521 .6

0.90 4.628 4.720 4.813 4.905 4.998 501 .9 5.183 5.276 5.368 5.461 5.553

new beta beta 08 . 5 mQ sQ VQ 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.90 4.900 2.220 1.120 0.504 2.23 2.02 1.83 3 3 .1 4.998 2.301 1.118 0.486 2.24 2.03 1.83 3.24 5.096 2.382 1.116 0.469 2.25 2.03 1.83 3 1 .6 5.194 2.463 1.115 0.453 5.292 2.544 1.114 0.438 5.390 2.625 1.113 0.424 5.488 2.706 1.112 0.411 5.586 2.787 1.112 0.399 5.684 2.868 1.112 0.388 5.782 2.949 1.113 0.377 2 3 2.07 1.85 2.64 .1 5.880 3.030 1.114 0.368 2.32 2.07 1 average beta .28 2.05 1
QI RIC Beam, Fhrum New s1.tktkal Data, P r o p o d Dealgn Cart In Place. S4.5L. W 4 d L

REC Beam, Flaxurn Old StatlsNcal Data Existlng Daslgn, Cast In Place
8
7

p 3
a

-4

= 0.w

g4
'd3
2 1
0 0.0 0.f 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.0

0 B 1.0 . DW+U

0.0

0.1

01

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

ollD+i)

Fig. 7-20. Reliability Indices Calculated for W C Beam Made o Ordinary Concrete for D+L+E Load Combination f

RIC Beams, Flexure

D/(D+L) D

Cast in place new old old R

D+l+S+E

R new datddesign
0.95 4.509 4.597 4.685 4.773 4.860 4.948 5.036 5.123 521 .1 5.299 5.386 0.90 4.760 4.853 4.945 5.038 5.130 5.223 5.315 5.408 5.500 5.593 5.686

new beta

old beta

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

0.00 1.00 0.50 3.00 3.60 6.12 0.10 0.90 0.50 3.00 3.67 6.10 0 2 0.80 0.50 3.00 3.74 6.07 .0 .5 0.30 0.70 0.50 3.00 3.81 6 0 0.40 0.60 0.50 3.00 3.88 6 0 .3 0.50 0.50 0.50 3.00 3.95 6.01 0.60 0.40 0.50 3.00 4.02 5.98 0.70 0.30 0.50 3 0 4.09 5.96 .0 0.80 0.20 0.50 3.00 4.16 5.94 0.90 0.10 0.50 3.00 4.23 5 9 .2 1.00 0.00 0.50 3.00 4.30 5.89

0.90 7.573 7.545 7.518 7.490 7.462 7.434 7.406 7.378 7.351 7.323 7.295

0.85 mQ sQ VQ 0.85 0.90 0.95 0 9 .0 5.040 2.320 1.123 0.484 2.25 2.03 1.84 3 6 .5 5.138 2 4 1 1.121 0.467 2.26 2.04 1 8 3.58 .0 .4 5.236 2.482 1.119 0.451 2.27 2.05 1.84 3 5 .1 5.334 2.563 1.118 0.436 5.432 2.644 1.117 0.422 5.530 2.725 1.116 0.410 5.628 2.806 1.116 0.398 5.726 2.887 1.116 0.386 5.824 2.968 1.116 0.376 5.922 3.049 1.116 0.366 2.33 2 0 1 8 3.02 .8 .6 6.020 3.130 1.117 0.357 2 3 2.08 1 8 2.94 .3 .6
average beta

a
7

RK: Beam, Flexum Old Statlstlcel Dnta Exlstlng Deslgn, Cast In Place

RK: Beam, Flexure New S t a U s t l d Dab, P r o m Derlgn Carl In PI-. S&SL W d 5 L

4 $ 4

33 P
a
2 1

0 0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

w w

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

02

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Oo l

0.9

1.0

Fig. 7-21. Reliability Indices Calculated for R/CBeam Made o Ordinary Concrete for D+L+S+E Load Combination f

66

8. Target Reliability Index

The optimum value of the target reliability index,

PT, can be determined based on two

PT.
However, it also

parameters: consequences of failure and incremental cost of safety (Nowak and Collins 2000). The larger is the expected cost of failure, the larger is depends on the cost of increasing the reliability level. If extra safety can be achieved at a low cost, then PT can be larger, and if it is very costly to increase p, then even a lower PT

can be acceptable.
The code provisions in ACI 318 apply to various types of structures (components), and it

is assumed that

BT is to be selected for primary members (important components), and

However, there is practically no basis available to determine. the

failure of a component can cause failure of other components. For secondary members,

PT can be reduced.
this study. Therefore,

consequences of failure and cost of safety for the structural components considered in

PT is selected based on the current ACI 318 Code.

The calculated reliability indices, presented in Tables 7-1 to 7-4 and Figures 7-1 to 7-21, represent element reliability, as opposed to the system reliability. The relationship between the element reliability index,

Be, and system reliability index, ps, depends on

type of the system (parallel, series, or mixed) and degree of correlation between the elements. In general, statically determinate structures can be treated as series systems, and

ps< Pe. The difference between psand P e depends on the coefficient of correlation, p, and gSincreases for increased p. For parallel systems, ps> Be, and psdecreases for

increased p. It is assumed that the reliability indices for components designed using the ACI-318-99

Code are acceptable. The Code provisions have been used for over 30-40 years.
Therefore, the corresponding values of

p are calculated assuming the old material data,

as shown in Table 5-1 1. These reliability indices are considered as a lower limit for

67

acceptable values of

PT.

For each type of component, a large variation of ps as a

function of load ratio is an indication that the load factors are not properly selected. The new material data represents the material properties determined in conjunction with this study, as also shown in Table 5-11. For most cases, the new parameters are improved compared to old data. The target reliability indices selected based on the old material data and ACI 318-99 Code design formula are shown in Table 8-1. These values are conservatively selected as upper rather than lower limits of the range of obtained in calculations. The target

ps are 3.5 for most of the components. Special consideration is required for

slabs. In cast-in-place slabs, there is a considerable degree of load sharing, and the

s s e reliability is much larger than ytm

values of

p for a segment of

1 ft. This justifies a reduced

PT = 2.5.

For precast slab panels, the degree of load sharing can be similar to

beams. The work on slabs will be continued in Phase 2 of the calibration.

Further consideration is required for columns. In this study, only axially loaded columns were included. The work on eccentrically loaded columns will be performed in Phase 2

of the calibration.

68

Structural type and limit state

Range of p
3.4-3.6

BT

R/CBeam cast-in-place, flexure

R/C beam plant cast, flexure

3.5
3.5

3.2-3.4
3.8-4.0 4.1-4.2 4.2-4.4 4.3-4.4

WC Beam cast-in-place, shear

R/C beam plant cast, shear

3.5
3.5

P/Sbeam plant cast, flexure

P/C beam plant cast, shear
R/C slab cast-in-place

3.5 3.5
2.5

2.3-2.5
3.8-3.9 4.7-5.0

R/C slab plant cast

3.5 3.5

I Post-tensioned slab cast-in-place I 1 WC column cast-in-place, tied I

R/Ccolumn plant cast, tied R/Ccolumn cast-in-place, spiral
RfC column plant cast, spiral

P/S slab plant cast

2.3-2.5
3.8-4.1 3.9-4.2 4.0-4.4 4.2-4.5

I 1

2.5

3.5

I I

___

3.5 3.5

3.5
3.5 3.5
,

PIS column plant cast, tied

5 .O-5.3
5.8-6.2

P/Scolumn plant cast, spiral

Plain concrete, flexure, shear

5.7-6.2

3.5

69

9. Resistance Factors
The reliability indices corresponding to various categories of structural types and
materials were reviewed and compared to the target values. Based on that analysis, the recommended values of the resistance factor are given in Table 9-1.

Structural type and limit state

Resistance factors, cp

WC Beam cast-in-place, flexure WC beam plant cast, flexure

0.90

0.90
0.85

R/CBeam cast-in-place, shear

WC beam plant cast, shear

0.85

P/S beam plant cast, flexure

P/C beam plant cast, shear

0.90

I R/C slab cast-in-place

0.85
0.90

I R/Cslab plant cast

P/Sslab plant cast

1 I

I
~

0.90 0.90 0.90

'

Post-tensioned slab cast-in-place

WC column cast-in-place, tied

WC column plant cast, tied
IUC column cast-in-place, spiral
WC column plant cast, spiral

0.75
0.75
0.80

0.80
0.75
0.80

P/S column plant cast, tied

P/S column plant cast, spiral

Plain concrete, flexure, shear

0.65

70

10. Conclusions and Recommendations

The reliability-based calibration was performed for structural types and materials covered by the ACI 318-99 Code. The objective was to calculate the resistance factors for the design of concrete structures corresponding to load and load combination factors specified by the ASCE 7-98 Standard. Three categories of concrete were considered: ordinary concrete, high strength concrete,

and light weight concrete, and two categories of steel: reinforcing bars and prestressing
strands. Statistical parameters were determined for the new material test data provided
by the industry. By comparison with previous studies, it was observed that the quality of

material has improved in the last 20-30 years. In particular this applies to concrete and

reinforcing bars. Prestressing strands continue to exhibit a very low degree of variation.
The reliability indices w r calculated for a wide variety of structural types and limit ee states (beams in flexure, shear, slabs, tied and spiral columns, tension members, cast-inplace, and plant-cast). A variation of general,

ps

is observed for various design cases. In

ps are lower for concrete slabs. Reliability indices are also lower for load

combinations involving wind and earthquake. The final selection of resistance factors for ACI 318 Code is based on the results of the reliability analysis, comparison with previous practice, and simplicity of the code (convenience of the designer). Therefore, there is a need to minimize the number of different resistance factors in the code. The recommended values of in Table 9- 1. The presented study is Phase 1 of the calibration work. In the course of this work it was found that there is a need for additional research in particular to develop statistical models for load combinations involving environmental loads such as snow, wind and earthquake, and resistance models for the slab and eccentrically loaded columns. The results related to these items that are presented in this report should be treated as

9 factors are given

71

preliminary and tentative. In Phase 2 of the project, the work will continue on slabs and

columns with eccentric loading, as well as load combinations including snow, wind and earthquake.

72

11. References
ACI 318-99, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1999.
1 -1

AISC

LRFD, Load and Resistance Factor Design, Manual

of Steel Construction,

American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, I , 1994. L American Forest & Paper Association and American Wood Council, LRFD Manual for Engineered Wood Construction, Washington, D.C., 1996.

ASCE 7-98, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1998.
i

Ayyub, B.M. McCuen, R.H., Probability, Statistics, & Reliability for Engineers, and

CRC Press, New York, 1997.

Bartlett, F.M. and MacGregor, J.G., Statistical Analysis of the Compressive Strength of Concrete in Structures, ACI Materials Journal, V. 93, No. 2, March -April 1996, pp.
158- 168.

Bartlett, F.M. and MacGregor, J.G.,Variation of In-Place Concrete Strength in Structures, ACItMaterials Journal, V. 96, No. 2, March -April 1999, pp. 261-270,

Benjamin, J.R. and Cornell, C.A., Probability, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970. Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T.V., MacGregor, J.G. and Cornell, C.A., Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard AW, NBS Special Report 577, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, 1980.

73

Ellingwood, B. and Rosowsky, D., Combining Snow and Earthquake Loads for Limit

States Design, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 11, 1996, 1364-

1368.
Melchers, R.E., Structural Reliability - Analysis and Prediction, Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester, 1987.

Nowak, AS., Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code, NCHRP Report 368,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1999,

Nowak, A.S. and Collins, K.R., Reliability of Structures, McGraw-Hill New York,
2000.
Turkstra, C.J., Theory of Structural Design Decisions, Solid Mechanics Study No. 2, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 1970.

Appendix A-1
The CDFs of fcfor Ordinary Concrete

Fig. A-1 -1a. Ordinary concrete (ready mix),Pc = 3000 psi @ 28day, Source 1, file 1 I

2.5

2.0
1.5
1.o
-

0.5
0.0

-1.5

-2.0
-2.5

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Strength [psi]

Inverse Normal Distribution

t n o i J l o b o b l o b o ~
0

b t b ~ ~ b O O - . - . ,

0 0

0 0 0

Q)

Fig. A-1.2. Ordinary concrete (ready mixed), f'c = 3500 psi @ 28day, Source 1. File 3

2.Q
1.5
1.o

05 .

0.0
-0.5
-1.o

-1.5
I

-2.0 0

I000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

- 8000

Strength [psi]

Fig. A-I .3a.Ordinary concrete (ready mix), 4000 psi @ 28day, Source 1, File 4

2.5

2.0
1.5

I .O

05 .
0.0
-0.5
-1 .o

f-----r-

-1.5

-2.0 -2.5
0 1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Strength [psi]

Fig. A-1.3b. Ordinary concrete (ready mix), Pc = 4000 psi @ 28 day, Source 1, File 5

2.5

2.0
1.5

I .o

0.5 0.0
-0.5
-1 .o -1.5

I
1

-2.0

-2.5

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000 8000 Strength [psi]

Inverse Norma Distribution

P 0 0 0

CJl

0
0 0

9-v

Fig. A-l.3d. Ordinary concrete (ready mix), f c = 4000 psi @ 28 day, Source 1, File 7

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.o

I
I I

I
1
I

0.5

0.0
-0.5
-1.o
-1.5

1 -

-2.0
-2.5

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Strength [psi]

Fig. A-1.4. Ordinary concrete (ready mix), Pc = 4500 psi @ 28 day, Source 1, File 8

2.5

2.0
1.5 1.o

0.5

0.o
-0.5
-1 .o
-1 -5

-2.0
-2.5

i
1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Strength [psi]

Fig. A-1 5 . Ordinary concrete (ready mix), f c = 5000 psi @ 28 day, Source 1, File 9

2.5 2.0
1.5

10 .

0.5

00 .
-0.5
-1 .o
-1.5

-2.0
-2.5 0
1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Strength [psi]

Fig. A-1.6. Ordinary concrete, (ready mix), Pc = 6000 psi @ 28day, Source 1, File 10
k

2.0
1.5
1.o

0.5
0.0

-0.5
-1 .o

-1.5

-2.0
-2.5
0
I000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000
Strength [psi1

8000

Fig.A-1.7a. Ordinary Concrete, f c = 5,000 psi @ 28 day, Source 2,File 1

3
2
I

0
-1 -2

-3

7
strength [ksi]

Fig. A-l.7b. Ordinary Concrete, f c = 5,000 @ 28 day, Source 2,File 2 psi

3
2
1

0
-1 -2

-3

7
strength [ksi]

Fig. A-I .7c. Ordinary Concrete, f c = 5,000 psi @ 28 day, Source 2,File 3

3
2 1

0
-1

-2
-3

t
I

7
strength [ksi]

Fig. A-l.7d. Ordinary Concrete, Pc = 5,000 psi @ 28 day, Source 2, File 4

2
1
0
-1 -2

-3
0

7
strength [ksi]

Fig. A-I .7e. Ordinary Concrete, f c = 5,000 psi @ 28 day, Source 2, File 5

3
2 1

0
=I -2

-3

7
strength [ksi]

Fig. A-I .7f. Ordinary Concrete, f'c

= 5,000 psi @ 28 day, Source 3,Fife 1

2
1

0
=I -2
I

-3

i
I

10

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-1.79. Ordinary Concrete, fc = 5000 psi @ 28 day, Source 4, File f

3
2

-2

-3

i
0
1
4

9
strength [ksi]

I0

9
strength [ksi]

10

Fig. A-l.9a. Ordinary Con&,

f'c = 6,000 psi Q 28 day, Source 5, File 1 and File 2

2
I

a 1

2 L
er

6
0

t o

go
t

g e - -1
-2

-3
0
1 2

10

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-1.9b. Ordinary Concrete, Pc = 6,000 psi @ 2 day, Source 5, File 3 and File 4

07

lv

-1

-2

-3
0
1 2

10

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-1.9~. Ordinary Concrete, Pc = 6000 psi @ 28 day, Source 6, File 1

9
strength [ksi]

10

Fig. A-1- 9d. Ordinary Concrete, Pc = 6,OOOpsi @ 28 day, Source 6, File 2

3
2 1

0
-1

N N

-2
-3
1

9
strength [ksi]

10

Fig. A-1 .9e. Ordinary Concrete, Pc = 6,000 psi Q 28 day, Source 3, File 3

2
1

i
N W

-2

-3

10

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-1 . 9 .Ordinary Concrete, Pc = 6000 psi Q 28 day. Source 4, Fite 2 f

3
2

-I I
---+-

0
-1

-c

-2

-t
0
1

i 6

-3

10

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-1. 9g. Ordinary Concrete, fc = 6000 psi @ 28 day, Source 6, File 3 and File 4

3
2 I

0
-1

?
Ln

t
I

-2

-3
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

1oouo
strength [psi]
t

Gig.A-1.9h. Ordinary Concrete. f'c = 6OOO psi Q 28day, Source 2, File 6

-1

-2

-3
1000 2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

r
7000

8000

9000

strenght ipsi]

Fig. A-1. 9.Ordinary Concrete, Pc = 6000 psi @ 28 day, Source 1, Fife 11 i

3.0 2.5 2.0

1.5

1.o

0.5 0.0 -0.5

-1 .o

-1.5

-2.0 -2.5 -3.0 0

'A / '
1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000 7000 8000 strength [psi]

Fig. A-l.9j. Ordinary Concrete, fc = 6000 psi @ 28 day, Source 2,Fite 7

2.5 2.0 1.5 I .o 0.5

0.0
-0.5 -1-0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5

I0

strength [ksi]

fig. A-l.9k. Ordinary Concrete, Pc = 6,000 psi Q 28 day, Swrce 7, File 1

2.5 2
1.5 0 .= I
CI

a a a

. I

0.5

z
s z a E
Q)

0
-0.5 -1
-1.5

-2

-2.5

L
0 1 2

I0

I1

12

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-1 . 10. Ordinary Concrete, Pc = 6500 psi @ 28 day, Source 1, File 12

3
2

7
0
-1 -2
w

-3
-4

strength [ksi]

Appendix A-2
The CDFs of fc for High-Strength Concrete

Fig. A-2.la. High Strength Concrete, f c = 7,000 psi, Q 56 day, Source 5, Fib 5 and Fib 6

.i;I

g
#

CI L

a
I

E0
0

!i

$! -1
E

-2

-3
0
1

10

11

12

13

14

15

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2. l c . High Strength Concrete, f c = 7,000 psi Q 56 day, Source 6, File 6

10 11 12

13 14 15 16
strength [ksiJ

Fig. A-2.lb. High Strength Concrete,fc = 7,000 psi @ 28 day, Source 6, File 5

.:

'

. a ,

2.5 2
1.5

= 0
. I

$
CI

0.5
0

Q)

5
E

z
Q,

-0.5
-1

W W

> = -1.5

-2
-2.5
-3

1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6
strength Iksi]

Fig. A-2.ld. High Strength Concrete, f'c = 7000 psi @28 day, Source 3, File 4

3
2

0
-1

Lc

-2
-3
0 1

10

11

12 13 14 15 16
sterngth [ksij

Fig. A-2. 18. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 7,000 psi @ 28 day, Source 7, File 2

10

11 12

13 14 15 16
strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2.2a. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 8,000 psi @ 28 day, Source 1, File 13 and File 34

iI
I
i

I
!

1
I

0
i
I

-1

I
I
I

-2

-3
0
1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000

strength [psi]

F .A-2.2b. High Strength Concrete, f'c = 8,000 psi @ 56 day, Source 6, File 7 g

II

I I

' 1 a f E L
CI

i3
I

Q)

go
0

W
J

r g
c

-1

-2

-3
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

22000

strength [psi]

Fig. A - 2 . 2 ~ . High Strength Concrete, f'c = 8,000 psi @ 56 day, Source 6, File 8

2
E 0 P 1
f

P, L
+r

cn

z o
z

8 -1 g
I

-2

-3

10

Ii

12

13

14

15

16

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2.2d. High Strength Concrete, f c = 8000 psi Q 56 day, Source 6, File 8

2
e

is

a 1 7

E 2

L * (D

g o
$

t -1 g
I

{+
t

-2

-3
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2.2e. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 8000 psi @ 56 day, Source 1, File 15

3
2
0 " I a

P, L
w

5 E 8 z
E

Q)

i> -1 !
-2
-3
0
1 2

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2.3. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 8 O psi Q 28 day, Source 3,File 5 OO

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2.29. High Strength Concrete. Pc = 8000 psi Q 28 day, Source 3 File 6 .

3
2

57 a n .+
ICI

s 0

E0 z
a 9
C

f >-I
-2
-3
0 1

4-u
2
3
4

10

11

12

13 14 15 16
strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2.2h. High Strength Concrete, f'c = 8,000 psi Q 28 day, Source 7, File 3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2.2i. High Strength Concrete, f'c = 8,000 psi @ 28 day, Source 7, File 4

3
2
E
. I

9 L
w

s l
cn

E O 0 z
L
I

> e

t -1
-2
-3
0 1
2

10

I1

12

13

14

15

16

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2. 2j. High Strength Concrete, f'c = 8000 psi @ 56 day, Source 6, File 9

-1

-2

-3
0

i
I

10

11

12

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2.3a. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 9000 psi @28 day, Source 1, FiIe 16 and File 17

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00 14.00

15.00

16.00

strength jksi]

Fig. A-2.3b. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 9,000 @ 28 day, Source 1, File 18 psi

I
- - _ - .

-1

-2

-3

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2.4a. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 10,000 psi Q 28 day, Source I, 19 and File 20 File

t
0

. I

n
CI * Q)

5
0

E0
E

t -1 g
I

-2

-3
0
1000 2000

3000 4000

5000 6000

7000

8000

9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 ?6000 f7000

strength [psi]

Fig. A-2.4b. High Strength Concrete, f'c = 1 , O psi Q 56 day, Source 6, File 10 0O O

1000

2000

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 t l O O O 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000

strength [psi]

Fig. A-2.4~. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 10,OOO psi Q 28 day, Source 7, File 5

a G L CI cn

7 0

! -1 g
I

-2

-3
0
1000 2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000 10000 1 1000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000

strength [psi]

Fig. A-2.4d. High Strength Concrete, f'c = 10,000 psi Q 28 day, Source 7, File 6

/'

li '
1000

2000

3000 4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000

strength [psi]

Fig. A - 2 . b . High Strength Concrete, Pc = 10,000 psi @ 5 day, Source 6, File 11 6

2
E

1 a a

2 L

+ ,

g o
2

t -1 g
I

-2

3
0

10

I1

12

13

14

15

16

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2.4f. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 10,OOO psi Q 28 day, Source 8, File 1 and File 2

g 1
P L * cn
3

i=

5 0

c -1 g
QI

-2
C .

-3
0 lo00 2000

3000

4000

5ooo

6000

7000

8000

14000

15000

16000

17000

strength [psi]

Fig. A-2.49. High Strength Concrete, f'c = 10,000 psi @ 56 day, Source t , File 21

10

11

12

13

I4

15

16

17

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2.5a. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 12,000 psi Q 56 day, Source 8, File 3

30 .
2.5

2.0
E

1.5
1.0

0 P

z CI

cn

05 .
I

0.0
-0.5

2
QI

z - -1.0
Q)

-1.5

-2.0
-2.5

IIT
10 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

strength [ksi]

Fig. A-2. 5b. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 12,000 psi @ 56 day, Source 8, Fife 4

-44-4
5
6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

strength [ksi]

Fig.A - 2 . 5 ~ .High Strength Concrete,Pc = 12,000 psi @ 28 day, Source 1, File 22 and 23

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

fOOOO

11000 12000

13000 14000

15000

16OOO

t7000

18000

strength [psi]

Fig.A-2.M. High Strength Concrete, Pc = 12,000 psi 0 28 day, Source 8. File 5 and Fire 6

10

11

12

13

14

15

76

17

18

strength [ksi]

Appendix A-3
The CDFs of fcfor Light Weight Concrete

Fig. A-3. l a tight Weight Concrete, Pc = 3000 psi @ 28 day, Source 3, File 7

2
1

0
-1

-2
-3

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

strength [psi]

3
2

-3

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

strength :psi]

Fig. A-3. f c . Light Weight Concrete, f c = 3000 psi @ 28 day, Source 4, File 3 and Fiie 4

0
-1

-2

-3

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000
strength [psi]

8000

Fig A-3. Id. Light Weight Concrete, f c = 3000 psi @ 28 day, Source 2, Fife 8 and File 9

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

strength [psi]

Fig. A-3.2. Light Weight Concrete, f c = 3500 psi @ 28 day, Source 1, File 25 and File 26

3
2

e
. I

. I c

2 1 L
+I I

i3
5
2

v)

0
-1

g L

a > r

-2
-3

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000 8000 strength [psi]

Fig. A-3.3a. tight Weight Concrete, Pc = 4000 psi @ 28 day, Source 3, File 8

-I-------?--

-1

-2

-3

? strength rksi]

Fig. A-3. 3b. Light Weight Concrete, fc = 4000 psi @ 28 day, Source 6, File 12

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

strength [psi]

Fig. A-3. 3c. Light Weight Concrete, f c = 4000 psi @ 28 day, Source 7, File 7

2-

-c--I---

-I

-2-

+t
---I---

'T-

-I

+
I

-3

1
4000
L

1000

2000

3000

5000

6000

7000

strength [psi]

8000

+
-I

Fig. A-3.4a. Light Weight Concrete, f'c = 5000 psi Q 28 days, Source 2, File ?O

--I---

4 000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Strength [psi]

G CI L

1
W

= o
0 z

=
Q)

>

-1

-2

-3
0 1000 2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Strength [psi]

Fig.A - 3 . 4 ~ .Light Weight Concrete, Pc = 5000 psi @ 28 days, Source 2,File 12

1
r
0

3 Q
CI L

zi
7

llD

i > Q)

-t

-2
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Strength [psi]

Fig. A-3.4d. Light Weight Concrete, Pc = 5000 psi Q 28 days, Source 2, File 13

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Strength [psi]

Fig. A-3.4e. tight Weight Concrete, f'c = 5000 psl Q 28 days, Source 2, File 14

a
0

5 OD a = o
I

0 z

QI
I

-1

-2
0
1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

strength [psi]

Fig. A-3.M. Light Weight Concrete, Pc = 5000 psi Q 28 days, Source 2, File 15

1000

2000

3000

T -l
4000

f
5000
6000

7000

8000

Strength [psf]

Fig. A-3. 4g. Light Weight Concrete, f'c = 5000 psi Q 28 days, Source 2, File 16

T
I
t 000

-1

-2

-3
0

T
2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Strength [psi]

B L

J I
1,

5 1

2
QI

B 7 0
*c

(#

8
-1
I

-2

-3
0
1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000 8000 Srength [psi]

Fig. A-3.4i. Light Weight Concrete, f'c = 5000 psi Q 28 days, Source 2,File 18

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Strength [psi]

Fig. A-3. 41. Light Weight Concrete, fc = 5000 psi Q 28 days, Source 2, File 19

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

smnm rpsi1

Appendix B-1
The CDFs of fy for Reinforcing Steel

Fig. 8-1. la. Reinforcing steel, Bars #3, Swrce 1

2.0
1.5

1.o

05 . 0.0

-0.5
-1 .o

l +
80
Yield [ksi]

-1.5

-. 20
0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1
90

Fig. B-1 ib. Reinforcing Steel, Bars #3, Source 2

2.0

15 .
I .O

0.5
00 . -0.5
-1 .o

1
m
N

-I .5

-2.0

1
0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yietd [ksi]

Fig. 8-1. lc. Reinforcing Steel, Bars #3, Source 3

25 .

20 .
15 .

g e Z
i
W

a 3

1.0

0.5 00 .
W

2
0

&

-0.5
-1.0 -1.5

a t

-2.0
-2.5
0 10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80
Yield [ksi]

90

Fig. B-1. Id. Reinforcing Steel, Bars #3, Source 4

1.5

I .o

0.5

0.0

I *

-0.5

-1.o

-1.5 0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 Yield [psi]

90

Fig. 8-2.2d. Reinforcing Steel, 8ars #4, Source 6

W I 00

-1

-2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 90 Yield [psi]

Fig. B-1. 3. Reinforcing Steel, 8ars #5, Source 7

3.0

2.5

20 .
1.5 1.o

0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1 .o
-1.5

-2 .o
-2.5 -3.0 0 10

20

30

.a

40

50

60

70

80 Yield [ksu

90

Fig. B-t . 4 . Reinforcing Steel, Bars #6, Source 7

2.5

2.0
I .5 1.o

0.5
0.0

-0.5
-1 -0

-1.5

I
10

-2.0 -2.5 0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 90 Yield [ksu

Fig. B-1.5. Reinforclng Steel, Bars #7, Source 7

2.5

2.0
1.5
j

e
1.0

fi L

0.5

i3
L

;0.0
0

-0.5
Q1

ZI g E

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 Yield [ksi]

90

Fig. 6-1. 6. Reinforcing Steel, Bars #8, Source 7

2.5

2.0
1.5

g .-

4.0

I
() I

P,

z 0.5
0.0

E -

5 z -0.5 a

= -1.0
-7.5

t? Q) >

-2.0

-2.5
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80
Yield [ksi]

90

Fig. B-1. 7 Reinforcing Steel, Bars #9, Source 7 .

2.0 2'5
1.5

F
-

g .CI

1.0 --

J
u)

5 0.5

b ' -

z 0
f! Q)

E 0

m 0.0

-0.5

> 5 -1.0
-1.5

-2.0 -

-2.5
0
10

20

30
1 .

40

50

60

70

80

90
Yield wsl]

Fig. B-1.8. Reinforcing Steel, Sam #lo, Source 7

1.5

1.o
0 .t d

= eI

0.5

E -

L * () I

g
0
Q1

0.0

- -0.5
-1 .O

E a#

-1.5

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yield [ksi]

Fig. B-1. 9. Reinforcing Steel, Bars # Source 7 1, I

2.0
1.5

.*
0

e 1.o

i3

J
UI

0.5

;0.0
-0.5

5 z
> - -1.o
E

r!
0

Q,

-1 -5

-2.0
0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 Yield [ksi]

90

Appendix B-2
The CDFs of Breaking Stress for Prestressing Steel

Fig. 3-2.a . Strands, 250 ksi, 3/8in., Source 1 l

20

40

60

80

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Breaking Stress [ksi]

Fig. B-2. 1b. Strands, 250ksi. 318 in. , Source 2

3.0

2.0

1.o

0.0

m
P

-1.o

-2.0

-3.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

I40

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

Breaking Stress [ksi]

Fig. B-2. Ic. Strands, 250 ksi, 318 in., Source 3

2.0

. I

3 9 . I
. I c

* 1.0
L

:
u)

g z z
QI

i3

0.0

2
I

-1.0

-2.0

20

40

60

80

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Breaking Stress [ksij

I ;

Fig. B-2. Id. Strands, 250 ksi, 318 in., Source 4

2.0

1.o

0.0

-1.o

-2.0
0

20

40

60

80 100 I 2 0 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 Breaking Stress [ksi]

Inverse Normal Distribution

I

2 2

0
U I

ul

6
0 0

P
b

P 0

03 0
d

0 0
2

0
4

P 0

Fig. B-2. 3. Strands, 250 ksi, 5/16in., Source 2

2.0
1.5
. I

. I

a L * 0.5 v) n 0.0
. I

1.0

g
i? $
c

5 * -0.5
a ,

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0 0

20

40

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Breaking Stress [ksi]

Fig. B-2.4a. Strands, 250 ksi, 7/16 in, Source 1

3.0

2.0

i5 -

P
L

a 1.0
u1

g
0

0.0

z
> E -1.0

h , h ,

QI

-2.0

-3.0 0
20 40
60 80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

Breaking Stress [ksr]

Fig. B-2. 4b. Strands, 250 ksi, 7/16 in, Source 2

3.0

2 .o

0 '3

1.0

cn .n

L CI

- 0.0 ;
8 z a E
C

W I

h ,

-1.0

-2.0

-3.0
0
20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

Breaking Stress [ksu

Fig. B-2. 5a. Strands, 250 ksi, 112 in, Source 2

3.0

2.Q

-2.0

-3.0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

Breaking Stress Fsi]

Fig. B-2.5b. Strands, 250 ksi, 112 in, Source 4

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

Breaking Stress [ksi]

Fig. B-2. 6.a. Strands, 270 ksi, 318 in., Source 2

20 .

c 0 .J

a .2s 0.0 u)
. I

z
L

I .O

n
0

> C

= -1.0 t
OI

-2.0

-3.07. 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

I80

200

220

240 260 280 Breaking Stress [ksij

300

Fig. B-2. 6a. Strands, 270 ksi, 7/16in, Source 3

2.0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

Breaking Stress [ksi]

Fig. B-2. 6b. Strands, 270 ksi, 7/16 in., Source 2

2.0

e
-0, 1.0 . I c
3
. I

L . I c

u)

;0.0
s
II a
> -1.0 e

z
a l
I

-2.0 0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Breaking Stress [ksi]

Fig. 8-2.6b. Strands, 270 ksi, 112 in., Source 4

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

Breaking Stress fksi]