Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
INTRODUCTION
treated as a probabilistic quantity[7]. Freudenthai[8] analyzed the safety factor from observable
and measurable physical properties. Pugsley[9]
pleaded for the assessment of probabilities of
failure and collection of statistics regarding
structural properties and loads. He discussed the
effects of fatigue and thermal variations on the
structural safety. Shaw[10] discussed the application
of probabilistic procedures to problems in structural
engineering. Sexsmith and Nelson[1 I] discussed
several of the difl]cuhies encountered in the application of probabilistic concepts to real problem.
Cornell[12] developed a format o,c AC1318-63127]
code that introduced the fundamental advantage of
probabilistic safety analysis. All uncertainties were
treated through standard deviation ( S. D.). However,
no frequency distribution for the random variable
was considered and hence no estimate of t'.~e
probability of failure was made. A method of
designing a structure for minimum weight subject
to an overall probability of failure constraint was
given by Moses and Stervenson[13] and Moses
and Kinser[t4], The design is considered to be safe
and adequate if the probability of failure of the
structural member is less than a specified small
quantity. Benjamin[I 5] discussed the advantages of
probabilistic design over the deterministic procedures and pleaded for giving a rational basis to
the probabilistic concepts. Costello and Chu[16]
discussed the failure probabilities of reinforced
concrete beams using the data of frequency distribution for steel and concrete from Julian paper[I 7],
Sexsmith [18] discussed the reliability of reinforced
concrete beams and tied columns. Gohle and Lapay
[19] have discussed the minimum cost design of
prestressed beams using non-linear programming
techniques to satisfy the limitations of code of
ACI 20. Rao[21] minimized the cost of a beam by
M E T H O D OF PROBABILISTIC DESIGN
If structural safety is to be meaningfully
specified in a quantitative manner it has to be
*Senior Research Fellow at Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur.
tProfessor of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology,
Kanpur.
161
162
,%. =, ~A,.~;.,a
,
OF
THE
0"85
i4i
.~?.+{ ..__22"' I s;
i5
(O'CI-FO-C2-POC,
)
-~
" <
/c~q
i'15 [
+o~,
"
crq oc-.
-t- ac:~ i
I
:6)
PROBLEM
a q + a c e -+-m::3 ~;~ % .
3
Mr = kbA,,a~d
::= J
~i~
c.~.', <
FORMULATION
t'c.,M,.,.,,:
!11
t7t
~. .............
~GC
!78
.........
4t
r~
All dimensions in cm
xa
L
\.
~,~
i2)
(3)
i
!_
As ~ 8 7 cm
El
1
= 2687 tm
163
kb,4t~
a',d[l
k~At~"al]
+ k 2~,,t(b-b')(d-O'5t)
(9)
where
[ At,<
l'7bd~o,_J
(8)
= ky~.,(b-b')t/a I
b' = breadth of web
t --- thickness of flange
k 2 = 0.7
and
k3 = 0.68
164
BYO[
;O-,,
1
I
"b
E
1
"7) )1
~"
,'(
""
exp[-l~Me-M"~12]
exp[_~[:M,:_Mmrq2]
f~a. = ~/(2n)Sin.
s.,.
j j
30
~0
kg
2"0
L o a d ,< i 0 0 0
!0
(11)
'
DISCUSSION AND C O N C L U S I O N S
The probability of failure o f a beam subjected to
an external load of example 1 based on IS Specifications is 0-22 10- 9 whereas it is 0.30 10- v as
per A C I Specifications. Similar variations can be
165
o b s e r v e d in t h e o t h e r e x a m p l e s . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t
the
India
estimates
Code
the
Specifications
actual
strength
relatively
of the
over-
beam
It c a n e a s i l y b e e x t r a p o l a t e d
thus
an
increase
in a r e a
qualitatively
o f steel s h o u l d
decrease
than
the
probability
o f f a i ! u r e o f 10 - ' ) o r less f o r a w o r k i n g
e s t i m a t e o f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a r e a o f steel o n t h e
load or
of failure of a beam.
A quantitative
0 ' 9 o r less f o r a n i m a g i n a r y u l t i m a t e l o a d i n d i c a t e s
probability
t h a t t h e d e s i g n s a r e v e r y safe.
d i f f e r e n t e x a m p l e s in w h i c h a r e a o f steel w a s v a r i e d .
of failure
is g i v e n
irt T a b l e s
I 5 for
Table 1. Effi'et qf area of steel and strength o/" concrete on the probability ofifidlure q/'beam designed/>y IS
Specifications fl)r neutral axis lying in .flange
o-~,, = 450 kg/cm 2
Pf d
.4 ,,
PJ'd
M ....
(cm 2)
(tm)
80
85
87
89
2468
2612
2670
2727
WL*
U L*
0"22 < 10 -+
0"09 < 10- 1o
0'3010-1'
0'10 < 1 0 - t~
0'8946
0"6578
0-5376
0-4190
]~'/nrP
(tm)
2483
2630
2687
2745
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WL
UL
0.17 : I 0 - ')
0,09 < 10- ' o
0'30 10- ~'
0'09 10- ~
0.8755
0.6224
0,5004
0,3835
Tah/e 2. EffOct of" area of steel attd strength o/" concrete on the probability of failure of beam c&rigned hy
A CI Specifications for neutral axis [ying in the flange
a,., = 450 kg/cm 2
(o-v = 0.75 45(I)
,4,~
M,, r
(cm 2)
(tin)
WL
( Ps a)
UL
M,,~
80
85
87
89
2224
2354
2406
2457
0"30 ~ I 0 - v
0'17 + 10- 8
0'055 < 10- 8
0"21 / 1 0 -~
0"9983
0'9773
0"9512
0"9077
(trn)
2236
2367
2420
2472
Ps-a
WE
UL
0"28 10- ~
0"17 :, 10+ 8
0 ' 0 5 , 10- s
O'17x 10 -~
0.9976
0.9711
0"9400
0"8899
Tahh" 3. Effect ol'area of steel and strength of concrete on the probability of failure of beant &'signed hy IS
Specifications for neutral axis lying it, the web
cry, ~ 400 kg/cm 2
A,~
M ....
(cm 2)
tm
91
92
93
94
2712
2730
2749
2766
PIa
WL
M,,,
UL
0 . 4 < 1 0 -1+
0 . 3 5 . 1 0 -''~
0.3 ;, 10 14.
0"3 ~ 10 -1+
0.4432
0-4016
0.3632
0'3281
PIa
tm
WL
UL
2814
2838
2862
2886
0.1 10 - t +
0 - 5 . 1 0 -15
< 1O- 1s
< 10-Is
0.2419
0.2026
O. 1683
0"1388
Tabh" 4. E{lbct of area of steel and strength of concrete on the probability qf faihtre of beam designed hy
A CI Specifications fi~r neutral axis lying in the web
o'c~ = 350 kg/cm 2
(a,-v = 0.75 >: 350 kg/cm 2)
P.r,,
(cm 2)
tm
91
92
93
94
2418
2437
2454
2472
WE
0"113<10 it
0"614x 10 -12
0"348 X 10 - j 2
0"21110 -~2
M,,,r
UL
0"9646
0"9529
0"9386
0'9217
tm
2483
2506
2528
2550
P j-,,
WL
UL
0"181 10 -~2
0 " 5 2 6 , 10 -I 2
0"298 " 10 -[2
0"181. 10 -t2
0"8959
0"8683
0"8365
0"8007
166
(tin)
48
52
56
60
1518
1642
1766
1890
WL
0.19 I 0 "
0.48 ;,~to- s
0'14:~ 10-"
0'5 :/, 10-"
tit.
tm)
\1~
04364
0,2061
0'0708
/).0192
1523
1647
1773
t897
0.14 I0 ~'
0.38 : I0 ~
01 10 ~
0"33 10 ~
LL
i}.4247
t~.2005
00681
0.0099
8'!4 --"
~97fs............ ~576 . . . . . . .
Probability of f a i i u r ~
o8- . . . . . ~ e
F'~a
REFERENCES
1. E.B. HAUGEN, Probabilistic Approach to Design, John Wiley, New York (1968).
2. Bulletin D'lnformation Comite'N European Du Beton, No. 72, June (1970).
3. A . H . S . ANG and M. AM1N, Safety factors and probability in structural design. J_ struct.
Div., Proc. Am. Soc. cir'. Engng 95, 1389 (1969).
4. N. C. L~ND, Deterministic format for the probabilistic design of structures an
introduction to structural optimization, S.M. Study No. 1, Solid Mechanics Division,
University of Waterloo, Ontario (1969).
5. C. J. TURKSTRA, Choice of failure probabilistics. J. struct. Div., Proc. Amo Soc. tit,.
Engrs 93, 189 (1967).
6. J. R. BENJAt~IN and N. C. LIND, A probabilistic basis for a deterministic code, J. Am.
Concr. Inst. 66, 857 (1969).
7, Structural Safety--A literature review by task committee on structural safety, J. struct.
Div., Proc. Am. Soe. cir,, Engrs 98, 845 (1972).
8. A . M . FgEVDENTnAL, The safety of structures, 7)'arts Am. Soc. ely, Engrs, 112, 125 (1947).
9. A. G. PUGSLEY, Structural Safety, Journal ~ f the Royal Aeronautical Society 59, 425
(1955).
10. H. C. ShAw, The rational probabilistic code format, Jr. Am. Concr. Inst. 66, 690 (1969).
11. R . G . SExsteirrn and M. F. NELSOn, Limitations in application of probabilistic concepts,
J. Am. Concr. Inst. 66, 823 (1969).
12. C . A . CORNELL, A probabilistic based structural code, J. Am. Concr. Inst. 66, 974 0969).
167