Eurocodes failing to standardise safety

MikeByfield,CranfieldUniversity

The Eurocode approach to partial safety factors

The structural Eurocodes aim to restrict the probability of the actual
resistance of structural components falling below the design
resistance to 1 in 845 (approximately 10-3).
CEN have adopted what is known as a boxed values approach to
M-factors.
Each member state selects its own M values, which are applied to a
whole range of different resistance functions.
Advantage Political: It retains the authority of member states to set the
safety levels achieved by the codes.
Disadvantage structural reliability: The system cannot account for
variations in the quality of the design expressions

The probability of the resistance falling below the design

resistance is influenced by 3 factors:
Reliability of material and geometric properties
Design expression accuracy
The value of partial safety factor, M

Predicted strength

Design expression accuracy

Series1
Series2

Experimental strength

Comparison between poor and high quality design expressions

Examples of variations in design expression accuracy

Three different resistance functions have been investigated:
Tensile resistance of bolts (based on 135 direct tensile tests on 20mm
diameter grade 8.8 ordinary bolts)
Bending resistance of restrained beams (based on 20 tests with restraints
selected to produce a worst-case scenario)
The shear buckling resistance of plate girders (based on 35 plate girder
tests)

Results from reliability analysis

Probability of actual
strength falling below
the design strength
<10-8

R* Safety factor to achieve the

Bending resistance of
restrained beams

4.6x10-6

0.95 (1.10)

Shear buckling
resistance of plate
girders

1.0x10-2

1.33 (1.10)

Design task

Tensile resistance of
ordinary bolts

target reliability, existing M

factor in brackets
0.95 (1.25)

Conclusionsfromthereliabilityanalysis
The most complex design task requires the highest safety factor.
Reliability variations can reduce safety by leading to over-strength
components, transferring failure to connections or columns
Increasing the boxed value to improve the reliability of plate girder
design would not necessarily solve all the reliability problems.

Apracticalsolutiontovariablesafetylevels
Solution 1
Determine a M factor for each resistance function. The factor could take
the form of a numerical constant incorporated into the design expression
Designer being largely unaware of the origin of the factor.
No other safety factors on resistance.
Problem politically unacceptable

Solution 2
Retain the boxed value system
Embed a supplementary safety factor into each resistance function.
The boxed values selected by nation states would merely adjust design
economy and target reliability.

M
Supplementaryfactor,k= *
R
Where:

Mistheboxedvalue

*R

isthesafetyfactoroutputfromreliabilityanalysis
Thusthedesignresistance,rd=krn/M

Example
Inthecaseoftheplasticmomentcapacityofrestrainedbeams
k=1.10/0.94=1.17
Themodifieddesignexpressionwouldtaketheform:

M pl.Rd 1.17 Wpl f y / M 0

Thiswouldoffera17%increaseinthedesignmoment,whilststill
achievingthetargetreliability.
Duringthecalibrationofkfactorsitmaybedesirabletoadjustthetarget
reliabilitydependingontheconsequencesoffailure.

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-07

Reliability, Pr(r<r d)

Reliability, Pr(r<r d)

1.0E-08

1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02

1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

1.0E+00

Individual design expressions

Current variations in reliability

Individual design expressions

Variations in reliability using the

supplementary safety factors