See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287699184

Effect of Live Load to Dead Load Ratio on the Reliability of RC Beam

Conference Paper · December 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 1,208

3 authors:

Md.Ferdous Wahid Sukanta Kumer Shill

Sonargaon University -SU Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology
6 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abu Hasan
European University of Bangladesh
7 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Low Cost housing by using Bamboo View project

Properties of concrete containing recycled plastic as coarse aggregate View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sukanta Kumer Shill on 22 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of 11th Global Engineering, Science and Technology Conference
18 - 19 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-92-4

Effect of Live Load to Dead Load Ratio on the Reliability of RC Beam

M. F. Wahid1*, S.K. shill2 and A. Hasan3
The paper presents the reliability of RC beam designed following Bangladesh National Building
Code (BNBC) 2006. The main objective of the paper is to determine the effect of live load to
dead load ratio on the reliability of RC beams. To achieve the objective of the study a total
number of sixteen model RC beams are designed following the provisions of BNBC 2006. The
flexural failure and one way shear failure of beam are used as performance function. Monte Carlo
Simulation (MCS) method has been used in the study to determine the reliability. The loads and
span length of RC beam were the variables. The statistical parameters of design variables are
selected from available literatures. From the statistical analysis, it is found that the reliability of
RC beam against flexural bending moment varies from 2.40 to 2.47 and the reliability against
flexural shear varies from 3.10 to 3.94. The failure probability of RC beam for flexural moment is
found higher than that of flexural shear in all RC beams. It is also seen that the failure probability
of RC beam increases with the live load to dead load ratio increases.

Keywords: Reliability, Monte Carlo Simulation, Performance Functions, RC Model Beam.

Field of Research: Civil and Environmental Engineering

Introduction
Engineering decisions must be made in the presence of uncertainties which are invariably present
in practice (Ranganathan 1999). Due to presence of uncertainties in different parameters
accounting for the analysis and design of any structure, it is very difficult to measure absolute safety
for any structure using deterministic analysis. Uncertainties are always inherent in loads and
resistance of structure. Because of the presence of uncertainty in the effect of loading and in the
effect of resistance, the structural members are certainly uncertain. Consequently, structures and
it’s components should be designed to serve their functions with a definite reliability or a definite
probability of Failure. Therefore, one of the most important ways to specify a rational criterion for
ensuring the safety of a structure is its reliability or probability of failure. The reliability of a structure
is its ability to fulfill its design purpose for some specified design lifetime (Yao 2000). Reliability is
often understood to equal the probability that a structure will not fail to perform its intended function.
Probability-based design of structure became practically realizable in the 1970's and its conceptual
framework was developed by Ang and Cornell (1974), influenced by Freudenthal's pioneering work
on structural safety (Freudenthal 1947). Presently, Norway, Canada, United State of America,
United Kingdom follows the reliability based design of structure, and other countries which are in
the process of modifying their standards (Ranganathan 1999). Many design codes in various parts

______________________________________________________________________________
1*Md. Ferdous Wahid; Structural Engineer; Monoz Design & Development; Dhaka; ferdous.wahid87@gmail.com ;

01911419279.
2Mr. Sukanta Kumer Shill; Assistant Professor; Department of Civil Engineering; DUET, Gazipur;
sukanta.duet82@gmail.com; 01757099722
3Abu Hasan; Structural Engineer; Dimension; Gazipur; ma.hasan1190@gmail.com ; 01712409378

1
 Proceedings of 11th Global Engineering, Science and Technology Conference
18 - 19 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-92-4

of the world are under revision from the allowable or the working stress design format (ASD or WSD)
to the Load and Resistance Factor Design format (LRFD) based on reliability. So far the reliability
of structure designed following Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC 2006) has not yet been
evaluated. So, the principal aim of this research is to evaluate the reliability of Reinforced Concrete
(RC) beam for commercial building designed following BNBC, 2006.

Methodology:

To determine the reliability a total sixteen RC model beams are analyzed and designed for several
loading conditions following the recommendations specified in BNBC 2006. After completing the
deterministic analysis statistical parameters of design variables are selected from established
literature. Then the failure probabilities of beams are calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation
(MCS) method. The Monte Carlo simulation is very powerful and useful technique for performing
probabilistic analysis.

3. Geometry of model beam and loading conditions:

Geometries of sixteen model beam with several loading conditions are presented in Table.1. In the
calculation of dead load the unit weight of concrete for all model beam is considered as 24 kN/m 3.
The live loads are considered as per BNBC-2006.

Table.1: Geometry of model beam and loading conditions

Model Span lengthLive load
Cross section of beam
beam no. of Beam intensity
(m) (kN/m2) b (mm) h (mm)
1 3 250 302
2 4.60 4 250 317
3 5 250 331
4 6 250 344
5 3 250 383
6 5.49 4 250 402
7 5 250 420
8 6 250 437
Continue Table.2: Geometry of model beam and loading conditions
Model Span length Live load
Cross section of beam
beam no. of Beam intensity
(m) (kN/m2) b (mm) h (mm)
9 3 300 439
10 6.40 4 300 461
11 5 300 481
12 6 300 500
13 3 300 530
14 7.32 4 300 556
15 5 300 580
16 6 300 604

2
 Proceedings of 11th Global Engineering, Science and Technology Conference
18 - 19 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-92-4

4. Variability in load:

4.1 Dead load:

Dead loads are typically treated as normal random variables. Usually it is assumed that the total
dead load (DL) remains constant throughout the life of structure (Yao 2000). In this study a
coefficient of variation (COV) of 10 percent is assigned to dead load and distribution of dead load is
considered as normal distribution (Ellingwood et al., 1980).

4.2 Live load:

Live loads are always variable in nature. It is normally idealized as a uniformly distributed load. The
statistical parameters of live load depend on the area under consideration. The larger the area which
contributes to the live load, the smaller the magnitude of the load intensity (Yao 2000).For design
purpose, it is necessary to consider the expected combination of sustained live load and transient
live load that may occur during the building’s design lifetime (50-100years). The combined maximum
live load can be modeled by as extreme type I distribution (Ellingwood, et al 1980). Since, a
coefficient of variation (COV) of 25 percent is assigned to live load and distribution of live load is
considered as is Extreme type I distribution.

Variability in resistance:

5.1 Compressive strength of concrete:

The coefficients of variation, COV of the in situ compressive strength for concrete grades 35 MPa
and 20 MPa are estimated to be 15% and 18%, respectively (Mirza et al. 1979). Ellingwood
estimated the COV to be 20.7% under average control of concrete. The concrete strength follows a
normal distribution (Mirza et al. 1979) . For the compressive strength of concrete, normal probability
distribution has been found best suitable by many investigators (Mirza 1996; Mirza & MacGregor
1979). In this study, the Coefficient of Variation (COV) is selected as 0.261 (Wahid et al. 2015) for
average control and 0.18 (Mirza et al., 1979 and Ellingwood et al, 1980) for 20 MPa concrete and
compared the results.

5.2 Yield strength of reinforcing steel:

Different statistical distribution for the yield strength of reinforcing steel has been proposed by
different researchers: Low & Hao (2001) (normal); Galambos & Ravindra (1978) (lognormal), and
Mirza & MacGregor (1979) (beta distribution). However, the normal distribution is more appropriate
for yield strength of reinforcement at 95% confidence level (Arafah 1997). Hence, the normal
distribution for yield strength of reinforcing steel is used in this study. Galambos and Ravindra (1978)
recommended COV for yield strength of steel equal to 8-12%. The mean and coefficient of variation
of yield strength for 60 grade steel are 465 MPa and 9.8% (Mirza and MacGregor, 1979). However
in this study only 60 grade steel is considered and corresponding COV is selected as 4.9 % (Wahid
et al.2015) and 9.8 % (Mirza & MacGregor 1979).

3
 Proceedings of 11th Global Engineering, Science and Technology Conference
18 - 19 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-92-4

Monte Carlo Simulation:

Monte Carlo is the most robust simulation method in which samples are generated with respect to
the probability density of each variable (Massih et al., 2008). For each sample, the response of the
system is calculated. An unbiased estimator of the failure probability is given by
1
𝑃𝑓 = 𝑁 ∑𝑁𝑖=1 𝐼(𝑥𝑖 )……………………………………………………….......(0)
Where, N = Number of sample. The coefficient of variation of the estimator is given by
(1−Pf ) 1
COV(Pf ) = √ ………………………………….…………...............(1)
Pf N N

Reliability analysis:
The objective of the reliability analysis is to determine the probability of failure. The probability of
failure ( 𝑃𝑓 ) is the probability that the realization of the basic variables yield a point in the failure
domain, i.e.
𝑃𝑓 = 𝑃[𝐺(𝑥)] ≤ 0……………………………..…………………………...(3)

Where, x = vector of basic variable; and G(x) limit state function defined such that the region G(x)≤0
corresponds with the failure mode of interest. The corresponding reliability index β can be calculated
from
β =− ɸ−1 ( 𝑃𝑓 ) ……………………………………………………………..(4)
Where, ɸ−1 inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution function. In this study, Monte
Carlo simulations have been used to evaluate the reliability and corresponding failure probability of
beams. The relationship between reliability index β and probability of failure 𝑃𝑓 provided by US Army
Corps of Engineers is shown in Table.2 (USACE 1997).

Table. 2: Relationship between reliability index β and probability of

failure Pf provided by US Army Corps of Engineers

Reliability Probability of Expected

Index, β failure = Φ(− ) Performance level
1.0 0.16 Hazardous
1.5 0.07 Unsatisfactory
2.0 0.023 Poor
2.5 0.006 Below average
3.0 0.0001 Above average
4.0 0.00003 Good
5.0 0.0000003 High

Performance function:

4
 Proceedings of 11th Global Engineering, Science and Technology Conference
18 - 19 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-92-4

The loads 𝑄𝑖 and resistance 𝑅𝑖 are treated as random variables. The probability of failure𝑃𝑓 is
represented in the reliability analysis by the reliability index β. The performance function or limit
state function is expressed as 𝑔𝑖 (X) for the various failure modes and formulated as 𝑔𝑖 (X) = 𝑅𝑖 (X) -
𝑄𝑖 (X) when 𝑔𝑖 (X) < 0, the beam fails and when 𝑔𝑖 (X) ≥ 0, the beam is safe.

8.1 Flexural moment:

When a reinforced concrete beam is loaded in such a way that the moment due to loads exceeds
the moment-carrying capacity, then flexural failure of beam may take place. A performance function,
or limit state function, can be defined for the bending failure mode as follows:
𝑓𝑦
𝑔1 = 𝑀𝑛 − 𝑀1 = 𝐵𝑓 ∗ [𝜌𝑓𝑦 𝑏𝑑2 (1 − 0.59𝜌 𝑓′ )] − 𝑀1 ……………………(5)
𝑐
2 𝑓𝑦
𝑔2 = 𝑀𝑛 − 𝑀2 = 𝐵𝑓 ∗ [𝜌𝑓𝑦 𝑏𝑑 (1 − 0.59𝜌 𝑓′ )] − 𝑀2 ………………..….(6)
𝑐
Where, 𝑀1 is the negative moment due to external load at the support and 𝑀2 is the positive moment
due to external load at the mid-section of beam. The term 𝑔1 represents the limit state function for
negative moment at the end of the beam, if 𝑔1 > 0 the beam is safe for negative moment, if 𝑔1 < 0
the beam will fail. The term 𝑔2 represents the limit state function for positive moment at the mid-
section of beam, if 𝑔2 > 0 the beam is safe for positive moment, if 𝑔2 < 0 the beam will fail.

8.2 Flexural shear:

When the concrete shear strength is not sufficient to resist the external shear force, it is required to
provide the additional resistance. Shear reinforcement in the form of stirrups, assumed vertical in
this study, The limit-state function representing shear failure is given by
𝑔3 = 𝐵𝑣 (𝑉𝑐 + 𝑉𝑠 ) – V
A
= Bv (0.17√fc′ bw d + fy d Sv ) - V ……………………………….(7)
Where, 𝐴𝑣 defined as the area of shear reinforcement within a distance S. 𝑉𝑐 is the shear strength
provided by concrete and 𝑉𝑠 is the shear strength provided by steel. V is the shear force due to
external loading at a distance d from the support. Bv is defined as the Shear model uncertainty
factor. If 𝑔3 ≥ 0 then the beam is safe for shear and if 𝑔3 < 0 the beam will fail due to shear
produced by external loadings.

Results and discussion:

Based on the basic random variables and limit-state functions which is defined in this study, the
effect of live load (LL) to dead load (DL) ratio on the reliability (β) of RC beams are calculated
according to Monte Carlo’s Simulation (MCS) method using spread sheet. The effects on the
reliability (β) of RC beams are calculated for both the cases such as when the span length of the
beam is variable and the loading conditions on the beam are also variable. The span length of the
beams are considered as 4.6m, 5.5m, 6.4m, 7.32m and the LL intensity on the beams are taken as
3 KN/m2, 4 KN/m2, 5 KN/m2 and 6 KN/m2. The studies have been performed using COV value of
resistance provided by Mirza et al.1979 and Wahid et al.2015 which is in context of Bangladesh.

9.1 Effect of LL/DL ratio on the reliability of RC beam for flexural moment :

5
 Proceedings of 11th Global Engineering, Science and Technology Conference
18 - 19 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-92-4

The effect of LL to DL ratio on the reliability of RC beam designed following the provisions of
BNBC-2006 for flexural moment is shown in Fig.1.

Fig.1: Effect of LL/DL ratio on the reliability of RC beam for moment

2.95 COV by Mirza et

Reliability index (β)

2.80 al.1979
2.65
COV by Wahid et
2.50
al.2015
2.35
2.20
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30
Ratio of live load(LL) to dead load (DL)
From the statistical analysis it is found that the reliability (β) of RC beam is increases with the live
load (LL) to dead load (DL) ratio increases in all cases. From the results it is also observed that the
value of reliability (β) of RC beam obtained by using the COV of compressive strength of concrete
𝑓𝑐′ and yield strength of steel rebar 𝑓𝑦 in context of Bangladesh is lower than the value obtained by
using the COV proposed by Mrza et al.1979 in all cases.

9.2 Effect of LL/DL ratio on the reliability (β) of RC beam for flexural shear:

The effect of LL to DL ratio on the reliability of RC beam designed following BNBC-2006 for
flexural shear is shown in Fig.2

Fig.2: Effect of LL/DL ratio on the reliability of RC beam for shear

COV by Mirza et
Reliability Index (β)

3.25
3.20 al.1979

3.15 COV by Wahid et

3.10 al.2015
3.05
3.00
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Ratio of live load (LL) to dead load (DL)
The statistical
results and figures above shows that the reliability (β) of RC beam is decreases with the live load
(LL) to dead load (DL) ratio increases in all cases. It is found that the failure probability of RC beam
against shear for span length up to 5.5m is zero when the LL intensity on the beam is kept below
4KN/m2. From the results it is also observed that the value of reliability (β) of RC beam obtained
by using the COV of compressive strength of concrete 𝑓𝑐′ and yield strength of steel rebar 𝑓𝑦 in
context of Bangladesh is higher than the value obtained by using the COV proposed by Mrza et
al.1979 in all cases.

6
 Proceedings of 11th Global Engineering, Science and Technology Conference
18 - 19 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-92-4

Conclusions:
The main objective of the study was to determine the effect of LL to DL ratio on the reliability (β) of
RC beam designed following the provisions of Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC-2006).
Based on the results obtained from the analytical investigation of the present study on reliability
analysis of reinforced concrete beam, the following specific conclusions for flexure and shear of RC
beam can be made.

(i) The failure probability of negative bending moment of RC beam is higher than that of positive
bending moment in all model beams.
(ii) The failure probability of RC beam increases as the span length of the beam increases. The
reliability of RC beam decreases as the ratio of live load to dead load of the beam increases.
(iii) The failure probability of RC beam against shear for span length up to 5.5m is zero when
the LL intensity on the beam is kept below 4 KN/m2 and the failure probability of RC beam
is also zero up to 4.6m span length of the beam when the LL intensity on the beam is kept
below 6KN/m2.
(iv) The failure probability of RC beam for flexure is higher than that of shear. The reliability of
RC beam for flexural negative bending moment varies from 2.40 to 2.47 considering the
COV of crushing strength of concrete is 0.261 and the COV of yield strength of steel is
0.049 which is provided by Wahid et al.2015. Consequence the performance of RC beams
designed following BNBC 2006 is below average.

11. Reference:
A. M. Freudenthal, 1947. Safety of structures, Trans. ASCE,112, pp.125–180.
Ang, A.H.S. and Cornell, C.A., 1974. Reliability Bases of Structural Safety and Design. Journal of
the Structural Division-ASCE, 100(NST9), pp.1755–1769. Available at: //a1974u031900001.
Arafah, A.M., 1997. Statistics for concrete and steel quality in Saudi Arabia. Magazine of Concrete
Research, 49(180), pp.185–193.
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T. V., McGregor, J. G., Cornell, C.A., 1980. Development of a Probability
Based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58, NBS Special Report 577,
Galambos, T.V. & Ravindra, M.K., 1978. Properties of steel for use in LRFD. Journal of the
Structural Division 104(9),, pp.1459–1468.
Low, H.Y. & Hao, H., 2001. Reliability analysis of reinforced concrete slabs under explosive loading.
Structural Safety, 23(2), pp.157–178.
Mirza, S.A., 1996. Reliability based design of reinforced concrete columns,. Journal of structural
safety, 18(n 2/3).
Mirza, S.A. & MacGregor, J.G., 1979. Variability of mechanical properties of reinforcing bars.
Journal of the Structural Division, 105(5), pp.921–937. Available at:
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?5014590.
Mirza, S.A., MacGregor, J.G. & Hatzinikolas, M., 1979. Statistical descriptions of strength of
concrete. Journal of the Structural Division, 105(6), pp.1021–1037. Available at:
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?5014628.
R. Ranganathan, 1999. Structural Reliability Analysis & Design First jaic. A. J. Shah, ed., Mumbai-
400 001: Jaico Publishing House.

7
 Proceedings of 11th Global Engineering, Science and Technology Conference
18 - 19 December, 2015, BIAM Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, ISBN: 978-1-922069-92-4

USACE, 1997. Engineering and design: Introduction to probability and reliability methods for use in
geotechnical engineering. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dept. of the Army, Washington, D.C.
Wahid, M.F., M.S. Mia, M.S.A. Islam, S.K. Shill, 2015. Statistical Parameter of Concrete and Steel
Reinforcement in Bangladesh. International Conference on Recent Innovation on Civil
Engineering for Sustainable Development. Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology
(DUET) Gazipur,Dhaka.
Yao, J.T.P., 2000. Reliability of Structures M.-H. I. Editions, ed., Thomas Casson.

View publication stats