1 / 11

Safety Assessment of Steel Frame Structures: Eurocode vs SBRA Method

This study presents a safety assessment of steel frame structures, comparing methods according to the Eurocode (EC) and the SBRA approach. The analysis includes various load effects such as dead loads, wind, snow, and crane operations. The Eurocode framework employs load and resistance factors focusing on ultimate capacity, while the SBRA method uses a Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the probability of failure. Results show the conventional Eurocode designs are generally larger than those derived from the SBRA method. This assessment emphasizes the need for transparent and efficient analysis in structural engineering.

elda
Télécharger la présentation

Safety Assessment of Steel Frame Structures: Eurocode vs SBRA Method

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Safety assesment of a steel frame using current code and SBRA method Petr Konečný, M.S. Structural Mechanics Division Department of Civil Engineering VŠB – TU Ostrava Czech Republic

  2. Euro-SiBRAM’2002 Prague June 24 to 26, 2002 Introduction Subject of the discussion • Safety Assessment of a steel frame (a) according to the Eurocode (EC) and (b) according to SBRA method • Comparison of results • Summary

  3. Euro-SiBRAM’2002 Prague June 24 to 26, 2002 Steel frame

  4. Euro-SiBRAM’2002 Prague June 24 to 26, 2002 Obr. 6 Mostový jeřáb Loadings • Dead load • Wind (from the right or left) • Snow (entire roof, right or left side of the roof) • Crane girder (vertical andlateral horizontalforces)

  5. Euro-SiBRAM’2002 Prague June 24 to 26, 2002 Eurocode vs. SBRA Eurocode (EC) • Uses load and resistence factors • Reference values correspond to ultimate (plastic) carrying capacity SBRA • All input random variables are represented by bounded histogram • Reference value is defined by the onset of yielding • The safety function SF = R – S is evaluated using direct Monte Carlo method • The safety is expressed by comparing the calculated probability of failure Pf and target probability Pd, i.e., Pf < Pd

  6. Euro-SiBRAM’2002 Prague June 24 to 26, 2002 Assessment Eurocode (see criteria contained in the code) SBRA • Probability of failure Pf(R < s ) < Pd = 7.10-5 • R - Fy yield stress • s - Two component load effects combination expressed by stress N - Axial force M – Bending moment Probability of failurePf Is calculated using AnthillTM Computer program

  7. Euro-SiBRAM’2002 Prague June 24 to 26, 2002 Inner forces Scatter axial forces N (kN)

  8. Euro-SiBRAM’2002 Prague June 24 to 26, 2002 Inner forces Scatter bending moments M (kNm)

  9. Euro-SiBRAM’2002 Prague June 24 to 26, 2002 Comparison of results Area Cross- SBRA EC sections 1 100% 121% 2 100% 110% 3 100% 140% In this study the shapes designed according to EC [2] are larger compared to cross-sections resulting from SBRA design. For details see M.S. Thesis(Konečný, 2002, VŠB - TU Ostrava)

  10. Euro-SiBRAM’2002 Prague June 24 to 26, 2002 Summary Eurocode (EC) • Planar frame had to be analyzed considering 144 load effects combinations • Load effects combination analysis was time consuming and not consequente. SBRA • Transparent analysis of the multi-component load effects combinations • Rather complicated transformation model

  11. Thank you for your attention Petr Konečný, M.S. Structural Mechanics Division Department of Civil Engineering VŠB – TU Ostrava Czech Republic

More Related