CHAPTER 8

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

8.1 GENERAL

The term reliability and structural performance means the probability of the structure

performing its intended function during its expected life time under the environmental

conditions to which it is exposed.

Reliability- based techniques can be used to account for the randomness in important

variables that affect the strength of FRP strengthened RC beams. The use of such

methods in structural engineering has greatly increased as reliability based models

have been better properly understood and more widely accepted.

Regression equations for various parameters in GFRP strengthened corrosion-

damaged RC beams such as first crack load, first crack load deflection, yield load,

yield load deflection, service load, service load deflection, ultimate load, ultimate load

deflection, deflection ductility, energy ductility, curvature ductility, deflection

ductility ratio, energy ductility ratio and curvature ductility ratio, that are modeled in

chapter-7 are validated through a reliability index by using simulation techniques as

well as by goodness of fit tests. Simulation is the technique of virtual testing of the

validity of a physical phenomenon/structural design/mathematical equation without

actually performing the experiment to obtain the values of the variables involved but

by generating them through a mathematically tractable process called random number

generation.
8.1.1 Random Numbers

The building block of a simulation study is the ability to generate random numbers,

where a random number represents the value of a random variable under

consideration such as level of corrosion damage, type of GFRP and thickness of

GFRP. The pseudorandom numbers represent a sequence of values although they are

deterministically generated with in independent uniform (0, 1) random variables. This

generation of pseudorandom numbers starts with an initial value x0, called the seed,

and then recursively computes successive values xn, n ≥1, by letting.

xn = axn-1 modulo m (8.1)

where a and m are given positive integers and where the above means that axn-1 is

divided by m and the remainder is taken as the value of xn. Thus, each xn is either 0,

1… m-1 and the quantity xn/m called a pseudorandom number, is taken as an

approximation to the value of a uniform (0, 1) random variable. In general case,

random numbers can be generated from uniform (a, b) random variable for any two

real numbers a< b.

8.1.2 Reliability Index

100 values of each of the independent random variables namely level of corrosion

damage, type of GFRP and thickness of GFRP are generated by simulation within

their allowable range of variation. These values are used in the regression equations to

obtain the value of dependent variables namely first crack load, first crack load

deflection, yield load, yield load deflection, service load, service load deflection,

137
ultimate load, ultimate load deflection, deflection ductility, energy ductility, curvature

ductility, deflection ductility ratio, energy ductility ratio and curvature ductility ratio.

In all 100 x 100 x 100 = 106different triples independent variables are used to

calculate the value of the dependent variable. If the calculated value of the dependent

variable lies within the permissible range obtained from the experimental study, the

experiment is considered to be a success. Otherwise, it is treated as a failure. The ratio

of the number of success to the total number of trials is defined as the reliability

index.

8.1.3 Goodness of Fit Tests

A probabilistic analysis of a given phenomenon by hypothesizing that certain of its

random elements have a particular probability distribution is consistent with the data,
2
is called goodness of fit. In this study, the goodness of fit is based on -distribution

at 5% level to establish the validity of the regression equations derived relating the

variables under study.

8.1.4 Chi-square Test of Goodness of Fit

Prof.Karl Pearson gave chi-square test of goodness of fit in 1900. This test can be

used for the discrepancy between hypothetical and experimental values. This test

facilitates to find if the deviation of the experiment from predicted value is just by

chance or is it really due to the inadequacy of the predicted to fit the observed

(experimental) values.

138
If Oi (i = 1, 2, 3… n) is a set of experimental frequencies and Ei (i = 1, 2, 3… n) is the

corresponding set of expected (theoretical or predicted) frequencies, then chi-square is

given by

follows chi-square distribution with (n-1) degrees of freedom.

8.1.5 Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is of no difference. In this case, the null hypothesis is that there is

no significant difference between the experimental values and simulated values

8.2 SIMULATION TECHNIQUES FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF

STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY

A program has been developed in C-language (Appendix E) for estimating the

reliability index for GFRP strengthened corrosion-damaged RC beams. The effect of

level of corrosion damage, thickness of GFRP wrap and the elasticity modulus of

GFRP wrap material were considered in the reliability analysis. The simulation

technique was used to check the goodness of fit of the regression equations derived

and for estimating the reliability indices using the randomly chosen values of the

input parameters.

139
8.2.1 Procedure for Estimating the Reliability Index for GFRP Strengthened
Corrosion-Damaged RC Beams

1. Generate random values for GFRP wrap material properties

2. Generate random values for thickness of GFRP wrap

3. Generate random values for the level of corrosion damage

4. The expected value of all the structural parameters such as first crack load,

first crack load deflection, yield load, yield load deflection, service load,

service load deflection, ultimate load, ultimate load deflection, deflection

ductility, energy ductility, curvature ductility, deflection ductility ratio, energy

ductility ratio and curvature ductility ratio are to be estimated using the

regression equations derived.

The above said procedure was repeated for predetermined number of runs for

calculating the reliability index.

8.2.2 Procedure for Calculating the Goodness of Fit for GFRP Strengthened
Corrosion-Damaged RC Beams

1. The generated random values for level of corrosion damage, GFRP wrap

materials and thickness of GFRP wrap were considered from the previous

section 8.2.1.

2. As there are fifteen experimental values of the dependent variable (first crack

load, first crack load deflection, yield load, yield load deflection, service load,

service load deflection, ultimate load, ultimate load deflection, deflection

ductility, energy ductility, curvature ductility, deflection ductility ratio, energy

ductility ratio and curvature ductility ratio), the simulated values were split

140
 into fifteen groups and the average of each group was taken as the expected

value representing that group. This procedure was repeated for each of the

dependent variable.

3. Chi-square test was performed according to the procedure described in section

8.1.4.

4. This chi-square value was compared with the table value of chi-square

distribution at 5% level of significance. If the calculated value is greater than

the table value, it is treated as highly significant and in the case the null

hypothesis is rejected. Otherwise, the null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level

of significance and it may also be concluded that there is a good agreement

between the simulated and experimental values.

8.3 RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS OF RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

The reliability indices obtained for various parameters are shown in Table 8.1

Table 8.1 Reliability Index

Sl.No Parameters Reliability Index

1 First Crack Load 0.9423
2 First Crack Load Deflection 1.0000
3 Yield Load 0.9989
4 Yield Load Deflection 0.9998
5 Service Load 0.9989
6 Service Load Deflection 0.9429
7 Ultimate Load 0.9939
8 Ultimate Load Deflection 0.9998
9 Deflection Ductility 0.9988
10 Deflection Ductility Ratio 0.9878
11 Energy Ductility 0.9917
12 Energy Ductility Ratio 0.9514

141
From Table 8.1, it can be observed that the experimental values are highly reliable as

the reliability indices are found to be much closer to one.

8.4 OBSERVATIONS ON GOODNESS OF FIT

The results of goodness of fit are shown in Table 8.2 to 8.13.

Table 8.2 Goodness of Fit Results of First Crack Load

Expected
Observed Value of 2
First Crack Load (O) Value of First
Crack Load (E)

26.98 35.8669 2.201946

36.78 35.0046 0.090047

39.24 36.3917 0.22293

39.24 35.4295 0.409825

41.69 32.7478 2.441781

19.62 32.4679 5.084053

29.43 31.5947 0.148314

31.88 33.37 0.06653

34.335 35.9743 0.074701

36.78 33.4561 0.330233

12.26 26.7524 7.850872

26.97 29.6994 0.250834

31.88 32.9116 0.032335

31.88 28.4735 0.407545

34.335 24.9289 3.549082

23.16

142
Table 8.3 Goodness of Fit Results of First Crack Load Deflection

Observed Value of First Expected 2

Crack Load Deflection (O) Value of First Crack Load (E)
2.36 2.117 0.027893
2.75 2.1135 0.191688
1.8 2.1188 0.047967
2.75 2.1111 0.193356
1.69 2.1113 0.084068
0.83 2.1093 0.775901
2.22 2.1211 0.004611
1.62 2.1321 0.122999
2.39 2.1419 0.028738
1.85 2.1392 0.039097
2.2 2.1296 0.002327
3.85 2.1287 1.39187
1.97 2.1341 0.012618
1.86 2.1369 0.035881
1.07 2.1357 0.531777
3.490793

Table 8.4 Goodness of Fit Results of Yield Load

Observed Value of Yield Expected 2

Load (O) Value of Yield Load E)
51.5 63 2.099206
80.93 84 0.112201
112.81 113 0.000319
112.81 118 0.228272
129.98 132 0.030912
34.34 36.36 0.112222
66.22 76.22 1.311992
115.26 115.67 0.001453
117.72 116.62 0.010376
120.17 128 0.478976
29.43 35 0.886426
56.4 60 0.216
103 112 0.723214
105.45 105 0.001929
110.36 110 0.001178
6.214676

143
Table 8.5 Goodness of Fit Results of Yield Load Deflection

Observed Value of Yield Expected 2

Load Deflection(O) Value of Yield Load Deflection(E)
8.43 2.117 0.048595
8.25 2.1135 0.107965
8.75 2.1188 0.008725
9.25 2.1111 0.001958
10.5 2.1113 0.231145
7.75 2.1093 0.247611
8.61 2.1211 0.014151
9 2.1321 0.066952
9.5 2.1419 0.193857
10 2.1392 0.379669
7.25 2.1296 0.113711
8.75 2.1287 0.034707
9.25 2.1341 0.127921
9.75 2.1369 0.281254
10 2.1357 0.382624
2.240845

Table 8.6 Goodness of Fit Results of Service Load

Observed Value of Service Expected 2

Load (O) Value of Service Load E)
47.41 54 0.804224
71.94 62 1.593606
86.65 92 0.311114
88.29 94 0.346852
96.49 97 0.002681
34.34 36.79 0.163156
57.22 64 0.718256
81.75 83 0.018825
85.03 86 0.010941
88.29 92 0.14961
31.09 53 9.057511
50.68 54 0.204119
78.48 84 0.362743
78.48 86 0.657563
85.03 88 0.100238
14.50144

144
Table 8.7 Goodness of Fit Results of Service Load Deflection

Observed Value of Service Expected 2

Load Deflection(O) Value of Service Load Deflection(E)
6.5 6.1407 0.021023
7.14 6.1154 0.171666
4.4 6.1398 0.492997
6.57 6.4089 0.00405
6.3 6.4837 0.005205
7.75 6.3024 0.3325
5.1 6.1089 0.166622
4.81 6.5269 0.45163
6.66 6.0628 0.058826
5.63 6.2066 0.053567
10.56 6.7013 2.221892
7.82 6.7499 0.169649
6.03 6.4693 0.029831
6.19 6.3227 0.002785
4.88 6.3878 0.355907
4.538149
Table 8.8 Goodness of Fit Results of Ultimate Load

Observed Value of Expected 2

Ultimate Load (O) Value of Ultimate Load E)
71.123 72 0.010682
107.91 120 1.218068
129.98 130 3.08E-06
132.43 154 3.021201
144.69 145 0.000663
51.5 64 2.441406
85.83 92 0.413792
122.63 124 0.015136
127.53 130 0.04693
132.43 134 0.018395
46.49 50 0.246402
76.02 82 0.436102
117.72 122 0.150151
117.72 122 0.150151
127.53 135 0.41334
8.582422

145
Table 8.9 Goodness of Fit Results of Ultimate Load Deflection

Observed Value of Expected 2

Ultimate Load
Deflection(O) Value of Ultimate Load Deflection(E)

40 43 0.209302
60 64 0.25
66 72 0.5
70 71 0.014085
85 87 0.045977
36 38 0.105263
58 60 0.066667
64 66 0.060606
68 70 0.057143
75 77 0.051948
32 34 0.117647
50 54 0.296296
58 60 0.066667
62 63 0.015873
70 71 0.014085
1.871558
Table 8.10 Goodness of Fit Results of Deflection Ductility

Observed Value of Expected 2

Deflection Ductility(O) Value of Deflection Ductility(E)
4.74 6.9342 0.694314
7.27 7.0865 0.004752
7.54 6.8834 0.062632
7.57 6.66 0.124339
8.09 6.5277 0.373911
4.64 6.8953 0.737659
6.73 6.865 0.002655
7.11 5.8315 0.280299
7.15 6.3196 0.109115
7.5 6.1597 0.291638
4.41 5.6095 0.256493
5.71 5.5559 0.004274
6.27 5.8678 0.027568
6.35 6.0308 0.016895
7 5.958 0.182236
3.168781

146
Table 8.11 Goodness of Fit Results of Deflection Ductility Ratio
Observed Value of Expected
2
Deflection Ductility Value of Deflection Ductility
Ratio(O) Ratio(E)
1 1.4395 0.134186
1.53 1.4641 0.002966
1.59 1.4308 0.017714
1.6 1.4068 0.026533
1.7 1.3882 0.070033
1 1.4413 0.135118
1.45 1.4261 0.000401
1.53 1.2703 0.053093
1.54 1.3291 0.033465
1.61 1.3094 0.069009
1 1.2416 0.047012
1.29 1.2349 0.002459
1.42 1.2734 0.016877
1.44 1.2935 0.016592
1.59 1.2845 0.072659
0.698116
Table 8.12 Goodness of Fit Results of Energy Ductility

Observed Value of Expected 2

Energy Ductility(O) Value of Energy Ductility(E)
7.87 1.7404 0.79026
12.04 1.774 0.051806
13.18 1.7236 0.616182
14.75 1.812 2.179944
16.92 1.8142 5.415863
6.64 1.824 1.584238
10.01 1.6994 0.026661
11 1.613 1.724046
12.17 1.4933 1.361935
13.43 1.5276 3.182865
8.4 1.6455 0.372904
8.7 1.6572 0.620917
10.46 1.5902 1.162646
10.59 1.5552 0.880557
11.1 1.5707 1.452696
21.42352

147
Table 8.13 Goodness of Fit Results of Energy Ductility Ratio

Observed Value of Expected 2

Energy Ductility
Ratio(O) Value of Energy Ductility Ratio(E)

1 1.4395 0.314981
1.53 1.4641 0.03356
1.67 1.4308 0.001667
1.87 1.4068 0.001857
2.14 1.3882 0.058508
1 1.4413 0.372246
1.5 1.4261 0.023397
1.65 1.2703 0.000849
1.83 1.3291 0.075917
2.02 1.3094 0.158718
1 1.2416 0.253218
1.04 1.2349 0.229867
1.25 1.2734 0.072781
1.26 1.2935 0.056033
1.32 1.2845 0.040014
1.693612

2
From the Tables 8.2 to 8.13, it can be observed that the calculated value of for all
2
the parameters under study are less than 23.65 which is the table value of for 14

degrees of freedom at 5% level. The simulated values are in complete agreement with

the experimental values at 5% level. This can taken as a proof for the validity of the

regression equations derived for various parameters under study.

148