@article{OrcesiDiamantidisO’Connoretal., author = {Orcesi, Andr{\´e} and Diamantidis, Dimitris and O'Connor, Alan and Palmisano, Fabrizio and S{\´y}kora, Miroslav and Boros, Vazul and Caspeele, Robby and Chateauneuf, Alaa and Mandić Ivanković, Ana and Lenner, Roman and Kušter Marić, Marija and Nadolski, Vitali and Schmidt, Franziska and Skokandić, Dominik and van der Spuy, Pierre}, title = {Investigating Partial Factors for the Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete Bridges}, series = {Structural Engineering International}, journal = {Structural Engineering International}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, doi = {10.1080/10168664.2023.2204115}, pages = {1 -- 16}, abstract = {There is great interest in developing an adequate partial factor format for the assessment of existing structures, and in particular bridges, that should be able to take various aspects into account linked to the fact that the structure already exists. As the structure is existing, additional information related to material parameters, loading conditions, local structural defects, etc. can be accounted for. In addition, the degree of conservatism needs to be well balanced to avoid unnecessary investment of resources in replacement or retrofitting. This contribution considers the experience gained in recent years in parallel with some ongoing standardisation work in relation to Eurocodes and the next edition of the fib Model Code for new and existing concrete structures. The current state of the art of partial factors for the assessment of existing structures is explored and the differences are assessed based on a comparison between (i) the use of recommended fixed partial factors as provided in many national and international codes, (ii) adjusted (flexible) partial factors derived for the individual case under consideration, and (ii) reliability-based verification. In order to assess the adequacy of proposals and identify some differences, the available partial factor formats are applied to two case studies of reinforced concrete bridges and they are critically assessed.}, language = {en} } @article{PandeyViljoenWayetal., author = {Pandey, Mahesh and Viljoen, Celeste and Way, Andrew and Katharina Fischer, Katharina and S{\´y}kora, Miroslav and Diamantidis, Dimitris and Steenbergen, Rapha{\"e}l D.J.M. and Lind, Niels and Frangopol, Dan M. and Yang, David Y. and Retief, Johan Verster and Andr{\´e}, Jo{\~a}o and Nathwani, Jatin and Lenner, Roman}, title = {Life safety in the Reliability-Based design and assessment of structures}, series = {Structural Safety}, journal = {Structural Safety}, publisher = {Elsevier}, doi = {10.1016/j.strusafe.2024.102453}, abstract = {We review the developments in life safety and the incorporation thereof in the design and assessment of structures over the last 50 years. Various measures of life safety are presented that have been developed according to the marginal life saving cost principle based on individual, societal and economic considerations. Target probabilities of failure, or target reliabilities, are central to modern structural design and assessment. These are derived either through back-calibration to existing practice or through life cycle cost minimisation, both of which yield comparable safety levels, and are underpinned by lower bounds from life safety. Life cycle cost minimisation is reviewed here, which considers all direct and indirect costs of failure including loss of life and limb, as well as the costs and efficiency of increasing reliability. We discuss the incorporation of life safety into reliability-based design and assessment through the concept of the Life Quality Index, which uses key societal indicators, namely, the GDP and life expectancy, and health economics as a basis for specifying minimum reliabilities for both new and existing structures. The current state of advancement of reliability- and risk-informed design, and recommendations for future developments in life safety are considered.}, language = {en} }