Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/nsie20

Random field modelling of spatial variability in

concrete – a review

Wouter Botte, Eline Vereecken & Robby Caspeele

To cite this article: Wouter Botte, Eline Vereecken & Robby Caspeele (21 Aug 2023): Random
field modelling of spatial variability in concrete – a review, Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2023.2248102

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2023.2248102

Published online: 21 Aug 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 224

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2023.2248102

REVIEW ARTICLE

Random field modelling of spatial variability in concrete – a review

Wouter Botte , Eline Vereecken and Robby Caspeele
Department of Structural Engineering and Building Materials, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Concrete is a heterogeneous material, consisting of different constituents such as aggregates of differ- Received 2 February 2023
ent sizes and cement paste. Due to the heterogeneity of the concrete, its properties such as strength, Revised 30 March 2023
stiffness, permeability, etc. show variations in space. In scientific literature, several investigations have Accepted 5 May 2023
shown the influence of spatial variation of material properties on the reliability of reinforced concrete
KEYWORDS
structures, and it was concluded that spatial variability and spatial correlation should be accounted for Empirical formulations;
to obtain accurate estimations of, e.g. the load-bearing capacity of degrading concrete structures. For random fields; reinforced
this purpose, random fields are often applied in literature. To apply these random fields in a structural concrete; structural
reliability analysis, a correlation model and corresponding correlation length need to be defined. reliability; spatial variability;
Nevertheless, experimental results are not always available to derive the correlation model, and hence correlation model
some modelling assumptions are required. However, there is no consensus yet in literature on which
correlation model to apply for the different concrete properties. This paper provides an overview of
different correlation models applied in literature in relation to the analysis of reinforced concrete
structures.

1. Introduction handled by the consideration of different independent random

Concrete is a heterogeneous material, consisting of different
constituents such as aggregates of different sizes and cement
paste. Due to the heterogeneity of the concrete, there is some
spatial variation of its different properties, such as its
strength, permeability, etc. When performing calculations on
the resistance of reinforced concrete elements or when evalu-
ating their probability of failure, this spatial variation of the
concrete properties is often not accounted for. Nevertheless,
depending on the situation the consideration of spatial vari-
ation could have a significant influence on the results, since it
might for example alter the location of the most critical sec-
tion. Therefore, modelling this spatial variation and spatial
correlation of the concrete properties when analysing a rein-
forced concrete structure can be of significant importance.
Furthermore, in the assessment of existing structures, the
consideration of spatial correlation allows to use information
gathered at one point in the structure also for neighbouring
(spatially correlated) points of the structure.
In general, one can distinguish two types of spatial variation
of concrete properties: (1) a systematic variation, such as vari-
ation of mean value and standard deviation, and (2) random
spatial variations superimposed on this systematic variation
(Firouzi & Rahai, 2013). (Tao & Chen, 2022) proposed a hier-
archical model to describe (spatial) variability and correlation
in concrete structures, where the systematic variations are
described by three levels of hierarchy corresponding to: (1) dif-
ferent structures, (2) different floors in a structure, and (3) dif-
ferent components in a floor. These systematic variations
originate for example from different concrete casts, and can be
variables (Firouzi & Rahai, 2013; Li & Ye, 2018). The random
spatial variation superimposed on this systematic variation (i.e.
hierarchy level 4 according to (Tao & Chen, 2022)) arises from
the random distribution of aggregates and pores, the presence
of microcracks, etc. (Engelund & Sørensen, 1998), and can be
modelled by random fields. These can be one-dimensional
fields for beam elements (Engelund & Sørensen, 1998; Sudret,
Defaux, & Pendola, 2007) or two-dimensional fields for large
surfaces.
The current paper focusses on modelling spatial variabil-
ity and correlation in concrete structures by means of these
random fields. Research into this area has been steadily
increasing since the early 1990s as evidenced by a Scopus
literature search with the queries ‘spatial variability’ and
‘concrete’ extended to the title, abstract, and keywords bib-
liographic fields (TITLE-ABS-KEY) (see Figure 1a). The
search yielded about 263 relevant documents up to March
2023. The majority of these publications relates to the appli-
cation of spatial variability approaches, whereas significantly
less researchers are explicitly targeting modelling issues or
are focussed on deriving spatial characteristics from experi-
mental data, as indicated in Figure 1b.
A random field model is characterized by a correlation
function describing the correlation between two different spa-
tial coordinates. In general, if two points close to each other
are considered, the correlation will be higher than for two
points located far from each other. Different sources can be
found in literature where these random fields are applied to
model concrete properties. When assigning a random field

CONTACT Wouter Botte Wouter.Botte@UGent.be

ß 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 W. BOTTE ET AL.
Figure 1. Results of a Scopus literature search: (a) number of papers as a function of the year of publication; (b) number of papers per topic.
model to a concrete component, for example a beam, the
concrete properties within this structure will be correlated to
each other, where the mutual correlation between two points
typically depends on their distance. Different correlation
functions can be found in literature to describe the correl-
ation structure, and, in general, these can be characterized by
the so-called scale of fluctuation. This scale of fluctuation is a
measure for the correlation and its rate of change. The
smaller the scale of fluctuation, the shorter the length over
which a strong correlation exists between the considered
material properties and the more variation can be expected
on the values of these material properties over the structure.
For a larger scale of fluctuation, the change in material prop-
erty will be more gradual. The correlation model to be used
and the corresponding scale of fluctuation can be hard to
quantify as a considerable amount of data is acquired. Hence,
when consulting literature on the random field modelling of
concrete properties, different correlation functions with vary-
ing scales of fluctuation are found and there is no general
consensus yet on the modelling of the spatial variation or
correlation of concrete properties.
This paper provides an overview of the random field
modelling approaches used in literature in relation to con-
crete structures. The main parts of the paper are illustrated
by means of Figure 2. Section 2 provides a general introduc-
tion to modelling approaches for random field modelling,
while Section 3 summarizes the correlation models for con-
crete structures as found in literature based on engineering
judgement or data analysis. Next, Section 4 discusses the
influence of spatial variability on structural reliability.
Section 5 provides a discussion on other aspects related to
spatial variability which are important to consider, and
Section 6 summarizes the main conclusions.
2. Modelling spatial variability by means of random
fields
The definition of a random field is given in Section 2.1, dif-
ferent types of correlation functions applied in literature are
summarized in Section 2.2. Section 2.3 presents different
modelling approaches for random fields, while Section 2.4
treats the discretisation aspects of random fields.
2.1. Definition


A random field X ðt Þ, t 2 D is a collection of random var-
iables representing uncertain values at different spatial coor-
dinates t in a physical domain D. This domain D should be
bounded and countable in order to be able to specify the
joint distribution of all random variables defining the ran-
dom field (Uribe, Papaioannou, Betz, & Straub, 2020). The
domain D has dimension d and hence D  Rd : The defin-
ition of a random field generally consists of a mean m(t)
and a variation described by the covariance function C(s),
with s the distance between two points in D. For second-
order stationary fields, C(0) ¼ r2.
In a homogeneous field, the mean value is constant along
the field or, in other words, the marginal probability distri-
bution function (PDF) is the same at all spatial coordinates.
This assumption is often applied in many practical cases
(Sudret et al., 2007). Nevertheless, for large structures, the
assumption of a homogeneous field is not acceptable, since
for example the mean of a field representing environmental
parameters can vary significantly for a large bridge in a
maritime environment (Sudret et al., 2007). This can be
solved by subdividing the structure in members that are
dealt with independently and to which different homoge-
neous fields can be assigned, e.g. as indicated in (Aloisio
et al., 2022). Since concrete structures are produced accord-
ing to quality control processes, the variation in mean value
along (elements of) the structure can be considered small
and the use of a homogeneous field can be justified in case
of non-degrading structures (Tran et al., 2012).
Gaussian random fields are the simplest models for ran-
dom fields. Random variables have a Gaussian distribution
and the interdependency between two points is only a func-
tion of the distance. The correlation between these two
points is modelled by a correlation function, of which
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 3

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the paper outline.

different types exist (cfr. Section 2.2). A Gaussian random correlation lengths and sx and sy the separation distances in
field is hence completely defined by the mean and covari- x and y direction. This correlation function approaches 0
ance function. for large separation distances s: Alternatively, a lower bound
In case of concrete structures, however, often non- could also be imposed to this correlation function. In that
Gaussian distributions are adopted such as a lognormal (e.g. case, the correlation function is given by (JCSS, 2001):
the concrete strength (JCSS, 2001)) or a beta-distribution 0 !  2 !1
(e.g. the concrete cover or critical chloride content accord- j s j 2 sy 
qðsÞ ¼ q0 þ ð1  q0 Þexp @ A
x
 (2)
ing (fib, 2006)). These distributions can deviate significantly dx2 dy2
from a Gaussian distribution and non-Gaussian random
fields should be employed to describe their spatial variabil- In (JCSS, 2001), q0 ¼ 0:5 is assumed for concrete result-
ity. Such non-Gaussian fields can be obtained from the non- ing from the same batch, to represent the correlation that is
linear transformation of an underlying Gaussian random at least present within the concrete batch. If parts of the
field. One class of algorithms that can be used for this trans- structure are resulting from different concrete batches, these
formation is based on the concept of translation fields could be assumed uncorrelated. Another correlation model
(Grigoriu, 1995) and involves iterative schemes to reflect is the Gauss-Markov correlation model or exponential cor-
both the non-Gaussian probability density function and the relation model, as given by:
spectral density function of the process or field (see e.g.    !!
jsx j sy 
Bocchini & Deodatis, 2008). Alternatively, Liu and Der qðsÞ ¼ exp   (3)
Kiureghian (1986) proposed a formulation for a multivariate dx dy
distribution model with some prescribed marginals and
where, dx ¼ hx =2 and dy ¼ hy =2: The simplest correlation
covariance. The latter approach allows for the transform-
model is the linear correlation model, which is given by:
ation of a discretized field from an underlying discretized 8  !
Gaussian field for a selection of non-Gaussian distributions. >
< jsx j sy 
qðsÞ ¼ 1  sx < dx and sy < dy (4)
> dx dy
:
2.2. Common types of correlation functions 0 otherwise

The correlation function qðsÞ of a random field describes where, dx ¼ hx and dy ¼ hy :

the correlation between two points at a distance s: The cor- The previously mentioned correlation functions (1)-(4)
relation is one if the distance between the two points is zero are only described by the scales of fluctuation of the random
and decreases to zero or some lower bound on the correl- field. A last correlation function, the Mat
ern correlation
ation for an increasing distance s: In this section, the most function is given by Equation (5), and additionally depends
common correlation models that can be found in literature on a smoothness parameter t:
 pffiffiffi t  pffiffiffi 
are summarized. The Gaussian or squared exponential cor- 1 2 tjsj 2 tjsj
relation function in case of a two-dimensional random field qðsÞ ¼ Kt (5)
CðtÞ2t1 d d
is given by:
0 !  2 !1 pffiffi
sy  pCðtþ1Þ
jsx j 2
where, d ¼ h ptffi CðtÞ2 , C(.) is the Gamma function, and
qðsÞ ¼ exp @  A (1)
dx2 dy2 Kt(.) the Modified Bessel function of the second kind.
It should be noted that there are many other forms for a
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi
where, dx ¼ hx = p and dy ¼ hy = p, with hx and hy the correlation function beyond the ones provided above. It is
scales of fluctuation in a 2D random field, dx and dy the not possible to establish the scale of fluctuation for any
4 W. BOTTE ET AL.
form of the correlation function. In such cases, the approach
presented by Vanmarcke (1983) and Shinozuka and
Deodatis (1988) based on the spectral analysis can be
adopted to derive the correlation length. Nevertheless, it
appears that the correlation functions presented in this
manuscript are the most frequently adopted in literature
related to spatial correlation in concrete structures (cfr.
infra).
2.3. Modelling of random fields
In practical applications, it is necessary to represent a ran-
dom field by means of a finite set of random variables,
which allows for a computationally tractable approximation.
By means of discretization, a continuous random field is
discretized by a finite number of point values. As such, at
each point, a random variable is created. Various methods
exist to discretize a random field. However, for each of these
methods, the achieved accuracy depends on the size of the
finite set of random variables. The three main methods for
discretising a random field are: 1) point discretization meth-
ods, 2) average discretization methods, and 3) series expan-
sion methods. The most common discretization methods
are summarized in the following.
2.3.1. Point discretisation methods
A first point discretization method is the midpoint method
(Der Kiureghian & Ke, 1988). In the midpoint method, the
random field is discretized in N elements of identical size
and shape. Within each of these elements, the random field
is then represented by a single random variable, equal to the
value of the random field at the centroid of the element.
The elements remain statistically correlated according to the
correlation function assigned to the random field.
Advantages of the midpoint method are (Stewart & Suo,
2009):
 The ease of computation;
 Numerically stable results;
 Applicable to Gaussian and non-Gaussian fields.
However, according to (Haldar & Mahadevan, 2000;
Sudret & Der Kiureghian, 2000), the midpoint method tends
to over-represent the variability of the random field within
each element. Nevertheless, it is very frequently applied due
to its simplicity and practical application.
A second point discretization method is the shape func-
tion method (Liu, Belytschko, & Mani, 1986; Matthies,
Brenner, Bucher, & Soares, 1997), where the random field
in each element is approximated using nodal values and
shape functions (referring to finite element nodes and shape
functions). Each realization of the random field is hence a
continuous function, which is an advantage over the mid-
point method where realizations are piecewise constant with
discontinuities at the element boundaries.
A third point discretisation method is the integration
point method (Matthies et al., 1997), referring to the
integration points of a finite element model. Assuming that
every integration appearing in the finite element resolution
scheme is obtained from integrand evaluation at each Gauss
point of each element, the random field is discretised by
associating a single random variable to each of these Gauss
points. This gives accurate results for short correlation
lengths. However, the total number of random variables
involved increases dramatically with the size of the problem.
A fourth point discretization method is the Optimal
Linear Estimation Method (OLE) (Li & Der Kiureghian,
1993). This method discretizes a random field by consider-
ing the value of the random field in a discrete set of points.
The values of the random field at these points are collected
in a random vector. Given the values of the random field in
the discretization points, the theory of linear regression pro-
vides an optimal approximation to other points, which min-
imizes the variance of the error.
2.3.2. Average discretization methods
A first average discretization method is the spatial average
method (Der Kiureghian & Ke, 1988), which defines the
approximated field in each element as a constant being
computed as the average of the original field over the elem-
ent. This method under-represents the local variance of the
random field. A second average discretisation method is the
weighted integral method (Deodatis, 1991). This method is
claimed not to require any discretization of the random field
and thus seems to be particularly attractive. However, this
method is mesh-dependent and its accuracy is questionable
for small correlation lengths with respect to the size of the
integration domain.
2.3.3. Series expansion methods
A first series expansion method is the Karhunen-Loeve
(KL) expansion, which starts from the series expansion of
the covariance matrix, based on its spectral representation.
After determining the eigenvalues kj and eigenvectors /j of
the covariance matrix, the random field can be represented
by a series expansion according to:
X
nd qffiffiffiffi
^ ðsÞ ¼ lX þ
H ðs Þ  H /j kj 1j (7)
j¼1
where, 1j are mutually uncorrelated random variables with
mean 0 and standard deviation 1, with a Gaussian distribu-
tion if the random field is also Gaussian. Information on
numerical methods for the discretization of random fields
by means of the Karhunen-Loeve expansion can be found in
(Betz, Papaioannou, & Straub, 2014). Due to the covariance
eigenfunction basis, the mean square error resulting from
truncation is minimized with respect to a complete basis.
The KL expansion of Gaussian fields is also almost surely
convergent. The KL expansion always under-represents the
true variance of the field.
A second series expansion method is the orthogonal ser-
ies expansion method, which is the same as the Karhunen-
Loeve method, but with a numerical computation of the
eigenfunctions. A third series expansion method is

the EOLE method. This method always under-represents
the true variance of the field. The EOLE method can be
used to discretize the random field into a set of random var-
iables H(s) (Li & Der Kiureghian, 1993). By spectral ana-
lysis, the data is compacted and then pointwise regression
of the original random field to selected values of the field is
applied. The EOLE method is computationally efficient for
strongly correlated random fields. The random field is dis-
cretized by considering its value at a discrete set of points.
As such, the random field is given by a vector of random
variables H(s), with s the location coordinate. When the val-
ues of the random field at these points are given, the other
points can be approximated by the theory of linear regres-
sion. The optimal linear estimation (OLE) of this random
variable onto the random vector X is given by:
^ ðsÞ ¼ l þ RHx T ðsÞRXX 1 ðX  lX Þ
H ðs Þ  H
where, lX is the mean vector and RXX the covariance matrix
of the field X. The components of the vector RHx ðsÞ are
given by:
 provided in Table 1.
RHx j ðsÞ ¼ CoV H ðsÞ, H ðsj Þ ¼ r2 qðs, sj Þ (9)
where, r2 is the variance of the random field and qðs, sj Þ the
correlation function.
In a next step, the EOLE method proceeds by decompos-
ing the vector X:
X
nd qffiffiffiffi
X ¼ lX þ /j kj 1j
j¼1
where kj and /j are the j-th (of the nd) eigenvalue and
eigenvector of the covariance matrix RXX : Introducing this
in Equation (8) gives:
X
nd
^ ðsÞ ¼ l þ RHx T ðsÞRXX 1 ðX  lX Þ
H ðs Þ  H /j
j¼1
The uncorrelated random variables 1j are also Gaussian
and mutually independent in the case of Gaussian random
fields.
To determine the required number of modes in the
expansions (Equations (7) and (11)) (since an infinite sum
is not practical in use), the summation is taken over the first
nd modes of the covariance matrix. The number of modes
nd can be based on the acceptable error emax and the trace
TrðRS Þ of the covariance matrix according to (Sudret & Der
Kiureghian, 2000):
1 X nd
eð n d Þ ¼ 1  kj  emax
TrðRS Þ j¼1
Hence, if the maximum acceptable error is 5%, the sum
of the first nd eigenvalues kj , ranked from high to low,
should at least be equal to 95% of the trace of the covari-
ance matrix (TrðRS Þ).
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 5
2.4. Element lengths for discretization adopted in the
literature
To properly account for the spatial variation embedded in
the random field modelling, the structure under investiga-
tion is usually discretized in elements. Different ways of dis-
cretising the structure have already been summarized in the
previous section. Nevertheless, the size of the elements in
the discretized structure will influence the results. Generally,
convergence of the results or probabilities of failure should
be checked by gradually refining the element size, which
was shown one of the first times in (Shinozuka & Deodatis,
1988). Furthermore, also the nature of site inspections or
design specifications could be used as a basis for the deci-
sion on element lengths. In case of corrosion modelling,
also the nature of the corrosion process should be accounted
for (Sterrit, Chryssanthopoulos, & Shetty, 2001). However,
(8) these aspects are not a clear basis for judgement regarding
the element length. Hence, some suggestions on the
required element size as found in literature can serve as
starting points in the analysis. A summary of element sizes
relative to the correlation length as found in literature is
According to Der Kiureghian and Ke (1988), the size of
the elements should be one fourth to one half of the correl-
ation length. Also (Shinozuka & Deodatis, 1988) and
(Englund, 1997) suggested element lengths smaller than half
the correlation length. Therefore, in (Hajializadeh,
OBrien et al., 2016), for a correlation length of dx ¼ 3 m,
an element size of 1.5 m or less is suggested for load and
(10) resistance modelled by a random field with a squared expo-
nential correlation model with a lower boundary on the cor-
relation (Equation (2)).
In (Stewart & Suo, 2009), element lengths are chosen to
be dependent on: (i) the ability of corroded reinforcement
to redistribute stresses to adjacent reinforcement via the
qffiffiffiffi concrete matrix, (ii) mechanical behaviour of the reinforce-
kj 1j ment, (iii) anchorage length of reinforcement, and (iv)
geometry and spacing of reinforcement, resulting in element
(11) lengths between 100 and 1000 mm. The applied discret-
ization method was the midpoint method. For a 1D beam
with a shear failure mode influenced by pitting corrosion,
an element length equal to the effective depth of the beam
is suggested. For the investigated case, this corresponded to
an element length of 750 mm, for a scale of fluctuation
equal to 2 m and a Gaussian correlation model.
Engelund and Sørensen (1998) used element lengths of
100 mm, which are smaller than half the assumed correl-
ation length and using Gaussian random fields, with the
scale of fluctuation between 200 and 500 mm. According to
modelling guidelines in the finite element software (DIANA
FEA BV, 2017), for a Gaussian correlation model, the elem-
ent size should be smaller than dx /2 to dx /3 and for an
(12)
exponential correlation function, element sizes of dx /5 to
dx /10 are generally considered adequate.
Vu and Stewart (2005) suggested to use not too large ele-
ments in order not to underestimate the spatial variability.
On the other hand, too small elements could induce numer-
ical problems (for example in the decomposition of the
6 W. BOTTE ET AL.
Table 1. Ratios of element lengths to correlation lengths found in literature.
References Correlation model
(Der Kiureghian & Ke, 1988)
(Englund, 1997)
(Stewart & Suo, 2009) Gaussian
(Engelund & Sørensen, 1998) Gaussian
(Engelund & Sørensen, 1998) Gaussian
(DIANA FEA BV, 2017) Gaussian
(Vu & Stewart, 2005) Gaussian
(Li, 2004) Gaussian with lower bound
(Hajializadeh, OBrien et al., 2016) Gaussian with lower bound
(Straub & Faber, 2007) Exponential
(DIANA FEA BV, 2017) Exponential
covariance matrix). They found that the proportion of
cracking increased as the size of the elements decreased
because of the higher correlations between these smaller ele-
ments. On the other hand, for too large elements the spatial
variability was largely underestimated. They finally suggested
an element size of 0.5 m for their specific application (con-
sidering a correlation length between 0.5 m and 2 m).
In general, the smallest elements suggested in literature
are equal to 10% of the correlation lengths and the largest
elements are equal to 140% of the correlation length.
Nevertheless, the largest share of investigations suggest to
take an element length with a maximum size of half the cor-
relation length. Hence, the authors suggest not to exceed
this upper boundary. On average the values provided in
Table 1 indeed corresponds to an element length of half the
correlation length.
3. Empirical formulations for spatial variability in
concrete structures
In current literature, correlation models to describe spatial
variability in concrete structures are either based on engin-
eering judgement or derived from experimental data.
Section 3.1 provides an overview of the techniques which
can be used for the latter. Subsequently, Section 3.2 provides
a summary of the correlation models adopted in literature
to describe spatial variability in concrete structures.
3.1. Techniques for the determination of the correlation
model based on experimental data
Different methods exist to determine the correlation model
and correlation length based on an experimental dataset.
Most methods fit an analytical correlation function to the
experimental one. A first method to determine the correl-
ation model is the curve-fitting method (Vanmarcke, 1983),
also known as the least squares method (LSM). In this
method, the parameters of the analytical correlation func-
tion are adjusted as such that the best fit to the experimen-
tal one is obtained. The correlation length and scale of
fluctuation are adjusted to find the best fit between the ana-
lytical function and the data.
A second method is the maximum likelihood method
(MLM) (Li, 2004). MLM is a method that determines values
for the parameters of a model by maximising the likelihood
that the process described by the model produced the data
Element length D dx hx D/dx
0.25-0.50
0.5
750 mm 3545 mm 2000 mm 0.21
100 mm 354 mm  886 mm 200 - 500 mm 0.28-0.11
350 mm 350 mm 1
0.5-0.33
0.5 m 0.5 m  2 m 1-0.25
2m 2m 1
1.5 m 3m 0.50
800 mm 566 mm 1.4
0.1-0.2
that were actually observed. The likelihood is then defined
as the likelihood of the analytical correlation model given
the experimental data, i.e., it represents a measure of how
good the analytical model successes in explaining the obser-
vations. However, in (O’Connor & Kenshel, 2013) the MLM
was found to be inconsistent and did not yield a unique
value for the investigated scenarios.
A third and more complex method is to determine the
correlation length based on Markov Chain Monte Carlo
(MCMC) sampling, as applied in (Criel, Caspeele, &
Taerwe, 2014). A prior distribution f’ for the parameters in
the analytical correlation function is updated to a posterior
distribution f”, by application of:
f 00 ðr, hÞ ¼ cf 0 ðhÞL qexp ðsÞjh (6)
where, c is a constant to normalize the distribution, h the
scale of fluctuation, qexp ðsÞ the experimental correlation
function, and L qexp ðsÞjh the likelihood function.
It should be pointed out that generally, the mean and
variance should be known in order to estimate the correl-
ation length that should be used for further discretization
(Malioka, 2009). Based on measurements, first the mean
and variance can be estimated by the sample mean and
sample variance. Practical applications through the use of
actual data can be found in (Fenton, 1994, 1999) and
(Malioka, Faber, Leemann, & Hoffmann, 2007). The number
and locations of measurements used for the estimation of
the correlation length influence the latter value.
Measurement locations should be chosen as such that they
enable to include both small scale and large scale variability
(Malioka, 2009).
3.2. Correlation models used in literature
In literature, a wide variety of models and corresponding
parameters are found for modelling spatial variability in
concrete structures with random fields. The Probabilistic
Model Code of the Joint Committee on Structural Safety
(JCSS, 2001) provides a probabilistic model for concrete
properties taking into account spatial correlation. Different
concrete properties are defined as a function of the concrete
compressive strength, where the latter is modelled by a ran-
dom field with a marginal lognormal distribution. The sug-
gested correlation length is 5 m (with a residual correlation
q0 ¼ 0:5Þ, and is only valid for structural elements. This
correlation length seems rather large compared to other

references, which reported values between 1 m and 3.5 m
(Hajializadeh, OBrien et al., 2016; Stewart & Mullard, 2007;
Stewart & Suo, 2009).
Large correlation lengths are deemed not appropriate for
smaller elements and for studying local failure. (Xu & Li,
2018) found significantly lower values for the scale of fluctu-
ation of the concrete compressive strength. Moreover, they
found different values depending on whether the spatial
variability was estimated using non-destructive testing by
means of the rebound hammer test and destructive testing
on drilled cores from beams with a length of 2 m. It should
be noted that the limited length of the latter specimens does
not allow estimating a scale of fluctuation that could be of
similar (or larger) magnitude.
Vu and Stewart (2005) justify the use of a Gaussian cor-
relation model by the statement that in other fields of
engineering this correlation function has been widely used
to represent the spatial variability of material properties and
loadings. As spatial variability plays a crucial role in the
assessment of existing structures, a large share of investiga-
tions focuses on the assessment of the correlation structure
of parameters associated to deterioration, such as the diffu-
sion coefficient, concrete cover and chloride surface concen-
tration in a structure exposed to chlorides.
Li and Ye (2018) found that a Gaussian correlation
model with a correlation length of 0.13 m fitted best to the
experimental data for the concrete cover measured in the
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau sea-link project. The authors
attributed this significantly smaller value of the correlation
length (compared to other existing literature) to the fact
that the value was obtained from in-situ measurements,
while values in existing literature are often based on engin-
eering judgement.
Fluctuations of properties due to random variations at
micro level of the concrete matrix should be described by
a field with a small correlation length. Consequently,
(Engelund & Sørensen, 1998) suggest a random variation
with correlation lengths corresponding to scales of fluctu-
ation of 200-500 mm because of differences in compaction
of the concrete. They state that this difference in compac-
tion influences the diffusion coefficient of the concrete and
hence this property should be modelled by random fields. A
similar order of magnitude for the correlation length of the
diffusion coefficient (250 mm) was found by (Li & Ye, 2018)
based on the experimental analysis of chloride profiles
determined on cores drilled from an existing girder in the
splashing zone. (Tran et al., 2012) found significantly larger
correlation lengths of 0.8 m and 1.4 m for different expos-
ure conditions by means of maximum likelihood estimates
on available measurement data. A similar value was found
based on measurements of chloride conductivity by (Straub,
Malioka, & Faber, 2009) who derived a correlation radius r
of 80 cm for the diffusion coefficient based on Equations
(13) and (14):
 
n=2 1=2 1 T 1
fX ðxÞ ¼ ð2pÞ jCXX j exp  ðx  lX Þ CXX ðx  lX Þ
2 relation lengths vary from 0.1 m to 5 m. It should be
(13)
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 7
0 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1
ðui  uj Þ2 þ ðvi  vj Þ2 A
qXX ðxi , xj Þ ¼ exp @ (14)
prffiffi
2
Engelund and Sørensen (1998) state that also the thresh-
old chloride concentration (at which corrosion initiates)
may be modelled by a random field since it depends on the
humidity of the concrete which in its turn is related to the
diffusion coefficient. Hence, similar correlation lengths
could be assumed.
Variations in the chloride surface concentration could
arise from a varying amount of spray of salt-containing
water (Engelund & Sørensen, 1998). Engelund and Sørensen
(1998) assumed the scale of fluctuation for the surface con-
centration to be of the same order of magnitude as the scale
fluctuation for the diffusion coefficient. Nevertheless, meas-
urements of chloride profiles are often made at distances
much larger than 500 mm, and can hence not support this
statement. In (Karimi, 2001) a correlation length of 1.96 m
has been measured on site. These measurements are then
used as a basis for the models assumed by (Vu & Stewart,
2005). (Tran et al., 2012) calculated correlation lengths dx
for an exponential correlation model based on available
measurement data and maximum likelihood estimates. As
such, for the surface chloride concentration a correlation
length of 0.7 m and one of 1.9 m was found, each for a dif-
ferent exposure condition.
(Straub, 2011) applies a Gaussian random field with an
exponential correlation model for the surface chloride con-
centration and the critical chloride concentration, and a log-
normal random field for the concrete cover. However, the
basis for the assumptions regarding the correlation models
is not indicated. The models assumed by (Stewart & Suo,
2009) are based on the findings of (Stewart & Mullard,
2007), who found that corrosion damage probabilities are
not very sensitive if the scale of fluctuation varies from 1.0
m to 3.0 m. (Hajializadeh, OBrien et al., 2016) use engineer-
ing judgement to make choices on the correlation function
and its variables because of the lack of large amounts of
spatial data. However, they indicate that the value of the
correlation length should be chosen in accordance with the
length of the elements in which the random field will be
discretized in order to avoid computational difficulties.
Although not explicitly reporting a correlation model and
associated correlation length, (Pedrosa & Andrade, 2021)
reported a strong correlation between concrete resistivity
values measured in 50  40 x 10 cm reinforced concrete
slabs, while measured corrosion rates did not show any cor-
relation. Also considering the corrosion process, (Zhou, Li,
Wen, & Deodatis, 2023) did not found any correlation
between measurements of the remaining steel section.
Nevertheless, these measurements were performed on pieces
of 20 mm from reinforcement bars with a total length of
only 500 mm.
A summary of the adopted models and parameters for
these properties is provided in Table 2. In general, the cor-
pointed out that it only makes sense to apply these
8 W. BOTTE ET AL.

Table 2. Correlation models assumed in literature for different concrete properties.

Variable hx [m] dx [m] Correlation model q0 [-] Basis References
Concrete compressive strength fc 3.5 2 Gaussian E (Stewart & Mullard, 2007; Stewart & Suo, 2009; Vu
& Stewart, 2005)
1.8 1 Gaussian 0-0.5 E (Hajializadeh, OBrien et al., 2016)
0.45-0.74 0.25-0.42 Gaussian Dlab (Xu & Li, 2018)
8.9 5 Gaussian 0.5 U (JCSS, 2001)
Concrete cover c 3.5 2 Gaussian E (Li, 2004; Sterrit et al., 2001; Stewart & Mullard,
2007; Stewart & Suo, 2009; Vu & Stewart, 2005)
2 1 Exponential E (Straub, 2011)
1.8 1 Gaussian 0-0.5 E (Hajializadeh, Stewart et al., 2016)
3.5 2 Gaussian 0 or 0.5 E (Ying, Vrouwenvelder, & Wijnants, 2003)
0.23 0.13 Gaussian Dis (Li & Ye, 2018)
Surface chloride concentration Cs 3.5 2 Gaussian E (Li, 2004; Stewart & Mullard, 2007; Stewart & Suo,
2009; Vu & Stewart, 2005)
/ 1.96 Gaussian Dis (Karimi, 2001)
/ 1 / E (Englund, 1997)
4 2 Exponential E (Straub, 2011)
3.5 2 Gaussian 0 or 0.5 E (Ying et al., 2003)
1.4-3.8 0.7-1.9 Exponential Dis (Tran et al., 2012)
0.2– .5 / Gaussian E (Engelund & Sørensen, 1998)
1.8-3.7 1.0-2.1 Gaussian Dis (O’Connor & Kenshel, 2013)
Water-to-cement ratio w/c / 0.5 Gaussian E (Kersner, Novak, Teply, & Rusina, 1998)
Young’s modulus Ec / 2 Gaussian E (Kersner et al., 1998)
Poisson’s coefficient  / 2 Gaussian E (Kersner et al., 1998)
Critical chloride concentration Ccr 4 2 Exponential E (Straub, 2011)
0.2  0.5 / Gaussian E (Engelund & Sørensen, 1998)
Diffusion coefficient D 4 2 Exponential E (Straub, 2011)
1.6-2.8 0.8-1.4
pffiffiffi Exponential Dis (Tran et al., 2012)
1.1 0:8= 2 Exponential Dis (Straub et al., 2009)
0.2  0.5 / Gaussian E (Engelund & Sørensen, 1998)
0.44 0.25 Gaussian Dis (Li & Ye, 2018)
1.6-4.8 0.8-2.7 Gaussian Dis (O’Connor & Kenshel, 2013)
Model and values based on assumptions/expert judgement (E), derived from data in laboratory (Dlab) or in situ (Dis), unknown (U)

correlation lengths for the assessment of larger structural
elements. If the dimensions of the investigated structure are
smaller than the correlation length, spatial correlation
should not be considered.
The different correlation models from Table 2 are also
visualized in Figure 3. Here it can be seen that there is a
clear difference in the behaviour of the exponential and
Gaussian correlation models. In addition, the effect of the
lower bound on the correlation is clearly illustrated.
Moreover, when considering all the correlation lengths sug-
gested in literature, a large scatter of the correlation at a
specific coordinate can be found. This scatter can be attrib-
uted to a number of reasons:
 The reported values are often based on ‘engineering
judgement’, due to a lack of sufficient data.
 Different mix proportions and curing actions influence
the microstructure (pore structure, air void content,
chloride binding capacity) of concrete and therefore the
spatial characteristic of parameters influenced by this.
 Different exposure conditions for degrading concrete
specimens.
 Inconsistencies in whether the scale of fluctuation or the
correlation length is reported.
 The method that is used to fit an analytical correlation
function to experimental data.
It seems therefore of crucial importance to provide all
these details when reporting on the scale of fluctuation
and/or the correlation length. Furthermore, the considerable
scatter of the reported values in literature proves the pos-
sible benefit of the application of Bayesian updating techni-
ques, where prior information regarding the scale of
fluctuation is updated by means of in situ measurements
(Criel et al., 2014).
4. Application of modelling spatial variability in
structural reliability analysis
Spatial variability might influence the results from a struc-
tural reliability analysis. By accounting for spatial variation
of the material properties, the heaviest loaded section might
not necessarily be the most critical. The critical section can
shift towards a less loaded one, due to its reduced resistance.
Hence, neglecting possible spatial variation can lead to an
over- or underestimation of the structural resistance and
corresponding reliability. Furthermore, the consideration of
spatial variability seems to be inevitable in case of degrading
concrete structures due to the possible differences in expos-
ure conditions and because spatial correlation allows provid-
ing information regarding uninspected areas of the
structure. This section provides some application examples
from literature that illustrate how accounting for spatial
variability influences the results of a structural reliability
analysis.
In (Stewart & Suo, 2009), a 1D beam is considered as a
series system consisting of different elements, where the
resistance and load effect are calculated at midpoint of each

Figure 3. Correlation models from Table 2.
element. Two bounds are assumed on structural reliability:
(1) all reinforcement in a RC structural component exhibits
ductile behaviour, or (2) all reinforcement in a RC structural
component exhibits brittle behaviour. Random fields are
assigned to concrete properties, concrete cover and surface
chloride concentration. After defining the stochastic random
fields, random variables are generated using Monte Carlo
simulation methods for each element, and, using the correl-
ation function, the spatially variable parameters of each
element are then defined. The purpose of the paper was to
investigate the effect of the spatial and time-dependent vari-
ability of pitting corrosion on cover cracking, shear failure
and flexural failure. They concluded, among others, that the
location of observed cover cracking is an important indica-
tor of structural reliability, with an increase in failure prob-
ability with a factor of 44 to 130 compared to the uncracked
case. Nevertheless, this spatial variation of cover cracking
could not have been accounted for without the spatial vari-
ability modelling. They also observed that the structural
reliabilites are not significantly affected by the element
lengths, but that there was a great effect of the assumed cor-
relation. Hence, to arrive at more accurate predictions of
the probability of failure, an improved accuracy of spatially
varying probability models (such as random fields) is
required.
Furthermore, in (Tran et al., 2012), a beam and RC
bridge girder subjected to corrosion are considered, with
random fields assigned to the surface chloride concentration
and diffusion coefficient. The beam and girder are consid-
ered as series systems to calculate the reliability index under
bending, where the series system consists of the different
elements of the discretized random field. Each of these ele-
ments is modelled as a parallel system of the different
reinforcement bars in the element. The results of Tran et al.
(2012) showed that taking into account the spatial variability
influences the reliability calculations of the structure: con-
sidering spatial variability led to failure probabilities of 10 to
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 9
50% higher than the probabilities of failure without taking
into account spatial variability.
Ying et al. (2003) modelled the surface chloride concen-
tration and the concrete cover with random fields in the
assessment of the structural reliability of a part of a rein-
forced concrete bridge subjected to degradation. They found
that the degree of spatial variability has a large influence on
the structural reliability analysis. The probability of failure
becomes larger for a decrease in correlation length. There is
also a significant difference in damage situation over time,
dependent on the degree of correlation. They state the lack
of practical measurements and tests as an important aspect
for future research.
Hajializadeh, Stewart et al. (2016) model concrete proper-
ties and concrete cover as spatial variables. As such, a 2D
field of the resistance of an RC slab bridge is found. Time-
dependent resistance and load effects are estimated for each
element in the discretized random field. The probability of
failure is found to depend both on load and resistance cor-
relation, and this effect is a function of time and failure cri-
terion. The effect reduces as the number of required failed
elements increases and the time increases. As stated above,
the influence of this correlation model on failure has also
been observed by (Stewart & Suo, 2009) and (Ying et al.,
2003).
In (Li & Ye, 2018), a random field modelling method
was used to simulate the surface deterioration of reinforced
concrete structures in aggressive chloride environment,
which considered the spatial variability of concrete cover,
chloride diffusion coefficient and other deterioration param-
eters. The authors found that this method provides add-
itional and useful information for the probabilistic
durability design and possible maintenance strategies at
member level.
(Peng, Tang, Xiao, Cheng, & Zhang, 2021) found that
the probability of corrosion initiation considering spatial
variability is 13–18% greater than that without consideration
of spatial variability. This indicates that neglecting spatial
10 W. BOTTE ET AL.
variations in evaluating probability of corrosion initiation
overestimates the structural reliability. In (Lee & Mosalam,
2004), it is illustrated how for a RC column subjected to an
axial and lateral load, accounting for the spatial variability
of concrete and steel properties (compressive strength,
Young’s modulus and yield strength) and cover thickness
influences the results of the probabilistic strength analysis. If
the spatial variability of concrete strength is neglected, the
strength variation of the RC member can be overestimated.
Finally, also (Geyer, Papaioannou, Kunz, & Straub, 2020)
illustrate how the use of random fields enables a more
detailed assessment of the condition of a structure. This is
enabled by not only using measurements of the material
properties, but combining these with information on their
spatial locations. Neglecting the spatial variation of these
properties could result in non-conservative estimates on the
condition of the structure.
Not only for ultimate limit state verifications, but also for
predictions of the damage extent it is beneficial or even
necessary to account for spatial variability of concrete prop-
erties. For example, when investigating a reinforced concrete
structure subjected to corrosion, observations will indicate a
spatial variability of corrosion cracks on the concrete sur-
face. Hence, in (Vu & Stewart, 2005), random fields are
assigned to concrete cover, concrete compressive strength
and surface choloride concentration, and applied in a spatial
time-dependent reliability analysis for severe cracking of
reinforced concrete structures. This enables the prediction
of the probability of the first incidence of cracking. For this
purpose, the structure is divided in different independent
areas, where their mutual correlation is accounted for by the
use of random fields. Also the proportion of concrete sur-
face subject to cracking and the probability that at least a
certain fraction of the concrete surface has cracked are pre-
dicted as such.
When modelling cracking, in (Van der Have, 2015) it
was also found that cracking starts at the weakest point of
the structure if spatially varying material properties are
assumed. When including this in a finite element analysis of
a symmetric slab structure, this results in non-symmetric
crack patterns. Hence, the crack pattern is influenced by the
simulation of the random field. In (Sudret et al., 2007) spa-
tial variability is implemented to calculate a damage length
as an indicator of the state of deterioration of a structure,
representing the part of the structure where the failure cri-
terion is reached. The application of random fields and spa-
tial variability modelling is required to be able to derive this
damage length. The latter metric can subsequently be used
as a global indicator of the state of deterioration of beam
structures.
When considering reliability analysis, some important
notes should also be considered. (De Vasconcellos Real,
Campos Filho, & Maestrini, 2003) concludes that the impact
on the reliability due to spatial variation of concrete proper-
ties depends on the failure mechanism of concrete struc-
tures. In case of failure resulting from ductile rupture of the
reinforcement steel, accounting for spatial variation of the
concrete properties has limited influence on the reliability,
whereas the most influence is found from spatial variation
in yield strength of the steel. If crushing of the concrete is
the most important failure mechanism, the variability in
concrete properties does have an impact on the reliability.
In both cases, the influence of spatial variation in geomet-
rical properties is found to be small.
Finally, for serviceability limit states (where deflections
are governing) an impact was found of the variation in con-
crete properties on the reliability analysis. Nevertheless, this
research concerns a concrete structure which is not sub-
jected to degradation. If the RC member would be subjected
to corrosion, the spatial variation of concrete properties
such as the diffusion coefficient might also influence failure
mechanisms governed by yielding of the steel, since these
influence the corosion process and hence the remaining
steel section. In such analyses, also the influence of geomet-
rical properties such as the concrete cover can become more
pronounced due to the influence on the initiation period of
corrosion. Hence, which variables should be modelled as
spatially variable and to what extent they will influece the
reliability analysis depends on the investigated situation.
Therefore, it is suggested to perform a sensitivity analysis
(for example based on the sensitivity factors resulting from
a FORM analysis) to detect which variables influence the
reliability the most and should hence be modelled as spa-
tially variable.
The assumed correlation model itself might also influence
the results of the reliability analysis. This has been investi-
gated in (Vereecken, Botte, Lombaert, & Caspeele, 2021b).
Here, random fields were assigned to corrosion variables,
and these random fields were inferred based on measure-
ment information. The resulting random fields were then
inserted in a reliability analysis. The influence of the choice
of the prior correlation model has been investigated. It was
concluded that changing the correlation model influenced
the resulting reliability, but that some correlation models
were a more robust prior choice than others. An example of
a robust prior correlation model for corrosion variables (i.e.
initiation time and corrosion rate) resulting from the inves-
tigations in this work is the squared exponential correlation
model with a correlation length of 2 m.
The application examples indicated above clearly show that
the consideration of spatial correlation has mainly been consid-
ered in probabilistic analyses, and much less in deterministic or
semi-probabilistic approaches. Furthermore, the major applica-
tions of random fields applied to the reliability assessment of
concrete structures relate to the assessment of deteriorating
structures and the analysis of large-scale structures, in which sig-
nificant spatial differences can be expected.
5. Discussion
This section discusses topics which were not treated in the
previous sections of this contribution, but which could be of
particular importance when dealing with spatial variability:
1. It is obvious that apart from spatial correlation of one
parameter, there can be correlation between different

(material) parameters. For example, when considering
(CEN, 2005; JCSS, 2001), there is a relationship between
the concrete tensile strength, concrete compressive
strength, Young’s modulus, fracture energy, etc. Hence,
the random fields to model these variables cannot be
chosen independently, and the depence between the
variables should be explicitly accounted for, e.g. by
assigning a random field to the concrete compressive
strength and evaluating the other parameters as a func-
tion of this compressive strength. In (Tao & Chen,
2022) a copula-based approach is used to derive the
joint probability distribution function of the constitutive
parameters of concrete, where spatially correlated sam-
ples of the compressive strength subsequently are used
to derive samples of the other constitutive parameters.
Alternatively, (Vorechovsk
y, 2008) provides a frame-
work for generating cross-correlated random fields by
means of series expansion methods.
2. Sometimes, spatial variability is not treated explicitly
(see e.g. Gardoni, Der Kiureghian, & Mosalam, 2002
and Aloisio, Rosso, Fragiacomo, & Alaggio, 2023) or is
treated in a simplified way (see e.g. Huang, Gardoni, &
Hurlebaus, 2009) by adopting global capacity models.
In such cases, the effects of spatial variability are partly
incorporated in the model uncertainty corresponding to
the adopted models. Future research should provide a
quantitative comparison between such approaches and
the more detailed analysis adopting random fields.
3. When discussing the influence on the reliability analysis
in Section 4, only the difference in whether or not
accounting for spatial variation is considered. However,
it should be pointed out that there will also be an influ-
ence of the assumed distribution types, the mean values
and the coefficients of variation, which also influence
the obtained results and might even have a larger
impact on the structural response than the correlation
structure of the stochastic field. This aspect has yet
obtained little attention in existing literature.
4. Often uncertainties on the random variables are reduced
based on measurement information, for example by the
application of Bayesian inference. As such, more accurate
estimates of the reliability can be obtained. Research
interests are hence also devoted to incorporating random
fields in these inference procedures, as for example
applied in (Srivaranun, Akiyama, Masuda, Frangopol, &
Maruyama, 2022; Vereecken, Botte, Lombaert, &
Caspeele, 2021a). When performing inspections or meas-
urements full inspection/measurement coverage over the
whole structure is hardly possible and mostly only a lim-
ited area is inspected (Straub & Faber, 2004). By consid-
ering spatial correlation, this effect can be accounted for
and inspection/measurement information at one location
also provides information about a non-inspected location
due to the assumed correlation (Schneider et al., 2015).
Also in (Kessler, Strauss, & Caspeele, 2017) it is pointed
out that the question ‘where to measure’ should be
answered based on the spatial correlation within the
structure.
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 11
5. This work focussed on correlation models for concrete
parameters and corrosion variables, i.e., the resistance
of the structure. Nevertheless, correlation in loads
and/or load effects could also be accounted for, as for
example applied in (Hajializadeh, Stewart et al., 2016).
The latter found strong correlation of load effects, even
for weak correlation of traffic loads on a bridge.
However, they also found that the combined influence
of correlation in load and resistance on the probability
of failure is small.
6. When accounting for spatial variability, most research
focusses on assessment of (existing) structures and
finite element analyses. Nevertheless, the spatial vari-
ability could also be accounted for in the design of
structures. Research efforts on this subject are limited.
A first proposal on how to account for spatial variabil-
ity in partial factor based design verifications can for
example be found in (Botte & Caspeele, 2021).
7. Based on the information provided before, the general
procedure to account for spatial variability in the
assessment of the response of concrete structures is as
follows:
 Subdivide the structure in different zones with simi-
lar exposure conditions and material characteristics
considering e.g. element types (wall, slabs, columns,
etc.) and construction phases. For example, when
considering a box girder bridge (conceptually illus-
trated in Figure 4), the bridge deck might be more
susceptible to chloride corrosion due to de-icing
salts than the bottom flange. Hence, the bridge deck
is considered as one zone, whereas the elements of
the webs and bottom flange are grouped in another
zone. Spatial variability within the same zone can be
modelled by means of random fields.
 For each zone, detect which parameters (related to
material properties and exposure conditions) con-
tribute most to the response of interest and deter-
mine whether any significant spatial variability can
be expected considering the dimensions of the struc-
ture compared to correlation lengths presented in
Section 3.2.
 Adopt a correlation model based on Table 2, divide
the zones in elements considering the suggestions
provided in Section 2.4 and adopt a modelling strat-
egy for the random field under consideration from
Section 2.3. Furthermore, determine appropriate
Figure 4. Conceptual illustration of subdividing a structure to account for spa-
tial variability.
12 W. BOTTE ET AL.
distributions for the stochastic variables, considering
e.g. the suggestions in (JCSS, 2001).
 Perform a probabilistic analysis to assess the uncer-
tainties of the response and/or reliability of the
structure under consideration. Often, a sampling-
based approach is adopted for this purpose (cfr.
Section 4).
6. Conclusions
In this work, an overview is given on the application of ran-
dom fields in the analysis of reinforced concrete structures.
Due to the heterogeneity of concrete, spatial variation and
correlation of the material properties can be expected. In lit-
erature, spatial variation is often accounted for by the appli-
cation of random fields. Nevertheless, there is no general
consensus on when and how these should be applied, and
which correlation models should be assumed. Hence, this
work gives a comprehensive overview of the correlation
models assumed in literature, the corresponding element
lengths applied in the analysis, and the influence on struc-
tural reliability.
When considering the correlation lengths and correlation
models, there is clearly a lack of consistency in the present
literature. Values for the correlation lengths range from 0.1
m to 5 m. Exponential and Gaussian correlation models are
assumed, whether or not with a lower bound on the correl-
ation. Nevertheless, there is a clear difference in the correl-
ation resulting from these different models. For the concrete
compressive strength, most references suggest a Gaussian
correlation model, with scales of fluctuation ranging from
1.8 m to 8.9 m. For the concrete cover, also the most fre-
quent correlation model is the Gaussian one, with scales of
fluctuation ranging from 1.8 m to 3.5 m. For the surface
chloride concentration, both exponential and Gaussian cor-
relation models are often assumed in literature, with scales
of fluctuation ranging between 0.2 m and 4 m. For the crit-
ical chloride concentration most often, the same correlation
model is assumed as for the diffusion coefficient, which is
an exponential correlation model with scale of fluctuation
ranging from 0.2 m to 4 m. Hence, a large scatter on correl-
ation lengths is found in literature.
To properly account for the spatial variation in the ana-
lysis of RC structures, these structures should be subdivided
in elements. This element length should be chosen as such
that convergence of the results under investigation is
achieved. In literature, element lengths ranging from 10% to
140% of the correlation length are suggested. However, in
general an upper bound of half of the correlation length
could be imposed.
When investigating the influence of spatial correlation/-
variation on the probability of failure, it becomes evident
from different references that there is a significant effect of
correlation on the probability of failure. If no spatial vari-
ation is accounted for, the probability of failure is underesti-
mated, which is not conservative and unsafe. Hence, an
improved accuracy of the correlation models is required in
order to arrive at more accurate estimates of the probability
of failure. Which variables should be modelled with random
fields depends on the structure under investigation, its
exposure and its failure mechanism. One suggestion is to
define those variables that are expected to have a significant
spatial variation and that have large sensitivity factors in the
reliability analysis with random fields.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research has been made possible through funding from the
Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) under grant numbers G013317N
(Eline Vereecken), 12X1719N and S001021N (Wouter Botte), for which
FWO is gratefully acknowledged.
ORCID
Wouter Botte http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1355-1517
Eline Vereecken http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7037-9843
References
Aloisio, A., Pasca, D. P., Di Battista, L., Rosso, M. M., Cucuzza, R.,
Marano, G. C., & Alaggio, R. (2022). Indirect assessment of concrete
resistance from FE model updating and Young’s modulus estima-
tion of a multi-span PSC viaduct: Experimental tests and validation.
Structures, 37, 686–697. doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2022.01.045
Aloisio, A., Rosso, M. M., Fragiacomo, M., & Alaggio, R. (2023,
March). Fragility estimate of railway bridges due to concrete fatigue.
Structures, 49, 70–87). doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2023.01.123
Betz, W., Papaioannou, I., & Straub, D. (2014). Numerical methods for
the discretization of random fields by means of the Karhunen-Loeve
expansion. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 271, 109–129. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2013.12.010
Bocchini, P., & Deodatis, G. (2008). Critical review and latest develop-
ments of a class of simulation algorithms for strongly non-Gaussian
random fields. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 23(4), 393–407.
doi:10.1016/j.probengmech.2007.09.001
Botte, W., & Caspeele, R. (2021). Accounting for spatial variability in
partial factor based design verifications. In IABSE Congress Ghent
2021 - Structural Engineering for Future Societal Needs (pp. 1805–
1812). Ghent, Belgium. doi:10.2749/ghent.2021.1805
CEN. (2005). EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures -
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
Criel, P., Caspeele, R., & Taerwe, L. (2014). Bayesian updated correl-
ation length of spatial concrete properties using limited
data. Computers and Concrete, 13(5), 659–677. doi:10.12989/cac.
2014.13.5.659
De Vasconcellos Real, M., Campos Filho, A., & Maestrini, S. R. (2003).
Response variability in reinforced concrete structures with uncertain
geometrical and material properties. Nuclear Engineering and
Design, 226(3), 205–220. doi:10.1016/S0029-5493(03)00110-9
Deodatis, G. (1991). Weighted integral method. I: Stochastic stiffness
matrix. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 117(8), 1851–1864. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1991)117:8(1851)
Der Kiureghian, A., & Ke, J. B. (1988). The stochastic finite element
method in structural reliability. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics,
3(2), 83–91. doi:10.1016/0266-8920(88)90019-7
DIANA FEA BV. (2017). Random fields for non-linear finite element
analysis of reinforced concrete structures.
Engelund, S., & Sørensen, J. D. (1998). A probabilistic model for chlor-
ide-ingress and initiation of corrosion in reinforced concrete

structures. Structural Safety, 20(1), 69–89. doi:10.1016/S0167-4730
(97)00022-2
Englund, S. (1997). Probabilistic models and computational methods for
chloride ingress in concrete. Aalborg: Aalborg University.
Fenton, G. A. (1994). A random field excursion model of salt-induced
concrete delamination. Journal of Research of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, 99(4), 475–483. doi:10.6028/
jres.099.045
Fenton, G. A. (1999). Random field modeling of CPT data. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(6), 486–498.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:6(486)
fib. (2006). Model code for service life design. Fib Bulletin 34 doi:10.
35789/fib.BULL.0034
Firouzi, A., & Rahai, A. (2013). Reliability assessment of concrete
bridges subject to corrosion-induced cracks during life cycle using
artificial neural networks. Computers and Concrete, 12(1), 91–107.
doi:10.12989/cac.2013.12.1.091
Gardoni, P., Der Kiureghian, A., & Mosalam, K. M. (2002).
Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced
concrete columns based on experimental observations. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 128(10), 1024–1038. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9399(2002)128:10(1024)
Geyer, S., Papaioannou, I., Kunz, C., & Straub, D. (2020). Reliability
assessment of large hydraulic structures with spatially distributed
measurements. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 16(4), 599–
612. doi:10.1080/15732479.2019.1652331
Grigoriu, M. (1995). Applied non-gaussian processes: Examples, theory,
simulation, linear random vibration, and MATLAB solutions(Book).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Hajializadeh, D., OBrien, E. J., & Stewart, M. G. (2016). The sensitivity
of bridge safety to spatial correlation of load and resistance.
Structures, 5, 23–34. doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2015.07.002
Hajializadeh, D., Stewart, M. G., Enright, B., & OBrien, E. (2016).
Spatial time-dependent reliability analysis of reinforced concrete
slab bridges subject to realistic traffic loading. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 12(9), 1137–1152. doi:10.1080/15732479.
2015.1086385
Haldar, A., & Mahadevan, S. (2000). Reliability assessment using sto-
chastic finite element analysis. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons.
Huang, Q., Gardoni, P., & Hurlebaus, S. (2009). Probabilistic capacity
models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns
incorporating NDT data. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 135(12),
1384–1392. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2009)135:12(1384)
JCSS. (2001). Probabilistic model code. Retrieved from http://www.jcss.
ethz.ch.
Karimi, A. R. (2001). Probabilistic assessment of deterioration and
strength of concrete bridge beams and slabs. London: Imperial
College of Science, Technology and Medicine.
Kersner, Z., Novak, D., Teply, B., & Rusina, R. (1998). Modeling of
deterioration of concrete structures by stochastic finite element
method. In A. A. Balkema (Ed.), 7th International Conference on
Structural Safety and Reliability, ICOSSAR 97, Kyoto, Japan.
Kessler, S., Strauss, A., & Caspeele, R. (2017). Present and future prob-
abilistic challenges for maintenance of reinforced concrete struc-
tures. In 14th International Probabilistic Workshop (pp. 521–537).
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47886-9
Lee, T. H., & Mosalam, K. M. (2004). Probabilistic fiber element mod-
eling of reinforced concrete structures. Computers & Structures,
82(27), 2285–2299. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.05.013
Li, C.-C., & Der Kiureghian, A. (1993). Optimal discretization of ran-
dom fields. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 119(6), 1136–1154.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1993)119:6(1136)
Li, Q., & Ye, X. (2018, February). Surface deterioration analysis for
probabilistic durability design of RC structures in marine environ-
ment. Structural Safety, 75, 13–23. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.05.007
Li, Y. (2004). Effect of spatial variability on maintenance and repair
decisions for concrete structures. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University.
Liu, P. L., & Der Kiureghian, A. (1986). Multivariate distribution models
with prescribed marginals and covariances. Probabilistic Engineering
Mechanics, 1(2), 105–112. doi:10.1016/0266-8920(86)90033-0
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 13
Liu, W. K., Belytschko, T., & Mani, A. (1986). Random field finite ele-
ments. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
23(10), 1831–1845. doi:10.1002/nme.1620231004
Malioka, V. (2009). Condition indicators for the assessment of local and
spatial deterioration of concrete structures. Z€
urich: vdf Hochschulverlag
AG an der ETH Z€ urich. doi:10.3929/ethz-a-010782581
Malioka, V., Faber, M. H., Leemann, A., & Hoffmann, C. C. (2007).
Durability performance acceptance criteria for concrete structures.
In Life-Cycle Cost and Performance of Civil Infrastructure Systems -
Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Life-Cycle Cost
Analysis and Design of Civil Infrastructure Systems (pp. 249–257).
Matthies, H. G., Brenner, C. E., Bucher, C. G., & Soares, C. G. (1997).
Uncertainties in probabilistic numerical analysis of structures and
solids-Stochastic finite elements. Structural Safety, 19(3), 283–336.
doi:10.1016/S0167-4730(97)00013-1
O’Connor, A., & Kenshel, O. (2013). Experimental evaluation of the
scale of fluctuation for spatial variability modeling of chloride-
induced reinforced concrete corrosion. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 18(1), 3–14. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000370
Pedrosa, F., & Andrade, C. (2021). Spatial variability of concrete elec-
trical resistivity and corrosion rate in laboratory conditions.
Construction and Building Materials, 306, 124777. doi:10.1016/j.con-
buildmat.2021.124777
Peng, J., Tang, H., Xiao, L., Cheng, X., & Zhang, J. (2021). Chloride
diffusion and time to corrosion initiation of reinforced concrete
structures. Magazine of Concrete Research, 73(15), 757–770. doi:10.
1680/jmacr.19.00276
Schneider, R., Fischer, J., B€ugler, M., Nowak, M., Th€ ons, S., Borrmann,
A., & Straub, D. (2015). Assessing and updating the reliability of
concrete bridges subjected to spatial deterioration–principles and
software implementation. Structural Concrete, 16(3), 356–365. doi:
10.1002/suco.201500014
Shinozuka, M., & Deodatis, G. (1988). Response variability of stochas-
tic finite element systems. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 114(3),
499–519. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1988)114:3(499)
Srivaranun, S., Akiyama, M., Masuda, K., Frangopol, D. M., &
Maruyama, O. (2022). Random field-based reliability updating
framework for existing RC structures incorporating the effect of
spatial steel corrosion distribution. Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 18(7), 967–982. doi:10.1080/15732479.2021.1995445
Sterrit, G., Chryssanthopoulos, M. K., & Shetty, N. K. (2001, March
21–23). Reliability based inspection planning for RC highway
bridges. In International Conference Malta.
Stewart, M. G., & Mullard, J. A. (2007). Spatial time-dependent reli-
ability analysis of corrosion damage and the timing of first repair
for RC structures. Engineering Structures, 29(7), 1457–1464. doi:10.
1016/j.engstruct.2006.09.004
Stewart, M. G., & Suo, Q. (2009). Extent of spatially variable corrosion
damage as an indicator of strength and time-dependent reliability of
RC beams. Engineering Structures, 31(1), 198–207. doi:10.1016/j.eng-
struct.2008.08.011
Straub, D. (2011). Reliability updating with inspection and monitoring
data in deteriorating reinforced concrete slabs. In Michael Faber,
Jochen Kohler, Kazuyoshi Nishijima (Eds.), Application of statistics
and probability in civil engineering (pp. 692–696). London: CRC
Press.
Straub, D., & Faber, M. H. (2004). On the relation between inspection
quantity and quality. Journal of Nondestructive Testing, 9(7), 1–14.
Straub, D., & Faber, M. H. (2007). Temporal variability in corrosion
modeling and reliability updating. Journal of Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, 129(4), 265–272. doi:10.1115/1.2355517
Straub, D., Malioka, V., & Faber, M. H. (2009). A framework for the
asset integrity management of large deteriorating concrete struc-
tures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 5(3), 199–213. doi:
10.1080/15732470601017369
Sudret, B., & Der Kiureghian, A. (2000). Stochastic finite element meth-
ods and reliability: A State-of-the-art report. Berkeley: University of
California Berkeley. Retrieved from https://www1.ethz.ch/ibk/su/
publications/Reports/SFE-report-Sudret.pdf.
14 W. BOTTE ET AL.
Sudret, B., Defaux, G., & Pendola, M. (2007). Stochastic evaluation of
the damage length in RC beams submitted to corrosion of reinforc-
ing steel. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 24(2), 165–
178. doi:10.1080/10286600601159305
Tao, J., & Chen, J. (2022, November). A hierarchy model for the
uncertainty quantification of spatial variability in the constitutive
parameters of concrete in structures. Structural Safety, 95, 102181.
doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2021.102181
Tran, T. V., Bastidas-Arteaga, E., Schoefs, F., Bonnet, S., O’Connor,
A. J., & Lanata, F. (2012, July). Structural reliability analysis of dete-
riorating RC bridges considering spatial variability. In Bridge
Maintenance, Safety, Management, Resilience and Sustainability -
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Bridge
Maintenance, Safety and Management (pp. 698–705). doi:10.1201/
b12352-94
Uribe, F., Papaioannou, I., Betz, W., & Straub, D. (2020). Bayesian
inference of random fields represented with the Karhunen–Loeve
expansion. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 358, 112632. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.112632
Van der Have, R. (2015, November). Random fields for non-linear
finite element analysis of reinforced concrete, p. 244. Retrieved from
http://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:25780e9a-49c4-
4085-9a65-af73119d97a7?collection=education.
Vanmarcke, E. (1983). Random fields. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vereecken, E., Botte, W., Lombaert, G., & Caspeele, R. (2021a). A
Bayesian inference approach for the updating of spatially distributed
corrosion model parameters based on heterogeneous measurement
data. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 18(1), 30–46. doi:10.
1080/15732479.2020.1833046
Vereecken, E., Botte, W., Lombaert, G., & Caspeele, R. (2021b).
Influence of the correlation model on the failure probability of a
reinforced concrete structure considering spatial variability.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 19(4), 510–524. doi:10.
1080/15732479.2021.1953082
Vorechovsk
y, M. (2008). Simulation of simply cross correlated random
fields by series expansion methods. Structural Safety, 30(4), 337–
363. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2007.05.002
Vu, K. A. T., & Stewart, M. G. (2005). Predicting the likelihood and
extent of reinforced concrete corrosion-induced cracking. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 131(11), 1681–1689. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2005)131:11(1681)
Xu, T., & Li, J. (2018). Assessing the spatial variability of the concrete
by the rebound hammer test and compression test of drilled cores.
Construction and Building Materials, 188, 820–832. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.08.138
Ying, L., Vrouwenvelder, T., & Wijnants, G. H. (2003). Spatial variabil-
ity of concrete degradation. In Life-Cycle Performance of
Deteriorating Structures: Assessment, Design and Management; Third
IABMAS Workshop on Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Design of Civil
Infrastructures Systems, pp. 49–58. Retrieved from papers2:
//publication/uuid/84A331C6-45C3-49E8-A030-CD9A196CD9CB
Zhou, H., Li, Y., Wen, Q., & Deodatis, G. (2023). Stochastic field
model for the residual radius along the length of naturally and arti-
ficially corroded rebars. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,
19(10), 1366–1377. doi:10.1080/15732479.2022.2027471