## 6 Conclusions  
Rational decision-making on the reliability of existing structures for present and future use should be possible based on a partial factor format equivalent to the format normally applied in the design of new structures. Recently developed studies include approaches for the assessment of existing structures based on the PFM [2; 8; 9; 10]. In this paper, the assessment of one of the main RC beams of an industrial building, that will be transformed into a cultural centre, was carried out in a round robin exercise, on the application of TS [2], by experts of National Standardization Bodies (NSB) of eight CEN member states. Furthermore, the example was solved by the authors according to the operational rules developed in [9], as well as by applying both partial factors approaches, DVM and APFM, proposed in [10]. All the applied partial factor approaches are suitable for the assessment of existing reinforced concrete structures and allow for taking into account the remaining working life adopted, the target reliability indices assumed in each case and the updated information with site-specific data obtained from in situ inspections, measurements and tests. The PFM-based assessment was performed in two stages, successively raising the quality of the available information, and was limited to the mid-span cross-section for sake of simplicity. The results of the first stage showed that for none of the applied approaches, the safety for bending resistance was verified. The outcomes for the assessment values of the effects of actions in this stage were quite similar in all cases, whereas for bending resistance significant variation can be observed. The latter could be explained \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Unit**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1 st Analysis**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2 nd Analysis 1**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \(X_{\text{a}}\) & \(\alpha_{X}\) & \(X_{\text{a}}\) & \(\alpha_{X}\) \\ \hline \(\xi_{RM}\) & - & 0.97 & 0.2093 & 0.96 & 0.1985 \\ \(A_{\text{s}}\) & mm\({}^{2}\) & 1954 & 0.0799 & 1951 & 0.0739 \\ \(f_{y}\) & N/mm\({}^{2}\) & 195.2 & 0.3969 & 278.6 & 0.2918 \\ \(d\) & mm & 538.6 & 0.1795 & 533.5 & 0.1759 \\ \(b\) & mm & 299.8 & 0.0063 & 299.7 & 0.0089 \\ \(f_{c}\) & N/mm\({}^{2}\) & 24.84 & 0.0515 & 24.43 & 0.0617 \\ \(\eta_{c}\) & - & 1.0 & - & 1.0 & - \\ \(\xi_{E,M}\) & - & 1.116 & \(-\)0.4178 & 1.173 & \(-\)0.3962 \\ \(M_{gc}\) & kN\(\cdot\)m & 20.29 & \(-\)0.0199 & 20.3 & \(-\)0.0146 \\ \(M_{gp}\) & kN\(\cdot\)m & 46.38 & \(-\)0.1108 & 46.52 & \(-\)0.0811 \\ \(M_{q}\) & kN\(\cdot\)m & 103.44 & \(-\)0.7551 & 153.6 & \(-\)0.8194 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} 1  
\end{table} 
Table 12: Assessment values and sensitivity factors obtained in probabilistic analysis. by different assumptions for the prior information as well as the procedures adopted for updating the models for material properties, resulting in different characteristic values for these properties. In the second stage, the reliability of the beam was verified by five of the experts of the NSBs of CEN member states who applied PFM following the indications of the TS [2]. However, due to the same reasons exposed before, the results obtained for the assessment values of resistance again showed a significant variation. Furthermore, the reliability of the beam was also verified by applying the APFM. On the other hand, the application of the procedure from [9] and the DVM [10] revealed that the studied beam does not meet the structural reliability requirements for the remaining service life. Comparing the two approaches, DVM and APFM, it is apparent that the former enables incorporating the updated information more accurately than the latter. In the DVM, the partial factors are updated by means of the representative values (mean or characteristic) and the respective coefficients of variation, while in the APFM updated information is incorporated only through the coefficients of variation of the variables.