### Second Stage
#### 4.2.2 Results  
The updated partial factors for the resistance variables used in the second stage of the assessment procedures according to [9; 10] are indicated in Table 10. They were derived by applying the models described in the previous section. Since the probabilistic models for the actions were not updated, the same partial factors as in the first stage were used (Table 5). As can be observed from Table 10, the partial factor \(\gamma_{s,2}\) deduced by applying [9] is smaller than the obtained in the first stage, \(\gamma_{s,1}\), which is explained by the reduction in the coefficient of variation, as a result of updating information. For the same reason, the partial factors for the material properties derived according to the DVM [10] are also smaller than the obtained in the first stage. Likewise, the values for \(\gamma_{s,2}\) and \(\gamma_{C,2}\), obtained according to the APFM, are smaller than the derived in the first stage. The outcomes for the assessment values of the effect of actions and resistance are shown in Table 11. As can be seen, the beam reliability is verified by the experts of five of the CEN member states and also by applying the APFM. On the contrary, reliability can neither be verified based on the application of the tools and procedure proposed in [9], \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Symbol**} & **[9] Procedure** & **DVM [10]** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**APFM [10]**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Partial Factor** & **Partial Factor** & **Adjustment Factor** & **Partial Factor** \\ \hline \(\gamma_{s,2}\) & 1.09 & 1.12 & - & - \\ \(\gamma_{R\alpha,s,2}\) & 1.08 & 1.02 & - & - \\ \(\gamma_{c,2}\) & 1.0 & 1.34 & - & - \\ \(\gamma_{R\alpha,c,2}\) & 1.08 & 1.1 & - & - \\ \(\omega_{\gamma,5,2}\) & - & - & 1.00 & - \\ \(\omega_{\gamma,C,2}\) & - & - & 1.00 & - \\ \(\gamma_{5,2}\) & 1.18 & 1.14 & - & 1.15 \\ \(\gamma_{C,2}\) & 1.08 & 1.47 & - & 1.50 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Partial factors for resistance variables used in the second stage of the assessment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source** & **Number of Tests** & \(f_{ym}\) [**N/mm2\({}^{2}\)**]** & \(V_{yy}\) & \(f_{yk}\) [**N/mm2\({}^{2}\)**]** \\ \hline Main beams & 4 & 307 & 0.01 & 299 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Sample parameters for reinforcing steel yield strength. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Distribution** & \(X\) & \(X_{k}\) [**N/mm2\({}^{2}\)**]** & \(V_{X}\) & \(\mu_{X}\)/\(X_{k}\) \\ \hline Yield strength of & LN & \(f_{y}\) & 260.4 & 0.08 & 1.18 \\ reinforcement & LN & \(f_{c}\) & 16.8 & 0.21 & 1.57 \\ \hline Concrete compressive & & & & & \\ strength & LN & \(f_{c}\) & 16.8 & 0.21 & 1.57 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Second stage updated probabilistic models. nor on the DVM [10]. The results obtained by applying both procedures are indeed very similar. Consequently, for this application example, the results obtained with the DVM and the APFM do not agree with indications in [10], according to which the latter is often more conservative than the former. For all other cases, although the beam reliability is not verified, the difference between the assessment value for bending moment \(M_{E\text{a,2}}\) and the assessment value of resistance \(M_{R\text{a,2}}\) is not greater than 6 %, except for the NSB4. The significant differences between the results for \(M_{R\text{a,2}}\) obtained by the experts of CEN members states are mainly due to the same reasons as previously outlined for the first stage. From Table 11 can be observed that the assessment value of the bending resistance obtained by the NSB4 is significantly lower than the other results. It has slightly rised from 156.0 in the first stage to 163.0 kNm in the second.