4.7 Article

Uncertain reliability of structural design standards

期刊

STRUCTURAL SAFETY
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2020.102043

关键词

Structural reliability; Reliability-based design Standards; Prototype testing; Uncertain probability estimates; Risk-based decision-making; Dependability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current reliability-based design Standards are limited by their reliance on imprecise estimates of failure probabilities, hindering risk-based decision-making. This paper introduces the concept of characteristic failure probability, providing a reliable basis for assessing the acceptability of extremely uncertain probabilities of structural failure.
A limitation of current reliability-based design Standards is their dependence on imprecise estimates of the probability of failure. These imprecise estimates do not, by themselves, provide a dependable basis for explicit risk-based decision-making. Therefore reliability-based Standards depend on Code calibration to determine acceptable levels of the estimated nominal probabilities of failure, which hinders further rationalisation and innovation. The paper discusses uncertain failure probabilities and defines a related characteristic failure probability that provides a dependable basis for risk-based decision-making. Uncertain probability estimates arise from epistemic uncertainty and they can be described by their own probability distributions. The paper discusses probability distributions of uncertain probabilities of failure, with examples of uncertainty arising from the sampling variability for design based on prototype testing in accordance with provisions in Australian Standards and an AISI Standard, and also sampling variability in the estimation of a design wind load based on wind speed data. It is shown that the characteristic failure probability provides a dependable basis for assessing the acceptability of extremely uncertain probabilities of structural failure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据