A comparison of deterministic, reliability-based and risk-based structural optimization under uncertainty

In this paper, the effects of uncertainty and expected costs of failure on optimum structural design are investigated, by comparing three distinct formulations of structural optimization problems. Deterministic Design Optimization (DDO) allows one the find the shape or configuration of a structure that is optimum in terms of mechanics, but the formulation grossly neglects parameter uncertainty and its effects on structural safety. Reliability-based Design Optimization (RBDO) has emerged as an alternative to properly model the safety-under-uncertainty part of the problem. With RBDO, one can ensure that a minimum (and measurable) level of safety is achieved by the optimum structure. However, results are dependent on the failure probabilities used as constraints in the analysis. Risk optimization (RO) increases the scope of the problem by addressing the compromising goals of economy and safety. This is accomplished by quantifying the monetary consequences of failure, as well as the costs associated with construction, operation and maintenance. RO yields the optimum topology and the optimum point of balance between economy and safety. Results are compared for some example problems. The broader RO solution is found first, and optimum results are used as constraints in DDO and RBDO. Results show that even when optimum safety coefficients are used as constraints in DDO, the formulation leads to configurations which respect these design constraints, reduce manufacturing costs but increase total expected costs (including expected costs of failure). When (optimum) system failure probability is used as a constraint in RBDO, this solution also reduces manufacturing costs but by increasing total expected costs. This happens when the costs associated with different failure modes are distinct. Hence, a general equivalence between the formulations cannot be established. Optimum structural design considering expected costs of failure cannot be controlled solely by safety factors nor by failure probability constraints, but will depend on actual structural configuration. (c) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Reliability of buildings in service limit state for maximum horizontal displacements

Brazilian design code ABNT NBR6118:2003 - Design of Concrete Structures - Procedures - [1] proposes the use of simplified models for the consideration of non-linear material behavior in the evaluation of horizontal displacements in buildings. These models penalize stiffness of columns and beams, representing the effects of concrete cracking and avoiding costly physical non-linear analyses. The objectives of the present paper are to investigate the accuracy and uncertainty of these simplified models, as well as to evaluate the reliabilities of structures designed following ABNT NBR6118:2003[1&] in the service limit state for horizontal displacements. Model error statistics are obtained from 42 representative plane frames. The reliabilities of three typical (4, 8 and 12 floor) buildings are evaluated, using the simplified models and a rigorous, physical and geometrical non-linear analysis. Results show that the 70/70 (column/beam stiffness reduction) model is more accurate and less conservative than the 80/40 model. Results also show that ABNT NBR6118:2003 [1] design criteria for horizontal displacement limit states (masonry damage according to ACI 435.3R-68(1984) [10]) are conservative, and result in reliability indexes which are larger than those recommended in EUROCODE [2] for irreversible service limit states.