Li, C Q (2000) A method for reliability-based economic design of building structures. Building Research & Information, 28(4), pp. 260-267. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
In limit states design codes for building structures, the load and resistance factors are derived based on a 'target' reliability index, which is determined based on a code calibration process. It is not clear whether the target reliability index selected through the code calibration is optimal with respect to the cost, because through calibration the structural safety is achieved quantitatively while the economic aspects are only considered qualitatively. The intention of the present paper is to formulate a basic approach to reliability-based economic design, based on structural reliability theory. The focus of the paper is to derive an analytical solution to optimized reliability index. A parametric study is conducted for sensitivity analysis of the optimal reliability index to different variables. Finally, the application of the solution to design codes, i.e. determining load and resistance factors in design formulae, is outlined.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; codes; costs and benefits; economic design; optimization; reliability index; structures |
| Index terms: | Australia, sensitivity analysis, design of building, structural reliability |
| Subjects: | reliability engineering, environmental hazards, building design, Geography |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 P |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here