Acceptable risk bases for design of structures

Bruce R. Ellingwood

Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials · 2001 · 119 citations · 23 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Structural design standards and reliability methods underpin engineering practice, yet current probability‑based codes rely on notional reliabilities calibrated to traditional practice rather than quantitative risk analysis, potentially misrepresenting historical failure rates and complicating risk communication. The study calls for collaboration between research and professional engineering communities to evaluate the feasibility of grounding future design codes in quantitative acceptable risk measures to meet evolving performance expectations.

Abstract

Abstract Structural design standards provide the foundation of good engineering practice and a framework for addressing safety and serviceability issues rationally. Structural reliability methods provide the tools for managing uncertainties in modern codified structural design. Current probability‐based structural codes are based on performance measures expressed as notional reliabilities of structural components. These notional reliabilities, encapsulated in reliability indices, were obtained by calibrating the proposed codes to traditional practice rather than from quantitative risk analysis. Because the reliability estimates are based on models of real systems, they may not correspond to historical failure rates, and therefore confound the process of risk communication among structural engineers, building or regulatory officials, and the public. The research and professional engineering communities must work together to confront future challenges arising from new trends in structural engineering practice towards tailoring building design to performance expectations of the building owners, occupants and the public. In this context, the prospects of basing future codes on a quantitative acceptable risk measure warrant further examination.

References

23