Efficient Reliability Assessment With the Conditional Probability Method
Abstract
Reliability assessment is an important procedure in engineering design in which the probability of failure or equivalently the probability of survival is computed based on appropriate design criteria and model behavior. In this paper, a new approximate and efficient reliability assessment method is proposed: the conditional probability method (CPM). Focus is set on computational efficiency and the proposed method is applied to classical load-strength structural reliability problems. The core of the approach is in the computation of the probability of failure starting from the conditional probability of failure given the load. The number of function evaluations to compute the probability of failure is a priori known to be 3n + 2 in CPM, where n is the number of stochastic design variables excluding the strength. The necessary number of function evaluations for the reliability assessment, which may correspond to expensive computations, is therefore substantially lower in CPM than in the existing structural reliability methods such as the widely used first-order reliability method (FORM).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Reliability of a material depends on its Conditional Probability of Failure, a condition state after use for repurposed/recycled materials.
“The reliability, however, is also dependent on the Material's Conditional Probability of Failure, a condition state of the material after use for repurposed/recycled Materials (Mansour & Olsson, 2018).”
From The Uncertainty of Reusable Building Components/Materials A Subsidiary of Circular Economy in the Africa Construction Sector: The Issue of Affordable Housing in Kenya (2024) · cites this paper as Mansour & Olsson, 2018
Cited by
Sorted by citations
(2024) · Journal of Materials and Polymer Science · doi:10.47485/2832-9384.1053
- Authors
- Mansour, R., & Olsson, M.
- Affiliations
- KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Mansour, Rami
- Olsson, Mårten
- ORCID
- Mansour, Rami
- Venue
- Journal of Mechanical Design
- Publisher
- ASME International
- Published
- 2018-06-01
- Volume
- 140
- Issue
- 8
- ISSN
- 0161-8458 (ISSN-L)
- 1050-0472
- 1528-9001
- OpenAlex
- W2800076556
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 1.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Mechanical Design (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Structural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
- Keywords
- reliability analysis, failure probability, structural reliability, computational efficiency, first-order reliability method
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review