Structural reliability analysis of steel structural covering based on the theory of evidence

Introduction. Quantitative assessment of the structural reliability and safety level for structural solutions is an actual scientific and technical problem. The measure of reliability in this case can be the failure probability of a structural element. In practical problems of assessment and analysis of structural reliability, data on random variables can be obtained in the interval form (qualitative uncertainty), while the classic methods of reliability analysis do not allow to estimate reliability in the presence of such data. Lack of statistical data (quantitative uncertainty) is also present in practical tasks of reliability analysis.

Materials and methods. The paper considers the use of the theory of evidence as an effective tool for reliability analysis of steel span structures in problems with interval uncertainty of statistical data.

Results. The graphical interpretation of the reliability analysis algorithm is given. It allows to obtain clearly and operatively an estimate of the failure probability of the structural element, as well as to reduce the permissible load on the element to the required reliability level. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional models are considered for analyzing the reliability of a steel truss bar according to the buckling criterion.

Conclusions. The theory of evidence allows effective modelling of various sources of uncertainties in practical engineering problems. Thus, with limited data, it is possible to get an idea of the quantitative expression of the reliability level by its lower bound, which can be increased by strengthening the element, more detailed probabilistic analysis or limiting the operational load on the structural element. By considering more non-deterministic quantities in the design, the engineer obtains a more cautious decision. When considering the cross-sectional area as a random variable, the reliability of the truss bar on the buckling was 23 % lower (lower reliability bound) than in a similar calculation with a deterministic value.

1. Keshtegar B., Kisi O. M5 model tree and Monte Carlo simulation for efficient structural reliability analysis. Applied Mathematical Modelling. 2017; 48:899-910. DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2017.02.047

2. De Angelis M., Patelli E., Beer M. Advanced line sampling for efficient robust reliability analysis. Structural Safety. 2015; 52:170-182. DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2014.10.002

3. Teixeira R., Nogal M., O’Connor A. Adaptive approaches in metamodel-based reliability analysis : a review. Structural Safety. 2021; 89:102019. DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2020.102019

4. Qiu Z., Huang R., Wang X., Qi W. Structural reliability analysis and reliability-based design optimization: Recent advances. Science China Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy. 2013; 56(9):1611-1618. DOI: 10.1007/s11433-013-5179-1

5. Huang H.Z., He L., Liu Y., Xiao N.C., Li Y.F., Wang Z. Possibility and evidence-based reliability analysis and design optimization. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2013; 6(1):95-136. DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2013.95.136

6. Solovev S.A., Inkova Yu.A., Soloveva A.A. Probabilistic assessment of wooden rafters structural reliability with incomplete statistical data. Regional Architecture and Engineering. 2023; 2(55):77-84. DOI: 10.54734/20722958_2023_2_77. EDN CTLCMJ. (rus.).

7. Jian W., Zhili S., Qiang Y., Rui L. Two accuracy measures of the Kriging model for structural reliability analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2017; 167:494-505. DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.06.028

8. Jiang C., Bi R.G., Lu G.Y., Han X. Structural reliability analysis using non-probabilistic convex model. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2013; 254:83-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2012.10.020

9. Pavlov M.V., Karpov D.F., Sinitsyn A.A., Gudkov A.G. Winter greenhouse combined heating system. Magazine of Civil Engineering. 2020; 3(95):131-139. DOI: 10.18720/MCE.95.12. EDN LVTHOB.

10. Utkin L.V. Risk analysis and decision making with incomplete information. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 2007. EDN QJTBEZ. (rus.).

11. Dempster A.P. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Classic works of the Dempster-Shafer theory of belief functions. 2008; 57-72. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-44792-4_3

12. Shafer G. A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, 1976. DOI: 10.1515/9780-691214696

13. Solov′yev S. A., Solov′yeva A.A. Methods for assessing the reliability of steel trusses using P-boxes. Vologda, Vologda State University, 2022; 143. EDN YRCEMR. (rus.).

14. Ulybin A.V., Sulteev T.M., Davydov O.I., Bogachev A.S. The evaluation of bolts strength using hardness measurement. Inspection of buildings and structures: problems and ways to solve them : materials of the VI International Scientific and Practical Conference. 2015; 172-178. EDN UYTGMX. (rus.).

15. Yager R.R. On the Dempster-Shafer framework and new combination rules. Information Sciences. 1987; 41(2):93-137. DOI: 10.1016/0020-0255(87)90007-7

16. Inagaki T. Interdependence between safety-control policy and multiple-sensor schemes via Dempster-Shafer theory. IEEE Transactions on Reliability. 1991; 40(2):182-188. DOI: 10.1109/24.87125

17. Sentz K., Ferson S. Combination of evidence in Dempster-Shafer theory. 2002. DOI: 10.2172/800792

18. Bernard J.M. Analysis of local or asymmetric dependencies in contingency tables using the imprecise dirichlet model. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications. 2003.

19. Solovev S.A., Inkov A.E., Soloveva A.A. A method for structural reliability analysis of trusses with interval uncertainty of random variables. Structural Mechanics and Analysis of Constructions. 2022; 3(302):28-34. DOI: 10.37538/0039-2383.2022.3.28.34. EDN IYURCQ. (rus.).

20. Jiang C., Zhang Z., Han X., Liu J. A novel evidence-theory-based reliability analysis method for structures with epistemic uncertainty. Computers & Structures. 2013; 129:1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2013.08.007