Advertisement

Science China Technological Sciences

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 566–576 | Cite as

Saddlepoint approximation based structural reliability analysis with non-normal random variables

  • ShuFang Song
  • ZhenZhou LuEmail author
Article

Abstract

The saddlepoint approximation (SA) can directly estimate the probability distribution of linear performance function in non-normal variables space. Based on the property of SA, three SA based methods are developed for the structural system reliability analysis. The first method is SA based reliability bounds theory (RBT), in which SA is employed to estimate failure probability and equivalent normal reliability index for each failure mode firstly, and then RBT is employed to obtain the upper and the lower bounds of system failure probability. The second method is SA based Nataf approximation, in which SA is used to estimate the probability density function (PDF) and cumulative distribution function (CDF) for the approximately linearized performance function of each failure mode. After the PDF of each failure mode and the correlation coefficients among approximately linearized performance functions are estimated, Nataf distribution is employed to approximate the joint PDF of multiple structural system performance functions, and then the system failure probability can be estimated directly by numerical simulation using the joint PDF. The third method is SA based line sampling (LS). The standardization transformation is needed to eliminate the dimensions of variables firstly in this case. Then LS method can express the system failure probability as an arithmetic average of a set of failure probabilities of the linear performance functions, and the probabilities of the linear performance functions can be estimated by the SA in the non-normal variables space. By comparing basic concepts, implementations and results of illustrations, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) The first method can only obtain the bounds of system failure probability and it is only acceptable for the linear limit state function; (2) the second method can give the estimation of system failure probability, and its error mostly results from the approximation of Nataf distribution for the joint PDF of the structural system performance functions and the linearization of the performance functions; (3) the SA based LS method can obtain the estimator of system failure probability, which converges to the actual value along with the increase of sample size. The SA based LS method considers the influence of nonlinearity of limit state function on the failure probability, and it is acceptable for the structural system both with a single failure mode and with multiple failure modes, therefore it has the widest applicability.

Keywords

saddlepoint approximation reliability bounds theory Nataf distribution line sampling probability density function cumulative distribution function failure probability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pradlwarter H J, Pellissetti M F. Realistic and efficient reliability estimation for aerospace structures. Comput Method Appl M, 2005, 194(12–16): 1597–1617zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhao Y G, Ono T. A general procedure for first/second-order reliability method (FORM/SORM). Struct Saf, 1999, 21(2): 95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ditlevsen O. Narrow reliability bounds for structural system. J Struct Mech, 1979, 7(4): 435–451Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daniels H E. Saddlepoint approximations in statistics. Ann Math Statist, 1954, 25(4): 631–650zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang B Q, Du X P. Probabilistic uncertainty analysis by mean-value first order saddlepoint approximation. Reliab Eng Syst Safe, 2008, 93(2): 325–336CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Du X P, Sudjianto A. First order saddlepoint approximation for reliability analysis. AIAA J, 2004, 42(6): 1199–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Du X P. Saddlepoint approximation for sequential optimization and reliability analysis. J Mech Design, 2008, 130(1): 11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang S. General saddlepoint approximations in the bootstrap. Stat Probab Lett, 1992, 13(1–2): 61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lugannani R, Rice S O. Saddlepoint approximation for the distribution of the sum of independent random variables. Adv Appl Probab, 1980, 12(2): 475–490zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gouits C, Casella G. Explaining the saddlepoint approximation. Am Stat, 1999, 53(3): 216–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huzurbazar S. Practical saddlepoint approximations. Am Stat, 1999, 53(3): 225–232CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gatto R, Ronchetti E. General saddlepoint approximations of marginal densities and tail probabilities. J Am Stat Assoc, 1996, 91(433): 666–673zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gillespie C S, Renshaw E. An improved saddlepoint approximation. Math Biosci, 2007, 208(2): 359–374zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Der Kiureghian A, Liu P L. Structural reliability under incomplete probability information. J Eng Mech-ASCE, 1986, 112(1): 85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu P L, Der Kiureghian A. Multivariate distribution models with prescribed marginals and covariances. Probabilist Eng Mech, 1986, 1(2): 105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li H S, Lu Z Z, Yuan X K. Nataf transformation based point estimate method. Chin Sci Bull, 2008, 53(17): 2586–2592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li H S. Research on probabilistic uncertainty analysis and design optimization methods (in Chinese). Dissertation of Masteral Degree. Xi’an: Northwestern Polytechnical University, 2008.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schuller G I, Pradlwarter H J, Koutsourelakis P S. A comparative study of reliability estimation procedures for high dimension. In: Proseedings of the 16th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference. Seattle: ASCE, 2003. 1–7Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schuller G I, Pradlwarter H J, Koutsourelakis P S. A critical appraisal of reliability estimation procedures for high dimension. Probabilist Eng Mech, 2004, 19(4): 463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lu Z Z, Song S F, Yue Z F, et al. Reliability sensitivity method by line sampling. Struct Saf, 2008, 30(2): 517–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Au S K, Beck J L. A new adaptive importance sampling scheme for reliability calculations. Struct Saf, 1999, 21(2): 135–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burlaga L, Sittler E, Mariani F, et al. Magnetic Loop Behind an Interplanetary Shock Voyager, Helios, and IMP 8 Observations. J Geophys Res, 1981, 86(1): 6673–6684CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science in China Press and Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of AeronauticsNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations