Skip to main content

FORM/SORM, SS and MCMC: A Mathematical Analysis of Methods for Calculating Failure Probabilities

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
18th International Probabilistic Workshop (IPW 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 153))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 760 Accesses

Abstract

A basic problem in structural reliability is the calculation of failure probabilities in high dimensional spaces. FORM/SORM concepts are based on the Laplace method for the pdf of the failure domain at its modes. With increasing dimensions the quality of SORM decreases considerably. The straightforward solution would have been to improve the SORM approximations. However, instead of this, a new approach, subset simulation (SS) was championed by many researchers. By the proponents of SS it is maintained that SS does not suffer from the deficiencies of SORM and can solve high-dimensional reliability problems for very small probabilities easily. However by the author in numerous examples the shortcomings of SS were outlined and it was finally shown that SS is in fact a disguised Monte Carlo copy of asymptotic SORM. The points computed by SS are converging towards the beta points as seen for example in the diagrams in many SS papers. One way to improve FORM/SORM one runs, starting near the modes i.e. beta points, MCMC’s which move through the failure domain \(F=\{\mathbf {x} ; g(\mathbf {x})< 0\}\) with \(g(\mathbf {x})\) the LSF. With MCMC one can calculate integrals over F with the pdf \(\phi (\mathbf {x})\), but not the normalizing constant P(F). However, a little artifice helps. Comparing the failure domain with another having a known probability content; not P(F) has to be estimated, but the quotient of these two probabilities. A good choice for this is \(F_L=\{x ; g_L(\mathbf {x})< 0\}\) given by the linearized LSF \(g_L(\mathbf {x})\), so \(P(F_L)= \Phi (-|\mathbf {x}^*|)\) with \(\mathbf {x}^*\) the beta point. Running two MCMC’s, one on F and one on \(F_L\)  by comparing them it is possible to obtain an estimate for the failure probability P(F). Another way is to use a modified line sampling method. For each design point for a random set of points on the tangential plane the distance of the plane to the limit state surface on the ray normal to the tangential space is determined and the corresponding normal line integral. Improving FORM/SORM by MCMC adds the advantages of analytic methods to the flexibility of the Monte Carlo approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Au, S. K., & Beck, J. L. (2001). Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 16, 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Au, S.-K., & Wang, Y. (2014). Engineering risk assessment with subset simulation. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Bennett, C. H. (1976). Efficient estimation of free energy differences from Monte Carlo data. Journal of Computational Physics, 22, 245–268.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Betancourt, M. (2017). A conceptual introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. In: arXiv e-prints, S. 1701.02434.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Botev, Z., & Kroese, D. (2012). Efficient Monte Carlo simulation via the generalized splitting method. Statistics and Computing, 22, 1–16.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Breitung, K. (1984). Asymptotic approximations for multinormal integrals. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division ASCE, 110, Nr. 3, S. 357–366.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Breitung, K. (2015). 40 years FORM: Some new aspects? Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 42, 71–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2015.09.012. ISSN 0266–8920

  8. Breitung, K. (2018). On subsets and onions: Lost in outer space. In Proceedings of the Joint ICVRAM ISUMA UNCERTAINTIES Conference 2018. Available on researchgate.net.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Breitung, K. (2019). SORM, subset simulation and simulated annealing. In IPW2019, 17th International Probabilistic Workshop, 11–13 September, Edinburgh, UK, S. 57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Breitung, K. (2019). The geometry of limit state function graphs and subset simulation. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 182, 98–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Breitung, K. (2020). Improvement of FORM/SORM estimates by Markov Chain Monte Carlo. In E. Zio, (Hrsg.): Proceedings of ESREL 2020 to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Breitung, K., & Hohenbichler, M. (1989). Asymptotic approximations for multivariate integrals with an application to multinormal probabilities. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 30, 80–97.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Cui, F., & Ghosn, M. (2019). Implementation of machine learning techniques into the Subset Simulation method. Structural Safety, S. 12–25.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Katafygiotis, L., & Zuev, K. (2007). Geometric insight into the challenges of solving high-dimensional reliability problems. In: Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 23, Nr. 2, S. 208–218.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lemieux, C. (2009). Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo sampling. Dordrecht : Springer (Springer Series in Statistics).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Meng, X.-L., & Wong, W. (1996). Simulating ratios of normalizing constants via a simple identity: A theoretical exploration. Statistica Sinica, 6, 831–860.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Monahan, J. (2011). Numerical methods in statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Papaioannou, I., Betz, W., Zwirglmaier, K., & Straub, D. (2015). MCMC algorithms for subset simulation. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 41, 89 –103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2015.06.006. ISSN 0266–8920.

  19. Papaioannou, I., Papadimitriou, C., & Straub, D. (2016). Sequential importance sampling for structural reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 62, 66 –75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2016.06.002. ISSN 0167–4730.

  20. Piaget, J. (1971). Structuralism. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul PLC, 1971. Translated from the French.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pompe, E., Holmes, C., & Łatuszyński, K. (2018). A framework for adaptive MCMC targeting multimodal distributions. In: arXiv e-prints, Dec, S. arXiv:1812.02609.

  22. Ramsey, F., & Schafer, D. (2012). The statistical sleuth: A course in methods of data analysis. Boston: Cengage Learning.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Rickart, C. (1995). Structuralism and structures: A mathematical perspective. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Tarantola, A. (2005). Inverse problem theory. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Thorpe, J. (1979). Elementary topics in differential geometry. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Uribe, F. (2018). Subset simulation. Engineering Risk Analysis Group Technische Universitat Munchen.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Valdebenito, M. A., Pradlwater, H., & Schuëller, G. : The role of the design point for calculating failure probabilities in view of dimensionality and structural nonlinearities. Structural Safety, 32, Nr. 2, S. 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zio, E. (2013). The Monte Carlo simulation method for system reliability and risk analysis. London, UK: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karl Breitung .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Breitung, K. (2021). FORM/SORM, SS and MCMC: A Mathematical Analysis of Methods for Calculating Failure Probabilities. In: Matos, J.C., et al. 18th International Probabilistic Workshop. IPW 2021. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 153. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73616-3_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73616-3_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-73615-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-73616-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics