predictions by advanced analysis may have different means and variances than those by LRED, thereby requiring a different value of @ to maintain the dsired target reliability. Existing advanced analysis design proposals Ziemian et al. (1992a,b) analyzed a series of two-bay, two-story planar frames and a 22-story, three-dimensional frame and showed that design by advanced analysis could save about 12% steel by weight compared to design by the 1986 LREFD specifications. These analyses captured discrete plastic hinging and geometric non-linearities. Resistance factors were incorporated by scaling the yield surface. A. successful design required the total load at plastic collapse (frame strength) to equal or exceed the total factored design load, Galambos (1988) considers methods of incorporating system reliability into the design process, which remains 2 fundamental distinction between system-based advanced analysis design techniques and the current member-based LRFD methods. Chen and Kim (1997) also provide guidelines for design with advanced analysis and present several modeling approaches (c.g. notional load, reduced tangent modulus, semi-rigid connections), No resistance factor is used, and again the design condition requires the frame strength to exceed the factored loads. Additional research on advanced analysis has focused fon the development of analysis techniques and tools for frames which exhibit complex. non-linear behavior. Galambos (1998) summarizes various analysis and design techniques. While general guidelines are available for the design of steel frames by advanced analysis, no previous research has directly compared the structural reliability of frames designed by advanced analysis to those designed by LRFD methods, STRUCURAL RELIABILITY For a structure with random strength (R) subjected to random load (Q), the probability of failure is