Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Structuralonline
Available Integrity
atProcedia 00 (2018) 000–000
www.sciencedirect.com www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect
Procedia Structural Integrity 20 (2019) 17–23

1st International Conference on Integrity and Lifetime in Extreme Environment (ILEE-2019)

1st International Conference on Integrity and Lifetime in Extreme Environment (ILEE-2019)
Basic approaches to ensuring structural integrity of technical
Basic approaches to ensuring structural integrity of technical
systems
systems
D. Reznikova,a,*
a
D. Reznikov *
Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, RAS. 4 Maly Kharitonievsky lane, Moscow,101990, Russia
a
Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, RAS. 4 Maly Kharitonievsky lane, Moscow,101990, Russia

Abstract
Abstract
Structural reliability of technical systems is to be insured in the presence of high level of uncertainty related to natural variability
Structural reliability
of loads acting on the of system,
technicalscatter
systems of is to be insured
mechanical in the presence
properties of high
of structural level ofinaccuracies
materials, uncertainty related to naturaldimensions,
of geometrical variability
of loads actingofon
imperfections testtheequipment
system, scatter
and designof mechanical
models. Inproperties
the view ofofthese
structural materials,
uncertainties twoinaccuracies of geometrical
basic approaches to securingdimensions,
structural
imperfections
integrity can be ofdistinguished:
test equipmentdeterministic
and design models. In the view
(standard-based) of thesefounded
approach uncertainties
on thetwo basic approaches
application of the sotocalled
securing structural
safety factors
integrity can be distinguished:
that are introduced deterministic
into the design equation (standard-based)
to compensateapproach founded
uncertainties; andonprobabilistic
the application of the so called approach
(reliability-based) safety factors
that
that are that
requires introduced into theofdesign
the probability structuralequation
failureto compensate
occurrence not uncertainties;
to exceed someand probabilistic
allowable limiting(reliability-based)
value considered approach
acceptablethat
by
requires
society atthat
thethe probability
current stage ofofthe
structural failure development,
technological occurrence notavailable
to exceed some allowable
resources limiting value
and the willingness of considered
the society acceptable by
to pay for the
society at the current
implementation stage of the
of protection technological
measures. Thedevelopment,
paper presentsavailable resources and
a comparative the willingness
assessment of the society
of deterministic and toprobabilistic
pay for the
implementation of protection
approaches to securing measures.
structural integrity ofThe paper systems
technical presents subjected
a comparative assessment
to various types of of deterministic
loading regimes. and
The probabilistic
condition of
approaches to securing structural integrity of technical systems subjected to
the equivalence of these two basic approaches to securing structural integrity is considered. various types of loading regimes. The condition of
the equivalence of these two basic approaches to securing structural integrity is considered.
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
©
© 2019
2019The
TheAuthors. Published
Author(s). by Elsevier
Published B.V. B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility ofbyILEE-2019
of the
Elsevier
the ILEE-2019 organizers
organizers
Peer-review under responsibility of the ILEE-2019 organizers
Keywords: stractural integrity; safety factor; probability of failure
Keywords: stractural integrity; safety factor; probability of failure

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +7-495-623-5835; fax: +7-495-623-5835.

* Corresponding
E-mail address:author. Tel.: +7-495-623-5835; fax: +7-495-623-5835.
imashreznikoff@yandex.ru.
E-mail address: imashreznikoff@yandex.ru.
2452-3216 © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review underThe
2452-3216 © 2019 responsibility of the ILEE-2019
Author(s). Published organizers
by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the ILEE-2019 organizers

2452-3216 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the ILEE-2019 organizers
10.1016/j.prostr.2019.12.109
18 D. Reznikov / Procedia Structural Integrity 20 (2019) 17–23
2 D. Reznikov / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1. 1. Introduction

Structural failure refers to the loss of structural integrity, or the loss of the ability of a technical system (TS) to
withstand its intended loading without failing due to fracture, excessive deformation, or fatigue and remain
functional for a desired service life in real environmental service conditions.

Nomenclature

ci capacity parameter
{C} vectors of capacity parameters
di demand parameter
{D} vectors of demand parameters
E{x} mathematical mean of the random variable x
KIC fracture toughness,
KI max maximum stress intensity factor
NC(σa) number of cycles to failure at the specific load amplitude
ni safety factor against the i-th failure mechanism
[ni] normative safety factors against the i-th failure mechanism
N(σa) number of loading cycles at a specific load amplitude
Pf estimated probability of the system’s failure
[Pf ] tolerable value of the system’s failure probability
t time
Td design service life
δC critical displacement,
max maximum displacement
i* (t ) maintenance function
Δi(t) degradation function
εmax maximum local strain
εy yield strain,
σmax maximum local stress
σy yield strength
ζ maintenance program
χ societal criterion factor

Structural failure occurs when at least one of the so-called demand parameters (maximum local stress σmax,
maximum local strain εmax, maximum stress intensity factor KI max, maximum displacement max, number of loading
cycles at a specific load amplitude N(σa), etc.) exceeds the respective capacity parameter of the structure (yield
strength σy, yield strain εmax, fracture toughness KIC, critical displacement δC, number of cycles to failure at the
specific load amplitude NC(σa), etc.), Makhuov (2008), Doronin et al. (2005):

 max   Y ;
   ;
 max Y

 K I max  K IC ;

 max   C ;
 N ( )  N ( );
 max a C a

 
 D. Reznikov / Procedia Structural Integrity 20 (2019) 17–23 19
D. Reznikov / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 3

Then vectors of demand {D}={d1, d2, …, dn} and capacity {C}={c1, c2, …, cn} parameters can be introduced to
describe the position of the system in the space of its design parameters. The coordinates of these vectors are defined
as follows:

d1 (t )   max (t ) , d 2 (t )  max (t ) , d3 (t)  KImax (t) , d 4 (t )  max , d 5 (t )  N  (t ) ;

c1 (t )  C (t ) , c2 (t )  C (t ) , c3 (t )  K IC (t ) , c4 (t )  C , c5 (t )  N C (t ) .

Then the condition of ensuring structural integrity can be written in the following form:

di (t )  ci (t ) for i  [1, 2,..., n] and t  [0; Td ] , (1)

where Td is the design service life of the TS, and n is the number of failure mechanisms.
One should note that parameters {d1, d2, …, dn} and {c1, c2, …, cn} have a random nature and should be
considered as random functions of time. It means that the structural integrity of the system is to be ensured in
presence of high level of uncertainties related to natural variability of loads acting on the system, scatter of
mechanical properties of structural materials, inaccuracies of geometrical dimensions, imperfections of test
equipment and design models. In the view of these uncertainties two basic approaches to securing structural
integrity can be distinguished:
- Deterministic (standard-based) approach. Here so called safety factors are introduced into the design equation to
compensate uncertainties.
- Probabilistic (reliability-based) approach. According to this approach the probability of structural failure
occurrence should not exceed some allowable limiting value [Pf] which is considered by a society as acceptable at
the current stage of the technological development, available resources and the wiliness of the society to pay for the
implementation of protection measures.

2. Deterministic approach to securing structural integrity

When the deterministic approach is implemented, the uncertain functions ci(t) and di(t) in (1) are replaced with
certain deterministic estimates: such as mathematical means of these functions E{ci(t)} and E{di(t)}. In order to
take into account the uncertainty, minimum allowable (or normative) safety factor [ni]>1 against the i-th failure
mechanism is introduced in equation (1):

E ci (t )  [ni ]  E di (t )  0 t  [0; Td ], i 1, 2,  , k

. (2)

Then introducing the concept of the design value of the central safety factor ni (t )  E ci (t ) E d i (t ) one can
write down the condition for ensuring structural integrity for i-th failure mechanism which is written in terms of
safety factors:

ni ( t )  [ ni ],  t  [0; Td ],  i 1, 2,  , k
. (3)

The values of normative safety factors [ni] are specified by regulatory bodies taking into account the accumulated
experience gained through operating TS of the specific type (Table 1). They are closely linked to the level of
technology in a particular industry and with the methods used in calculations. When assigning the values of
normative safety factors the severity of possible consequences of the system’s failure should also be taken into
account.
20 D. Reznikov / Procedia Structural Integrity 20 (2019) 17–23
4 D. Reznikov / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

Table 1. Normative values of safety factors.

Brach of industry, type of equipment Range of values
Aviation and space industries 1.2 - 2.0
Equipment and pipelines of nuclear power plants 1.1 - 3.0
Metallurgic equipment 2.1 - 8.0
Railroad transportation 3.3 - 5.6
Carrying and lifting equipment 1.3 - 1.6
Pressure vessels 1.5 - 4.0

The design value of safety factor ni at the moment t may be represented as the sum of three components:

n
i (t ) n i (0)   i ( t )   i ( t ) ,
*
(4)

where ni(0) is the initial value of safety factor assigned in the process of the systems design by selection of the
corresponding technical solutions and geometric and physical parameters of the system; Δi(t) is the degradation
function that describes the reduction of capacity parameters as a result of degradation processes (fatigue, corrosion,
wear, etc.) in the technical system; i* (t ) is the maintenance function that characterizes an increase in capacity
parameters (and/or reduction in operating loads) as a result of the implementation of a certain maintenance program
ζ(am, ao, ar, az) which implies carrying out a series of protection measures (monitoring am, maintenance ao, repair ar,
and development of protection systems az).
In engineering practice differential safety factors n1(0), n2(0), …, nk(0) are selected at the design stage.
Apparently, the set of initial safety factors do not completely determine the system’s structural integrity at various
stages of its operation. Due to degradation processes, extreme external impacts, errors of operators, etc., capacity
parameters of TS components naturally tends to decrease. Therefore, the differential safety factors ni(t) are
decreasing functions, which may fall below the allowed normative levels [ni] with the course of time. Therefore, a
certain maintenance program ζ(am, ao, ar, az) that implies a set of specific protection measures which include
monitoring of the technical state, maintenance, repairs, and introduction of protection systems should be
implemented to secure the system's structural integrity during the whole system’s life cycle. Therefore initial safety
factors ni(0) against the main ways of reaching TS limit states are to be assigned considering the expected intensity
of degradation processes and in agreement with the accepted maintenance program ζ.
Thus when the deterministic approach is applied, the system’s structural integrity may be characterized by the
following parameters: (i) a set of initial differential margins n1(0), n2(0), …, nk(0); (ii) a family of so called
degradation functions Δ1(t), Δ2(t), …, Δk(t) that describe the reduction of the system’s capacity parameters as a
result of degradation processes; (iii) the system maintenance program ζ(am, ao, ar, az) which is a complex parameter
that determines the set of protection measures implemented in process of the TS operation. In this formulation the
system’s structural integrity is characterized by the following functional:

Z Н (t ) Fn , n1 (0), n2 (0),, nk (0), 1 (t ),  2 (t ),,  k (t ),  * (amon , aTO , arem , aSZ )

. (5)

With the functional (5) taken into account, two strategies for securing structural integrity may be defined (Fig. 1):
- Strategy 1 implies assignment of relatively small initial safety factors n1(0), n2(0), …, nk(0) and implementation
of a significant set of protection measures that includes maintenance, routine repair, and overhaul at moments t1, t2,
and t3 respectively (the maintenance program ζ1).
- Strategy 2 implies assignment of significant initial safety factors against the main ways of reaching the system’s
limit states and the minimum amount of protection measures (the maintenance program ζ2).
The first strategy is applied to those TS whose components can be easily controlled in the process of operation
and which may be replaced or repaired without the system shutdown. It is reasonable to use the second strategy for
systems (or their components), access to which in the process of operation is complicated and they may not be
repaired without significant material or time costs.
 D. Reznikov / Procedia Structural Integrity 20 (2019) 17–23 21
D. Reznikov / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 5

If the maintenance program ζ* is implemented the deterministic (standard based) criterion for securing the
system's structural integrity may be written down as follows:

ni * (t )  [ni ] t  [0; Td ], i 1, 2, , k .

3. Probabilistic approach to securing structural integrity

Starting from the second half of the XX centaury a probabilistic approach to ensuring structural integrity is being
developed. According to this approach the system's structural integrity is secured if the following condition holds:

Pf (t )  P{C (t )  D (t )}  [ Pf ] t  [0; Td ] , (6)

where C(t) and D(t) are capacity and demand parameters, Pf is the estimated value of the system’s failure
probability, [Pf ] is the so called tolerable value of the system’s failure probability. This value is determined by the
state of the economy, available technologies and wiliness of the industry, supervising agencies and/or society to pay
for implementation for protection measures. According to CIRIA-Construction Industry Research and information
association (1977) the value of [Pf ] can be determined as follows, by Elishakoff (2004):

104 Td
[Pf ]  , (7)
M
where χ is a societal criterion factor (Table 2), Td is the design service life of the structure in years, M is the number
of people within or near the TS.
Similar to the case of deterministic approach, two strategies for securing structural integrity may be defined
(Fig.1):
- Strategy 1 implies the implementation of a significant set of protection measures including maintenance, routine
repair, and overhaul at moments t1, t2, and t3 respectively to keep the failure probability below the tolerable value
(the maintenance program ζ1).
- Strategy 2 implies the selection of the design variables in such a way that the system failure probability will stay
below the tolerable value without implementation of protection measures throughout the design service life of the
structure (the maintenance program ζ2).

a b

Fig. 1. Securing structural integrity of TS in case of (a) traditional deterministic and (b) probabilistic approaches: the light gray signed the area
where the structural integrity is secured, and dark gray - where is not secured.
22 D. Reznikov / Procedia Structural Integrity 20 (2019) 17–23
6 D. Reznikov / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

Table 2. Values of societal criteria factor χ.

Type of TS 
Places of public assembly, dams 0,005
Domestic, offshore, trade and industry 0,05
Bridges 0,5
Towers, masts, offshore structures 5

Complex systems may fail due to multiple failure mechanisms i=1, 2, …, n. Bearing this in mind a vector of
failure probabilities {Pf(t)}={Pf1(t), Pf1(t) …. Pfn(t)} may be introduced. The components of this vector can be
defined as follows:

Pf 1 (t ) P c1 (t )  d1 (t ) ,


Pf 2 (t ) P c2 (t )  d 2 (t ) ,
 (8)
...
Pf n (t ) P cn (t )  d n (t )

.

And the condition for insuring structural integrity in a probabilistic formulation may be written as follows:

Pf i (t )  P ci (t )  d i (t )  [ Pf ] t  [0; Td ], i 1, 2,  , k . (9)

4. The relationship between deterministic and probabilistic criteria of structural integrity

Using intuitive considerations one can assume that at least in some cases a decreasing functional dependence
Pf=Pf (n) between failure probability and safety factor exists (Fig. 2). If such function does exist we can determine
the condition of equivalence between deterministic and probabilistic approaches to securing structural integrity,
Ching (2009). Then using the deterministic approach we can define the acceptable failure probability [Pf]n that is
equivalent to the specified normative safety factor [n] and vice versa in case of probabilistic approach determine the
minimum allowable safety factor [n]P that is equivalent to the normative failure probability [Pf].
Unfortunately such dependence exists only in some specific cases. Let’s consider the relationship between safety
factor n and failure probability Pf for a structural component that is subjected to static loading (demand) L and has
load carrying capacity R. If both L and R are considered as random variables that are distributed according to normal
laws FL(x) = N(E{L}, S{L}) and FR(x) = N(E{R}, S{R}) (where E{L}, S{L}, E{R}, and S{R} are mathematical
expectations and mean square deviations of the load L and capacity R) then the following relationship holds,
Elishakoff (2004), Makhutov and Reznikov (2011), Makhutov and Reznikov (2014):

 n 1 
Pf    , (10)
 vL  vR2 n2
2 
 

where Φ(·) is the Laplace function, n1 = E{R}/E{L} is the central safety factor under a single static loading;
νL = S{L}/E{L} and νR = S{R}/E{R} are coefficients of variation of the load and loading capacity. It means that the
functional relationship between the failure probability and the safety factor exists when coefficients of variation of
the demand and capacity parameters are constant values.
 D. Reznikov / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 7
D. Reznikov / Procedia Structural Integrity 20 (2019) 17–23 23

Fig. 2. Relationship between failure probability and safety factor.

In these specific cases when such an equivalence between deterministic and probabilistic approaches exists, or in
other words there is a functional relationship between safety factor and failure probability one can then carry out a
probabilistic design by using a deterministic safety-factor approach which is much simpler, more convenient and
less lime-consuming than the probabilistic approach.

Acknowledgements

This work is financially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 16-58-48008 IND_omi).

References

Ching, J., 2009. Equivalence between reliability and factor of safety. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 24, 159–171.
Doronin, S.V., Lepikhin, A.M., Moskvichev, V.V., et al., Modelirovanie prochnosti i razrusheniya nesushchikh konstruktsii tekhnicheskikh
sistem [Simulation of Strength and Failure of Bearing Structures in Technical Systems]. Nauka Publ. House, Novosibirsk. (in Russian)
Elishakoff, I., 2004. Safety Factors and Reliability: Friends or Foes? Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht. pp.295.
Makhutov, N., 2008. Strength and Safety. Basic and Applied Studies. Nauka Publ, Novosibirsk. pp. 523 (in Russian).
Makhutov, N., Reznikov, D., 2011. A Comparative Assessment of Specification-Based and Risk-Management-Based Approaches to the Security
Assessment of Complex Technical Systems. Journal of Machinery Manufacture and Reliability 40(6), 579–584.
Makhutov, N., Reznikov, D., 2014. The Comparison of Deterministic and Probabilistic Estimates of Strength of Structural Elements of Technical
Systems under Serial Loading. Journal of Machinery Manufacture and Reliability 43(5), 384–388.