Chapter 5

SATEY ANALYSIS OF SYSTEM CONSIDERING RANDOM

AND UNCERTAIN BOUNDED PARAMETERS

5.1 General

In the previous two chapters, the safety analysis of hybrid uncertain system (systems

characterized by both the probabilistic and the possibilistic variables) are presented in

probabilistic and possiblistic format. In those studies, the probabilistic variables are described by

the associated pdf and the possibilistic variables are described by the associated fuzzy mf.

However, in cases, for example in preliminary design phases, even though some experimental

data is available, it is not enough to construct reliable pdfs or mfs. The available data can be used,

particularly in combination with engineering experience, to set some tolerances or bounds on

uncertainties. One can only obtain the range or the lower bound and upper bound of the

structural parameters. In such cases, the uncertain design variables can be well modeled using

non-probabilistic convex models of uncertainty. Example of convex models includes intervals,

ellipse or any convex sets. This kind of mathematical model is called uncertain but bounded

model. Ben Haim and Elishakoff (1990), Ben-Haim (1996) proposed a version of worst-case

design based on convex models for design problems where there is scarce information about the

uncertain variables. A design should survive when the values of the uncertain variables vary in a

convex set, which is specified by the designer based on experience. In recent studies convex
models and interval analysis methods of uncertainty were developed in which bounds on the

magnitude of uncertainty is only required.

The concept of robustness-to-uncertainty is used as the measure of reliability. Convex set

encloses all possible combinations of the uncertain variables i.e. consist of all the possible

probabilities that are consistent with available information. It is basically a worst scenario

method since the convex models have to cover the uncertainties that cause the worst

consequence lead to overly conservative design. However, it seems to be logical alternative

when the design parameters needed to create a probabilistic models cannot be precisely

determined due to lack of data. But these works are restricted to single type of uncertain input

variables i.e. bounded variables and not compatible to tackle mixed uncertain input variables in

existing reliability analysis formats. The primary objective of the present chapter is to present a

second moment safety evaluation format for structural system characterized by hybrid

uncertainties i.e. both probabilistic and interval type uncertain parameters. The available

literatures on the application of interval analysis approach in the framework of set theoretical

description is limited to deal with response evaluation and optimization. But it is appeared to be

potential to apply in solving structural reliability analysis problem. The approach is extended

here to reliability analysis problem with an objective of evaluation of reliability of structures

involving both random and bounded variables. The bounds of performance function (limit state

function) of a typical structural reliability analysis problem with UBB parameters are presented

in this section by making use of interval mathematics. Subsequently, the next section elaborates

the application of the approach to fuzzy variables.

5.2 Bounds of Performance Function in Structural Reliability Analysis

An interval scalar consists of a single continuous domain in the domain of real numbers . The

lower and the upper bound of an interval scalar x I are denoted by xl and xu. A real closed interval

is thus defined as,

x  {x ( x  )( xl  x  xu )} . (5.1)

The i-th interval type design parameter can be defined as,

xiI  [ xil , xiu ], i  1, 2,..., m . (5.2)

If xi is the nominal value of the i-th UBB variable viewed as the mean value, then the UBB
parameter value deviates from the nominal value can be further expressed as,
xiI  [ xil , xiu ]  [ xi  xi , xi  xi ]

 [ xi , xi ]  [xi , xi ]  xi  xi [1,1]

(5.3)
xil  xiu
 xi  xi e where, xi  , e  [1, 1]
2
Thus, the i-th interval variable can be expressed as
xi  xi  xi , where, xi  xi , i  1, 2,.., m (5.4)

In engineering reliability analysis problem one needs to evaluate the performance

function generally obtained by numerical evaluation of the related structural analysis problem.

Thus, it is extremely difficult to calculate the exact interval solution. The interval analysis

problems can be approximated to equivalent deterministic one through Taylor series expansion

to yield conservative response bounds (Qiu and Wang 2003). Chen and Wu (2004) have further

justified the acceptability of the approximation approach for engineering problems.

The limit state function of a reliability analysis problem involving both random and UBB

variables can be expanded with respect to `m` numbers of UBB variables in Taylor series about

the nominal values in first order terms of x i as,

 m
g
g( X )  g( X )   xi  ..,
i 1 xi (5.5)
in which, xi  [xi , xi ], i  1, 2,..., m

Assuming monotonic responses and by making use of interval extension in interval mathematics,

the interval extension of the above expression can be obtained as,

m
g
g( X )  g( X )  
I
xi e  .. (5.6)
i 1 xi

Thus the interval region of the limit state function involving the UBB variables can be separated

out to upper and lower limit state function as,

m
g
g u ( X )  g ( X)   xi (5.7)
i 1 xi

and

m
g
g l ( X )  g ( X)   xi (5.8)
i 1 xi

It can be noted from above approximation that the limit state functions now involve the random

variables only. Thus, the rational approximation of the performance function is a linear function

of the bounded uncertainties and each such variable appear once in the expression and, the

interval solution obtained is unique (Hansen 1992).

Once the lower and the upper bounds on the performance function are obtained from Eqn.

(5.7) and (5.8), the bounds of reliability for UBB variables in combination with the remaining

random variables can be easily computed relying on the conventional second moment reliability

analysis format.
5.3 Numerical Study

The effectiveness of proposed safety evaluation approach is investigated by considering the same

two example problems of chapter three, viz : i) A reinforced concrete beam (Fig. 3.5) and ii) A

R.C. pile embedded in clay (Fig. 3.25). However in present case, the information available about

the uncertain variables are not sufficient to describe those probabilistically and can be modeled

as UBB type as described by section 5.2.

5.3.1 Example One: A Reinforced Concrete Beam

A simply supported reinforced concrete beam of section 3.5.1 of chapter 3 (refer Fig. 3.5) has

been re considered to elucidate the proposed algorithm of reliability analysis of structures under

hybrid uncertainties. Specifically, the purpose of the example problem is to demonstrate the

capability of the present approach to tackle mixed uncertain parameters in existing safety

assessment format. In the example problem, for the demonstration purpose, some of the variables

are considered to be random and some are UBB type. . The characteristic strength of concrete

(fck) and yield stress of steel (Fy) are assumed as random variables. On the contrary, the load (P),

width (b) and depth (D) of the beam, the cover of reinforcements (t) are modeled as UBB type

variables.

The bounds on reliability indices are evaluated following section 5.2 and are depicted in Fig. 5.1

assuming P, B, D and t as UBB variables and Fy and fck as normal random variables. The radiuses

of bounds are expressed as the percentage of the nominal property values and the coefficient of

variation (COV) of random variables are taken as 0.2. The nominal value of P is considered as

10 KN. The reliability is also computed assuming that the interval variables are uniformly

distributed. These are now transformed to equivalent normal distribution using Eqn. (3.8 & 3.9

of chapter 3). It can be noted that the reliability index corresponds to the uniform distribution i.e.
the most conservative assumption is within the width of the reliability bounds. Thus, the

conservative bounds obtained for structural responses as reported in Qiu and Wang (2003) is also

confirmed for reliability analysis problem as well.

4.90
Upper Bound
4.85 Lower Bound
Uniform
Reliability Index

4.80

4.75

4.70

4.65

4.60
5 10 15 20 25
x(%)

Fig. 5.1: The variation of reliability index with varying radius of bounded variables.

Now keeping interval length expressed as percentage of mean value to be same i.e. 10%, the

variation of reliability index with increasing COV (more uncertainty) is shown in Fig. 5.2. The

nominal value of concentrated load is assumed to be 10KN to develop this plot.

 10 Upper Bound
Lower Bound
9 Uniform
8

Reliability Index 7

2
10 15 20 25 30 35
COV (%)

Fig. 5.2: The variation of reliability index with increasing COV for P=10KN and Δx = 10%
Again keeping COV of random and UBB variables to be 20%, the bounds of reliability index as

well as reliability index based on uniform assumption are shown in Fig. 5.3 with increasing value

of nominal load. The value of interval length expressed as percentage of mean is taken as 0.1 to

develop this plot.

5.0
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
4.5
Uniform
Reliability Index

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Load (KN)

Fig. 5.3: The variation of reliability index with increasing value of nominal load for
 Δx =10% and COV=20%.

5.3.2 Example Two: A R.C. Pile Embedded in Clay

A reinforced concrete cast in situ bored pile embedded in clay, subjected to horizontal and

vertical load as well as moment at tip of the pile as shown in Fig. 3.25 of chapter 3 is taken up to

elucidate the proposed approach of safety evaluation of hybrid uncertain system. The statistical

properties of the random and UBB variables are described in table 3.3 in chapter 3. The pile

diameter (X1), modulus of elasticity(X2), applied horizontal load (X11), vertical load (X13) and

moment (X12) at tip of the pile are considered to be random variables. The length of pile in

various soil layers (X3 to X6) and the corresponding values of modulus of sub-grade reaction (X 7

to X10) are considered to be UBB type variables.

Reliability Analysis for Maximum Horizontal Displacement at Tip

The bounds of reliability indices are evaluated following section 5.2 considering the limit state

function for maximum horizontal displacement at tip as described by Eqn. (3.42) of chapter 3.

The radiuses of bounds are expressed as the percentage of the nominal property values and COV

of random variables are taken as 0.1. The nominal value of load is considered to be 30 KN to

develop this plot. The reliability is also computed assuming that the interval variables are

uniformly distributed. The reliability results are presented in Fig. 5.4 with increasing value of

interval length expressed as percentage of mean value.

 5.85 Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Uniform
5.80

R eliab ility Index 5.75

5.70

5.65

5.60

5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

x(%)

Fig. 5.4: The variation of reliability index with increasing value of interval length.

Keeping value of interval length (Δx) and COV of random and UBB variables to be 0.1, the

bounds of reliability index as well as reliability index based on uniform assumption are shown in

Fig. 5.5 with increasing value of horizontal load.

6.0
Upper Bound
5.5
Lower Bound
Uniform
5.0
R eliab ility In d ex

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Load (KN)

Fig. 5.5: The variation of reliability index with increasing horizontal load for Δx =10% and
COV=10%.
The variation of reliability index with increasing COV is shown in Fig. 5.6. Here interval length

and nominal value of load is kept same i.e. 0.1 and 30KN respectively to develop this plot.

6.0
Upper Bound
5.5 Lower Bound
Uniform
R e lia b ility In d e x

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

COV (%)

Fig. 5.6: The variation of reliability index with increasing COV for P=30KN and Δx = 10%

Reliability Analysis for Maximum Bending Moment

The reliability analysis is performed by considering the limit state function for maximum

bending moment as described by Eqn. (3.43). The bounds on reliability indices with increasing

value of interval length are evaluated following section 5.2 and are depicted in Fig. 5.7. Here

COV of random and UBB variables are assumed to be 0.1. The nominal value of load is

considered as 30 KN to develop this figure. The reliability is also computed assuming that the

interval variables are uniformly distributed and is shown in the same plot.
 7.1
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
7.0 Uniform

R eliability Index 6.9

6.8

6.7

6.6
5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
x(%)

Fig. 5.7: The variation of reliability index with increasing value of interval length.

Keeping value of interval length (Δx) and COV of random and UBB variables to be 0.1, the

bounds of reliability index as well as reliability index based on uniform assumption are shown in

Fig. 5.8 with increasing value of horizontal load.

Again, keeping interval length and nominal value of horizontal load to be same i.e. 0.1 and

30KN respectively, the variation of reliability index with increasing COV is shown in Fig. 5.9.
 7.0 Upper Bound
Lower Bound
6.5 Uniform

6.0

Reliability Index 5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Load (KN)

Fig. 5.8 The variation of reliability index with increasing horizontal load for Δx =10% and

COV=10%.

6.75 Upper Bound

Lower Bound
Uniform
6.00
Reliability Index

5.25

4.50

3.75

3.00

10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

COV (%)

Fig. 5.9: The variation of reliability index with increasing COV for P=30KN and Δx = 10%
5.4 Reliability Analysis of System Characterized by Uncertain Fuzzy and Random

Variables

The concept of various transformation methods are applied in this regard. However, there are

always some chances to lose some of the information at transformation stage. The reliability

analysis format as proposed here does not require any such transformation of data. The

convenient way of representing the fuzzy variables by the α-discretization method of its

possibility distribution i.e. the membership function is used. To circumvent the disadvantages of

the multilevel α-discretization method, the interval analysis approach is used. The fuzzy solution

is envisaged as a set of interval solutions. The uncertainty modeling is developed as an anti-

optimization problem of finding the least favourable and the most favourable performance

response obtained by using the bounds of all fuzzy input parameters at the particular α-

discretization. Subsequently, the lower and the upper bounds of the reliability at particular α-

discretization level are computed using the conventional second moment reliability analysis

format. The procedure of reliability evaluation is performed for each α-cut level to obtain the

membership distribution of fuzzy reliability. The defuzzified value of the fuzzy reliability is

finally achieved by identifying its centre of gravity according to the real axis. The computational

procedure of the possibilistic distribution of the reliability defined by the membership function

under hybrid uncertainty is elucidated numerically to study the consistency of the results

obtained by the proposed approach.

The evaluation of reliability bounds as discussed in the previous section can be applied

for computation of the distribution of the membership function of the reliability in the framework

of α-discretization approach. For the sake of completeness, the fundamentals of fuzzy description

are first discussed briefly.

 A convenient way to represent the fuzzy variables is the α-discretization method of its

possibility distribution described by the membership function as described in chapter 3 (section

L U
3.3). For ith α-cut level, the upper and lower bounds f and f as depicted in Fig. 3.3 (a) of

previous chapter are given by,

fL  min  f : f  F 
(5.9)
fU  min  f : f  F 

Now, for a given fuzzy variable, if n sets of α- cuts are established for all the fuzzy quantities
of the variable, a 2 by n array can be used to represent all of the quantities as follows:

 
F  ( f L , f U )1, ( f L , f U )2,  , ( f L , f U ) n (5.10)

For given support description of a fuzzy variable F, one can thus obtain the two interval
values at any specified α-cut level, μ( F )   , as shown in Fig. 3.3(b),
F  ( fL , fU )  [ c  (1   )a,  c  (1   )b] (5.11)
In this regard it is of worth mentioning that the possibility distributions as described by the

respective membership function are resulted from the overlapping interval observations. The

possibilistic mathematics generalizes the interval analysis (Cliff 1997). Once the fuzzy quantities

are expressed in interval form, the fuzzy arithmetic can be carried out using interval operations at

each of the ‘n’ α-cut levels independently. Thus, the core problem of the calculation of the

results of a function of fuzzy variables can be envisaged as the calculation of the result of that

function in the interval mathematics.

5.5 Reliability Analysis with Hybrid Uncertainty

The presents study is intended to perform the reliability analysis of structure when some

variables are random, defined by their pdf, and some are fuzzy defined by the associated

membership functions. It is apparent that to perform the safety evaluation of structures by the

conventional second moment format all the parameters must be random. Any fuzzy variable
involved in the limit state functions of the reliability analysis problem is converted to a bounded

variable at ith α-cut level following the procedure as described previously in section 5.2. Once a

fuzzy variable is converted to a bounded variable at i th α-cut level, the bounds on the reliability

index and the associated probability of failure can be readily obtained following second moment

reliability analysis format. If some of the random variables are not normal, those can be further

transformed to equivalent normal variables, using Eqn. (3.8 & 3.9 of chapter 3). However it

should be noted that the procedure of reliability evaluation has to be performed for each α-cut

level to obtain the distribution of upper and lower bound reliability in the entire range. Thus, the

proposed algorithm can be applied to evaluate the membership distribution of fuzzy reliability of

structures characterized by both the probabilistic and the possibilistic variables.

5.6 Defuzzification

The defuzzification is a process by which the collection of membership values are reduced to a

single scalar quantity-presumably to be the most typical or representative value. There are

various forms to convert the fuzzy sets to crisp sets (Ross 1997). In present study, the defuzzified

value of the reliability index is computed from the following (Lallemand et al. 1999):

n
AC    i ( ALi  ARi )
i 1
AD  n (5.12)
1  2  i
i 1

Where AD is the defuzzified value of A and A C is the crisp value of A. ALi and ARi are lower and

upper bound value of A at αi, where, αi, is the i-th α-level cut and n is the number of α-level cut.

5.7 Numerical Study

The effectiveness of proposed safety evaluation approach under hybrid uncertainty is

investigated by considering the same two example problems taken earlier in section 5.3.
5.7.1 Example One: A Reinforced Concrete Beam

A simply supported reinforced concrete beam of section 3.5.1 of chapter 3 (Ref. Fig. 3.5 of

chapter 3) has been considered again to elucidate the proposed algorithm of reliability analysis of

structures under hybrid uncertainties. The present study is intended for the reliability evaluation

of systems which are characterized by both the probabilistic and the possibilistic (fuzzy type)

uncertain variables. The uncertain fuzzy variables of the numerical example considered here are

P, B, D and t which are described by the triangular fuzzy distribution as shown in Fig. 3.6. The

two random variables (Fy and fck) are assumed to be normal. From Fig. 3.6 for i-th fuzzy variable,

a  xi  w xi , c  xi , b  xi  w xi

where, xi ,  xi is the mean and standard deviation of the ith variable, respectively, and w defines

the support width of the fuzzy variables.

Each fuzzy variable is converted to a bounded variable at ith α-cut level following section 5.2.

Once fuzzy variables are converted to a bounded variable at ith α-cut level, the bounds on the

reliability index and the associated probability of failure is readily obtained following standard

second moment reliability analysis format. The reliability indices description (upper bound and

lower bound) with the increasing membership values (α) are depicted in Fig. 5.10 and 5.11 for

nominal value of load (P) as 10 KN and 50 KN, respectively. The COV required to define the

support width of each fuzzy variable is taken as 10%. The COV of normal random variables are

also taken as 10%. Again Fig. 5.12 and 5.13 show the fuzzy membership distribution of

reliability for load P=10 KN and 50 KN, respectively, but for 15% cov of the support width of

each fuzzy variables and also for the random variables.

 Upper Bound
1.0
Lower Bound

0.8

M em bersh ip 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0
Reliability Index

Fig. 5.10: The distribution of reliability index (COV=10%, P=10 KN)

1.0 Upper Bound

Lower Bound
0.8
Membership

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0

Relaibility Index

Fig. 5.11: The distribution of reliability index (COV=10%, P=50 KN).

 1.0 Upper Bound
Lower Bound
0.8

Membership 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8

Reliability Index

Fig. 5.12: The distribution of reliability index (COV =15%, P=10 KN)

1.0 Upper Bound

Lower Bound
0.8
Membeship Function

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reliability Index

Fig. 5.13: The distribution of reliability index (COV =15%, P=50 KN)

The variation of deffuzzified reliability index obtained from Eqn. (5.12) with increasing

uncertainty level and different load is shown in Fig. 5.14. The support width as defined by the

weight factor w is taken as 3.0.

 10
P=5 KN
9

Defuzzified Reliability Index

P=10KN
P=20KN
8

3
5 10 15 20 25
COV(%)

Fig. 5.14: The variation of defuzzified reliability index with increasing COV for different loads

The distribution of reliability index for different support widths having same COV is depicted in

Fig. 5.15. Fig.5.16 further shows the variation of defuzzified reliability index for varying support

width and different values of COV.

1.0 Support width = 

Support width =
Support width=
Membership Function

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

Reliability Index

Fig. 5.15: The distribution of reliability index for different support width.
 14
COV=0.1 COV=0.15
12 COV=0.20 COV=0.25

10

Defuzzified 8

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Support width (w)

Fig. 5.16: The variation of defuzzified reliability index for different support width and
COV.

5.7.2 Example Two: A R.C. Pile Embedded in Clay

The same example as taken in section 5.3.2 is re considered here to elucidate the proposed

approach of safety evaluation of hybrid uncertain system. The statistical properties of the random

and fuzzy variables are described in table 3.3 of chapter 3. The pile diameter (X 1), modulus of

elasticity(X2), applied horizontal load (X11), vertical load (X13) and moment (X12) at tip of the pile

are considered to be random variables. The length of pile in various soil layers (X 3 to X6) and the

corresponding values of modulus of sub-grade reaction (X7 to X10) are considered to be

possibilistic (fuzzy type) variables.

Reliability Analysis for Maximum Horizontal Displacement at Tip

The variation of deffuzzified reliability index obtained from Eqn. (5.12) with increasing

uncertainty level and different load is shown in Fig. 5.17 considering the limit state function for

maximum horizontal displacement at tip as described by Eqn. (3.42). The support width as
defined by the weight factor w is taken as 3.0. The value of interval length expressed as

percentage of mean value is assumed to be 10% to develop this figure.

6.0 P=30KN
5.5
P=20KN
P=50KN
D efu zzified B eta

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

COV (%)

Fig. 5.17: The variation of defuzzified reliability index with increasing COV for different loads
for Δx =10%

The reliability indices description (upper bound and lower bound) with the increasing

membership values (α) are depicted in Fig. 5.18 and 5.19 for nominal value of load (P) as 80

KN. The COV required to define the support width of each fuzzy variable is taken as 10% and

15% respectively. The COV of normal random variables are also taken same as fuzzy variable

i.e. 10% and 15% respectively.

The distribution of reliability index for different support widths having same COV is depicted in

Fig. 5.20. The COV of random and fuzzy variables are assumed to be 10% to develop this plot.
 1.0 Lower Bound
Upper Bound

0.8

M em b ersh ip 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8

Reliability Index

Fig. 5.18: The distribution of reliability index (COV =10%, P=80 KN).

1.0 Lower Bound

Upper Bound

0.8
M em bership

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Reliability Index

Fig. 5.19: The distribution of reliability index (COV =15%, P=80 KN).
 Support width = 
1.0
Support width =
Support width=
0.8

M embership 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9

Reliability Index

Fig. 5.20: The distribution of reliability index for different support width for COV =10%.

Reliability Analysis for Maximum Bending Moment

The reliability analysis is performed by considering the limit state function for maximum

bending moment as described by Eqn. (3.43) of chapter 3. The reliability results i.e. the variation

of deffuzzified reliability index obtained from Eqn. (5.12) with increasing uncertainty level for

different load is shown in Fig. 5.21. The support width as defined by the weight factor w is taken

as 3.0. The value of interval length expressed as percentage of mean value is assumed to be 10%

to develop this plot.

 7.0 P=30KN
6.5 P=20KN
P=50KN
6.0

Deffuzified Beta
5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

COV (%)

Fig. 5.21: The variation of defuzzified reliability index with increasing COV for different loads
for Δx =10%

The reliability indices (upper and lower bound) with the increasing membership values (α)

are depicted in Fig. 4.22 and 4.23 for nominal value of load (P) as 80 KN. The COV required to

define the support width of each fuzzy and random variable is taken as 10% and 15%

respectively.

The distribution of reliability index for different support widths having same COV is depicted in

Fig. 4.24. Here COV for both random and fuzzy variables are assumed to be 10%.
 1.0 Lower Bound Lower Bound
Upper Bound 1.0
Upper Bound

0.8
0.8
Membership

0.6

Membership
0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2
0.0
3.50 3.85 4.20 4.55 4.90 5.25
0.0
Reliability Index 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6
Reliability Index

Fig. 5.22: The distribution of reliability index (COV

=10%, P=80 KN). Fig. 5.23: The distribution of reliability index
(COV =15%, P=80 KN).

Support width =

1.0 Support width =
Support width =
0.8
M em bership

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4

Reliability Index

Fig. 5.24: The distribution of reliability index for different support width for COV =10%.
5.8 Summary

A second moment safety evaluation format for structural system characterized by hybrid

uncertainties i.e. both probabilistic and interval type uncertain parameters has been presented in

this chapter. The available literatures on the application of interval analysis approach in the

framework of set theoretical description is limited to deal with response evaluation and

optimization. But it is appeared to be potential to apply in solving structural reliability analysis

problem. The approach is extended here to reliability analysis problem with an objective of

evaluation of reliability of structures involving both random and bounded variables. The bounds

of performance function (limit state function) of a typical structural reliability analysis problem

with UBB parameters are presented first by making use of interval mathematics. Subsequently,

the application of the approach to fuzzy variables has been elaborated next.

The example of a reinforced concrete beam and a R.C. pile subjected to horizontal, vertical load

and moment at tip are considered to validate the efficiency of proposed safety evaluation

approach. Parametric studies are performed for different settings of COV of input and increasing

in uncertainty of symmetrical triangular fuzzy variables. From parametric studies of different

numerical examples it has been observed that the lower bounds of reliability obtained by the

interval analysis approach are smaller than those predicted by assuming that the UBB variables

are uniformly distributed probabilistic variables. Similarly, the upper bounds yielded by the

present interval method are larger than those obtained by the probabilistic assumption. Thereby,

the reliability of structures with the UBB parameters obtained by the interval analysis method

contains those obtained based on the most conservative uniform pdf assumption. This kind of

results is in consistent with the membership distribution of fuzzy reliability. In other words, it

ensures that the possibility distribution is always greater than the probability distribution. The
fuzzy reliability distribution and the defuzzified reliability index for different load levels or

uncertainty levels as obtained by the proposed approach are also found to be consistent.

However, the present analysis is based on the assumption of monotonic responses i.e. response

lies at the end points of the UBB parameters. If the uncertain parameters are not so, alternative

method should be applied. It may be noted that the proposed approach is based on the first order

Taylor series expansion. Consequently, as the uncertainty level of the parameters becomes

larger, the predicted fuzzy membership distribution of reliability will be increasingly inaccurate.

A second order perturbation analysis may be explored to improve the accuracy. However, it

needs further study.