Show simple item record

contributor authorDavid S. Gromala
date accessioned2017-05-08T20:57:54Z
date available2017-05-08T20:57:54Z
date copyrightDecember 2001
date issued2001
identifier other%28asce%290733-9445%282001%29127%3A12%281485%29.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/33540
description abstractThe writers of current standards and specifications for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) envisioned that those documents would be used by designers in a manner similar to that used in prior (allowable stress design) formats. They presumed that designs would be accomplished by satisfying a series of checking equations in which the structural resistance exceeds the demand on the structure. While these early developers used reliability analysis tools to derive the load and resistance factors, they did not envision that reliability analysis would evolve into a tool to be directly used by designers. In spite of those early presumptions, the evolving reality is that reliability analysis procedures are now available to an increasing number of individual designers. Sooner or later, these designers will attempt to use reliability analysis to assist them in their project-specific or, more likely, product-specific designs. This paper discusses limitations and potential pitfalls of reliability analysis when used in routine structural design. Specific examples focus on wood design. The conclusion reiterates the premise that LRFD, not theoretical reliability analysis, is the proper tool for use in daily design.
publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
titleEvolving toward Project-Specific Reliability: Are We Sure It's a Good Idea?
typeJournal Paper
journal volume127
journal issue12
journal titleJournal of Structural Engineering
identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:12(1485)
treeJournal of Structural Engineering:;2001:;Volume ( 127 ):;issue: 012
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record