Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2013.04.003
Title: Quantile value method versus design value method for calibration of reliability-based geotechnical codes
Authors: Ching, J.
Phoon, K.-K 
Keywords: Design codes
First-order reliability method
Geotechnical engineering
Quantile
Reliability-based design
Issue Date: Sep-2013
Source: Ching, J., Phoon, K.-K (2013-09). Quantile value method versus design value method for calibration of reliability-based geotechnical codes. Structural Safety 44 : 47-58. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2013.04.003
Abstract: This paper compares two methods for geotechnical reliability code calibration, namely the well known design value method (DVM) based on first-order reliability method and a recently developed method based on quantile, called the quantile value method (QVM). The feasibility of calibrating a single partial factor to cover the wide range of coefficients of variation (COVs) commonly encountered in geotechnical designs is studied. For analytical tractability, a simple design example consisting of one resistance random variable and one load random variable is first examined. A resistance factor is first calibrated using a single calibration case associated with a typical COV. The objective is to evaluate the departure from the target reliability index analytically when this calibrated resistance factor is applied to validation cases associated with a range of COVs. The results show that QVM is more robust than DVM in terms of achieving a more uniform reliability level over a range of COVs. Two realistic geotechnical design examples are studied to demonstrate that the theoretical insights garnered in the simple analytical example are applicable. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.
Source Title: Structural Safety
URI: http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/59176
ISSN: 01674730
DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2013.04.003
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

10
checked on Dec 5, 2017

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

6
checked on Dec 5, 2017

Page view(s)

36
checked on Dec 3, 2017

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.