Parametric Plots of Limit-State Surfaces as a Design Tool in Time-Variant System Reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to accurately determine the temporal safe region in time-variant reliability analysis is seminal for reliability-based design. When stochastic excitations are present and discrete-time approaches are invoked, the errors can be large when one uses only one past safe event (and one new failure event) at each time-step. Furthermore, when all previous safe events are accumulated and used, the calculations can be time consuming and the accuracy not ensured. In this paper, a minimal, or a so-called extreme limit-state, surface is obtained to identify the system temporal safe region in an economical manner. To do this, the limit-state surface motion for each failure mode is recorded as a parametric polar plot that provides both magnitude and relative angle of the vectors from the origin to the most-likely failure points (MLFPs) in standard normal space. The angle differences provide correlation and the magnitude differences provide importance. At the component-level, a few logical policies that compare correlation and the magnitude ensure that the safe region is sufficiently recognized. At the system-level, the temporal average of correlations and the magnitudes at the component-level, along with series or parallel system designations, foretells which failure modes are needed to form the system extreme limit-state surface. The impact of the work includes an immediate recognition of the important failure modes and reduced computation for methods such as multi-normal integration. Case studies of both series-system reliability and parallel-system reliability are presented using structural beams excited by stochastic loads and plagued with degrading material properties and dimensions. The accuracy of the extreme LSS is demonstrated cogently. The use of the polar plots as a design tool becomes evident.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".