ISSN 1052-6188, Journal of Machinery Manufacture and Reliability, 2021, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 302–311.

© Allerton Press, Inc., 2021.

Russian Text © The Author(s), 2021, published in Problemy Mashinostroeniya i Nadezhnosti Mashin, 2021, No. 4, pp. 26–36.

RELIABILITY, STRENGTH, AND WEAR RESISTANCE

OF MACHINES AND STRUCTURES

Assessing the Structural Elements of the Probability of Fatigue

Fracture Taking into Account the Statistical Scatter
of the Mechanical Characteristics of the Material Strength
and Residual Defectiveness
Yu. G. Matvienkoa, D. A. Kuz’minb, D. O. Reznikova,*, and V. V. Potapovb
a
Blagonravov Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
bAll-Russia Research Institute for Operation of Nuclear Power, Moscow, Russia

*e-mail: mibsts@mail.ru
Received December 30, 2020; revised March 30, 2021; accepted April 26, 2021

Abstract—A method for assessing the probability of destruction of structural elements of technical sys-
tems under the action of single static and cyclic loads, which permits taking into account the scatter of
the mechanical properties of materials and sizes, and residual macrodefects that were not found by
nondestructive testing is presented. This method can be used in the implementation of probabilistic
and risk-based approaches to ensuring the strength, service life, and safety of technical systems in real
operating conditions, as well as when adjusting standard operating programs in terms of choosing the
frequency and the scope of nondestructive testing.

Keywords: strength, crack resistance, destruction probability, nondestructive testing, defectiveness

DOI: 10.3103/S1052618821040075

(1) Problem statement. In the tasks of assessing and ensuring the structural strength and resources of
structural elements of technical systems in real operating conditions, there is inevitably a high level of
uncertainty due to variability in the mechanical properties, the stochastic nature of their degradation pro-
cesses, and the spread in the sizes of cracks and other macrodefects. Defects can occur during the manu-
facture, mounting, and operation. Moreover, they cannot always be detected by means of nondestructive
testing, which does not permit ensuring 100% detectability of defects at the current level of technological
development. As a result, in practice, it is always necessary to take into account the presence of residual
defectiveness, which is understood as a set of defects that remain in the equipment after nondestructive
testing and repair of the detected defects [1–4]. A separate group of uncertainties is associated with the
variability of the operating loading conditions, as well as the possibility of implementing design and off-
design extreme effects on the structural elements under consideration.
The designed strength and service life of the structural elements are considered to be ensured if the fol-
lowing conditions are met for the entire set of dominant mechanisms for reaching the limiting states i = 1,
2, …, k throughout the entire service life Te of the elements [5–12]
ΣCi (t )/ΣEi (t ) > 1, i = 1,2,...,k ∀t ∈ [0;TE ], (1)

where ΣCi (t ) are the limiting characteristics of the strength, crack resistance, reliability, resources, and sur-
vivability of the element (hereinafter referred to as the bearing capacity characteristics), and ΣEi (t ) are the
factors of operational loading corresponding to them (hereinafter referred to as loads).
In the traditional solution of strength problems, these uncertainties were eliminated within the frame-
work of the deterministic approach by introducing a system of safety margins n1, n2, …, nk according to the
main mechanisms for reaching the limiting states. In this case, the undefined parameters ΣCi (t ), ΣEi (t ) (i =
1, 2, …, k) in the system of inequalities (1) are replaced by their deterministic characteristics, for example,
the mathematical expectations E{ΣCi (t )}, E{ΣEi (t )}, while to compensate for possible deviations from the
indicated mathematical expectations (including minimizing the effect of unaccounted loads), instead of

302
 ASSESSING THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROBABILITY 303

the margin value 1, the corresponding margins n1 > 1, n2 > 1, …, nk > 1 are introduced into the right-hand
sides of inequalities (1)
E {ΣCi (t )}/E {ΣEi (t )} > ni ; i = 1,2,…, k; ∀t ∈ [0;TE ].
With the development of probabilistic and risk-based approaches, due to the need to solve problems to
minimize the life cycle costs, the problem arises of assessing the probability of failure of structural ele-
ments under the action of the loading modes considered (PF1, PF2, …, PFk) [12], and comparing the
obtained estimates with some normative maximum permissible values of destruction probability [PF].
Depending on the responsibility of the structure under consideration, this probability is chosen in the
range 10–5–10–8 yr–1 [9, 13]. In this case, the structural strength and service life of the structural element
considered according to the main mechanisms for reaching the limiting states are provided if the following
system of inequalities is met
PFi (t ) = P (ΣCi (t )/ΣEi (t ) < 1) < [PFi (t )], i = 1,2,… k, ∀t ∈ [0;TE ].
The solution of the probabilistic problem involves the description of uncertainties using the probability
distributions of uncertain parameters and obtaining calculated estimates of the probability of destruction
by analytical or numerical methods. A separate problem is a well-justified choice of the normative, max-
imum permissible values of the destructiove probability [PFi(t)] according to the mechanisms for reaching
the limiting states, which is carried out taking into account the criticality of the element and the conse-
quences occurring in the event of its destruction.
(2) Evaluation of the probability of failure of an element under a single static loading. Using the integral
form of the total probability theorem, the equation for estimating the fracture probability of a component
in a brittle state and containing a crack-like defect can be written in the form [1, 2]
K Ic max σmax
PF =  fK Ic (K Ic )  fσ(σ)P (a ≥ aс )d σdK Iс ,
K Ic min σmin

where PF is the probability of destruction; FKIc(KIc) is the integral fracture toughness distribution function
of destruction, KIс; fσ(σ) is the stress distribution density function σ; a is the probabilistic quantity “char-
acteristic size of a defect,” for example, the depth of a crack; F(а) is the integral defect size distribution
function; P(a ≥ aC) is the probability that the size of the defect will exceed the critical value aC: F(аC) =
P(a < aC) = 1 – P(a > aC) → P(a > aC) = 1 – F(аC).
The stress intensity factor in the surface crack region is determined by the equation K I = fk σ πa ,
where fk is a correction function for the geometry and size of the crack, its location, and the loading
scheme.
If we put forward the assumption that the applied stresses (σ) are deterministic, then the probability of
fracture will be determined by a simpler expression
K Ic max K Ic max

PF =  fKIc (K Ic )P (a ≥ aс )dK Ic =  fKIc (K Ic ) (1 − F (ac )) dK Ic . (2)

K Ic min K Ic min

Expression (2) is the formulation of the total probability theorem: the probability of destruction is a
complex event a > aC(KIc)|KIc ∈ dKIc, combining two related events, namely (1) event 1: fracture toughness
KIc is in the range dKIc (KIc ∈ dKIc); the probability of this event is fKIc(KIc)dKIc; (2) event 2: the size of the
defect a exceeds the critical value aC (a > aC). The probability of this event is, respectively, P(a > aC).
The limits of integration in expression (2) can be chosen from the conditions
K Ic min = E {K Ic } − 3S {K Ic } = E {K Ic }(1 − 3ν KIc ),
K Ic max = E {K Ic } + 3S {K Ic } = E {K Ic }(1 + 3ν KIc ),
where E{KIc} and S{KIc} are the mathematical expectation and standard deviation of fracture toughness
KIc; νKIc = S{KIc}/E{KIc} is the variation factor of KIc.
Let the value of fracture toughness be distributed according to the normal law
(K Ic − E {K Ic })
2
−
fKIc (K Ic ) = 1 e
2
2SKIc
.
2πS {K Ic }

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 50 No. 4 2021

304 MATVIENKO et al.

f(a)

PE(а > aC)

PTE(а > aC)

aC G a

Fig. 1. Distribution of the quantity “defect size” a: 1, exponential distribution (E); 2, truncated exponential distribution
(TE).

We also assume that the random variable “characteristic size of the defect” is distributed according to
the exponential law [1] (Fig. 1, curve 1)
− a
F (a) = 1 − e , E {a}
(3)
where E{a} is the mathematical expectation of the random variable a.
Then the second factor of the integrand in Eq. (2) can be written in the form
aC
−
P (a ≥ aC ) = 1 − F (aC ) = e E {a}
. (4)
In this case, Eq. (2) can be rewritten as follows
(K Ic − E {K Ic })
2
K Ic max − aС
−
1

2
PF = e 2SKIc
e E {a}
dK Ic .
K Ic min 2πS {K Ic }
Taking into account that
2
 K 
aC =  Ic  , (5)
 fk σ π 
we obtain an expression for the probability of failure of a structural element with a crack
2
(K Ic − E {K Ic })
2
 K 
K Ic max − − 1  Ic 


1 2
E {a} fk σ π 
PF = e 2S {K Ic }
e dK Ic . (6)
K Ic min 2πS {K Ic }
Let us consider a numerical example for calculating the probability of destruction of the pipeline ele-
ment loaded with internal pressure, containing an axial surface crack on the inner wall (Fig. 2). The initial
data of the problem are given in Table 1.
In the example under consideration, for a conservative estimate, it is allowable to take the crack depth
as the characteristic dimension a; i.e., we consider an extended defect with the length exceeding the depth

Table 1. Numerical parameter values

Internal pressure in the pipeline, p0 (MPa) 8
Diameter, D (m) 1.26
Wall thickness, δ (m) 0.025
Circumference stress, σ (MPa) 201.6
Fracture toughness, KIc
Mathematical expectation, E{KIc} (MPa m ) 61
Variation coefficient, νKIc 0.1

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 50 No. 4 2021

 ASSESSING THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROBABILITY 305

G
p

Fig. 2. Structural element under consideration.

PF
1.00E+00

1.00E02

1.00E04

1.00E06

1.00E08

1.00E10

1.00E12
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
E{a0}, m

Fig. 3. Dependence of the probability of brittle fracture under a single static loading on the mathematical expectation of
the crack depth.

by an order of value. The value of correcting function fk for an extended defect in the expression for the
stress intensity factor is taken equal to 1.12 [15].
We will assume that, after nondestructive testing, the detected defects are eliminated. In this case, the
size of undetected defects, determined by the quality (volume and depth) of non-destructive testing, is a
probabilistic exponentially distributed quantity. In the example under consideration, its mathematical
expectation is taken equal to E{a} = 2.00 × 10–3. In other words, the presence of a defect such as a crack
is postulated, the depth of which is not known exactly, being assumed to be a probabilistic quantity dis-
tributed according to an exponential law with the mathematical expectation E{a} = 2.00 × 10–3 m.
According to relation (6), for the example under consideration, the probability of element destruction
under a single static loading is PF = 6.51 × 10–5. Figure 3 plots the dependence of the fracture probability
on the mathematical expectation value E{a} of the crack size.
If we use the truncated exponential distribution instead of exponential distribution (4) as the distribu-
tion of the crack depth a, namely

− 1 a
E {a}
F (a) =
1 − e , (7)
− 1 δ − 1 δ
1−e E {a}
1−e E {a}

where parameter δ is equal to the thickness of the wall element, which enables us to take into account the
natural constraint for quantity a, then, the use of similar transformations allows us to obtain a refined esti-
mate of the destruction probability for the structural element under consideration

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 50 No. 4 2021

306 MATVIENKO et al.

K Ic max −
(K Ic − E {K Ic })
2
 − 1 ac 
1 1 − 1 e E {a}  dK .

2
PF = e 2SKIc
+
2πS {K Ic }  − 1 δ − 1 δ
Ic
 E {a} 
 1−e 1−e
K Ic min

E {a}

Thus, if the truncated exponential distribution is used in the numerical example considered, the frac-
ture probability will be PF = 6.14 × 10–5. In this case, the difference in the estimates of the destruction
probability when using the exponential and truncated exponential distributions is about 6%.
(3) Estimation of the fatigue fracture probability taking into account the scatter of initial crack sizes a0
and fracture toughness KIc. Let us consider the problem of cyclic loading of a structural element with a
crack-like defect. Using (2), one can write the expressions for estimating the probability of fracture after
N loading cycles, taking into account the growth of the crack from the initial depth a0 to the current
depth aN :
K Ic max

PFN = PF (τN ) = 
K Ic min
fK Ic (K Ic )P (aN > aC )dK Ic . (8)

We will assume that the crack kinetics is described by the modified Paris equation

da = C ΔK
( ),
m
(9)
dN 1− R
where С and m are the constants depending on material and loading conditions; R is the load cycle asym-
metry coefficient; ΔK is the range of the stress intensity factor in the loading cycle. We also assume that
the initial crack size a0 is a random function distributed by exponential law (3).
In this case, the crack depth after N loading cycles will be a function of the random variable “initial
crack depth” a0. Therefore, there will be a deterministic functional dependence between the random vari-
ables aN and a0. Separating the variables and integrating the left and right sides of expression (9), one
obtains
1− m 1− m
aN 2 − a0 2
N = , (10)
( )
m
 f π 
C 1− m  k Δσ 
2  (1 − R) 
where aN is the crack depth after N loading cycles.
From Eq. (10), we can write an expression for the crack depth after N loading cycles
2

( ) 1f − Rπ Δσ  

 1− m 
m 2−m
aN =  a0 2 + NC 1 − m k
. (11)
 2

The destruction condition after N loading cycles has the form
aN > aC .
Thus, in the problem setting considered, the value aN defined by expression (11) will be a function of
only random variable a0.
Let us introduce the concept of the critical initial crack depth a0CN (Fig. 4), which means the initial
crack depth which, after N loading cycles at a given range Δσ of nominal stresses in the loading cycle,
reaches the critical size aC, determined with allowance for relation (5) and the possibility of changing the
loading cycle parameters in the form
2 2
 K Ic   K Ic (1 − R) 
aC =   =  .
 fk σmax π   fk Δσ π 

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 50 No. 4 2021

 ASSESSING THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROBABILITY 307

aС

f(a0)

a0С
N

0 N NEl

Fig. 4. Kinetics of the growth of fatigue cracks taking into account the initial defectiveness scatter.

In the formulation of the problem treated, the kinetics of crack growth is deterministic and there is a
deterministic functional dependence between the quantities a0 and aN . Due to this, the condition of
destruction at time τN corresponding to N loading cycles can be expressed through the relation between
the initial crack depth a0 and the value a0CN :

a0 > a0CN . (12)

The quantity a0CN can be obtained by expressing a0 from (10)

( )
2/(2 − m)
 m

a0 =  aN(2 − m)/2 − NC 1 − m  k Δσ π  
f
,
 2 1 − R  
and inserting aN = aC into it yields

( )
2/(2 − m)
 m

=  aС(2 − m)/2 − NC 1 − m  k Δσ π  
f
a0СN . (13)
 2 1 − R  
Taking into account (12), the expression for the probability of fatigue failure after N loading cycles (8)
can be rewritten in the form
K Ic max

PF (τN ) = 
K Ic min
fK Ic (K Ic )P (a0 > a0CN )dK Ic . (14)

The second factor of the integrand in (14) can be expressed in terms of the distribution function F(a0)
of the random variable “initial crack depth”

P (a0 > a0CN ) = 1 − P (a0 < a0CN ) = 1 − F (a0CN ).

Or, taking into account (3), for the exponential distribution of the initial crack depth a0:
a0CN
−
P (a0 > a0C ) = e
E {a0 }
N
.
Then with allowance for expressions (5) and (13),
2 / (2 − m )
  K IC (1− R ) 2 − m
( )( 
)
m
m fk
   − NC 1− Δσ π 

 Δ σ π  −
− 
f k 2 1 R

P (a0 > a0CN ) =e E {a0 }

.

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 50 No. 4 2021

308 MATVIENKO et al.

PF
1.00E02
3
1.00E03
1.00E04 2
[PF]
1.00E05
1.00E06 1
1.00E07
1.00E08
0 2 [W2] 4 6 8 [W1] 10
Time interval between inspections W, yr.

Fig. 5. Dependences of the probability of fatigue failure of an element for three cases: E{a0} = 1 × 10–3 m (curve 1),
E{a0} = 1.5 × 10–3⋅m (curve 2), and E{a0} = 2 × 10–3 m (curve 3).

In this case, the expression for assessing the failure probability after N loading cycles can be written as
follows:
2 /(2 − m )

( )
  K (1− R ) 2 − m m
− NC 1− m  k Δσ π  
f
  IC
(K Ic − E {K Ic })2   fk Δσ π  2 1− R  
K Ic max − − 
1

2
PF (τN ) = e 2S {K Ic }
e E {a0 }
dK Ic . (15)
K Ic min 2πS {K Ic }
Therefore, the probability of fatigue failure (15) depends on the following factors: (1) the number of
loading cycles N in the time interval between assessing the state of the element by nondestructive testing
methods (N = ντ, ν is the annual frequency of cycles, τ is the time interval between assessing the condi-
tion, year); (2) the quality of nondestructive testing E{a0}, which determines the distribution parameters
of residual defects that were not detected during nondestructive testing and, therefore, put into operation;
(3) the range of acting stresses Δσ; and (4) the distribution parameters of the magnitude of the fracture
toughness KIC. The first two factors enable us to formulate a program for the operation of the element
under consideration in terms of the frequency and scope of control, which makes it possible to ensure its
structural strength, reliability, resources, and safety under given loading conditions and properties of the
structural material.
As an example of using the computation dependence obtained, let us turn to the pipeline element con-
sidered in Section 2. In the case under consideration, it will be subjected to cyclic loading by internal pres-
sure with an average value of p0 = 7.6 MPa in the cycle varying in the range Δp = 0.8 MPa per loading cycle,
the cycle asymmetry coefficient R = 0.9, and the loading frequency ν = 500 yr–1. The constants in the
Paris equation are C = 3.00 × 10–11, m = 2.9.
In this case, the task is to determine the time intervals τ between the moments of two consecutive tech-
nical inspections by nondestructive testing methods, at which the probability of destruction does not
exceed its maximum permissible value. In the example under consideration, it is chosen at the level [PF] =
5.0 × 10–5 for three design cases, when the values of the mathematical expectation of the crack depth (after
nondestructive testing, when put into operation ) are E{a0} = 1 × 10–3 m, E{a0} = 1.5 × 10–3 m, and
E{a0} = 2 × 10–3 m.
Figure 5 plots the dependence of the probability of destruction on the time interval between technical
inspections (τ) for the three cases indicated. It follows from Fig. 5 that in case 1, when E{a0} = 1 × 10–3,
with the chosen value of [PF], the time interval between inspections can be chosen equal to [τ1] = 8 yr and,
accordingly, the maximum permissible number of loading cycles is [N1] = ν[τ1] = 4000 cycles; in case 2 ,
where E{a0} = 1.5 × 10–3 m, we have [τ2] = 2 yr and [N2] = 1000 cycles; in case 3 for E{a0} = 2 × 10–3 m,
the operation of the element under consideration is forbidden, since already at the moment of putting the
element into operation, the probability of its destruction exceeds the maximum permissible value.
If, similarly to what was done in Section 2, instead of exponential distribution (3) for the quantity a0,
we use a physically more correct truncated exponential distribution (7), then after similar transformations

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 50 No. 4 2021

 ASSESSING THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROBABILITY 309

PF
1.00E+00 1
1.00E01
2
1.00E02
1.00E03
1.00E04
1.00E05
1.00E06
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
E{a0}, m

Fig. 6. Dependences of the probability of destruction on the level of defectiveness, when put into operation: 1, for the
exponential distribution of the value a0; 2, for the truncated exponential distribution of a0.

it is possible to obtain a refined expression for the probability of fatigue failure of a structural element with
a crack
(K Ic − E {K Ic })
2
K Ic max −
1

2
PF (τN ) = e 2S {K Ic }

K Ic min 2πS {K Ic }
2/(2 − m)
   K (1− R )2 − m m 
− NC 1− m  k Δσ π  
  IC f
 
  f k Δσ π   2 1− R    (16)
 
 −
E {a0}


× 1− 1 + e  dK .
 − 1 δ − 1 δ  Ic
 1 − e E {a0} 1 − e E {a0} 
 
 
Figure 6 shows the plots of the fracture probability on the mathematical expectation E{a0} of the crack
depth, put into operation after nondestructive testing, obtained for the cases of exponential and truncated
exponential distributions of a0.
Since the estimates obtained for the cases of exponential (15) and truncated exponential distributions
(16) turn out to be very close, one can use the simpler dependence (15).
(4) Comparison of the calculated destruction probability at its maximum permissible value. The strength
and resources of the element considered are sufficient if the calculated destruction probability PF is less
than the maximum permissible value [PF]: PF < [PF ].
The question of a reasonable choice of the maximum permissible probability of destruction [PF] of the
element considered is addressed to by taking into account the criticality of this element to ensure the
strength and safety of the structure as a whole, as well as the level of social significance of the structure
and the amount of damage arising in the event of its destruction.
The probability of system destruction on the whole (PSF), as the probability of a complex event, is
determined through the product of the probability of destruction of an element (PF) and the conditional
probability of destruction of the system in the case of destruction of the given element (PSF|F):
PSF = PF PSF |F .
A similar condition can be written for the maximum permissible probabilities

[PSF ] = [PF ]PSF |F . (17)

The limiting magnitude of the probability of destruction [PSF] of the structure as a whole is set depend-
ing on factors such as the amount of damage that can occur in the event of system destruction, the social
significance of the system, and its operational life [13, 14]. In particular, the CIRIA-Construction Indus-

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 50 No. 4 2021

310 MATVIENKO et al.

Table 2. Social importance factor for various types of technical systems [14]
System type ξS
Crowded objects (sport complexes, shopping centers) 0.005
Dams 0.005
Residential buildings, office centers, industrial facilities 0.05
Bridges 0.5
Drilling rigs, offshore installations 5

try Research and Information Association accepted the formula for assessing the maximum permissible
probability of a system failure for complex engineering structures (dams, bridges, shelf platforms)
−4
ξS t
[PSF ] = 10 ,
LkHF
where t is the design service life of the system operation; L is the average number of people who can die in
the event of a system failure; kHF is the coefficient taking into account the human factor responsible for
the destruction (usually kHF = 10); ξS is the social significance factor of the system (Table 2). Thus, usually,
the value [PSF] turns out to be in the range of 1 × 10–5–1 × 10–8.
The conditional probability of destruction of the system in case of destruction of the element consid-
ered (PSF|F) is determined using graphological methods of scenario assessment (such as the methods of the
event tree, fault tree, Bayesian networks, etc.). After that, the maximum permissible probability [PF] of
destruction of the element considered is determined from expression (17), which is then compared with
the calculated probability of destruction. Next, a decision is made regarding the security of the strength
and resources of the structural element considered.

CONCLUSIONS
A method for assessing the destruction probability of structural elements of technical systems with pos-
tulated defectiveness has been developed. This method allows one to take into account various types of
crack propagation, such as fatigue, stress corrosion cracking, or delayed strain corrosion cracking through
the constants involved in the Paris equation. This method takes into account the operating time, which
permits us to determine the optimal frequency of nondestructive testing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES
1. Getman, A.F. and Kozin, Yu.N., Nerazrushayushchii kontrol' i bezopasnost' ekspluatatsii sosudov i truboprovodov
davleniya (Nondestructive Inspection and Safe Operation of Vessels and Pipelines under Pressure), Moscow:
Energoatomizdat, 1997.
2. Getman, A.F., Resurs ekspluatatsii sosudov i truboprovodov AES (Service Life of Vessels and Pipelines of Nuclear
Power Stations), Moscow: Energoatomizdat, 2000.
3. Kuz'min, D.A., Kuzmichevskii, A.Yu., and Vertashenok, M.V., Investigation of the probability o existence of
defects with a size exceeding the allowed value, Struct. Mech. Eng. Constr. Build., 2020, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 414–
423.
https://doi.org/10.22363/1815-5235-2020-16-5-414-423
4. British Standard 7910:2013: Guide to Methods of Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures, 3rd ed.,
2013, London: British Standards Inst.
5. Rzhanitsyn, A.R., Raschet sooruzhenii s uchetom plasticheskikh svoistv metallov (Evaluation of Structures with
Allowance for Plastic Properties of Metals), Moscow: Stroiizdat, 1979.
6. Ching, J., Equivalence between reliability and factor of safety, Probab. Eng. Mech., 2009, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 159–
171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2008.04.004
7. Ang, A.H.S. and Tang. W.H. Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design, vol. 1: Basic Principles,
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 50 No. 4 2021

 ASSESSING THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROBABILITY 311

8. Melchers, R.E. and Beck, A.T., Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1999.
9. Chernyavskii, A.O. and Shatov, M.M., A method of assigning a limit probability of failure, J. Mach. Manuf. Re-
liab., 2013, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 41–44.
https://doi.org/10.3103/S1052618813010044
10. Mori, Ya. and Ellingwood, B.E., Reliability-based service-life assessment of aging concrete structures, J. Struct.
Eng., 1993, vol. 119, no. 5, pp. 1600–1621.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:5(1600)
11. Aghakouchak, A.A. and Stiemer, S.F., Fatigue reliability assessment of tubular joints of existing offshore struc-
tures, Can. J. Civ. Eng., 2001, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 691–698.
https://doi.org/10.1139/l01-034
12. Kong, J.S. and Frangopol, D.M., Life-cycle performance prediction of steel/concrete composite bridges, Steel
Struct., 2002, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 13–19.
13. Reznikov, D.O., Correlation between deterministic and probabilistic approaches in assessment of structural
strength of complex technical systems, Probl. Mashinostr. Avtom., 2018, no. 3, pp. 61–69.
14. Elishakoff, I. Safety Factors an Reliability: Friends or Foes?, Dordrecht: Springer, 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2131-2
15. Matvienko, Yu.G., Modeli i kriterii mekhaniki razrusheniya (Models and Criteria of Fracture Mechanics), Mos-
cow: Fizmatlit, 2006.

Translated by G. Dedkov

SPELL:OK

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 50 No. 4 2021