UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2020

Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

SE 125: Statistics, Probability, and Reliability

Homework Set # 4, Solution

Problem 1
The relative weights of the unconfined compressive strength of the soil are 3 to 5 to 2. This provides the
prior probabilities of the true strength:

3 5 2
𝑃[𝑇1200 ] = = 0.3; 𝑃[𝑇1000 ] = = 0.5; 𝑃[𝑇800 ] = = 0.2;
3+5+2 3+5+2 3+5+2

From the table in the statement you can find 𝑃[𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ | 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒]; for instance, the probability
that the indicated strength is 800psf, given that the real unconfined compressive strength is 1200psf, is 0.2:

𝑃[𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ | 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒] = 𝑃[𝑧800 | 𝑇1200 ] = 0.2

a) Find the conditional probability of each of the possible outcomes of size two given that the
true strength is 1200 psf.
Firstoutcome: the indicated strength of both specimensis 1200 psf. The specimens are independent;
therefore,
1 2 1 2
𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ] = 𝑃[𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ] = 0.5 ∗ 0.5 = 0.25
𝑗
𝑧𝑖 means that the strength indicated by specimen j is i.

Second outcome: the indicated strength of both specimens is1000 psf.

1 2 1 2
𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧1000 | 𝑇1200 ] = 𝑃[𝑧1000 | 𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1000 | 𝑇1200 ] = 0.3 ∗ 0.3 = 0.09

Third outcome: the indicated strength of both specimens is800 psf.

1 2 1 2
𝑃[𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧800 | 𝑇1200 ] = 𝑃[𝑧800 | 𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧800 | 𝑇1200 ] = 0.2 ∗ 0.2 = 0.04

Fourth outcome: the indicated strengthsare1200psf and 1000 psf. Two cases should be considered: the
strength of the first specimen is 1200 psf and the second specimen is 1000 psf and the strength of the first
specimen is 1000 psf and the second specimen is 1200 psf:
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
𝑃[(𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1000 ) ∪ (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧1200 ) | 𝑇1200 ] = 𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1000 | 𝑇1200 ] + 𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ]
1 2
= 2 ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1000 | 𝑇1200 ] = 2 ∗ 0.5 ∗ 0.3 = 0.3

Fifth outcome:the indicated strengthis 1200psf and 800 psf.

1 2 1 2 1 2
𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧800 | 𝑇1200 ] + 𝑃[𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ] = 2 ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧800 | 𝑇1200 ]
= 2 ∗ 0.5 ∗ 0.2 = 0.2

Sixth outcome:the indicated strengthis 1000psf and 800 psf.

1
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2020
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

1 2 1 2 1 2
𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 | 𝑇1200 ] + 𝑃[𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 | 𝑇1200 ] = 2 ∗ 𝑃[𝑧800 | 𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1000 | 𝑇1200 ]
= 2 ∗ 0.2 ∗ 0.3 = 0.12

b) If the results of the sampling were one specimen indicating 1000 psf and one indicating 800
psf, find the engineer’s posterior probabilities of the strength.
To find the posterior probability we can use the Bayes’ theorem
1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
𝑃[ (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 ) ∪ (𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 ) | 𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ]
𝑃[𝑇800 | (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 ) ∪ (𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 ) ]= 1 2 1 2
𝑃[ (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 ) ∪ (𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 ) ]
1
If we apply the definition of the probability of the union of two events and considering that the event 𝑧1000 ∩
2 1 2
𝑧800 and 𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 are mutually exclusive, we have that:
1 2 1 2
𝑃[𝑇800 | (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 ) ∪ (𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 )]
1 2 1 2
(𝑃[ (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 )|𝑇800 ] + 𝑃[(𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 )|𝑇800]) ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ]
= 1 2 1 2 =
𝑃[(𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 )] + 𝑃[(𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 )]

Now, because the samplings are statistical independent we have

1 2 1 2
𝑃[ (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 )|𝑇800 ] = 𝑃[𝑧1000 | 𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧800 | 𝑇800 ]
2 1 2 1
𝑃[ (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 )|𝑇800 ] = 𝑃[𝑧1000 | 𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧800 | 𝑇800 ]

And we also know that

1 2
𝑃[𝑧1000 | 𝑇800 ] = 𝑃[𝑧1000 | 𝑇800 ]
1 2
𝑃[𝑧800 | 𝑇800 ] = 𝑃[𝑧800 | 𝑇800 ]

So we have that
1 2
1 2 1 2
2 ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1000 | 𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧800 | 𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ]
𝑃[𝑇800 | (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 )∪ (𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 )] = 1 2 1 2
𝑃[(𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 )] + 𝑃[(𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 )]

To evaluate the denominator we can use the Total Probability Theorem (TPT):
1 2 ] 1 2 1 2 1 2
𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 = 𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 | 𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ] + 𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 | 𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1000 ] + 𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 | 𝑇1200 ]
∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ] = 0.2 ∗ 0.8 ∗ 0.2 + 0.5 ∗ 0.4 ∗ 0.5 + 0.3 ∗ 0.2 ∗ 0.3 = 0.15

2 1 ] 2 1 2 1 2 1
𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 = 𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 | 𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ] + 𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 | 𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1000 ] + 𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 | 𝑇1200 ]
∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ] = 0.2 ∗ 0.8 ∗ 0.2 + 0.5 ∗ 0.4 ∗ 0.5 + 0.3 ∗ 0.2 ∗ 0.3 = 0.15

1 2 ]and𝑃[𝑧 2 1
𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 1000 ∩ 𝑧800 ] give the same result because the numbering of the event does not
1 2 ] 2 1 ]
change their probabilities. We have in fact that 𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 = 𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 so we can write
1 2
1 2 1 2
2 ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1000 | 𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧800 | 𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ]
𝑃[𝑇800 | (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 ) ∪ (𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 )]= 1 2
2 ∗ 𝑃[(𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 )]

2
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2020
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

1 2 1 2
We have discovered that the posterior probability of 𝑃[𝑇800 | (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 ) ∪ (𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 ) ] is exact the
1 2
same of the one of the event 𝑃[𝑇800 | (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 )].

1 2 1 2
0.2 ∗ 0.8 ∗ 0.2
𝑃[𝑇800 | (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 ) ∪ (𝑧800 ∩ 𝑧1000 )]= = 0.213
0.15

The same reasoning can be applied to evaluate the other two conditional probabilities
1 2 2 1 1 2 ]
𝑃[𝑇1000 | (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 ) ∪ (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 ) ] = 𝑃[𝑇1000 | 𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800
1 2
𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 | 𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1000 ] 0.5 ∗ 0.4 ∗ 0.5
= 1 2 ] = = 0.667
𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 0.15
1 2 2 1 1 2
𝑃[𝑇1200 |( 𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 ) ∪ (𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 )] = 𝑃[𝑇1200 |( 𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 )]
1 2
𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 | 𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ] 0.3 ∗ 0.2 ∗ 0.3
= 1 2 ] = = 0.120
𝑃[𝑧1000 ∩ 𝑧800 0.15

c) Suppose that after these two specimens the engineer continued sampling and found an
uninterrupted sequence of specimens indicating 1200 psf. After how many could he stop,
i) Confident that the strength was not actually 800?

Since we have found the posterior probabilities of strength having the first two test results (𝑧800 and 𝑧1000 ),
we can update the prior probabilities of strength. The new priors are equal to the posterior probabilities
found in part (b), namely,
𝑃[𝑇1200 ] = 0.120; 𝑃[𝑇1000 ] = 0.667; 𝑃[𝑇800 ] = 0.213;

To be confident that the strength was not 800psf, theposterior probability of the strength equal to 800
psfshould be zero.Suppose that one extra test is performed and the indicated strengthis 1200 psf.We have:
3
3
𝑃[𝑧1200 | 𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ] 0 ∗ 0.213
𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧1200 ]= 3 = 3 =0
𝑃[𝑧1200 ] 𝑃[𝑧1200 ]

𝑗
So, since 𝑃[𝑧1200 | 𝑇800 ] = 0 the engineer can stop the testing procedure after the first 1200 psftest result.

ii) At least “90 percent confident” that the strength was actually 1200?
We need to find
3 4 𝑛+2 ]
𝑃[𝑇1200 | 𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200

We can apply Bayes’ theorem

3 4 𝑛+2
3 4 𝑛+2 ]
𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ]
𝑃[𝑇1200 | 𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 = 3 4 𝑛+2 ] =
𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200

3
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2020
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

Since specimens are statistically independent, the conditional probabilities of n straight 1200 psf specimens
are:
3 4 𝑛+2 3 4 𝑛+2
𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ] = 𝑃[𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ] ∗ [𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ] ∗ … ∗ [𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ]
𝑛
= 0.5 ∗ 0.5 ∗ … ∗ 0.5 = (0.5)

In the same way we can compute the other conditional probabilities

3 4 𝑛+2
𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 | 𝑇1000 ] = (0.1)𝑛
3 4 𝑛+2
𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 | 𝑇800 ] = (0.0)𝑛

Now, we can apply the TPT to the denominator

3 4 𝑛+2 ]
𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 =
3 4 𝑛+2
= 𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ]𝑛 ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ]
3 4 𝑛+2
+ 𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 | 𝑇1000 ]𝑛 ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1000 ]
3 4 𝑛+2
+ 𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 | 𝑇800 ]𝑛 ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ] =

(0.5)𝑛 ∗ 0.12 + (0.1)𝑛 ∗ 0.667 + (0.0)𝑛 ∗ 0.213

if we substitute this equation in the previous one, we get

3 4 𝑛+2 (0.5)𝑛 ∗ 0.120
𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 | 𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ]
3 4 𝑛+2 ] =
𝑃[𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 (0.5)𝑛 ∗ 0.12 + (0.1)𝑛 ∗ 0.667

3 4 𝑛+2 ]
Now, we want to find the smallest value of n such that 𝑃[𝑇1200 | 𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 > 0.9. Let’s
3 4 𝑛+2 ].
try to put different values of n and computed 𝑃[𝑇1200 | 𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 For instance, for n=1
we have

3 4 𝑛+2 ]
(0.5)1 ∗ 0.120
𝑃[𝑇1200 | 𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200 = = 0.474.
(0.5)1 ∗ 0.12 + (0.1)1 ∗ 0.667

For the other values of n we will get these results:

1 2 𝑛 ]
n 𝑃[𝑇1200 | 𝑧1200 ∩ 𝑧1200 ∩ … ∩ 𝑧1200
1 0.474
2 0.818
3 0.957

Therefore, the engineer needs just 3 samples of an uninterrupted sequence of specimens indicating 1200
psf(after the first two specimens indicating 1000 and 800psf) to be “90 percent confident” that the strength
was actually 1200.

4
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

In part c ii) the Bayesian update procedure was used to evaluate the posterior probability of the true state of the soil given n sampling in one step.
The same procedure can be applied but for one specimen at the time, and the result will obviously be the same. We will show the procedure just for
two samples; for all the other, the update procedurewill be the same.

• Bayesian Update in one step

1 2
Let’s assume that we perform two samples and we need to evaluate 𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧800 𝑧1000 ]. We can use Bayes’ rule and the total probability theorem
(to evaluate the denominator)
1 2
1 2
𝑃[𝑧800 𝑧1000 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ]
𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧800 𝑧1000 ] = 1 2 1 2 1 2 .
𝑃[𝑧800 𝑧1000 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ] + 𝑃[𝑧800 𝑧1000 |𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1000 ] + 𝑃[𝑧800 𝑧1000 |𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ]

We also know that,because the samples are statistical independent:

𝑗 𝑗
𝑃[𝑧𝑘𝑖 𝑧𝑝 |𝑇800 ] = 𝑃[𝑧𝑝 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧𝑘𝑖 |𝑇800 ]

so the equation becomes

1 2 ]
𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧800 𝑧1000
1 2
𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ]
= 1 2 1 2 1 2 (∗)
𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ] + 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1000 ] + 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ]

• Bayesian Update in two steps

1 ]and
In this case we assume to perform just one sample so we can evaluate first 𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧800 then we perform a second sample so we can evaluate
1 2 ]
𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧800 𝑧1000
1 ]:
Using Bayes’ rule we can evaluate the posterior probability [𝑇800 | 𝑧800
1
1 ]
𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ]
𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧800 = 1 1 1
𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ] + 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1000 ] + 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ]
1 ]
Now we assume to perform the second sample, and we can update our posterior probability 𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧800 (that becomes prior probability for this
2
second sample) given that we have a new sampling result 𝑧1000:

5
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

2 1 ]
1 2
𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧800
𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧800 𝑧1000 ]= 2 1 ] 2 1 ] 2 1 ]
𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 |𝑧800 + 𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1000 | 𝑧800 + 𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 | 𝑧800

We know that
1
1 ]
𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ]
𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧800 = 1 ]
𝑃[𝑧800

1
1 ]
𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1000 ]
𝑃[𝑇1000 | 𝑧800 = 1 ]
𝑃[𝑧800

1
1 ]
𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ]
𝑃[𝑇1200 | 𝑧800 = 1 ]
𝑃[𝑧800

So we can plug it in the previous formula, so we have

1 2 ]
𝑃[𝑇800 | 𝑧800 𝑧1000
1
2 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ]
𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 1 ]
𝑃[𝑧800
= 1 1 1
2 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ] 2 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1000 ] 2 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ]
𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 1 ] + 𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇1000 ] ∗ 1 ] + 𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇1200 ] ∗ 1 ]
𝑃[𝑧800 𝑃[𝑧800 𝑃[𝑧800
2 1
𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ]
= 2 1 2 1 2 1
𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇800 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇800 ] + 𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇1000 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1000 ] + 𝑃[𝑧1000 |𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑧800 |𝑇1200 ] ∗ 𝑃[𝑇1200 ]

that is the same of (∗).

6
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

Problem 2
Density=[2437, 2437, ..., 2411];
Compstrength=[60.5, 60.9, ..., 58.8];

Code
figure(1)
subplot(2,2,1)
hist(Density, 10);
title('Density Histogram, 10 Bins');
xlabel('Density, Kg/m^3');
ylabel('Frequency');
subplot(2,2,2)
hist(Density, 15);
title('Density Histogram, 15 Bins');
xlabel('Density, Kg/m^3');
ylabel('Frequency');
subplot(2,2,3)
hist(Density, 20);
title('Density Histogram, 20 Bins');
xlabel('Density, Kg/m^3');
ylabel('Frequency');
subplot(2,2,4)
hist(Density, 25);
title('Density Histogram, 25 Bins');
xlabel('Density, Kg/m^3');
ylabel('Frequency');

figure(2);
subplot(2,2,1)
hist(Compstrength, 10);
title('Compressive Strength Histogram, 10 Bins');
xlabel('fc, MPa');
ylabel('Frequency');
subplot(2,2,2)
hist(Compstrength, 15);
title('Compressive Strength Histogram, 15 Bins');
xlabel('fc, MPa');
ylabel('Frequency');
subplot(2,2,3)
hist(Compstrength, 20);
title('Compressive Strength Histogram, 20 Bins');
xlabel('fc, MPa');
ylabel('Frequency');
subplot(2,2,4)
hist(Compstrength, 25);
title('Compressive Strength Histogram, 25 Bins');
xlabel('fc, MPa');
ylabel('Frequency');

figure(3)
subplot(1,2,1)
cdfplot(Density)
title('Cummulative Density function, Density');
subplot(1,2,2)
cdfplot(Compstrength)
title('Cummulative Density function, Compressive Strength');

figure(4)
scatter(Density,Compstrength,15,[0,0,0])
title('Scatter Plot of Compressive Strength vs Density');
xlabel('Density (Kg/m^3)');
ylabel('fc, MPa');

7
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

part (a)

8
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

part (b)

part (c)
c which has a probability not being exceeded of 25% =2436 Kg/m3
c which has a probability not being exceeded of 50% =2445 Kg/m3
c which has a probability not being exceeded of 75% =2455 Kg/m3

part (d)
A: probability that f’c is less than 55MPa = 17.5%
B: probability that f’c is greater than 65MPa = (1-0.825) = 17.5%
P( A  B) = P( A) + P( B) = 35%

9
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

part (e)

10
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

Problem 3

Matlab code:
clear, clc
x=0:1:10
p=0.2
n=10
y=binopdf(x,n,p)
stem(x,y)
label(‘x’)
ylabel(‘f_X(x)’)

11
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

12
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

Reader: E(x) = np = 2

Reader: 𝜎𝑋 = √𝑛𝑝(1 − 𝑝) = √2(1 − 0.2) = 1.265

13
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

Problem 4

(e)
P[( x  8)  ( x  6)]
P[ x  8 | x  6] =
P[ x  6]
P[( x  8)] 1 − P[( x  8)] 1 − Fx (8) 1 − 0.8
P[ x  8 | x  6] = = = = = 0.5
P[ x  6] 1 − P[ x  6] 1 − Fx (6) 1 − 0.6

14
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

Problem 5

Applying Bayes’ Theorem,

𝑃[(𝑆 > 𝑅)|(𝑅 = 8)]. 𝑃[𝑅 = 8] 0.1037

𝑃[𝑅 = 8|(𝑆 > 𝑅)] = = = 0.7
𝑃[𝑆 > 𝑅] 0.148

15
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

And
𝑃[(𝑆 > 𝑅)|(𝑅 = 10)]. 𝑃[𝑅 = 10] 0.042
𝑃[𝑅 = 10|(𝑆 > 𝑅)] = = = 0.3
𝑃[𝑆 > 𝑅] 0.148

Check:

𝑃[𝑅 = 8|𝑆 > 𝑅] + 𝑃[𝑅 = 10|𝑆 > 𝑅] = 1

16
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

Problem 6

17
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SE125 - Fall Quarter 2018
Department of Structural Engineering Instructor: Joel P. Conte

18