Civil Engineering Systems

ISSN: 0263-0257 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcee19

Optimal strategy for inspection and repair of

structural systems

P. Thoft-Christensen & J. D. S⊘rensen

To cite this article: P. Thoft-Christensen & J. D. S⊘rensen (1987) Optimal strategy for
inspection and repair of structural systems, Civil Engineering Systems, 4:2, 94-100, DOI:
10.1080/02630258708970464

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02630258708970464

Published online: 20 Sep 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 59

View related articles

Citing articles: 63 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcee20

Download by: [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] Date: 23 October 2017, At: 07:37
 Optimal strategy for inspection and
-

repair of structural systems

P. T h o f t - C h r i s t e n s e n and J. D. S a r e n s e n *

A n e w strategy for inspection and repair of structural elements and systems is

presented. The total cost of inspection and repair is minimized with the constraints
that the reliability of elements and/or of the structural system are acceptable. The
design variables are the time intervals between inspections and t h e quality of the
inspections. Numerical examples are presented to illustrate the performance of
thestrategy. The strategy can be used for any engineering system where inspection
and repair are requ~red.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:37 23 October 2017

Keywords: Maintenance strategy. non-linear optim~zation,structural reliability,

mathematical modelling

In gcneral it is not appropriate from an economic point ,,

of view to design a structure in such a way that the
reliability of the structure is satisfactory during the whole
lifetime of the structure without repairing or replacing
structural elements. This is well known, e.g. in the
automobile industry where for example brakes or clutches
must be repaired or replaced several times during the
lifetime of an automobile. For offshore structures it is
generally not possible to design tubular joints, for
example, in such a way that cracks are avoided during the
lifetime (e.g. 25 years) of thc structure. Thercforc, it is
necessary to design a maintenance programme so that
repair (or replacement) is performed if damage is observed
by inspection of thc structure.
For offshore structures on decp water, inspection and
repair are extremely expensive. Usually inspection and
repair requirc assistance from a diver and underwater
welding. These types of operation are cxpensivc and can
only be performed during certain weather conditions.
Until now inspection and repair strategies are based on
expcrience rather than on rational investigation. As a
result one can expect that inspection and repair of the
structure on this basis are not only uneconomic, but
pcrhaps also unsatisfactory from a safety point of view.
There seems to be a need for a more rational approach to
this problem.
Optimal strategies
In this paper a simple optimal strategy for inspection and
repair of civil enginecring structures is presented. The
purpose is to minimize the expenses of inspection and
repair of a givcn structure so that the structure in its
expected service life has an acceptable reliability. The
strategy is illustrated in Fig 1, where T is the lifetime of thc
structure and p is a measure of the reliability of the
structure. The reliability /I is assumed to be a non-
increasing function with time t. T , i = 1, 2, . . . , tt are the
inspection times and /P""is the minimum acceptable
rcliablity of the structilrc in its lifctimc.
* University or A;~lborg.Sohngoardsholmsvcj 57. DK - 9000 Anlborg.
Dcnmark
(Rcocivd Dcccnibcr 1986)
Let t i = - 7;.- i = I , . . . , t and ~ let the quantity of
inspection at time 7;. be q,, i = 1 , . . . , n. Then, with a given
number of inspection times n, the design variables are t i , i
- 1, . . . , n and q,, i = I , . . . , n. As a n illustration consider
the inspection programme shown in Fig 1. At time T, the
solution of the optimization problem is y, = 0, i.e. n o
inspection takes place at that time. Inspection takes place
at time T,? and according to the result of the inspection it
is dccidcd whether or not repair should be performed. If
repair is performed the reliability is improved. If no repair
is performed the reliability is also improved because then
updating of thc strengths of the structural elements takes
place. Therefore, the variation of the reliability of the
structure with time will be as shown in Fig 1. The shape of
the curves between inspection times will depend on the
relevant typcs of deterioration, for example whether
corrosion or fatigue is considered.
In this paper only an optimal strategy for mainten-
ance of a yioerl structure is considered. However, optimal
design and optimal maintenance strategies can in prin-
ciple easily be combined so that the total cost of the
structure including design, fabrication, inspection, repair
etc, is minimized.
The strategy presented in this paper is based on the
assumption that the number of inspections n during the
lifetime T of the structure is given. Clearly, it will be a n
improvement to include 11 in the.sct of design variables.
However, this will make the optimization problem much
more complicated because the number of constraints is
Fig 1 Maintenance strategy

0263-0257/X7/02094-07/$03.00
94 Civ. Engng Syst. 1987. Vol. 4. J u n e 0 1987 Rurterworth 6r Co (Publishers) Lttl
 Optimal maintenance strategy: P. Thoft-Christensen and J. D. SGrensen
dependent on 11. Further, 11 is an integer variable and it is
therefore complicated to deal with in relation to the other
continuous variables. The influence of iz can be taken into
account by solving the optimization problem for a
number of different values of 11 and comparing the optimal
costs C . The n-value with the smallest C-value is then the
optimal value.
A n alternative formulation of the strategy presented
here is the following: Detertnitze u strategj~for itlspectioil
urld repuir of u given strircture so tlrot a yivet~ur?~ountof
r~loizcyis used optitpzalli~,i.e. the rnii7itnurn 17ultteof fl in the
liJi.tinze T i s a.shig11a.spossih1e.This optimization problem
can be solved in a similar way.
The strategy presented is purposefully simplified as
much as possible without neglectihg the main effects. It is
rather straightforward to include more details so that the
strategy becomes more applicable.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:37 23 October 2017
Updating of the reliability of single elements after
inspection has been treated by several authors, see e.g.
Madsen and Tallin' and Yang and Chen2 for the special
case of fatigue failure. Similar updating techniques can be
incorporated in the strategy presented here.
Structural reliability theory
As mcntioned above an essential assumption behind the
optimal strategy is the existence of a reliability measure
for the reliability of structural elements and/or the
structural system itsclf. A natural choice for such a
reliability measure is the so-called reliability index /I. In
this section the reliability index /? will be briefly intro-
duced. More detailed presentations are given by Thoft-
Christenscn and Baker3 and Thoft-Christensen and Mur-
otsu4. The presentation here is based on a papcr by Thoft-
Christensen5.
Estimation of the probability of failure of single
structural elements is now considered a rather trivial task
although there is still a need for data concerning the
probability distributions of material propertics (e.g. yield
stresses), load parameters (e.g. wind loads), and geo-
metrical quantities (e.g. cross-sectional areas).
Let these so-called basic variables be X = (X ,, . . . ,
X,). By a suitable transformation X is transformed into a
set of independent standard normal variables 2 = ( Z , ,
. . . . Z,). Further, let the so-called failure function (limit
state function) fdivide the z-space intoa failure region (f(Z)
< 0) and a safe region (f(Z)> 0). The reliablity index /I is
then defined as the smallest distance from the origin to
the failure surface (f(Z)= 0) in the standard normal
z-system. It can then be shown that
whcrc 4, is the standard normal distribution function. M
= f(Z) is called the safety margin.
The reliability index P can be cstirnated for any
fa~luremode of a structural element if the corresponding
failure function is known. It is much more complicated to
estimate the probability of failure for the complete
(redundant) structure. Howcver, in the last decade several
heuristic tcchniqucs have been devcloped. Two methods-
the /?-unzipping method and the branch-and-bound
method - are presented in detail by Thoft-Christensen
and Murotsu4.
It has ofcourse for many years been recognized that a
fully satisfactory estimate of the reliability of a structure
must be based on a systems approach. For statically
determinate (non-redundant) structures failure in any
member will result in failure of the total system (structure).
However, failure in a single elcment in a structural system
will not always result in failure of the total system, because
the remainingclements may be able tosustain theexternal
load by redistribution of the internal load effects (stati-
cally indeterminate o r redundant structures). Further, a
structural system will in general have a large number of
potential failure modes and the most important modes
must be taken into account in an estimate of the reliability
of a structure. Identification of the most important
(significant) failure modes can be performed by e.g. the
fl-unzipping method.
Let a structural systcm consist of a number m of
single failure elements (failure modes) such as failure in
bending, fatigue etc. A simple definition of systems failure
would be failure in a single failure element, i.e. the
structure is considered to be in a state of failure when a
single failure element fai1s:Thc probability of failure Pf is
then calculated as the probability of having failure in
failure element 1 and/or in failure element 2 . . . and/or
in failure element m, and it can be shown that a good
cstimatc of P, is:
where @, is the m-dimensional standardized normal
P
distribution function, = (/I,, . . . , /I,) and P is the
correlation matrix for the safety margins. This definition
is called a failure modelling at level 1.
For redundant structures failure in a single failure
element will in general not be considered as failure of the
complete structure. For some elasto-plastic structures it
may be morc relevant to define failure of the structure as
formation of a mechanism. For other structures it could
be morc natural to define failure of the structure as failure
in two failure elements (level 2 modelling). Independently
of the definition chosen it is important to have available
a method by which the most significant failure elements,
pairs of failure elements o r mechanisms can be identified
because the total number of failure elements, pairs of
failure elements o r mechanisms are usually too high to
include all in the reliability analysis. By the /?-unzipping
method the significant failure modes can be identified.
In Example 2 in this paper only the systems reliability
index at level 1 is used for illustration. In a real practical
application estimation at level 2 or perhaps at mechan-
ism level is more relevant. However, this will increase the
amount of computer work considerably.
Assumptions
For the sake of simplicity a number of assumptions and
simplifications are made in this paper. Several of these
assumptions can be releascd if necessary. However, it is
believed that the modelling used here incorporates the
essential features.
The design of the structure is assumed to be given.
The structure can be modelled by a finite number of
failure elements m. The reliability of the failure
elements is assumed to be non-increasing functions
of time
if no repair is performed.
Civ. Engng Syst. 1987. Vol 4, June 95
 Optimal maintenance strategy: P. Thoft- Christensen and J. D. S#rensen

If the structural system is modelled by a system of The reliablity of the elements and the system has to
failure elements then it is assumed that the systems fulfil the following inequalities
reliability index P, is a non-increasing function of time

if no repair is performed.
The damage of a failure element is assumed to be where pin and Kinare minimum acceptable reliabil-
measured by an increasing function of time ity indices for element i and the system, respectively.

if no repair is performed. D = 1 corresponds to failure

of the elemcnt.
An element is assumed to be repaired if
where 0 < D i n< 1 is a critical inspection damage
measure. The reparation is assumed to be immediate
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:37 23 October 2017
Strategy modelling for a single element
It is assumed that then inspectionsare performed at times
T I ,. . . , T,, where 0 = To $ T, <. . . < T, Q T,, = T and ,
with the qualities y,, . . . , q, (see Fig I).
,,
As oprimization variables ti = 7; - i'- i = 1, . . . , t~
and y,, i = I , . . . , n are used. The total number of different

and complete.
Not all critical damages are discovered by an inspec- repair courses (branches) is 2" (see Fig 3), where 0 and 1
tion. Let F be the event that D > Dinand let Q be the signify non-repair and repair.
event that F is discovered given F. Then it is assumed Let r j be the number of repairs in branch j a n d 3,the
that event that branch j occurs. Then the following optimiz-
ation problcm can now be formulated
P(Q) = P(F discovered 1 F) = p(q) (7)
where q is a measure of the quality of inspection,
0 < q ,< I and p is an S-shaped increasing function,
2"
min C = x" - co
+ jC C,rjP(Bj)
for example I,.....I n , I - q =,
41. . . . .4"

s.t. /I(7J2/3""", i = I , 2, ..., n, n + 1

(see Fig 2). In practice q close to one cannot be
achicved.
The cost of one inspection Ci, and of one repair C , i=1

is assumed to be given by ,min <ti<tmax, i = 1, ..., n

qmin< q, < qm"^, i = 1, .. . , n

where tmin and tmaXare minimum and maximum inspec-

tion intervals and 4"'" and q n ' " h r e the minimum and
where Co and C , are constants. maximum inspection quality. The reliability index at time
T is a given expected time of operation and n a given 7; can be calculated by
number or inspections. Ideally, n should be treated
as an optimization variable but due to problems with
solving optimization problems with mixed integer
and real variables n is assumcd constant (see the where F ( q ) is the event that failure occurs at time 'I;..
introduction). Let + R, and - R , signify repair and non-repair at time
7;.. At time T, we then have
P(+R~)=P(Y~)@(-B(T
-, To)) (19)
P(-K,)= I - p(41)@(-B(T, - To)) (20)

-
- branch 1
branch 2

- branch j

- branch 2"
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
P
Fig 2 Inspection quality Fig 3 Repair realizations for a single element

96 Civ. Enyng Syst. 1987. Vol. 4. June

 Optimal maintenance strategy: P. Thofr-Christensen and J . D. S@rensen

If the correlation between the failure elements before and Alternatively the optimization problem could be
after reparation is neglected then at T, we have formulated (see the introduction) as

I,
rnin
.....I,,
{ i=l.
max
....n + l
{-fi(~,))}
41. ....9"

2"
C= " - Co
+
s.t. 1
i - 1 1.1 - q i ,=,1 CRrjP(Bj) < Cm""

li<T
If no repair has been performed before the time '7;,, i= 1
we have p i n < ti< tmax, i = 1 , . . ., n
P(-RIA ... A- R , - , A + R,) q m i n < q i < q m P X , i = I, ..., 11
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:37 23 October 2017

where Cm""is the maximum cost. This is a general

non-linear non-convex min-max optimization problem.
Using

-P(-R,A . . . A - R , - , A + R,)
In general, if correlation between failure elements
bcforc and after repairs is ncglectcd and repair is pcr-
formed at times T,,, . . . , T,lR(7;,, = To= 0)
where
P i = P ( - R n , - l + l .~. .A - R , , - , A + R , , ) , ~ =1 ,..., R
P R + l= P ( - R n R f l ~. . . A - R n )
are calculated using (19)-(26) successively.
If p is the correlation coefficient between repaired
elements then an improved approximation can be calcu-
lated by
{ rnin
i:::::::,
-B(TI)
-scT,+ 1) 1
(26) instead of (33) we have a so-called multiobjective optimi-
zation problem which can be solved in a subjective way
by choosing the solution from the Pareto optimum set".
In this paper the formulation (13)-(17) is used. The
optimization problem is solved using the N L P Q L algo-
rithm implemented by Schittkowski7. The algorithm is
based on the method by Hans, Powell9 and Wilson1'.
Generally, it is a very effective method where each
iteration consists of two steps. The first step is determina-
tion of a search direction by solving a quadratic optimiza-
tion problem formed by a quadratic approximation of
the Lagrangian function of the non-linear problem and
a linearization of the constraints at the current design
point. The second stcp is a linc search with a n augmented
(28) Lagrangian merit function.
(29)
Example 1
Consider a single failure element which corresponds to
fatigue failure of a structural element. Let the fatigue
damage D be estimated by Miner's rule (see Wirshing")

where where u is the zero upcrossing frequency of the variable

At time 7;- let Ati be thc time intcrval from the latest
repair in branch j. Then the following approximation is
used
P(F(7;) I Bj) " @( - B(At,))
Non-linear constrained optimization
The optimization problem (I 3)<17) is a general optimiza-
tion problem with 2n variables, a non-linear objective
function and mixed non-linear constraints. It is not
possible to show generally that the problem is convex.
load on the element, X is a model uncertainty random
variable which models the uncertainty connected with
the use of Miner's rule, B is a model uncertainty random
variable which models the uncertainty involved in esti-
mating the load. K and c are empirical constants. K is
(32) modelled as a random variable.
Let X, B and K be modclled as independent log-
normally distributed random variables. Then the reliabil-
ity index B of the failure element can be determined by
p - Inv - Inc - InT + InD,
14T) = cr
(40)
where 11 and a are the cxpccted value and the standard
deviation or the random variable InX + InK - tizllnR.

Civ. Engng Syst. 1987. Vol 4. June 97

 Optimal maintenance strategy: P. Thoft-Christensen and J. D. Sdrensen
Let Ino + lnc = 31.10, n l , = 3, E[lnX] = -0.0196,
a[lnXJ = 0.198, E[lnB] = -0.468, o[lnB] = 0.472,
E[ln K] = 36.06, ~ [ l n K ]= 0.572, and let T be measured in
years. Further, the parameters in the optimization
problcm are qmin= 0.2: qWX= 0.95, Co = 1, C, = 10,
/Pin = 3, T = I0 years, t m i n
= 0.25 years and tmax = 2 years.
P(Bj)is estimated using (27)where the reliability indices
are calculated from (40) with D, = Din= 0.005. The relia-
bility index in (32) is calculated from (40) with D, = I
which corresponds to failure.
For n = 9 the optimal values of T, q and C arc C
= 21.7,T=(2.00,2.00,2.00,1.03,0.74,0.65,0.54,0.43,0.34)
and ?j =(0.2, 0.2, 0.26, 0.30, 0.31, 0.31, 0.31, 0.31, 0.31).
In Fig 4 the variation of the reliability index /3 with
time is shown. It is seen that the time intervals between
inspections are decreasing with time and that apart from
the first two inspections thc inspection quality should be
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:37 23 October 2017
nearly constant.
In Fig 5 the optimum value of thc cost C is shown
as a function of the number of inspections. The minimum
value of C occurs for n = 9.
Strategy modelling for series systems
We consider now a structural system modelled by a series
system with n1 failure elements. The probability of failure
P, of the systcm can then be estimated by (2).
It is assumed that all elements are inspected at the
,
same n times 0 = To d TI < . . . < T, < T,, = T with the
same inspection qualities q , , . . . , 9,. As for a single
Fig 4 Optimal inspection strategy for a single element
(Example 1 )
Fig 5 Optimal inspection and repair cost C as a function
of the number of inspections for a single element
(Example 1 )
98 Civ. Engng Syst. 1987. Vol. 4, J u n e
element the optimization variables are ti = K - T- i ,,
= 1 : . .. , n and q,, i = 1, . . . , n. The total number of
d i f f e ~ n trepair courses (branches) is 2"". The following
optimization problem can then be formulated (see
( 1 3H 17))
min C = " --1 c o- 2""
i = ' 1.1 - q i
+ jC c~rjP(Bj) (41)
r 1 . .... I n =,
q,. ....4"
where flS(T)is thc systems reliability index at time T .
fiS(T)can be calculated from
If at the time T , Ati is the time interval from the
latest repair in branch j, then approximately
P(F(T)I Bj) 1 - @m(fl(Ati); PI (47)
whcre fil(Ati),.. . , pm(Ati)are the reliability indices of the
system at the time 7; in branch j, and j is the correspond-
ing correlation coefficient matrix.
P(Bj) can be estimated as in the case of a single
element by neglecting the correlation between failure
elements before and after repair and the correlation
between the elements in the series system. An improved
approximation which takes into account the correlation
can be obtained by using a formula equivalent to (30).
Example 2
In this example we considcr a scries system with rn = 3
clemcnts each modelled as in Example 1 except that
Inv + Inc = 30.80 is used. For thc sake of simplicity it is
assumed that the elements are independent.
For n = 8 the numbcr of different branches is Z3 " ' =
1.7. lo7. Most of thcse branches d o not have significant
influcnce on thcobjective function (41)and the constraints
(42). In order to reduce the computational costs it is
therefore important for the applicability of this strategy
to be able to identify only thc most significant branches.
In this exarnplc the identification of these branches is
simply based on thc relative magnitudes of P(B,) at each
of the times T,, . . . , T,. Branches with probabilities less
than I % of the maximum P(R,) at each inspection time
are neglcctcd.
For 17 = 7 the solution of the optimizat~onproblem
(4 1)-(45)using N L P Q L becomes C = 17.4,T = (2.00,2.00,
2.00, 1.45, 0.72, 0.66, 0.61) and ?j = (0.22,0.29, 0.30, 0.31,
0.30, 0.29, 0.28). In Fig 6 thc vitriation of the systems
reliability index with time is shown. As in Example 1 the
time in~crvalsbetwccn inspections decrease with time.
The inspection qualities arc sccn to be of the same order
of nlagnitudc.
In Fig 7 the optimum value of C is shown as a
function of the nuniber of inspections rl. As in the exitmpl~
 Optimal maintenance strategy: P Thoft-Christensen and J. D. Sgrensen
f However, if the optimization problem is enlarged as
Fig 6 Optimal inspection strategy for a series system
(Example 2)
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:37 23 October 2017
6 7 8 9101112
n
Fig 7 Optimal ~nspectionand repair cost C as a function
of the number of inspections n for a series system (Example
2)
with 1 element the cost C has a minimum as a function
of 11, namely here n = 7.
Discussion
The model presented here of an optimal strategy for
inspection and repair (maintcnance) of a givcn structure
can be improved in a number of different ways. In this
section some of these improvements arc discussed.
The examples indicate that the optimal inspection
qualities at different inspection times are nearly equal.
Thus, it may be possible to reduce the number of
inspection quality variables. But in the case of a system
with different failure elements it may be appropriate to
increase the number of optimization variables, namely
by assuming different inspection intervals and inspection
qualities of the elements.
In order to model the reliability of a more complex
structure a system consisting ofseries and parallel systems
of failure elements has to be used (see Thoft-Christensen
and Murotsu4). Clearly, this would make the estimations
of the probabilities in the optimization problem (41H45)
more difficult and time-consuming.
As mentioned earlier the number of possible bran-
ches becomes very large when the number of inspections
increases and/or when the number of Failure elements
increases. Therefore, it is very important to be able to
identify the most significant branches. The possibility of
usingexpert systems for this purpose must be investigated.
Concerning the choice of the optimal number of inspec-
tions again using expert systems seems natural.
The proposed strategy is based on the assumption
that the structure is given. If in a design situation the
optimization problems should be changed in such a way
that the initial cost of the structure is included in the
objeciive function. The total cost of the structure in the
expected lifctime can then be optimized so that the
reliability at any time is acceptablc. The optimization
variables will then be design variables, for example
geometrical quantities and inspection intervals and in-
spection qualities.
indicated above to include total costs or if large com-
plicated systems are considered then more effective
strategies to solve the optimization problem must be
developed. Especially effective methods to estimate the
gradients of the objective function and the constraints
have to be developed.
After an inspection where the actual damage has
been measured the reliability estimates can be updated,
see for example Ref I , where updating of the reliability of
parallel systems has been considered. Using the updated
reliability mcasures new optimal inspection time intervals
and qualities can be determined by solving the optimiz-
ation problems (updated maintenance strategy). Finally
thc modelling of the inspection uncertainty can bc
improved by including the possibility that the inspection
results in repair although the damage is not really critical,
i.e. the possibility of measurement errors and intcrpre-
tation errors are included in the modelling, see for
cxamplc Ref 2.
Conclusions
A new maintenance model by which optimal inspection
times and repair efforts for a givcn structure can be
dctermincd has been formulated. The total cost of inspec-
tion and repair in the expected lifetime of the structure is
minimized in such a way that the reliabiiity at any time is
acceptable. The model is described in detail for a structure
modelled by a single elemcnt or by a series system of
failure elements. The time intervals between inspections
and the quality of inspection are design variables.
Numerical examples indicate that the model works.
In the examples a single elemcnt and a series system of
three elements are considered. In both examples the time
intervals between inspections are decreasing with time.
This is mainly caused by the assumed logarithmic de-
crease of the reliab~lity index of the failure elements.
Further, the results show that the inspeetionqualities tend
to be equal at all inspections. However, these conclusions
are based on a small number of examples and must
theorefore be considered as tentative conclusions.
The maintenance strategy model presented here -
cannot only be used for civil engineering structures. The
philosophy beh~ndthis strategy IS useful also for mechan-
ical and electronic systems because of its great flexibility.
The strategy can be used by anyone having experience in
estimating reliability of systems and using non-linear
optimization methods.
References
I Madsen, H. 0.and Tallin, A. C. Probabilistic Upda~ingor Fatigue
iiwi, USA.
Crack Growth Rcliability. ASCE Full C o ~ n ~ o ~ ~Bo.vrorl.
1986
Civ. Engng Syst. 1987. Vol 4. June 99
 Optimal maintenance strategy: P. Thoft- Christensen and J. D. SQrensen
2 Yang, J. N. and Chm, S Fatigue Reliability of Structural Compon-
ents under Scheduled Inspection and Repair ~Maintenanoe.Proc.
IUTAlW .$?nip. Srockholm. Sweden 1984 (eds. Eggn-errr and Lind),
Springer- Verlag, Berlin. pp. 559-568
3 Tboft-Christensen, P. and Baker, M. .I. Structural reliability theory
and its applications, Springer- Verlug. 1982
4 Thoft-Christensen, P. and &lurotsu, Y. Application of structural
systems reliability theory, Springer-Verlag. 1986
5 Thoft-Christensen, P. R a n t advances in structural systems relia-
bility theory, IABSE Symp. Safery and Qualiry Assur. Civil Engng
Srruct.. Tokjo. 1986, IABSE Report. 51, 101-108
6 Carmichael, D. G . Computation of Pareto optima in structural
design, Internur. J. ~Vunzericallblerhods in Engng, 1980.15.925-929
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:37 23 October 2017
100 Civ. Engng Syst. 1987. Vol. 4. June
7 Schittkow%ki, K. NLPQL: A FORTRAN subroutine solving
constrained non-linear programming problems, To appear in
Anna1.s of Operarions Research.
8 Han, S.-P. A globally convergent method for non-linear program-
ming J. 0primi:arion Theory and Applicarionr. 1977. 22. 277
9 Powell, M. J. D. A fast algorithm Tor non-linearly constrained
optimization calculationst In ~VumericalAnaly.~ir (ed. G. A. War-
son), Lzcrure Nores in Marhemarics, 1978, 630, Springer- Verlag
10 Wilson, R. B. A simplicia1 algorithm for concave programming,
Ph.D. Thesis. Harvard University. Boston. 1963
1 1 Wirshing, P. H. Fatigue reliability Tor offshore structures, ASCE
J. of Srrucrurul Engng, 1 lO(10). 1984. 2340-2356