LAUSR

Abstract Some of the early probabilistic code calibrations minimized an error term defined as difference between the optimal or target design and the design resulting with the trial partial factors and the code format. In contrast to these design-based calibrations, in recent years, the error was defined in terms of a reliability deviation. Aiming at minimizing societal costs, reliability-based calibrations probably provide more accurate results than design-based code calibrations, however at the cost of a significantly lower computational efficiency. The long duration of reliability-based code calibrations impedes repeated code calibrations, which are needed in the development of a code format or for a more profound understanding of it. This paper compares the reliability-based with the design-based code calibration procedure theoretically and by using an example. The results showed that the design-based code calibration is efficient for the development of a code format. However, the differences between both calibration procedures regarding the calibrated partial factors are significant. As the reliability-based calibration has a more solid theoretical background, it is preferred for the final calibration of the code format.