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.

中文翻译：

---

基于可靠性和基于设计的代码校准的比较

摘要 一些早期的概率代码校准将误差项最小化，该误差项定义为最优或目标设计与试验部分因素和代码格式产生的设计之间的差异。与这些基于设计的校准相反，近年来，误差是根据可靠性偏差来定义的。为了最小化社会成本，基于可靠性的校准可能比基于设计的代码校准提供更准确的结果，但其代价是计算效率显着降低。基于可靠性的代码校准持续时间长，阻碍了重复代码校准，这是开发代码格式或更深入理解代码格式所必需的。本文从理论上和实例比较了基于可靠性和基于设计的代码校准程序。结果表明，基于设计的代码校准对于代码格式的开发是有效的。然而，关于校准的部分因素的两个校准程序之间的差异是显着的。由于基于可靠性的校准具有更扎实的理论背景，因此首选用于代码格式的最终​​校准。