IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v25y2005i4p973-995.html

Competing Failure Risk Analysis Using Evidence Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Jon C. Helton
  • William L. Oberkampf
  • Jay D. Johnson

Abstract

Safety systems are important components of high‐consequence systems that are intended to prevent the unintended operation of the system and thus the potentially significant negative consequences that could result from such an operation. This presentation investigates and illustrates formal procedures for assessing the uncertainty in the probability that a safety system will fail to operate as intended in an accident environment. Probability theory and evidence theory are introduced as possible mathematical structures for the representation of the epistemic uncertainty associated with the performance of safety systems, and a representation of this type is illustrated with a hypothetical safety system involving one weak link and one strong link that is exposed to a high temperature fire environment. Topics considered include (1) the nature of diffuse uncertainty information involving a system and its environment, (2) the conversion of diffuse uncertainty information into the mathematical structures associated with probability theory and evidence theory, and (3) the propagation of these uncertainty structures through a model for a safety system to obtain representations in the context of probability theory and evidence theory of the uncertainty in the probability that the safety system will fail to operate as intended. The results suggest that evidence theory provides a potentially valuable representational tool for the display of the implications of significant epistemic uncertainty in inputs to complex analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Jon C. Helton & William L. Oberkampf & Jay D. Johnson, 2005. "Competing Failure Risk Analysis Using Evidence Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 973-995, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:973-995
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00644.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00644.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00644.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. F. Owen Hoffman & Jana S. Hammonds, 1994. "Propagation of Uncertainty in Risk Assessments: The Need to Distinguish Between Uncertainty Due to Lack of Knowledge and Uncertainty Due to Variability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 707-712, October.
    2. William D. Rowe, 1994. "Understanding Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 743-750, October.
    3. Kohlas, Jurg, 1989. "Modeling uncertainty with belief functions in numerical models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 377-388, June.
    4. Jon C. Helton, 1994. "Treatment of Uncertainty in Performance Assessments for Complex Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 483-511, August.
    5. Gert de Cooman & Peter Walley, 2002. "A possibilistic hierarchical model for behaviour under uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 327-374, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.
    2. Helton, Jon C. & Brooks, Dusty M. & Sallaberry, Cédric J., 2020. "Margins associated with loss of assured safety for systems with multiple weak links and strong links," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    3. Qingan Qiu & Baoliang Liu & Cong Lin & Jingjing Wang, 2021. "Availability analysis and maintenance optimization for multiple failure mode systems considering imperfect repair," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 235(6), pages 982-997, December.
    4. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A Critical Discussion and Practical Recommendations on Some Issues Relevant to the Nonprobabilistic Treatment of Uncertainty in Engineering Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1315-1340, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Victor R. Vasquez & Wallace B. Whiting, 2005. "Accounting for Both Random Errors and Systematic Errors in Uncertainty Propagation Analysis of Computer Models Involving Experimental Measurements with Monte Carlo Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1669-1681, December.
    2. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    3. Helton, Jon C. & Brooks, Dusty M. & Sallaberry, Cédric J., 2020. "Property values associated with the failure of individual links in a system with multiple weak and strong links," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Helton, Jon C. & Brooks, Dusty M. & Sallaberry, Cédric J., 2020. "Margins associated with loss of assured safety for systems with multiple weak links and strong links," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    5. Sarazin, Gabriel & Morio, Jérôme & Lagnoux, Agnès & Balesdent, Mathieu & Brevault, Loïc, 2021. "Reliability-oriented sensitivity analysis in presence of data-driven epistemic uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    6. Emanuele Borgonovo, 2008. "Epistemic Uncertainty in the Ranking and Categorization of Probabilistic Safety Assessment Model Elements: Issues and Findings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 983-1001, August.
    7. Amirhossein Mokhtari & H. Christopher Frey, 2005. "Sensitivity Analysis of a Two‐Dimensional Probabilistic Risk Assessment Model Using Analysis of Variance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1511-1529, December.
    8. Kimberly M. Thompson, 2002. "Variability and Uncertainty Meet Risk Management and Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 647-654, June.
    9. J. C. Helton & D. R. Anderson & H.‐N. Jow & M. G. Marietta & G. Basabilvazo, 1999. "Performance Assessment in Support of the 1996 Compliance Certification Application for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 959-986, October.
    10. Zhou, Yuekuan & Zheng, Siqian, 2020. "Uncertainty study on thermal and energy performances of a deterministic parameters based optimal aerogel glazing system using machine-learning method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    12. Hou, Tianfeng & Nuyens, Dirk & Roels, Staf & Janssen, Hans, 2019. "Quasi-Monte Carlo based uncertainty analysis: Sampling efficiency and error estimation in engineering applications," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. Junyu Zheng & H. Christopher Frey, 2005. "Quantitative Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty with Known Measurement Error: Methodology and Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 663-675, June.
    14. Terje Aven, 2010. "On the Need for Restricting the Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessments to Variability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 354-360, March.
    15. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1515-1525, October.
    16. Stephen E. Chick, 2001. "Input Distribution Selection for Simulation Experiments: Accounting for Input Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(5), pages 744-758, October.
    17. Bas Groot Koerkamp & Theo Stijnen & Milton C. Weinstein & M. G. Myriam Hunink, 2011. "The Combined Analysis of Uncertainty and Patient Heterogeneity in Medical Decision Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(4), pages 650-661, July.
    18. Junyu Zheng & H. Christopher Frey, 2004. "Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty Using Mixture Distributions: Evaluation of Sample Size, Mixing Weights, and Separation Between Components," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 553-571, June.
    19. Helton, Jon C. & Johnson, Jay D., 2011. "Quantification of margins and uncertainties: Alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(9), pages 1034-1052.
    20. Zhou, Yuekuan & Zheng, Siqian & Zhang, Guoqiang, 2020. "Machine-learning based study on the on-site renewable electrical performance of an optimal hybrid PCMs integrated renewable system with high-level parameters’ uncertainties," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 403-418.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:973-995. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.