IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v33y2013i1p121-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probability and Possibility‐Based Representations of Uncertainty in Fault Tree Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Roger Flage
  • Piero Baraldi
  • Enrico Zio
  • Terje Aven

Abstract

Expert knowledge is an important source of input to risk analysis. In practice, experts might be reluctant to characterize their knowledge and the related (epistemic) uncertainty using precise probabilities. The theory of possibility allows for imprecision in probability assignments. The associated possibilistic representation of epistemic uncertainty can be combined with, and transformed into, a probabilistic representation; in this article, we show this with reference to a simple fault tree analysis. We apply an integrated (hybrid) probabilistic‐possibilistic computational framework for the joint propagation of the epistemic uncertainty on the values of the (limiting relative frequency) probabilities of the basic events of the fault tree, and we use possibility‐probability (probability‐possibility) transformations for propagating the epistemic uncertainty within purely probabilistic and possibilistic settings. The results of the different approaches (hybrid, probabilistic, and possibilistic) are compared with respect to the representation of uncertainty about the top event (limiting relative frequency) probability. Both the rationale underpinning the approaches and the computational efforts they require are critically examined. We conclude that the approaches relevant in a given setting depend on the purpose of the risk analysis, and that further research is required to make the possibilistic approaches operational in a risk analysis context.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger Flage & Piero Baraldi & Enrico Zio & Terje Aven, 2013. "Probability and Possibility‐Based Representations of Uncertainty in Fault Tree Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 121-133, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:1:p:121-133
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01873.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01873.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01873.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. Stephen D. Unwin, 1986. "A Fuzzy Set Theoretic Foundation for Vagueness in Uncertainty Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 27-34, March.
    2. Durga Rao Karanki & Hari Shankar Kushwaha & Ajit Kumar Verma & Srividya Ajit, 2009. "Uncertainty Analysis Based on Probability Bounds (P‐Box) Approach in Probabilistic Safety Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 662-675, May.
    3. Piero Baraldi & Enrico Zio, 2008. "A Combined Monte Carlo and Possibilistic Approach to Uncertainty Propagation in Event Tree Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1309-1326, October.
    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. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.
    2. Hu, Lunhu & Kang, Rui & Pan, Xing & Zuo, Dujun, 2020. "Risk assessment of uncertain random system—Level-1 and level-2 joint propagation of uncertainty and probability in fault tree analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Ibsen Chivatá Cárdenas & Saad S.H. Al‐Jibouri & Johannes I.M. Halman & Frits A. van Tol, 2014. "Modeling Risk‐Related Knowledge in Tunneling Projects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 323-339, February.
    5. 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. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Daniel J. Rozell & Sheldon J. Reaven, 2012. "Water Pollution Risk Associated with Natural Gas Extraction from the Marcellus Shale," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1382-1393, August.
    5. He, Rui & Zhu, Jingyu & Chen, Guoming & Tian, Zhigang, 2022. "A real-time probabilistic risk assessment method for the petrochemical industry based on data monitoring," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    6. Salomon, Julian & Winnewisser, Niklas & Wei, Pengfei & Broggi, Matteo & Beer, Michael, 2021. "Efficient reliability analysis of complex systems in consideration of imprecision," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    7. Matteo Vagnoli & Francesco Di Maio & Enrico Zio, 2018. "Ensembles of climate change models for risk assessment of nuclear power plants," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 232(2), pages 185-200, April.
    8. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    9. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio, 2013. "Uncertainty Analysis in Fault Tree Models with Dependent Basic Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1146-1173, June.
    10. Tu Duong Le Duy & Laurence Dieulle & Dominique Vasseur & Christophe Bérenguer & Mathieu Couplet, 2013. "An alternative comprehensive framework using belief functions for parameter and model uncertainty analysis in nuclear probabilistic risk assessment applications," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(5), pages 471-490, October.
    11. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Piero Baraldi & Enrico Zio, 2012. "An imprecision importance measure for uncertainty representations interpreted as lower and upper probabilities, with special emphasis on possibility theory," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 226(6), pages 656-665, December.
    12. Tzu Yang Loh & Mario P. Brito & Neil Bose & Jingjing Xu & Kiril Tenekedjiev, 2019. "A Fuzzy‐Based Risk Assessment Framework for Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Under‐Ice Missions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2744-2765, December.
    13. Hu, Lunhu & Kang, Rui & Pan, Xing & Zuo, Dujun, 2020. "Risk assessment of uncertain random system—Level-1 and level-2 joint propagation of uncertainty and probability in fault tree analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    14. Morales-Torres, Adrián & Escuder-Bueno, Ignacio & Serrano-Lombillo, Armando & Castillo Rodríguez, Jesica T., 2019. "Dealing with epistemic uncertainty in risk-informed decision making for dam safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. Ibsen Chivatá Cárdenas & Saad S.H. Al‐jibouri & Johannes I.M. Halman & Frits A. van Tol, 2013. "Capturing and Integrating Knowledge for Managing Risks in Tunnel Works," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 92-108, January.
    16. Refaul Ferdous & Faisal Khan & Rehan Sadiq & Paul Amyotte & Brian Veitch, 2011. "Fault and Event Tree Analyses for Process Systems Risk Analysis: Uncertainty Handling Formulations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 86-107, January.
    17. Baustert, Paul & Othoniel, Benoit & Rugani, Benedetto & Leopold, Ulrich, 2018. "Uncertainty analysis in integrated environmental models for ecosystem service assessments: Frameworks, challenges and gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 110-123.
    18. Desheng Dash Wu & Xie Kefan & Chen Gang & Gui Ping, 2010. "A Risk Analysis Model in Concurrent Engineering Product Development," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1440-1453, September.
    19. Fan Yang & Zhufeng Yue & Lei Li & Dong Guan, 2018. "Hybrid reliability-based multidisciplinary design optimization with random and interval variables," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 232(1), pages 52-64, February.
    20. Yakov Ben‐Haim, 2012. "Doing Our Best: Optimization and the Management of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1326-1332, August.

    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:33:y:2013:i:1:p:121-133. 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.