IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v33y2013i6p1146-1173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainty Analysis in Fault Tree Models with Dependent Basic Events

Author

Listed:
  • Nicola Pedroni
  • Enrico Zio

Abstract

In general, two types of dependence need to be considered when estimating the probability of the top event (TE) of a fault tree (FT): “objective” dependence between the (random) occurrences of different basic events (BEs) in the FT and “state‐of‐knowledge” (epistemic) dependence between estimates of the epistemically uncertain probabilities of some BEs of the FT model. In this article, we study the effects on the TE probability of objective and epistemic dependences. The well‐known Frèchet bounds and the distribution envelope determination (DEnv) method are used to model all kinds of (possibly unknown) objective and epistemic dependences, respectively. For exemplification, the analyses are carried out on a FT with six BEs. Results show that both types of dependence significantly affect the TE probability; however, the effects of epistemic dependence are likely to be overwhelmed by those of objective dependence (if present).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:6:p:1146-1173
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01903.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01903.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01903.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. Dubois, Didier, 2006. "Possibility theory and statistical reasoning," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 47-69, November.
    2. Aven, T., 2011. "Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 353-360.
    3. Baudrit, C. & Dubois, D., 2006. "Practical representations of incomplete probabilistic knowledge," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 86-108, November.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Couso, Ines & Moral, Serafin & Walley, Peter, 2000. "A survey of concepts of independence for imprecise probabilities," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 165-181, June.
    7. Enrico Zio & Giovanni Sansavini, 2011. "Component Criticality in Failure Cascade Processes of Network Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(8), pages 1196-1210, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Vaurio, Jussi K., 2007. "Consistent mapping of common cause failure rates and alpha factors," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(5), pages 628-645.
    10. Aven, T. & Steen, R., 2010. "The concept of ignorance in a risk assessment and risk management context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1117-1122.
    11. Limbourg, Philipp & de Rocquigny, Etienne, 2010. "Uncertainty analysis using evidence theory – confronting level-1 and level-2 approaches with data availability and computational constraints," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 550-564.
    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. Faramarz Khosravi & Malte Müller & Michael Glaß & Jürgen Teich, 2018. "Simulation-based uncertainty correlation modeling in reliability analysis," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 232(6), pages 725-737, December.
    2. Chang, Qi & Zhou, Changcong & Wei, Pengfei & Zhang, Yishang & Yue, Zhufeng, 2021. "A new non-probabilistic time-dependent reliability model for mechanisms with interval uncertainties," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(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. Jozef Klucka & Rudolf Gruenbichler & Jozef Ristvej, 2021. "Relations of COVID-19 and the Risk Management Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Jiandong Zhang & Rongfang Yan & Yiying Zhang, 2023. "Reliability analysis of fail-safe systems with heterogeneous and dependent components subject to random shocks," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 237(6), pages 1073-1087, December.
    6. 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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Qiu, S. & Rachedi, N. & Sallak, M. & Vanderhaegen, F., 2017. "A quantitative model for the risk evaluation of driver-ADAS systems under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 184-191.
    6. Ripamonti, G. & Lonati, G. & Baraldi, P. & Cadini, F. & Zio, E., 2013. "Uncertainty propagation in a model for the estimation of the ground level concentration of dioxin/furans emitted from a waste gasification plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 98-105.
    7. Luciano Stefanini & Maria Letizia Guerra, 2016. "On Possibilistic Representations of Fuzzy Intervals," Working Papers 1602, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Economics, Society & Politics - Scientific Committee - L. Stefanini & G. Travaglini, revised 2016.
    8. 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.
    9. Didier Dubois, 2010. "Representation, Propagation, and Decision Issues in Risk Analysis Under Incomplete Probabilistic Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 361-368, March.
    10. 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).
    11. Yu, Xuchao & Liang, Wei & Zhang, Laibin & Reniers, Genserik & Lu, Linlin, 2018. "Risk assessment of the maintenance process for onshore oil and gas transmission pipelines under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 50-67.
    12. Montes, Ignacio & Miranda, Enrique & Montes, Susana, 2014. "Stochastic dominance with imprecise information," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 868-886.
    13. Coppi, Renato & Gil, Maria A. & Kiers, Henk A.L., 2006. "The fuzzy approach to statistical analysis," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14, November.
    14. Aven, T., 2011. "Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 353-360.
    15. Qiu, Siqi & Ming, Xinguo, 2020. "An extended Birnbaum importance-based two-stage heuristic for component assignment problems under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Atwood, Corwin L., 2013. "Consequences of mapping data or parameters in Bayesian common-cause analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 118-131.
    18. Xiao‐Bing Hu & Hang Li & XiaoMei Guo & Pieter H. A. J. M. van Gelder & Peijun Shi, 2019. "Spatial Vulnerability of Network Systems under Spatially Local Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 162-179, January.
    19. Li, Chun-yang & Chen, Xun & Yi, Xiao-shan & Tao, Jun-yong, 2010. "Heterogeneous redundancy optimization for multi-state series–parallel systems subject to common cause failures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 202-207.
    20. Li, Yanfu & Zio, Enrico, 2012. "Uncertainty analysis of the adequacy assessment model of a distributed generation system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 235-244.

    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:6:p:1146-1173. 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.