11,926 research outputs found
Empirical bayes estimates of development reliability for one shot devices
This article describes a method for estimating the reliability of a system under development that is an evolution of previous designs. We present an approach to making effective use of heritage data from similar operational systems to estimate reliability of a design that is yet to realise any data. The approach also has a mechanism to adjust initial estimates in the light of sparse data that becomes available in early stages of test. While the estimation approach, known as empirical Bayes is generic, we focus on one shot devices as this was the type of system which provided the practical motivation for this work and for which we illustrate an application
Expert Elicitation for Reliable System Design
This paper reviews the role of expert judgement to support reliability
assessments within the systems engineering design process. Generic design
processes are described to give the context and a discussion is given about the
nature of the reliability assessments required in the different systems
engineering phases. It is argued that, as far as meeting reliability
requirements is concerned, the whole design process is more akin to a
statistical control process than to a straightforward statistical problem of
assessing an unknown distribution. This leads to features of the expert
judgement problem in the design context which are substantially different from
those seen, for example, in risk assessment. In particular, the role of experts
in problem structuring and in developing failure mitigation options is much
more prominent, and there is a need to take into account the reliability
potential for future mitigation measures downstream in the system life cycle.
An overview is given of the stakeholders typically involved in large scale
systems engineering design projects, and this is used to argue the need for
methods that expose potential judgemental biases in order to generate analyses
that can be said to provide rational consensus about uncertainties. Finally, a
number of key points are developed with the aim of moving toward a framework
that provides a holistic method for tracking reliability assessment through the
design process.Comment: This paper commented in: [arXiv:0708.0285], [arXiv:0708.0287],
[arXiv:0708.0288]. Rejoinder in [arXiv:0708.0293]. Published at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/088342306000000510 in the Statistical Science
(http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics
(http://www.imstat.org
Multivariate reliability modelling with empirical Bayes inference
Recent developments in technology permit detailed descriptions of system performance to be collected and stored. Consequently, more data are available about the occurrence, or non-occurrence, of events across a range of classes through time. Typically this implies that reliability analysis has more information about the exposure history of a system within different classes of events. For highly reliable systems, there may be relatively few failure events. Thus there is a need to develop statistical inference to support reliability estimation when there is a low ratio of failures relative to event classes. In this paper we show how Empirical Bayes methods can be used to estimate a multivariate reliability function for a system by modelling the vector of times to realise each failure root cause
Design of complex safety-related systems in accordance with IEC 61508
International audienceAccording to IEC 61508, a safety-related system is regarded as type B if it presents a high complexity (i.e. the failure mode of at least one component is not well defined, or the behaviour under fault conditions cannot be completely determined), or if there is insufficient data to support claims for failure rates. This paper proposes a modelling method adapted to the evaluation of failure probabilities for systems with uncertain behaviour under fault conditions. To this aim, weighted “continuous gates” are introduced in a fault tree framework. By acting on weight values, it is then allowed to continuously graduate system part architectures between series and parallel structures. An intelligent transmitter is used as example. Probabilities of failure on demand are assessed, with both failure rates and behaviour uncertainty analyses. Results tend to show that the lack of knowledge in system behaviour can be partially handled by this kind of approach
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners (Second Edition)
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a comprehensive, structured, and logical analysis method aimed at identifying and assessing risks in complex technological systems for the purpose of cost-effectively improving their safety and performance. NASA's objective is to better understand and effectively manage risk, and thus more effectively ensure mission and programmatic success, and to achieve and maintain high safety standards at NASA. NASA intends to use risk assessment in its programs and projects to support optimal management decision making for the improvement of safety and program performance. In addition to using quantitative/probabilistic risk assessment to improve safety and enhance the safety decision process, NASA has incorporated quantitative risk assessment into its system safety assessment process, which until now has relied primarily on a qualitative representation of risk. Also, NASA has recently adopted the Risk-Informed Decision Making (RIDM) process [1-1] as a valuable addition to supplement existing deterministic and experience-based engineering methods and tools. Over the years, NASA has been a leader in most of the technologies it has employed in its programs. One would think that PRA should be no exception. In fact, it would be natural for NASA to be a leader in PRA because, as a technology pioneer, NASA uses risk assessment and management implicitly or explicitly on a daily basis. NASA has probabilistic safety requirements (thresholds and goals) for crew transportation system missions to the International Space Station (ISS) [1-2]. NASA intends to have probabilistic requirements for any new human spaceflight transportation system acquisition. Methods to perform risk and reliability assessment in the early 1960s originated in U.S. aerospace and missile programs. Fault tree analysis (FTA) is an example. It would have been a reasonable extrapolation to expect that NASA would also become the world leader in the application of PRA. That was, however, not to happen. Early in the Apollo program, estimates of the probability for a successful roundtrip human mission to the moon yielded disappointingly low (and suspect) values and NASA became discouraged from further performing quantitative risk analyses until some two decades later when the methods were more refined, rigorous, and repeatable. Instead, NASA decided to rely primarily on the Hazard Analysis (HA) and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) methods for system safety assessment
An Assessment to Benchmark the Seismic Performance of a Code-Conforming Reinforced-Concrete Moment-Frame Building
This report describes a state-of-the-art performance-based earthquake engineering methodology
that is used to assess the seismic performance of a four-story reinforced concrete (RC) office
building that is generally representative of low-rise office buildings constructed in highly seismic
regions of California. This “benchmark” building is considered to be located at a site in the Los
Angeles basin, and it was designed with a ductile RC special moment-resisting frame as its
seismic lateral system that was designed according to modern building codes and standards. The
building’s performance is quantified in terms of structural behavior up to collapse, structural and
nonstructural damage and associated repair costs, and the risk of fatalities and their associated
economic costs. To account for different building configurations that may be designed in
practice to meet requirements of building size and use, eight structural design alternatives are
used in the performance assessments.
Our performance assessments account for important sources of uncertainty in the ground
motion hazard, the structural response, structural and nonstructural damage, repair costs, and
life-safety risk. The ground motion hazard characterization employs a site-specific probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis and the evaluation of controlling seismic sources (through
disaggregation) at seven ground motion levels (encompassing return periods ranging from 7 to
2475 years). Innovative procedures for ground motion selection and scaling are used to develop
acceleration time history suites corresponding to each of the seven ground motion levels.
Structural modeling utilizes both “fiber” models and “plastic hinge” models. Structural
modeling uncertainties are investigated through comparison of these two modeling approaches,
and through variations in structural component modeling parameters (stiffness, deformation
capacity, degradation, etc.). Structural and nonstructural damage (fragility) models are based on
a combination of test data, observations from post-earthquake reconnaissance, and expert
opinion. Structural damage and repair costs are modeled for the RC beams, columns, and slabcolumn connections. Damage and associated repair costs are considered for some nonstructural
building components, including wallboard partitions, interior paint, exterior glazing, ceilings,
sprinkler systems, and elevators. The risk of casualties and the associated economic costs are
evaluated based on the risk of structural collapse, combined with recent models on earthquake
fatalities in collapsed buildings and accepted economic modeling guidelines for the value of
human life in loss and cost-benefit studies.
The principal results of this work pertain to the building collapse risk, damage and repair
cost, and life-safety risk. These are discussed successively as follows.
When accounting for uncertainties in structural modeling and record-to-record variability
(i.e., conditional on a specified ground shaking intensity), the structural collapse probabilities of
the various designs range from 2% to 7% for earthquake ground motions that have a 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475 years return period). When integrated with the
ground motion hazard for the southern California site, the collapse probabilities result in mean
annual frequencies of collapse in the range of [0.4 to 1.4]x10
-4
for the various benchmark
building designs. In the development of these results, we made the following observations that
are expected to be broadly applicable:
(1) The ground motions selected for performance simulations must consider spectral
shape (e.g., through use of the epsilon parameter) and should appropriately account for
correlations between motions in both horizontal directions;
(2) Lower-bound component models, which are commonly used in performance-based
assessment procedures such as FEMA 356, can significantly bias collapse analysis results; it is
more appropriate to use median component behavior, including all aspects of the component
model (strength, stiffness, deformation capacity, cyclic deterioration, etc.);
(3) Structural modeling uncertainties related to component deformation capacity and
post-peak degrading stiffness can impact the variability of calculated collapse probabilities and
mean annual rates to a similar degree as record-to-record variability of ground motions.
Therefore, including the effects of such structural modeling uncertainties significantly increases
the mean annual collapse rates. We found this increase to be roughly four to eight times relative
to rates evaluated for the median structural model;
(4) Nonlinear response analyses revealed at least six distinct collapse mechanisms, the
most common of which was a story mechanism in the third story (differing from the multi-story
mechanism predicted by nonlinear static pushover analysis);
(5) Soil-foundation-structure interaction effects did not significantly affect the structural
response, which was expected given the relatively flexible superstructure and stiff soils.
The potential for financial loss is considerable. Overall, the calculated expected annual
losses (EAL) are in the range of 97,000 for the various code-conforming benchmark
building designs, or roughly 1% of the replacement cost of the building (3.5M, the fatality rate translates to an EAL due to
fatalities of 5,600 for the code-conforming designs, and 66,000, the monetary value associated with life loss is small,
suggesting that the governing factor in this respect will be the maximum permissible life-safety
risk deemed by the public (or its representative government) to be appropriate for buildings.
Although the focus of this report is on one specific building, it can be used as a reference
for other types of structures. This report is organized in such a way that the individual core
chapters (4, 5, and 6) can be read independently. Chapter 1 provides background on the
performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) approach. Chapter 2 presents the
implementation of the PBEE methodology of the PEER framework, as applied to the benchmark
building. Chapter 3 sets the stage for the choices of location and basic structural design. The subsequent core chapters focus on the hazard analysis (Chapter 4), the structural analysis
(Chapter 5), and the damage and loss analyses (Chapter 6). Although the report is self-contained,
readers interested in additional details can find them in the appendices
- …