Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Handling epistemic uncertainties in PRA using evidential networks

  • Published:
Journal of Central South University Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to overcome the limitations of traditional methods in uncertainty analysis, a modified Bayesian network (BN), which is called evidence network (EN), was proposed with evidence theory to handle epistemic uncertainty in probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). Fault trees (FTs) and event trees (ETs) were transformed into an EN which is used as a uniform framework to represent accident scenarios. Epistemic uncertainties of basic events in PRA were presented in evidence theory form and propagated through the network. A case study of a highway tunnel risk analysis was discussed to demonstrate the proposed approach. Frequencies of end states are obtained and expressed by belief and plausibility measures. The proposed approach addresses the uncertainties in experts’ knowledge and can be easily applied to uncertainty analysis of FTs/ETs that have dependent events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. KELLER W, MODARRES M. A historical overview of probabilistic risk assessment development and its use in the nuclear power industry: A tribute to the late Professor Norman Carl Rasmussen [J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2005, 89: 271–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. STAMATELATOS M. Probabilistic risk assessment procedures guide for NASA managers and practitioners. Version 1.1 [R]. Washington D. C: Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, NASA Headquarters, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  3. NÝVLT O, PRÍVARA S, FERKL L. Probabilistic risk assessment of highway tunnels [J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2010, 9: 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  4. KIUREGHIAN A D, DITLEVSEN O. Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? [J]. Structural Safety, 2009, 31: 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. KHAKZAD N, KHAN F, AMYOTTE P. Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches [J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2011, 96: 925–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. HELTONA J C, DAVIS F J. Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems [J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2003, 81: 23–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. HELTON J C, JOHNSON J D. Quantification of margins and uncertainties: Alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty [J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2011, 96: 1034–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. CURCURÙ G, GALANTE G M, FATA C M L. Epistemic uncertainty in fault tree analysis approached by the evidence theory [J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2012, 25: 667–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. FERDOUS R, KHAN F, SADIQ R, AMYOTTE P, VEITCH B. Handling data uncertainties in event tree analysis [J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2009, 87(5): 283–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. FERDOUS R, KHAN F, SADIQ R, AMYOTTE P, VEITCH B. Fault and event tree analyses for process systems Risk analysis: uncertainty handling formulations [J]. Risk Analysis, 2011, 31(1): 86–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. JENSEN F V. An introduction to Bayesian networks [M]. 1st edtion. London, UK: UCL Press, 1996: 1–178.

    Google Scholar 

  12. WEBER P, MEDINA-OLIVA G, SIMON C, IUNG B. Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas [J]. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2012, 25: 671–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. HANEA D, ALE B. Risk of human fatality in building fires: A decision tool using Bayesian networks [J]. Fire Safety Journal, 2009, 44(5): 704–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. RØED W, MOSLEH A, VINNEM J E, AVEN T. On the use of the hybrid causal logic method in offshore risk analysis [J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2009, 94: 445–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. TRUCCOA P, CAGNOA E, RUGGERIB F, GRANDE O. A Bayesian belief network modelling of organisational factors in risk analysis: A case study in maritime transportation [J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2008, 93: 823–834.

    Google Scholar 

  16. BOBBIO A, PORTINALE L, MINICHINO M, CIANCAMERLA E. Improvingthe analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks [J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2001, 71(3): 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. SIMON C, WEBER P, EVSUKOFF A. Bayesian networks inference algorithm to implement Dempster Shafer theory in reliability analysis [J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2008, 93: 950–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. DEMPSTER A P. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping [J]. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1967, 2: 325–339.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. SMETS P. The combination of evidence in the transferable belief model [J]. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1990, 12(5): 447–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. SIMON C, WEBER P. Evidential networks for reliability analysis and performance evaluation of systems with imprecise knowledge [J]. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 2006, 58(1): 68–86.

    Google Scholar 

  21. SIMON C, WEBER P. Imprecise reliability by evidential networks [J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 2009, 223(2): 119–140.

    Google Scholar 

  22. ZHAO Shu-qiang. Power distribution system reliability evaluation by D-S evidence inference and bayesian network method [C]// IEEE 11th International Conference on Probability Methods Applied to Power System (PMAPS). Singapore, 2010: 654–658.

    Google Scholar 

  23. YANG Jian-ping, WEN Dun-wei, HUANG Hong-zhong, WAN Hu, SUN Rui. Reliability analysis of aircraft servo-actuation systems using evidential networks [J]. International Journal of Turbo and Jet Engines, 2011, 29(2): 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  24. JIANG Jiang, LI Xuan, CHEN Ying-wu, YANG Ke-wei. Evidential network and its application in safety analysis of aerospace systems [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2011, 33(6): 1270–1275. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  25. SMETS P. The application of the matrix calculus to belief functions [J]. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2002, 31: 1–30.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. NÝVLT O, RAUSAND M. Dependencies in event trees analyzed by Petri nets [J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2012, 104: 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. PURBA J H, LU J, ZHANG G, PEDRYCZ W. A fuzzy reliability assessment of basic events of fault trees through qualitative data processing [J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2013, 243: 50–69.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. BARALDI P, ZIO E. A combined Monte Carlo and possibilistic approach to uncertainty propagation in event tree analysis [J]. Risk Analysis, 2008, 28(5): 1309–1325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. BAUDRIT C, DUBOIS D, GUYONNET D. Joint propagation of probabilistic and possibilistic information in risk assessment [J]. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2006, 14: 593–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. FLAGE R, BARALDI P, AMERUSO F, ZIO E, AVEN T. Handling epistemic uncertainties in fault tree analysis by probabilistic and possibilistic approaches [C]// Reliability, Risk and Safety: Theory and Applications. Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference 2009 (ESREL 2009). Prague, Czech Republic, Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis, 2009: 121–128.

    Google Scholar 

  31. FLAGE R, BARALDI P, ZIO E, AVEN T. Probability and possibility-based representations of uncertainty in fault tree analysis [J]. Risk Analysis, 2013, 33(1): 121–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information System and Management, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, 410073, China

    Dong Wang  (王冬), Jin Chen  (陈进), Zhi-jun Cheng  (程志君) & Bo Guo  (郭波)

Authors
  1. Dong Wang  (王冬)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jin Chen  (陈进)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhi-jun Cheng  (程志君)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bo Guo  (郭波)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dong Wang  (王冬).

Additional information

Foundation item: Project(71201170) supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, D., Chen, J., Cheng, Zj. et al. Handling epistemic uncertainties in PRA using evidential networks. J. Cent. South Univ. 21, 4261–4269 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-014-2423-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-014-2423-4

Key words

Search

Navigation