Robust Design and Uncertainty Quantification for Managing Risks in Engineering
Methods for uncertainty quantification lie at the heart of the robust design process. Good robust design practice seeks to understand how a product or ;process behaves under uncertain conditions to design out unwanted effects such as inconsistent or below-par performance or reduced life (and hence increased service or total life cycle costs). Understanding these effects can be very costly, requiring a deep understanding of the system(s) under investigation and of the uncertainties to be guarded against. This chapter explores applications of UQ methods in an engineering design environment, including discussions on risk and decision, systems engineering, and validation and verification. The need for a well-aligned hierarchy of high-quality models is also discussed. These topics are brought together in an Uncertainty Management Framework to provide an overall context for embedding UQ methods in the engineering design process. Lastly, some significant challenges to the approach are highlighted.
KeywordsSystems Engineering Verification & Validation Risk Decision Making Simulation Uncertainty Propagation Robust optimization
- 1.Snowden, D.J., Boone, M.E.: A leader’s framework for decision making. Harv. Bus. Rev. 85(11), 68–76 (2007)Google Scholar
- 2.Hartmann, S.: The world as a process: simulations in the natural and social sciences. In: Hegselmann, R., et al. (eds.) Modelling and Simulation in the Social Sciences from the Philosophy of Science Point of View, Theory and Decision Library. pp. 77–100. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1996)Google Scholar
- 4.Sargent, R.G.: Validation of simulation models. In: Highland, H.J., Spiegel, M.F., Shannon, R.E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1979 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 497–503 (1979)Google Scholar
- 5.Stephens, E.M., Edwards, T.L., Demeritt, D.: Communicating probabilistic information from climate model ensembles—lessons from numerical weather prediction. WIREs Clim. Change 3, 409–426 (2012). doi10.1002/wcc.187Google Scholar