Advertisement

Reliability Estimation by Advanced Monte Carlo Simulation

  • Enrico Zio
  • Nicola Pedroni
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)

Abstract

Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) offers a powerful means for evaluating the reliability of a system, due to the modeling flexibility that it offers indifferently of the type and dimension of the problem. The method is based on the repeated sampling of realizations of system configurations, which, however, are seldom of failure so that a large number of realizations must be simulated in order to achieve an acceptable accuracy in the estimated failure probability, with costly large computing times. For this reason, techniques of efficient sampling of system failure realizations are of interest, in order to reduce the computational effort.

In this chapter, the recently developed subset simulation (SS) and line sampling (LS) techniques are considered for improving the MCS efficiency in the estimation of system failure probability. The SS method is founded on the idea that a small failure probability can be expressed as a product of larger conditional probabilities of some intermediate events: with a proper choice of the intermediate events, the conditional probabilities can be made sufficiently large to allow accurate estimation with a small number of samples. The LS method employs lines instead of random points in order to probe the failure domain of interest. An “important direction” is determined, which points towards the failure domain of interest; the high-dimensional reliability problem is then reduced to a number of conditional one-dimensional problems which are solved along the “important direction.”

The two methods are applied on two structural reliability models of literature, i.e., the cracked-plate model and the Paris–Erdogan model for thermal-fatigue crack growth. The efficiency of the proposed techniques is evaluated in comparison to other stochastic simulation methods of literature, i.e., standard MCS, importance sampling, dimensionality reduction, and orthogonal axis.

Keywords

Failure Probability Line Sampling Limit State Function Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation Failure Domain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ahammed M, Malchers ME (2006) Gradient and parameter sensitivity estimation for systems evaluated using Monte Carlo analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:594–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardillon E, Venturini V (1995) Measures de sensibilitè dans les approaches probabilistes. Rapport EDF HP-16/95/018/A.Google Scholar
  3. Au SK (2005) Reliability-based design sensitivity by efficient simulation. Comput Struct 83:1048–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Au SK, Beck JL (2001) Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation. Probab Eng Mech 16(4):263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Au SK, Beck JL (2003a) Importance sampling in high dimensions. Struct Saf 25(2):139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Au SK, Beck JL (2003b) Subset simulation and its application to seismic risk based on dynamic analysis. J Eng Mech 129(8):1–17.Google Scholar
  7. Der Kiureghian A (2000) The geometry of random vibrations and solutions by FORM and SORM. Probab Eng Mech 15(1):81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fishman GS (1996) Monte Carlo: concepts, algorithms, and applications. New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Freudenthal AM (1956) Safety and the probability of structural failure. ASCE Trans 121:1337–1397.Google Scholar
  10. Fu M (2006) Stochastic gradient estimation. In Henderson SG, Nelson BL (eds) Handbook on operation research and management science: simulation, chap 19. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. Hastings WK (1970) Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57:97–109.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang B, Du X (2006) A robust design method using variable transformation and Gauss-Hermite integration. Int J Numer Meth Eng 66:1841–1858.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Gille A (1998) Evaluation of failure probabilities in structural reliability with Monte Carlo methods. ESREL ’98, Throndheim.Google Scholar
  14. Gille A (1999) Probabilistic numerical methods used in the applications of the structural reliability domain. PhD thesis, Universitè Paris 6.Google Scholar
  15. Koutsourelakis PS, Pradlwarter HJ, Schueller GI (2004) Reliability of structures in high dimensions, Part I: Algorithms and application. Probab Eng Mech (19):409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Taller AH (1953) Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys 21(6):1087–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nataf A (1962) Determination des distribution dont les marges sont donnees. C R Acad Sci 225:42–43.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Nutt WT, Wallis GB (2004) Evaluations of nuclear safety from the outputs of computer codes in the presence of uncertainties. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 83:57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pagani L, Apostolakis GE, Hejzlar P (2005) The impact of uncertainties on the performance of passive systems. Nucl Technol 149:129–140.Google Scholar
  20. Paris PC (1961) A rational analytic theory of fatigue. Trend Eng Univ Wash 13(1):9.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Patalano G, Apostolakis GE, Hejzlar P (2008) Risk informed design changes in a passive decay heat removal system. Nucl Technol 163:191–208.Google Scholar
  22. Pradlwarter HJ, Pellissetti MF, Schenk CA et al. (2005) Realistic and efficient reliability estimation for aerospace structures. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 194:1597–1617.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pradlwarter HJ, Schueller GI, Koutsourelakis PS, Charmpis DC (2007) Application of line sampling simulation method to reliability benchmark problems. Struct Saf 29:208–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenblatt M (1952) Remarks on multivariate transformations. Ann Math Stat 23(3):470–472.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Schueller GI (2007) On the treatment of uncertainties in structural mechanics and analysis. Comput Struct 85:235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schueller GI, Pradlwarter HJ (2007) Benchmark study on reliability estimation in higher dimension of structural systems – An overview. Struct Saf 29:167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schueller GI, Stix R (1987) A critical appraisal of methods to determine failure probabilities. Struct Saf 4:293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schueller GI, Pradlwarter HJ, Koutsourelakis PS (2004) A critical appraisal of reliability estimation procedures for high dimensions. Probab Eng Mech 19:463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thunnissen DP, Au SK, Tsuyuki GT (2007) Uncertainty quantification in estimating critical spacecraft component temperature. AIAA J Therm Phys Heat Transf (doi: 10.2514/1.23979).Google Scholar
  30. Zio E, Pedroni N (2008) Reliability analysis of discrete multi-state systems by means of subset simulation. Proceedings of the ESREL 2008 Conference, 22–25 September, Valencia, Spain.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrico Zio
    • 1
  • Nicola Pedroni
    • 1
  1. 1.Energy DepartmentPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations