Skip to main content

Uncertainty Analysis When Separation of Uncertainties Is Required

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Uncertainty Analysis of Model Results
  • 1066 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter is not about how to do an uncertainty analysis that quantifies aleatoric uncertainty. Instead it explains, for each of the six analysis steps discussed in Chaps. 27, how to proceed with the analysis of the epistemic uncertainties if the computer model also operates with aleatoric uncertainties and the combined effect of the latter is the actual model result. Differences to the case of only epistemic uncertainties are explained step by step. In Step 1, the uncertain parameters of the stochastic models, quantifying the aleatoric uncertainties, need to be identified. In Step 2, their state of knowledge is to be quantitatively expressed by subjective probability distributions. The most prominent difference lies in Step 3 (propagate) where the simulation will need to proceed with two nested sampling loops if the analysis of the aleatoric uncertainties is not already taken care of by the computer model. Distribution functions, quantifying the aleatoric uncertainty, and probabilities (in the classical interpretation) that may be read from those distributions are among the model results. In Step 4, it will be necessary to obtain quantitative expressions of their epistemic uncertainty. Importance measures will need to be computed for the aleatoric uncertainties in the inner simulation loop and for the epistemic uncertainties in the outer loop in Step 5. The epistemic uncertainty of the former importance measures will also be of interest. Step 6 then shows ways of how to present the information obtained on both simulation levels.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Given the number of times in which an unknown (nothing known a priori) event has happened and failed: Required the chance that the probability of its happening in a single trial lies somewhere between any two degrees of probability that can be named”.

    In definition no. 6 of his essay, it says: “By chance I mean the same as probability”.

  2. 2.

    Caution: Some write the density function of a Beta distribution with parameters α and α + β.

  3. 3.

    Caution: Some write the density function of a Gamma distribution with parameters α and 1/β.

References

  • Apostolakis, G., & Kaplan, S. (1981). Pitfalls in risk calculations. Reliability Engineering, 2, 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayes, T. (1958). Thomas Bayes‘essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Studies in the History of Probability and Statistics, Biometrika, 45(3/4), 296–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box, G. E. P., & Tiao, G. C. (1973). Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, J. J. (1985). Entropy principles in decision making under risk. Risk Analysis, 5(4), 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y.-H., & Mosleh, A. (1998). Dynamic PRA using ADS with RELAP5 Code as its thermal hydraulic module. In A. Mosleh & R. A. Bari (Eds.), Proceedings of PSAM-4. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cojazzi, G. (1996). The DYLAM approach for the dynamic reliability analysis of systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 52, 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devooght, J., & Smidts, C. (1996). Probabilistic dynamics as a tool for dynamic PSA. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 52, 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, E., Kloos, M., Krzykacz-Hausmann, B., Peschke, J., & Sonnenkalb, M. (2002). Dynamic event trees for probabilistic safety analysis. Eurosafe Conference, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsueh, K. S., & Mosleh, A. (1996). The development and application of the accident dynamic simulator (ADS) for dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 52, 297–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloos, M., & Peschke, J. (2006). MCDET: A probabilistic dynamics method combining Monte Carlo simulation with the discrete dynamic event tree approach. Nuclear Science and Engineering, 153, 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labeau, P. E., Smidts, C., & Swaminathan, S. (2000). Dynamic reliability: Towards an integrated platform for probabilistic risk assessment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 68, 219–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siu, N. (1994). Risk assessment for dynamic systems: An overview. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 43, 43–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R. L., & Hays, W. L. (1975). Statistics: Probability, inference, and decision (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hofer, E. (2018). Uncertainty Analysis When Separation of Uncertainties Is Required. In: The Uncertainty Analysis of Model Results. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76297-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics