In this paper, we present an integrated framework for quantifying epistemic uncertainty in probabilistic risk assessment. Three types of epistemic uncertainty, that is, completeness, structural and parametric uncertainties, are considered. A maturity model is developed to evaluate the management of these epistemic uncertainties in the model building process. The impact of epistemic uncertainty on the result of the risk assessment is, then, estimated based on the developed maturity model. Then, an integrated risk index is defined to reflect the epistemic uncertainty in the risk assessment results. An indifference method is developed to evaluate the index based on the maturity of epistemic uncertainty management. A case study concerning a nuclear power plant is shown to demonstrate the applicability of the overall modelling framework.
YazdiM.A perceptual computing–based method to prioritize intervention actions in the probabilistic risk assessment techniques. Qual Reliab Eng Int2020; 36(1): 187–213.
2.
ZengZKangRWenM, et al. Uncertainty theory as a basis for belief reliability. Inf Sci2018; 429: 26–36.
3.
Commission UNR. Reactor safety study: an assessment of accident risks in US commercial nuclear power plants. (vol. 88). 1975. Virginia: National Technical Information Service.
4.
HoraSImanR.Expert opinion in risk analysis: the NUREG-1150 methodology. Nucl Sci Eng1989; 102(4): 323–331.
5.
KaplanSGarrickG.On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal1981; 1(1): 11–27.
6.
HeltonJCHansenCWSwiftPN.Performance assessment for the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2014; 122: 1–6.
7.
Paté-CornellME.Uncertainties in risk analysis: six levels of treatment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf1996; 54(2–3): 95–111.
8.
Commission NR. Guidance on the treatment of uncertainties associated with PRAs in risk-informed decision making; draft report for comments (NUREG-1855, rev. 1). Washington DC, 2013.
9.
KnightFH.Risk, uncertainty and profit. Chicago: Courier Corporation, 2012.
10.
WynneB.Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Change1992; 2(2): 111–127.
11.
SmithsonM.Ignorance and science: dilemmas, perspectives, and prospects. Knowledge1993; 15(2): 133–156.
12.
SpiegelhalterDJRieschH.Don’t know, can’t know: embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci2011; 369(1956): 4730–4750.
13.
ApostolakisG.The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems. Science1990; 250(4986): 1359–1364.
14.
ZengZKangRWenM, et al. A model-based reliability metric considering aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. IEEE Access2017; 5: 15505–15515.
15.
AvenTSteenR.The concept of ignorance in a risk assessment and risk management context. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2010; 95(11): 1117–1122.
16.
KazemiRMoslehA.Improving default risk prediction using Bayesian model uncertainty techniques. Risk Anal2012; 32(11): 1888–1900.
17.
JinHLundteigenMARausandM.Uncertainty assessment of reliability estimates for safety-instrumented systems. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk Reliab2012; 226(6): 646–655.
18.
KukhotskyiODybachOIešmantasT.Methodology for PSA uncertainty estimation and application in risk-informed decision-making. Nucl Radiat Saf2017; 4(76): 22–27.
ZengZZioE.Dynamic risk assessment based on statistical failure data and condition-monitoring degradation data. IEEE Trans Reliab2018; 67(2): 609–622.
21.
DroguettELMoslehA.Integrated treatment of model and parameter uncertainties through a Bayesian approach. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk Reliab2013; 227(1): 41–54.
22.
López DroguettEMoslehA. Bayesian treatment of model uncertainty for partially applicable models. Risk Anal2014; 34(2): 252–270.
23.
ZioEApostolakisG.Two methods for the structured assessment of model uncertainty by experts in performance assessments of radioactive waste repositories. Reliab Eng Syst Saf1996; 54(2–3): 225–241.
24.
DraperD.Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol1995; 57(1): 45–70.
25.
DroguettELMoslehA.Bayesian methodology for model uncertainty using model performance data. Risk Anal2008; 28(5): 1457–1476.
26.
FiginiSGiudiciP.Credit risk assessment with Bayesian model averaging. Commun Stat Theory Methods2017; 46(19): 9507–9517.
27.
HuoWLiZWangJ, et al. Multiple hydrological models comparison and an improved Bayesian model averaging approach for ensemble prediction over semi-humid regions. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess2019; 33(1): 217–238.
28.
WangGJiaRLiuJ, et al. A hybrid wind power forecasting approach based on Bayesian model averaging and ensemble learning. Renew Energy2020; 145: 2426–2434.
29.
RileyMEGrandhiRV.Quantification of model-form and predictive uncertainty for multi-physics simulation. Comput Struct2011; 89(11–12): 1206–1213.
30.
MoslehAApostolakisG.The assessment of probability distributions from expert opinions with an application to seismic fragility curves. Risk Anal1986; 6(4): 447–461.
31.
ParkIGrandhiRV.A Bayesian statistical method for quantifying model form uncertainty and two model combination methods. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2014; 129: 46–56.
32.
AhmadisharafEBenhamBL.Risk-based decision making to evaluate pollutant reduction scenarios. Sci Total Environ2020; 702: 135022.
33.
PedroniNZioEPasanisiA, et al. A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the nonprobabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment. Risk Anal2017; 37(7): 1315–1340.
34.
HeltonJCJohnsonJD.Quantification of margins and uncertainties: alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2011; 96(9): 1034–1052.
35.
HaoYRongXLuH, et al. Quantification of margins and uncertainties for the risk of water inrush in a karst tunnel: representations of epistemic uncertainty with probability. Arab J Sci Eng2018; 43(4): 1627–1640.
36.
FlageRAvenTBernerCL.A comparison between a probability bounds analysis and a subjective probability approach to express epistemic uncertainties in a risk assessment context–a simple illustrative example. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2018; 169: 1–10.
37.
KangRZhangQZengZ, et al. Measuring reliability under epistemic uncertainty: Review on non-probabilistic reliability metrics. Chin J Aeronaut2016; 29(3): 571–579.
38.
XieCLiGWeiF.An integrated QMU approach to structural reliability assessment based on evidence theory and kriging model with adaptive sampling. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2018; 171: 112–122.
39.
ToscaniNGrassiFSpadaciniG, et al. A possibilistic approach for the prediction of the risk of interference between power and signal lines onboard satellites. Math Probl Eng2018; 2018: 1–9.
40.
DuttaP.Modeling aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in human health risk assessment. Cybern Syst2020; 51(5): 579–599.
41.
ZhangQZengZZioE, et al. Probability box as a tool to model and control the effect of epistemic uncertainty in multiple dependent competing failure processes. Appl Soft Comput2017; 56: 570–579.
42.
LiuHJiangCXiaoZ.Efficient uncertainty propagation for parameterized p-box using sparse-decomposition-based polynomial chaos expansion. Mech Syst Signal Process2020; 138: 106589.
43.
WangXGengXWangL, et al. Time-dependent reliability-based dimensional synthesis for planar linkages with unknown but bounded joint clearances. J Mech Des2018; 140(6): 1–12.
44.
ChenXWangXQiuZ, et al. A novel reliability-based two-level optimization method for composite laminated structures. Compos Struct2018; 192: 336–346.
45.
PaulkM.Capability maturity model for software. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 2002.
46.
SchwerLE.Guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2009.
47.
OberkampfWLPilchMTrucanoTG.Predictive capability maturity model for computational modeling and simulation. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, 2007.
48.
ZioEDi MaioFTongJ.Safety margins confidence estimation for a passive residual heat removal system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2010; 95(8): 828–836.
49.
KeeneyRLVon WinterfeldtD.Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Trans Eng Manag1991; 38(3): 191–201.
50.
MelchersREBeckAT.Structural reliability analysis and prediction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
51.
Bani-MustafaTZengZZioE, et al. A practical approach for evaluating the strength of knowledge supporting risk assessment models. Saf Sci2020; 124: 104596.
