Research Papers

Economic Analysis of Model Validation for a Challenge Problem

[+] Author and Article Information
Paul J. Paez

Communications, Humanities and
Social Sciences Department,
Central New Mexico Community College,
525 Buena Vista Drive SE,
Albuquerque, NM 87106
e-mail: ppaez@cnm.edu

Thomas L. Paez

Thomas Paez Consulting,
185 Valley View Drive,
Sedona, AZ 86336
e-mail: tlpaez4444@gmail.com

Timothy K. Hasselman

Timothy Hasselman Consulting,
2618 Via Rivera,
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
e-mail: tim.k.hasselman@gmail.com

Manuscript received February 11, 2015; final manuscript received December 16, 2015; published online February 19, 2016. Guest Editor: Kenneth Hu.

J. Verif. Valid. Uncert 1(1), 011007 (Feb 19, 2016) (13 pages) Paper No: VVUQ-15-1013; doi: 10.1115/1.4032370 History: Received February 11, 2015; Revised December 16, 2015

It is now commonplace for engineers to build mathematical models of the systems they are designing, building, or testing. And, it is nearly universally accepted that phenomenological models of physical systems must be validated prior to use for prediction in consequential scenarios. Yet, there are certain situations in which testing only or no testing and no modeling may be economically viable alternatives to modeling and its associated testing. This paper develops an economic framework within which benefit–cost can be evaluated for modeling and model validation relative to other options. The development is presented in terms of a challenge problem. We provide a numerical example that quantifies when modeling, calibration, and validation yield higher benefit–cost than a testing only or no modeling and no testing option.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Effect on the probability of failure from truncation of normal strength PDF associated with pretesting

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The normalized probability of failure among an ensemble of pretested tanks, pft/pf, plotted as a function of the probability that a tank fails the pretest, ppt

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Semilog plots of normalized net benefit. Number of tanks, Nta, included in analysis is listed on each plot. Normalized net benefits associated with options 1, 2, and 3 are marked.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In