0
Research Papers

A General Methodology for Uncertainty Quantification in Engineering Analyses Using a Credible Probability Box

[+] Author and Article Information
Mark E. Ewing, Brian C. Liechty, David L. Black

Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems,
Promontory, UT 84302

Manuscript received April 12, 2018; final manuscript received September 10, 2018; published online October 8, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Christopher J. Roy.

J. Verif. Valid. Uncert 3(2), 021003 (Oct 08, 2018) (12 pages) Paper No: VVUQ-18-1013; doi: 10.1115/1.4041490 History: Received April 12, 2018; Revised September 10, 2018

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is gaining in maturity and importance in engineering analysis. While historical engineering analysis and design methods have relied heavily on safety factors (SF) with built-in conservatism, modern approaches require detailed assessment of reliability to provide optimized and balanced designs. This paper presents methodologies that support the transition toward this type of approach. Fundamental concepts are described for UQ in general engineering analysis. These include consideration of the sources of uncertainty and their categorization. Of particular importance are the categorization of aleatory and epistemic uncertainties and their separate propagation through an UQ analysis. This familiar concept is referred to here as a “two-dimensional” approach, and it provides for the assessment of both the probability of a predicted occurrence and the credibility in that prediction. Unique to the approach presented here is the adaptation of the concept of a bounding probability box to that of a credible probability box. This requires estimates for probability distributions related to all uncertainties both aleatory and epistemic. The propagation of these distributions through the uncertainty analysis provides for the assessment of probability related to the system response, along with a quantification of credibility in that prediction. Details of a generalized methodology for UQ in this framework are presented, and approaches for interpreting results are described. Illustrative examples are presented.

Copyright © 2018 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Roache, P. J. , 1998, Verification and Validation in Computational Science, Hermosa, Albuquerque, NM.
Oberkampf, W. L. , and Roy, C. J. , 2010, Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Roy, C. J. , and Oberkampf, W. L. , 2011, “ A Complete Framework for Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification in Scientific Computing,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 200(25–28), pp. 2131–2144. [CrossRef]
Zipay, J. J. , Modlin, C. T. , and Larsen, C. E. , 2016, “ The Ultimate Factor of Safety for Aircraft and Spacecraft—Its History, Applications and Misconceptions,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2016-1715.
Ferson, S. , Kreinovich, V. , Ginzburg, L. , Myers, D. S. , and Sentz, K. , 2003, “ Constructing Probability Boxes and Dempster-Shafer Structures,” Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Report No. SAND2002-4015.
Ferson, S. , and Ginzburg, L. R. , 1996, “ Different Methods Are Needed to Propagate Ignorance and Variability,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 54(2–3), pp. 133–144. [CrossRef]
Hoffman, F. O. , and Hammonds, J. S. , 1994, “ Propagation of Uncertainty in Risk Assessments: The Need to Distinguish Between Uncertainty Due to Lack of Knowledge and Uncertainty Due to Variability,” Risk Anal., 14(5), pp. 707–712.
Ferson, S. , and Tucker, W. T. , 2006, “ Sensitivity Analysis Using Probability Bounding,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 91(10–11), pp. 1435–1442. [CrossRef]
Roy, C. J. , and Balch, M. S. , 2012, “ A Holistic Approach to Uncertainty Quantification With Application to Supersonic Nozzle Thrust,” Int. J. Uncertainty Quantif., 2(4), pp. 363–381. [CrossRef]
Baraldi, P. , and Zio, E. , 2008, “ A Combined Monte Carlo and Possibilistic Approach to Uncertainty Propagation in Event Tree Analysis,” Risk Anal., 28(5), pp. 1309–1326.
Baudrit, C. , Dubois, D. , and Guyonnet, D. , 2006, “ Joint Propagation and Exploitation of Probabilistic and Possibilistic Information in Risk Assessment,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 14(5), pp. 593–608.
Kentel, E. , and Aral, M. M. , 2005, “ 2D Monte Carlo Versus 2D Fuzzy Monte Carlo Health Risk Assessment,” Stochastic Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 19(1), pp. 86–96. [CrossRef]
Ali, T. , Boruah, H. , and Dutta, P. , 2012, “ Modeling Uncertainty in Risk Assessment Using Double Monte Carlo Method,” Int. J. Eng. Innovative Technol., 1(4), pp. 114–118.
Denoeux, T. , and Li, S. , 2018, “ Frequency-Calibrated Belief Functions: Review and New Insights,” Int. J. Approximate Reasoning, 92, pp. 232–254. [CrossRef]
Montgomery, V. J. , Coolen, F. P. A. , and Hart, A. D. M. , 2009, “ Bayesian Probability Boxes in Risk Assessment,” J. Stat. Theory Pract., 3(1), pp. 69–83.Vol. [CrossRef]
AIAA 1998, “ Guide for the Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA-G-077-1998.
ASME, 2006, “ Guide for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics,” ASME, New York, Standard No. V V 10-2006.
Gelman, A. , Carlin, J. B. , Stern, H. S. , and Rubin, D. B. , 1995, Bayesian Data Analysis, Chapman and Hall, London.
Freeman, J. A. , and Roy, C. J. , 2016, “ Global Optimization Under Uncertainty and Uncertainty Quantification Applied to Tractor-Trailer Base Flaps,” J. Verif., Validation Uncertainty Quantif., 1(2), p. 021008.
Welch, L. A. , Beran, P. S. , and Freeman, J. A. , 2017, “ Computational Optimization Under Uncertainty of an Active Flow Control Jet,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2017-3913.
Syamlal, M. , Celik, I. B. , and Benyah, S. , 2017, “ Quantifying the Uncertainty Introduced by Discretization and Time‐Averaging in Two‐Fluid Model Predictions,” AIChE J, 63(12), pp. 5343–5360. [CrossRef]
Black, D. L. , and Ewing, M. E. , 2017, “ A Comprehensive Assessment of Uncertainty for Insulation Erosion Modeling,” 64th JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, Kansas City, MO, Paper No. 2017-0003AD.
Harmel, R. D. , and Smith, P. K. , 2007, “ Consideration of Measurement Uncertainty in the Evaluation of Goodness-of-Fit in Hydrologic and Water Quality Modeling,” J. Hydrology, 337(3–4), pp. 326–336. [CrossRef]
Johnson, J. S. , Gosling, J. P. , and Kennedy, M. C. , 2011, “ Gaussian Process Emulation for Second-Order Monte Carlo Simulations,” J. Stat. Plann. Inference, 141(5), pp. 1838–1848. [CrossRef]
Sun, S. , 2010, “ Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Optimal Storm Sewer Network Design Considering Flood Risk,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Simon, T. , 1999, “ Two-Dimensional Monte Carlo Simulation and Beyond: A Comparison of Several Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods Applied to a Superfund Site,” Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 5(4), pp. 823–843. [CrossRef]
Ewing, M. E. , and Isaac, D. A. , 2015, “ Mathematical Modeling of Multi-Phase Chemical Equilibrium,” J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer, 29(3), pp. 551–562. [CrossRef]
Ewing, M. E. , Laker, T. S. , and Walker, D. T. , 2013, “ Numerical Modeling of Ablation Heat Transfer,” J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer, 27(4), pp. 615–632. [CrossRef]
Ewing, M. E. , Hernandez, M. J. , and Griffin, D. R. , 2016, “ Thermal Property Characterization of an Ablative Insulator,” J. Propul. Energ., 7(1), pp. 89–106.
Lachaud, J. R. , Martin, A. , van Eekelen, A. , and Cozmuta, I. , (2012) “ Ablation Test-Case Series 2,” 5th Ablation Workshop, Lexington, KY, February 28 – March 1, No. AW05-051.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Illustration of credible intervals: (a) intervals defined on the log-normal PDF and (b) intervals defined on the log-normal CDF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

One-dimensional Monte Carlo approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

One-dimensional Monte Carlo results for the model of Eq. (1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Two-dimensional Monte Carlo approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Two-dimensional Monte Carlo approach using an inner loop for aleatory and an outer loop for epistemic uncertainty: (a) ensemble of CDFs and credible P-box for the SRQ of Eq. (1), (b) SRQ ranges for 10% and 90% probabilities interpreted from the P-box, and (c) probability ranges for an SRQ value interpreted from the P-box.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Length distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Weight distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Strength distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Two-dimensional Monte Carlo results for the model of Eq. (1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

One-dimensional approach combining epistemic and aleatory uncertainties in a single Monte Carlo iteration scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Credible P-box for the original beam design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Credible P-box for the updated design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Solid rocket motor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Nozzle contour with design stations at various area ratios (A) and supporting analysis stations (S)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

The CDF ensemble and the 90% credible P-box for the 200 °F isotherm depth (Station 3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Results for the 200 °F isotherm depths at the nozzle analysis stations

Tables

Errata

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