Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-6knnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-27T08:05:40.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Probabilistic Risk Analysis for Engineered Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Vicki M. Bier  and
Louis Anthony Cox Jr.
Edited by
Ward Edwards ,
Ralph F. Miles Jr.  and
Detlof von Winterfeldt
Vicki M. Bier
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Louis Anthony Cox Jr.
Affiliation:
Cox Associates and University of Colorado
Ralph F. Miles Jr.
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology
Detlof von Winterfeldt
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access

Summary

Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) provides practical techniques for predicting and managing risks (i.e., frequencies and severities of adverse consequences) in many complex engineered systems. In this chapter, we survey methods for PRA and decision making in engineered systems, emphasizing progress in methods for dealing with uncertainties (e.g., via Bayesian belief networks, with dependencies among inputs expressed via copulas), communicating results effectively, and using the results to guide improved decision making by multiple parties (e.g., teams of stakeholders). For systems operating under threats from intelligent adversaries, novel methods (e.g., game-theoretic ideas) can help to identify effective risk-reduction strategies and resource allocations. The focus on methodology reflects the belief of the authors that in hard decision problems, where the risks and the best courses of action are unclear (often because of sparse, ambiguous, or conflicting data), state-of-the-art methodology may be critical to good risk management. This chapter discusses some of the most useful current methodologies, and suggests possible directions for extensions and improvements.

Overview of Risk Analysis for Engineered Systems

Application Areas

Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) provides a body of practical techniques that can help engineers and risk managers to predict and manage risks (i.e., frequencies and severities of adverse consequences) in a variety of complex engineered systems. Examples of the types of systems to which PRA has been successfully applied include: nuclear power plants (beginning with the Reactor Safety Study (USNRC, 1975) and continuing to the present day); the space shuttle (to which risk analysis has been applied both before and especially after the Challenger disaster); dam and reservoir planning; highways and bridges; emergency planning; terminals and storage facilities for liquefied natural gas and other hazardous chemicals; and electric power generation and planning.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Advances in Decision Analysis
From Foundations to Applications
 , pp. 279 - 301
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andradóttir, S., and Bier, V. M. (2000). Applying Bayesian ideas in simulation. Simulation Practice and Theory, 8, 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apostolakis, G., and Kaplan, S. (1981). Pitfalls in risk calculations. Reliability Enineering and System Safety, 2, 135–145.Google Scholar
Apostolakis, G. E., and Lemon, D. M. (2005). A screening methodology for the identification and ranking of infrastructure vulnerabilities due to terrorism. Risk Analysis, 25, 361–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Apostolakis, G. E., and Pickett, S. E. (1998). Deliberation: Integrating analytical results into environmental decisions involving multiple stakeholders. Risk Analysis, 18, 621–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arce, M., , D. G., and Sandler, T. (2001). Transnational public goods: Strategies and institutions. European Journal of Political Economy, 17, 493–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, R. E. (1998). Engineering reliability. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedford, T., and Cooke, R. M. (2001). Probability density decomposition for conditionally dependent random variables modeled by vines. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 32, 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bier, V. M. (1997, April). Illusions of safety. Paper presented at the Workshop on Organizational Analysis in High Hazard Production Systems: An Academy/Industry Dialogue, Dedham, MA.Google Scholar
Bier, V. M. (2001a). On the state of the art: Risk communication to decision makers. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 71, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bier, V. M. (2001b). On the state of the art: Risk communication to the public. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 71, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bier, V. M., and Jang, S. C. (1999). Defaults and incentives in risk-informed regulation. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5, 635–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bier, V., Nagaraj, A., and Abhichandani, V. (2005). Protection of simple series and parallel systems with components of different values. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 87, 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaine, K., and Powell, D. (2001). Communication of food-related risks. AgBioForum, 4, 179–185.Google Scholar
Bobbio, A., Portinale, L., Minichino, M., and Ciancamerla, E. (2001). Improving the analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 71, 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgonovo, E., Smith, C. L., Apostolakis, G. E., Deriot, S., and Dewailly, J. (2000). Insights from using influence diagrams to analyze precursor events. In Kondo, S. and Furuta, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of PSAM 5, Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management. Tokyo: Universal Academy Press.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In Launer, R. and Wilkinson, G. (Eds.), Robustness in statistics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 201–236.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1999). Using soft data to make “probabilistic risk assessments” realistic. http://fisher.osu.edu/~butler_267/DAPapers/WP000002.pdf Accessed 7/29/05.
Burmaster, D., and Anderson, P. D. (1994). Principles of good practice for the use of Monte Carlo techniques in human health and ecological risk assessments. Risk Analysis, 14, 477–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrd, D. M., and Cothern, C. R. (2000). Introduction to risk analysis: A systematic approach to science-based decision making. Houston: ABS Group, Chapter 12.Google Scholar
Carlin, B. P., and Louis, T. A. (2000). Bayes and empirical Bayes methods for data analysis. (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chartier, J., and Gabler, S. (2001). Risk communication and government: Theory and application for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Ottawa: Canadian Food Inspection Agency.Google Scholar
Chick, S. E. (1997). Bayesian analysis for simulation input and output. In Andradóttir, S., Healy, K. J., Withers, D. H., and Nelson, B. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference. Washington: IEEE Press, pp. 253–260.Google Scholar
Chinander, K. R., Kleindorfer, P. R., and Kunreuther, H. C. (1998). Compliance strategies and regulatory effectiveness of performance-based regulation of chemical accident risks. Risk Analysis, 18, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, L. A. Jr. (2001). Risk analysis: Foundations, models, and methods. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Cullen, A. C., and Frey, H. C. (1999). Probabilistic techniques in exposure assessment: A handbook for dealing with variability and uncertainty in models and inputs. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Dowell, A. M., and Hendershot, D. C. (1997). No good deed goes unpunished: Case studies of incidents and potential incidents caused by protective systems. Process Safety Progress, 16, 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enders, W., and Sandler, T. (2004). What do we know about the substitution effect in transnational terrorism? In Silke, A., and Ilardi, G., (Eds.), Researching terrorism: Trends, achievements, failures. London: Frank Cass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezell, B. C., Haimes, Y. Y., and Lambert, J. H. (2001). Cyber attack to water utility supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems. Military Operations Research, 6, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferson, S., and Donald, S. (1998). Probability bounds analysis. In Mosleh, A., and Bari, R. A., (Eds.), Probabilistic safety assessment and management. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1203–1208.Google Scholar
Ferson, S., and Hajagos, J. G. (2006). Varying correlation coefficients can underestimate uncertainty in probabilistic models. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91, 1461–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, B. S., and Luechinger, S. (2003). How to fight terrorism: Alternatives to deterrence. Defence and Peace Economics, 14, 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrick, B. J., Hall, J. E., Kilger, M., McDonald, J. C., O'Toole, T., Probst, P. S., Parker, E. R., Rosenthal, R., Trivelpiece, A. W., Arsdale, L. A., and Zebroski, E. L. (2004). Confronting the risks of terrorism: Making the right decisions. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 86, 129–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givens, G. H., and Roback, P. J. (1999). Logarithmic pooling of priors linked by a deterministic simulation model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 8, 452–478.Google Scholar
Haimes, Y. Y., Matalas, N. C., Lambert, J. H., Jackson, B. A., and Fellows, J. F. R. (1998). Reducing vulnerability of water supply systems to attack. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 4, 164–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausken, K. (2002). Probabilistic risk analysis and game theory. Risk Analysis, 22, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heal, G., and Kriström, B. (2002). Uncertainty and climate change. Environmental and Resource Economics, 22, 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Health and Safety Policy Advisory Group. (2004). Quantified risk assessment techniques – Part 3: Fault tree analysis – FTA, Health and Safety Briefing 26c, Institution of Engineering and Technology, http://www.theiet.org/publicaffairs/health/hsb26c.pdf. Accessed 10/5/06.
Heyes, A. (2000). Implementing environmental regulation: Enforcement and compliance. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 17, 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeting, J., Madigan, D., Raftery, A., and Volinsky, C. (1999). Bayesian model averaging. Statistical Science, 14, 382–401.Google Scholar
Hope, B. K. (1999). Assessment of risk to terrestrial receptors using uncertain analysis – A case study. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5, 145–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability theory: The logic of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joe, H. (1997). Multivariate models and dependence concepts. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouini, M., and Clemen, R. T. (1996). Copula models for aggregating expert opinions. Operations Research, 44, 444–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, N. O., and Zeckhauser, R. J. (2003). The ecology of terror defense. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraan, B., and Cooke, R. (1997). The effect of correlations in uncertainty analysis: Two cases. In Cooke, R. (Ed.), Technical committee uncertainty modeling: Report on the benchmark workshop uncertainty/sensitivity analysis codes. Delft: European Safety and Reliability Association.Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H., and Heal, G. (2003). Interdependent security. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurowicka, D., and Cooke, R. (2004, June). Distribution-free continuous Bayesian belief nets. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Mathematical Methods in Reliability: Methodology and Practice, Santa Fe, NM.Google Scholar
Lacke, C. (1998). Decision analytic modeling of colorectal cancer screening policies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Lakdawalla, D., and Zanjani, G. (2005). Insurance, self-protection, and the economics of terrorism. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 1891–1905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauritzen, S. L., and Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1998). Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 50, 157–224.Google Scholar
Lee, P. M. (2004). Bayesian statistics: An introduction. (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Levitin, G. (2003). Optimal multilevel protection in series-parallel systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 81, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitin, G., and Lisnianski, A. (2001). Optimal separation of elements in vulnerable multi-state systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 73, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitin, G., Dai, Y., Xie, M., and Poh, K. L. (2003). Optimizing survivability of multi-state systems with multi-level protection by multi-processor genetic algorithm. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 82, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, S.-W. (2004). Designing incentive systems for risk-informed regulation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Livernois, J., and McKenna, C. J. (1999). Truth or consequences: Enforcing pollution standards with self-reporting. Journal of Public Economics, 71, 415–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meeuwissen, A. M. H., and Bedford, T. (1997). Minimally informative distributions with given rank correlation for use in uncertainty analysis. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 57, 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrick, J. R. W., Dorp, J. R., and Singh, A. (2005). Analysis of correlated expert judgments from pairwise comparisons. Decision Analysis, 2, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nardini, L., Aparicio, L., Bandoni, J. A., and Tonelli, S. M. (2003). Regional risk associated with the transport of hazardous materials, Latin American Applied Research, 33, 213–218.Google Scholar
Nelsen, R. B. (1999). An introduction to copulas. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hanlon, M., Orszag, P., Daalder, I., Destler, M., Gunter, D., Litan, R., and Steinberg, J. (2002). Protecting the American homeland. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Ólafsson, S., and Kim, J. (2002). Simulation optimization. In Yücesan, E., Chen, C.-H., Snowdon, J. L., and Charnes, J. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 79–84.Google Scholar
Paté-Cornell, E., and Guikema, S. (2002). Probabilistic modeling of terrorist threats: A systems analysis approach to setting priorities among countermeasures. Military Operations Research, 7, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phimister, J. R., Bier, V. M., and Kunreuther, H. C. (Eds.). (2004). Accident precursor analysis and management: Reducing technological risk through diligence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Planning Department of Hong Kong. (2006). Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, August 2006, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, http://www.pland.gov.hk/tech_doc/hkpsg/english/ch12/ch12_figure2.htm. Accesssed 10/5/06.
Raftery, A. E., Givens, G. H., and Zeh, J. E. (1995). Inference from a deterministic population dynamics model for bowhead whales. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 402–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raftery, A. E., and Zheng, Y. (2003). Discussion: Performance of Bayesian model averaging. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 98, 931–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, H. M., Hope, B. K., and Ferson, S. (2002). Analysis and portrayal of uncertainty in a food-web exposure model. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 8, 1757–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Insua, Rios D., and Ruggeri, F. (Eds.). (2000). Robust Bayesian analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roback, P. J., and Givens, G. H. (2001). Supra-Bayesian pooling of priors linked by a deterministic simulation model. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 30, 447–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelen, A. L. C., Wever, R., Hale, A. R., Goossens, L. H. J., Cooke, R. M., Lopuhaa, R., Simons, M., and Valk, P. J. L. (2003). Casual modeling for integrated safety at airport. In Bedford, T. and Gelder, P. H. A. J. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of ESREL 2003, The European Conference on Safety and Reliability, 2, 1321–1327.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, R. Y., and Kroese, D. P. (2004). The cross-entropy method: A unified approach to combinatorial optimization, Monte-Carlo simulation and machine learning. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweder, T., and Hjort, N. L. (1996). Bayesian synthesis or likelihood synthesis – What does Borel's paradox say? Forty-Sixth Report of the International Whaling Commission. Cambridge, UK: International Whaling Commission, pp. 475–479.Google Scholar
Singpurwalla, N. D., and Wilson, S. P. (1999). Statistical methods in software reliability: Reliability and risk. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Small, M. J., and Fischbeck, P. S. (1999). False precision in Bayesian updating with incomplete models. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5, 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. J. (2005). Reliability, maintainability and risk: Practical methods for engineers including reliability centered maintenance and safety-related systems (7th ed.). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Stern, P. C., and Fineberg, H. V. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. M. (2002). Variability and uncertainty meet risk management and risk communication. Risk Analysis, 22, 647–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (1975). WASH 1400 (NUREG – 75/014), Reactor Safety Study: Assessment of Accident Risks in U. S. Commercial Nuclear Plants. Washington, DC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Wagner, W. E. (1997). Choosing ignorance in the manufacture of toxic products. Cornell Law Review, 82, 773–855.Google ScholarPubMed
Wilson, S., and Samaniego, F. (2002, June). Nonparameteric methods in software reliability. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Mathematical Methods in Reliability: Methodology and Practice, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
Wolpert, R. L. (1995). Comment on “Inference from a deterministic model for bowhead whales.”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 426–427.Google Scholar
Woo, G. (2002). Quantitative terrorism risk assessment. Journal of Risk Finance, 4, 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurbs, R. A. (2005). Comparative evaluation of generalized river/reservoir system models. College Station: Texas Water Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Yi, W., and Bier, V. M. (1998). An application of copulas to accident precursor analysis. Management Science, 44, S257–S270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×