ライブラリ登録: Guest
International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification

年間 6 号発行

ISSN 印刷: 2152-5080

ISSN オンライン: 2152-5099

The Impact Factor measures the average number of citations received in a particular year by papers published in the journal during the two preceding years. 2017 Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2018) IF: 1.7 To calculate the five year Impact Factor, citations are counted in 2017 to the previous five years and divided by the source items published in the previous five years. 2017 Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2018) 5-Year IF: 1.9 The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. Immediacy Index: 0.5 The Eigenfactor score, developed by Jevin West and Carl Bergstrom at the University of Washington, is a rating of the total importance of a scientific journal. Journals are rated according to the number of incoming citations, with citations from highly ranked journals weighted to make a larger contribution to the eigenfactor than those from poorly ranked journals. Eigenfactor: 0.0007 The Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) is a single measurement of the field-normalized citation impact of journals in the Web of Science Core Collection across disciplines. The key words here are that the metric is normalized and cross-disciplinary. JCI: 0.5 SJR: 0.584 SNIP: 0.676 CiteScore™:: 3 H-Index: 25

Indexed in

ON THE ROBUSTNESS OF STRUCTURAL RISK OPTIMIZATION WITH RESPECT TO EPISTEMIC UNCERTAINTIES

巻 2, 発行 1, 2012, pp. 1-20
DOI: 10.1615/Int.J.UncertaintyQuantification.v2.i1.20
Get accessDownload

要約

In the context of structural design, risk optimization allows one to find a proper point of balance between the concurrent goals of economy and safety. Risk optimization involves the minimization of total expected costs, which include expected costs of failure. Expected costs of failure are evaluated from nominal failure probabilities, which reflect the analyst′s degree of belief in the structure′s performance. Such failure probabilities are said to be nominal because they are evaluated from imperfect and/or incomplete mechanical, mathematical and probabilistic models. Hence, model uncertainty and other types of epistemic uncertainties are likely to compromise the results of risk optimization. In this paper, the concept of robustness is employed in order to find risk optimization solutions which are less sensitive to epistemic uncertainties. The investigation is based on a simple but illustrative problem, which is built from an elementary but fundamental structural (load-resistance) reliability problem. Intrinsic or aleatoric uncertainties, which can be quantified probabilistically and modeled as random variables or stochastic processes, are incorporated in the underlying structural reliability problem. Epistemic uncertainties that can only be quantified possibilistically are modeled as fuzzy variables, based on subjective judgment. These include uncertainties in random load and resistance variables, in the nominal (calculated) failure probabilities and in the nominal costs of failure. The risk optimization problem is made robust with respect to the whole fuzzy portfolio of epistemic uncertainties. An application example, involving optimization of partial safety factors for the codified design of steel beams under bending, is also presented. In general, results obtained herein show that the robust formulation leads to optimal structural configurations which are more conservative, present higher nominal costs but which are less sensitive to epistemic uncertainties, in comparison to the non-robust optimum structures. This is especially true for larger levels of intrinsic uncertainties (in the underlying reliability problem) and for greater costs of failure. The essential result of robust optimization is also shown to be insensitive to reasonable variations of expert confidence: the robust solution is more conservative and more expensive, but also less sensitive to epistemic uncertainties. The more pessimistic the expert, the more conservative is the robust solution he gets, in comparison to the nominal, non-robust solution.

によって引用された
  1. Gomes Wellison José de Santana, Beck André Teófilo, Global structural optimization considering expected consequences of failure and using ANN surrogates, Computers & Structures, 126, 2013. Crossref

  2. Villanueva D., Haftka R.T., Sankar B.V., Accounting for future redesign to balance performance and development costs, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 124, 2014. Crossref

  3. Gomes Wellison J.S., Beck André T., Haukaas Terje, Optimal inspection planning for onshore pipelines subject to external corrosion, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 118, 2013. Crossref

  4. Gomes Wellison J.S., Beck André T., Optimal inspection and design of onshore pipelines under external corrosion process, Structural Safety, 47, 2014. Crossref

  5. Beck André T., Kougioumtzoglou Ioannis A., dos Santos Ketson R.M., Optimal performance-based design of non-linear stochastic dynamical RC structures subject to stationary wind excitation, Engineering Structures, 78, 2014. Crossref

  6. Gomes Wellison J.S., Beck André T., Optimal inspection planning and repair under random crack propagation, Engineering Structures, 69, 2014. Crossref

  7. Beck André T., Gomes Wellison J. S., Lopez Rafael H., Miguel Leandro F. F., A comparison between robust and risk-based optimization under uncertainty, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 52, 3, 2015. Crossref

  8. Beck André T., Tessari Rodolfo K., Kroetz Henrique M., System reliability-based design optimization and risk-based optimization: a benchmark example considering progressive collapse, Engineering Optimization, 51, 6, 2019. Crossref

  9. Mäck Markus, Caylak Ismail, Edler Philipp, Freitag Steffen, Hanss Michael, Mahnken Rolf, Meschke Günther, Penner Eduard, Optimization with constraints considering polymorphic uncertainties, GAMM-Mitteilungen, 42, 1, 2019. Crossref

  10. Lopez Rafael H., Beck André T., Optimization Under Uncertainties, in Optimization of Structures and Components, 43, 2013. Crossref

  11. Tombari Alessandro, Stefanini Luciano, Hybrid fuzzy – stochastic 1D site response analysis accounting for soil uncertainties, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 132, 2019. Crossref

  12. Hose Dominik, Mäck Markus, Hanss Michael, Robust Optimization in Possibility Theory, ASCE-ASME J Risk and Uncert in Engrg Sys Part B Mech Engrg, 5, 4, 2019. Crossref

  13. Adelmann Andreas, On Nonintrusive Uncertainty Quantification and Surrogate Model Construction in Particle Accelerator Modeling, SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 7, 2, 2019. Crossref

  14. Beck André T., Optimal design of redundant structural systems: fundamentals, Engineering Structures, 219, 2020. Crossref

  15. Valdebenito Marcos A., Jensen Héctor A., Wei Pengfei, Beer Michael, Beck André T., Application of a Reduced Order Model for Fuzzy Analysis of Linear Static Systems, ASCE-ASME J Risk and Uncert in Engrg Sys Part B Mech Engrg, 7, 2, 2021. Crossref

  16. Megahed Mustafa, Integrated Modeling Tools: Overview, in Encyclopedia of Materials: Metals and Alloys, 2022. Crossref

  17. Martins Paulo H., Trindade Marcelo A., Varoto Paulo S., Simplified robust and multiobjective optimization of piezoelectric energy harvesters with uncertain parameters, International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design, 18, 1, 2022. Crossref

  18. Lehký D., Slowik O., Novák D., Reliability-based design: Artificial neural networks and double-loop reliability-based optimization approaches, Advances in Engineering Software, 117, 2018. Crossref

Begell Digital Portal Begellデジタルライブラリー 電子書籍 ジャーナル 参考文献と会報 リサーチ集 価格及び購読のポリシー Begell House 連絡先 Language English 中文 Русский Português German French Spain