4.7 Article

A dynamic discretization method for reliability inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

Journal

RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY
Volume 138, Issue -, Pages 242-252

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.01.017

Keywords

Dynamic Bayesian Networks; Reliability analysis; Crack growth model; Dynamic discretization; Life cycle health monitoring

Funding

  1. Office of Naval Research [331, N00014-10-1-0193]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The material and modeling parameters that drive structural reliability analysis for marine structures are subject to a significant uncertainty. This is especially true when time-dependent degradation mechanisms such as structural fatigue cracking are considered. Through inspection and monitoring, information such as crack location and size can be obtained to improve these parameters and the corresponding reliability estimates. Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBNs) are a powerful and flexible tool to model dynamic system behavior and update reliability and uncertainty analysis with life cycle data for problems such as fatigue cracking. However, a central challenge in using DBNs is the need to discretize certain types of continuous random variables to perform network inference while still accurately tracking low-probability failure events. Most existing discretization methods focus on getting the overall shape of the distribution correct, with less emphasis on the tail region. Therefore, a novel scheme is presented specifically to estimate the likelihood of low-probability failure events. The scheme is an iterative algorithm which dynamically partitions the discretization intervals at each iteration. Through applications to two stochastic crack-growth example problems, the algorithm is shown to be robust and accurate. Comparisons are presented between the proposed approach and existing methods for the discretization problem. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available