4.7 Article

Robustness evaluation of the reliability of penstocks combining line sampling and neural networks

Journal

RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY
Volume 234, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2023.109192

Keywords

Structural reliability; Failure probability; Line sampling; Info-gap; Neural networks; Robustness analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper proposes a methodology to analyze the robustness of reliability analysis under epistemic uncertainty. It combines the info-gap framework with advanced failure probability estimators to evaluate the reliability assessment of penstocks. The proposed algorithms, including adapted line sampling procedures, are proven to be suitable for the search of multiple roots involved in the line sampling technique. Additionally, a combination of classification and regression artificial neural network reduces the computational time in predicting the roots in an aleatory and epistemic augmented space.
This work aims at proposing a methodology to analyze the robustness of reliability analysis under epistemic uncertainty. Motivated by a real industrial problem, the main contribution relies on the coupling of the info-gap framework with advanced failure probability estimators for robustness evaluations on the reliability assessment of penstocks. In order to improve the induced optimization searches, three original adapted line sampling procedures are proposed in order to address the complex limit-state function on which the failure probability depends. The proposed algorithms are proven to be well suited for the search of the multiple roots involved in the line sampling technique. Then, a classification and a regression artificial neural network are combined for predicting the roots in an aleatory and epistemic augmented space in order to reduce the computational time engendered by robustness evaluations.

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