系统风险建模与决策--思考与常见误区

IF 5.7 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL Structural Safety Pub Date : 2024-03-29 DOI:10.1016/j.strusafe.2024.102469
Niels Peter Høj , Inger Birgitte Kroon , Jannie Sønderkær Nielsen , Matthias Schubert
{"title":"系统风险建模与决策--思考与常见误区","authors":"Niels Peter Høj ,&nbsp;Inger Birgitte Kroon ,&nbsp;Jannie Sønderkær Nielsen ,&nbsp;Matthias Schubert","doi":"10.1016/j.strusafe.2024.102469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Since its foundation, the Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS) has been engaged in the discussion of methods for determining the reliability of components, calibration of standards, as well as risk modelling of systems. In publications, it is regularly explained which methods have which advantages. In the literature, the drawbacks and pitfalls that challenge rational decisions and help to develop and find more appropriate methods for practice are often not documented.</div><div>Such problems can lead to decisions, which are not rational from a decision-theoretic point of view, some of which are worse than a random decision. Especially events, with a very small probability of occurrence hardly give any feedback possibilities from reality and evidence-based analysis of decisions is not possible. Careful selection of methods and knowledge/information of the assumptions is crucial to rational decisions.</div><div>This paper will discuss some of the identified pitfalls based on the discussions in the JCSS. It will span from aspects in the uncertainty quantification, uncertainty propagation, consequence assessment as well as approaches that are found and used in practice for decision-making (e.g. probability interpretations, risk aversion, risk matrices and FN diagrams). This paper can be seen as a documentation of outtakes from the discussions which led to the joint understanding and approach of the JCSS. The paper does not claim to be complete concerning all the possible pitfalls in risk assessments and system identification. But it does provide important reflections and indicates where the eyes must be kept open. Further, the paper points to a way of rational decision-making accounting for the uncertainties in information.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21978,"journal":{"name":"Structural Safety","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 102469"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"System risk modelling and decision-making – Reflections and common pitfalls\",\"authors\":\"Niels Peter Høj ,&nbsp;Inger Birgitte Kroon ,&nbsp;Jannie Sønderkær Nielsen ,&nbsp;Matthias Schubert\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.strusafe.2024.102469\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Since its foundation, the Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS) has been engaged in the discussion of methods for determining the reliability of components, calibration of standards, as well as risk modelling of systems. In publications, it is regularly explained which methods have which advantages. In the literature, the drawbacks and pitfalls that challenge rational decisions and help to develop and find more appropriate methods for practice are often not documented.</div><div>Such problems can lead to decisions, which are not rational from a decision-theoretic point of view, some of which are worse than a random decision. Especially events, with a very small probability of occurrence hardly give any feedback possibilities from reality and evidence-based analysis of decisions is not possible. Careful selection of methods and knowledge/information of the assumptions is crucial to rational decisions.</div><div>This paper will discuss some of the identified pitfalls based on the discussions in the JCSS. It will span from aspects in the uncertainty quantification, uncertainty propagation, consequence assessment as well as approaches that are found and used in practice for decision-making (e.g. probability interpretations, risk aversion, risk matrices and FN diagrams). This paper can be seen as a documentation of outtakes from the discussions which led to the joint understanding and approach of the JCSS. The paper does not claim to be complete concerning all the possible pitfalls in risk assessments and system identification. But it does provide important reflections and indicates where the eyes must be kept open. Further, the paper points to a way of rational decision-making accounting for the uncertainties in information.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Structural Safety\",\"volume\":\"113 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102469\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Structural Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473024000407\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Structural Safety","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473024000407","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
System risk modelling and decision-making – Reflections and common pitfalls
Since its foundation, the Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS) has been engaged in the discussion of methods for determining the reliability of components, calibration of standards, as well as risk modelling of systems. In publications, it is regularly explained which methods have which advantages. In the literature, the drawbacks and pitfalls that challenge rational decisions and help to develop and find more appropriate methods for practice are often not documented.
Such problems can lead to decisions, which are not rational from a decision-theoretic point of view, some of which are worse than a random decision. Especially events, with a very small probability of occurrence hardly give any feedback possibilities from reality and evidence-based analysis of decisions is not possible. Careful selection of methods and knowledge/information of the assumptions is crucial to rational decisions.
This paper will discuss some of the identified pitfalls based on the discussions in the JCSS. It will span from aspects in the uncertainty quantification, uncertainty propagation, consequence assessment as well as approaches that are found and used in practice for decision-making (e.g. probability interpretations, risk aversion, risk matrices and FN diagrams). This paper can be seen as a documentation of outtakes from the discussions which led to the joint understanding and approach of the JCSS. The paper does not claim to be complete concerning all the possible pitfalls in risk assessments and system identification. But it does provide important reflections and indicates where the eyes must be kept open. Further, the paper points to a way of rational decision-making accounting for the uncertainties in information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Structural Safety
Structural Safety 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
8.60%
发文量
67
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Structural Safety is an international journal devoted to integrated risk assessment for a wide range of constructed facilities such as buildings, bridges, earth structures, offshore facilities, dams, lifelines and nuclear structural systems. Its purpose is to foster communication about risk and reliability among technical disciplines involved in design and construction, and to enhance the use of risk management in the constructed environment
期刊最新文献
Enhanced sequential directional importance sampling for structural reliability analysis Time-dependent reliability analysis for non-differentiable limit state functions due to discrete load processes Sequential and adaptive probabilistic integration for structural reliability analysis Sensitivity of ship hull reliability considering geometric imperfections and residual stresses Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1