New Fuzzy Performance Indices for Reliability Analysis of Water Supply Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large and complex engineering systems are subject to wide range of possible future loads and conditions. Uncertainty associated with the quantification of these potential conditions is imposing a great challenge to systems‘ design, planning and management. Therefore, the assurance of satisfactory and reliable system performance cannot be simply achieved.\nWater supply systems, as typical example of these engineering systems, include collections of different types of facilities. These facilities are connected in complicated networks that extend over and serve broad geographical regions. As a result, water supply systems are at risk of temporary disruption in service due to natural hazards or anthropogenic causes, whether unintentional (operational errors and mistakes) or intentional (terrorist act).\nQuantification of risk is a pivotal step in the engineering risk and reliability analysis. In this analysis, uncertainty is measured using different system performance indices and figures of merit to evaluate its consequences for the safety of engineering systems.\nThe probabilistic reliability analysis has been extensively used to deal with the problem of uncertainty in many engineering systems. However, application of probabilistic reliability analysis is invariably affected by the well-known engineering problem of data insufficiency. Bayesian approach and subjective probability estimation are used to evaluate, express, and communicate uncertainty that stems from lack of information or data unavailability. They introduce a formal procedure for incorporating subjective belief and engineering understanding together with the available data.\nFuzzy set theory, on the other hand, was developed to try to capture people judgmental believes, or as mentioned before, the uncertainty that is caused by the lack of knowledge. Fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic contributed successfully to the technological development in different application in real-world problems of different kinds, (Zimmermann, 1996).\nThis study explores the utility of the fuzzy set theory in the field of engineering system reliability analysis. Three new fuzzy reliability measures are suggested: (i) reliability index, (ii) robustness index, and (iii) resiliency index. These measures are evaluated, together with fuzzy reliability measure developed by Shrestha and Duckstein (1998), using two simple hypothetical cases. The new suggested indices are proven to be able to handle different fuzzy representations. In addition, these reliability measures comply with the conceptual approach of the fuzzy sets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".