Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Feasibility study of progressive Latin hypercube sampling and quasi-Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic risk assessment
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Feasibility study of progressive Latin hypercube sampling and quasi-Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic risk assessment
Do you wish to request the book?
Feasibility study of progressive Latin hypercube sampling and quasi-Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic risk assessment
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Feasibility study of progressive Latin hypercube sampling and quasi-Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic risk assessment
2024
Overview
In probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), two main methods exist for quantifying fault trees: theoretical and empirical (sampling). The efficiency of PRA quantification varies depending on the sampling method used. This study evaluated the feasibility of using quasi-Monte Carlo simulation (Quasi-MCS) and progressive Latin hypercube sampling (P-LHS) for PRA quantification. Eight risk outcomes were derived through PRA for internal and external events in four cases. The PRA convergence, variability, and error rates of each sampling method were compared and analyzed. The comparison analysis revealed that all sampling methods had an error rate of approximately 2% with 9,000 total samples. P-LHS exhibited the best convergence and variability among the methods, followed by Quasi-MCS and LHS. Although Quasi-MCS showed more significant variability than LHS as the number of events increased, its error rate remained within 2% with 9,000 samples. Therefore, both P-LHS and Quasi-MCS are feasible for PRA quantification.
Publisher
Taylor & Francis,Taylor & Francis Ltd,Taylor & Francis Group
