This paper compares probabilistic and possibility-based methods for design under uncertainty. It studies the effect of the amount of data about uncertainty on the effectiveness of each method. Only systems whose failure is catastrophic are considered, where catastrophic means that the boundary between success and failure is sharp. First, the paper examines the theoretical foundations of probability and possibility, focusing on the impact of the differences between the two theories on design. Then the paper compares the two theories on design problems. A major difference between probability and possibility is in the axioms about the union of events. Because of this difference, probability and possibility calculi are fundamentally different and one cannot simulate possibility calculus using probabilistic models. Possibility-based methods tend to underestimate the risk of failure of systems with many failure modes. For example, the possibility of failure of a series system of nominally identical components is equal to the possibility of failure of a single component. When designing for safety, the two methods try to maximize safety in radically different ways and consequently may produce significantly different designs. Probability minimizes the system failure probability whereas possibility maximizes the normalized deviation of the uncertain variables from their nominal values that the system can tolerate without failure. In contrast to probabilistic design, which accounts for the cost of reducing the probability of each failure mode in design, possibility tries to equalize the possibilities of failure of the failure modes, regardless of the attendant cost. In many safety assessment problems, one can easily determine the most conservative possibilistic model that is consistent with the available information, whereas this is not the case with probabilistic models. When we have sufficient data to build accurate probabilistic models of the uncertain variables, probabilistic design is better than possibility-based design. However, when designers need to make subjective decisions, both probabilistic and possibility-based designs can be useful. The reason is that large differences in these designs can alert designers to problems with the probabilistic design associated with insufficient data and tell them that they have more flexibility in the design than they may have known.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
Technical Papers
Comparison of Probability and Possibility for Design Against Catastrophic Failure Under Uncertainty
Efstratios Nikolaidis,
Efstratios Nikolaidis
Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Department, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606
Search for other works by this author on:
Sophie Chen,
Sophie Chen
Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Search for other works by this author on:
Harley Cudney,
Harley Cudney
Applied Research Associates Inc., 415 Waterman Road, South Royalton, VT 05068
Search for other works by this author on:
Raphael T. Haftka,
Raphael T. Haftka
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics and Engineering Science, The University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-6250
Search for other works by this author on:
Raluca Rosca
Raluca Rosca
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics and Engineering Science, The University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-6250
Search for other works by this author on:
Efstratios Nikolaidis
Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Department, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606
Sophie Chen
Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Harley Cudney
Applied Research Associates Inc., 415 Waterman Road, South Royalton, VT 05068
Raphael T. Haftka
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics and Engineering Science, The University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-6250
Raluca Rosca
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics and Engineering Science, The University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-6250
Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received December 2000; revised September 2003. Associate Editor: J. Cagan.
J. Mech. Des. May 2004, 126(3): 386-394 (9 pages)
Published Online: September 1, 2003
Article history
Received:
December 1, 2000
Revised:
September 1, 2003
Citation
Nikolaidis, E., Chen, S., Cudney, H., Haftka , R. T., and Rosca, R. (September 1, 2003). "Comparison of Probability and Possibility for Design Against Catastrophic Failure Under Uncertainty ." ASME. J. Mech. Des. May 2004; 126(3): 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1701878
Download citation file:
Get Email Alerts
Multi-Split Configuration Design for Fluid-Based Thermal Management Systems
J. Mech. Des (February 2025)
Related Articles
Joint Probability Formulation for Multiobjective Optimization Under Uncertainty
J. Mech. Des (May,2011)
Decision-Based Approach for Reliability Design
J. Mech. Des (May,2007)
Model-Form Calibration in Drift-Diffusion Simulation Using Fractional Derivatives
ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B (September,2016)
Semi-Analytic Probability Density Function for System Uncertainty
ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B (December,2016)
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Chapters
PSA Level 2 — NPP Ringhals 2 (PSAM-0156)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)
A PSA Update to Reflect Procedural Changes (PSAM-0217)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)
Constrained Noninformative Priors with Uncertain Constraints: A Hierarchical Simulation Approach (PSAM-0437)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)