Pan, N F (2006) Evaluation of building performance using fuzzy FTA. Construction Management and Economics, 24(12), pp. 1241-1252. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Estimating exact probabilities of occurrence of fault events for use in the conventional fault tree analysis (FTA) is difficult when failure data are insufficient or fault events are imprecise such as human error. A hybrid approach employing fuzzy sets and possibility theory is proposed to overcome this problem. In this approach, failure possibilities of vague events are characterised by fuzzy sets to translate expert subjective judgements while fuzzy fault rates are derived from fuzzy possibility scores based on a transformed Onisawa's possibility function. An example of beam failure illustrates the use of the approach and demonstrates the capability of the model that can assist safety engineers to effectively assess fault possibilities and better evaluate building performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; failure possibility; fta; fuzzy sets; risk assessment |
| Index terms: | estimating, beam, engineer, fuzzy set, risk assessment, building performance, fault-tree analysis |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, decision-making and optimization, financial risk, risk management, structural engineering, profession, quality assurance |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Quality Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here