IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v16y2013i4p464-472.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

High consequence systems phenomenological characterization: A tutorial

Author

Listed:
  • Gary A. Sanders
  • Shahram Sarkani
  • Thomas Mazzuchi

Abstract

Effective and efficient risk management processes include the use of modeling and simulation during the concept exploration phase as part of the technology and risk assessment activities, with testing and evaluation tasks occurring in later design development phases. However, some safety requirements and design architectures may be dominated by the low probability/high consequence, previously unknown or uncharacterized vulnerabilities that require very early testing to characterize and efficiently mitigate. Failure to address these unique risks has led to catastrophic systems failures including the Space Shuttle Challenger, Deepwater Horizon, the Fukushima nuclear reactor, and Katrina levee failures. Discovering and addressing these risks later in the design and development process can be very costly or even lead to project cancellation. This paper presents a framework for the risk management process adoption of early hazard phenomenology testing to inform the technical risk assessment, requirements definition, and conceptual design. A case study of the lightning design vulnerability of the insensitive high explosives being used in construction, demolition, and defense industries will be presented to examine the impact of this vulnerability testing during the concept exploration phase of the design effort. ©2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 16:

Suggested Citation

  • Gary A. Sanders & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi, 2013. "High consequence systems phenomenological characterization: A tutorial," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 464-472, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:16:y:2013:i:4:p:464-472
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21243
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21243
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21243?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "The Role of Quantitative Risk Assessments for Characterizing Risk and Uncertainty and Delineating Appropriate Risk Management Options, with Special Emphasis on Terrorism Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 587-600, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. J. Park & T. P. Seager & P. S. C. Rao & M. Convertino & I. Linkov, 2013. "Integrating Risk and Resilience Approaches to Catastrophe Management in Engineering Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 356-367, March.
    2. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2012. "On the Risk Management and Risk Governance of Petroleum Operations in the Barents Sea Area," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1561-1575, September.
    3. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    4. Michael R. Greenberg & Karen Lowrie & Henry Mayer & Tayfur Altiok, 2011. "Risk‐Based Decision Support Tools: Protecting Rail‐Centered Transit Corridors from Cascading Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1849-1858, December.
    5. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Some Recent Definitions and Analysis Frameworks for Risk, Vulnerability, and Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 515-522, April.
    6. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1515-1525, October.
    7. Abby Muricho Onencan & Lian Ena Liu & Bartel Van de Walle, 2020. "Design for Societal Resilience: The Risk Evaluation Diversity-Aiding Approach (RED-A)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-28, July.
    8. Andrew G. Huff & James S. Hodges & Shaun P. Kennedy & Amy Kircher, 2015. "Evaluation of the Food and Agriculture Sector Criticality Assessment Tool (FASCAT) and the Collected Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(8), pages 1448-1467, August.
    9. Thomas Ying‐Jeh Chen & Valerie Nicole Washington & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema, 2020. "Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 608-623, March.
    10. Terje Aven, 2017. "What Defines Us as Professionals in the Field of Risk Analysis?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 854-860, May.
    11. Linn Svegrup & Jonas Johansson & Henrik Hassel, 2019. "Integration of Critical Infrastructure and Societal Consequence Models: Impact on Swedish Power System Mitigation Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(9), pages 1970-1996, September.
    12. Terje Aven & Seth Guikema, 2015. "On the Concept and Definition of Terrorism Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(12), pages 2162-2171, December.
    13. Igor Linkov & Elke Anklam & Zachary A. Collier & Daniel DiMase & Ortwin Renn, 2014. "Risk-based standards: integrating top–down and bottom–up approaches," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 134-137, March.
    14. Michael Greenberg, 2011. "Risk analysis and port security: some contextual observations and considerations," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 187(1), pages 121-136, July.
    15. Terje Aven, 2011. "Response," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 693-697, May.
    16. Yin Junjia & Aidi Hizami Alias & Nuzul Azam Haron & Nabilah Abu Bakar, 2023. "A Bibliometric Review on Safety Risk Assessment of Construction Based on CiteSpace Software and WoS Database," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-24, August.
    17. Beyza, Jesus & Gil, Pablo & Masera, Marcelo & Yusta, Jose M., 2020. "Security assessment of cross-border electricity interconnections," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    18. Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2017. "How the definition of security risk can be made compatible with safety definitions," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 286-294, June.
    19. Annette Hofmann & Nicos A. Scordis, 2018. "Challenges in Applying Risk Management Concepts in Practice: A Perspective," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 21(2), pages 309-333, September.
    20. Chao Yang & Xianyin Meng, 2023. "A Fuzzy-Set Configurational Examination of Governance Capability under Certainty and Uncertainty Conditions: Evidence from the Chinese Provincial Cases of Early COVID-19 Containing Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:16:y:2013:i:4:p:464-472. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.