In this paper, a systematic review of non-probabilistic reliability metrics is conducted to assist the selection of appropriate reliability metrics to model the influence of epistemic uncertainty. Five frequently used non-probabilistic reliability metrics are critically reviewed, i.e., evidence-theory-based reliability metrics, interval-analysis-based reliability metrics, fuzzy-interval-analysis-based reliability metrics, possibility-theory-based reliability metrics (posbist reliability) and uncertainty-theory-based reliability metrics (belief reliability). It is pointed out that a qualified reliability metric that is able to consider the effect of epistemic uncertainty needs to (1) compensate the conservatism in the estimations of the component-level reliability metrics caused by epistemic uncertainty, and (2) satisfy the duality axiom, otherwise it might lead to paradoxical and confusing results in engineering applications. The five commonly used non-probabilistic reliability metrics are compared in terms of these two properties, and the comparison can serve as a basis for the selection of the appropriate reliability metrics.

+More

epistemic uncertainty engineering systematic review evidencetheorybased reliability metrics intervalanalysisbased reliability metrics fuzzyintervalanalysisbased reliability metrics possibilitytheorybased reliability metrics

Rui Kang, Enrico Zio, Xiaoyang Li, Zhiguo Zeng, Qingyuan Zhang,.Measuring reliability under epistemic uncertainty: Review on non-probabilistic reliability metrics. 29 (3),571-579.

Rui Kang, et al."Measuring reliability under epistemic uncertainty: Review on non-probabilistic reliability metrics" 29

Rui Kang, Enrico Zio, Xiaoyang Li, Zhiguo Zeng, Qingyuan Zhang,"Measuring reliability under epistemic uncertainty: Review on non-probabilistic reliability metrics"