Advertisement

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 61–74 | Cite as

Uncertainty propagation analysis using sparse grid technique and saddlepoint approximation based on parameterized p-box representation

  • H. B. Liu
  • C. Jiang
  • J. Liu
  • J. Z. Mao
RESEARCH PAPER
  • 202 Downloads

Abstract

Uncertainty propagation analysis, which assesses the impact of the uncertainty of input variables on responses, is an important component in risk assessment or reliability analysis of structures. This paper proposes an uncertainty propagation analysis method for structures with parameterized probability-box (p-box) representation, which could efficiently compute both the bounds on statistical moments and also the complete probability bounds of the response function. Firstly, based on the sparse grid numerical integration (SGNI) method, an optimized SGNI (OSGNI) is presented to calculate the bounds on the statistical moments of the response function and the cumulants of the cumulant generating function (CGF), respectively. Then, using the bounds on the first four cumulants, an optimization procedure based on the saddlepoint approximation is proposed to obtain the whole range of probability bounds of the response function. Through using the saddlepoint approximation, the present approach can achieve a good accuracy in estimating the tail probability bounds of a response function. Finally, two numerical examples and an engineering application are investigated to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Keywords

Uncertainty propagation Parameterized p-box Probability bounds Sparse grid numerical integration Saddlepoint approximation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (51725502), the Major Projects of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51490662), the National Key Research and Development Plan (2016YFD0701105) and the Open Funds for State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body, China (Grant No.31515010).

References

  1. Aughenbaugh JM, Paredis CJ (2006) The value of using imprecise probabilities in engineering design. ASME J Mech Des 128(4):969–979Google Scholar
  2. Barthelmann V, Novak E, Ritter K (2000) High dimensional polynomial interpolation on sparse grids. Adv Comput Math 12(4):273–288MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Berleant D (1993) Automatically verified reasoning with both intervals and probability density functions. Interval Comput 2:48–70MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Berleant D, Xie L, Zhang J (2003) Statool: a tool for distribution envelope determination (DEnv), an interval-based algorithm for arithmetic on random variables. Reliab Comput 9(2):91–108zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Berleant D, Zhang J (2004) Representation and problem solving with distribution envelope determination (DEnv). Reliab Eng Syst Saf 85(1):153–168Google Scholar
  6. Bruns MC, Paredis CJJ (2006) Numerical Methods for Propagating Imprecise Uncertainty. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference ASME, 1077–1091Google Scholar
  7. Bruns MC (2006) Propagation of imprecise probabilities through black box models. M.S. thesis, Georgia Institue of Technology, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho H, Choi KK, Gaul NJ, Lee I, Lamb D, Gorsich D (2016) Conservative reliability-based design optimization method with insufficient input data. Struct Multidiscip O 54(6):1609–1630MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniels HE (1954) Saddlepoint approximations in statistics. Ann Math Stat 631–650Google Scholar
  10. Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann Math Stat:325–339Google Scholar
  11. Kiureghian AD, Ditlevsen O (2009) Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Struct Saf 31(2):105–112Google Scholar
  12. Du XP, Chen W (2001) A most probable point-based method for efficient uncertainty analysis. J Adv Mech Des Syst 4(1):47–66Google Scholar
  13. Dubois D, Prade H (2012) Possibility theory: an approach to computerized processing of uncertainty: Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  14. Eldred MS, Swiler LP, Tang G (2011) Mixed aleatory-epistemic uncertainty quantification with stochastic expansions and optimization-based interval estimation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96(9):1092–1113Google Scholar
  15. Ferson S, Donald S (1998) Probability bounds analysis. Proceedings of the international conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management (PSAM4). Spring-Verlag, New York, pp 1203–1208Google Scholar
  16. Ferson S, Ginzburg LR (1996) Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 54(2–3):133–144Google Scholar
  17. Ferson S, Kreinovich V, Ginzburg L, Myers DS, Sentz K (2003) Constructing probability boxes and Dempster-Shafer structures: Technical report, Sandia National LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerstner T, Griebel M (1998) Numerical integration using sparse grids. Numer Algorithms 18(3–4):209MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall JW, Lawry J (2004) Generation, combination and extension of random set approximations to coherent lower and upper probabilities. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 85(1–3):89–101Google Scholar
  20. Huang B, Du XP (2006) Uncertainty analysis by dimension reduction integration and saddlepoint approximations. ASME J Mech Des 128(1):26–33Google Scholar
  21. Huang XZ, Liu Y, Zhang YM, Zhang XF (2017a) Reliability analysis of structures using stochastic response surface method and saddlepoint approximation. Struct Multidiscip O 55(6):2003–2012MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang ZL, Jiang C, Zhang Z, Fang T, Han X (2017b) A decoupling approach for evidence-theory-based reliability design optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 56(3):647–661Google Scholar
  23. Huzurbazar S (1999) Practical saddlepoint approximations. Am Stat 53(3):225–232MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen JL (1995) Saddlepoint approximations: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Kendall MG, Stuart A (1958) The advanced theory of statisticsGoogle Scholar
  26. Kruschke JK (2010) Bayesian data analysis. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 1(5):658–676Google Scholar
  27. Kuonen D (2001) Computer-intensive statistical methods: saddlepoint approximations with applications in bootstrap and robust inference. PhD Thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee D, Kim NH, Kim HS (2016) Validation and updating in a large automotive vibro-acoustic model using a P-box in the frequency domain. Springer-Verlag New York, IncGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee SH, Chen W (2009) A comparative study of uncertainty propagation methods for black-box-type problems. Struct Multidiscip O 37(3):239–253Google Scholar
  30. Leon-Garcia A (2008) Probability, statistics, and random processes for electrical engineering, 3rd edn. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu X, Yin LR, Hu L, Zhang ZY (2017) An efficient reliability analysis approach for structure based on probability and probability box models. Struct Multidisc Optim 56(1):167–181MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu HB, Jiang C, Jia XY, Long XY, Zhang Z, Guan FJ (2018) A new uncertainty propagation method for problems with parameterized probability-boxes. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 172:64–73Google Scholar
  33. Lugannani R, Rice S (1980) Saddle point approximation for the distribution of the sum of independent random variables. Adv Appl Probab 12(2):475–490MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Molchanov I (2006) Theory of random sets: Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  35. Moon MY, Choi KK, Cho H, Gaul N, Lamb D, Gorsich D (2016) Reliability-based design optimization using confidence-based model validation for insufficient experimental data. J Mech Design 139(3):V02BT03A054Google Scholar
  36. Moore RE (1979) Methods and applications of interval analysis: SIAMGoogle Scholar
  37. Neumaier A (2004) Clouds, fuzzy sets, and probability intervals. Reliable Comput 10(4):249–272MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Novak E, Ritter K (1996) High dimensional integration of smooth functions over cubes. Numer Math 75(1):79–97MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Novak E, Ritter K (1999) Simple cubature formulas with high polynomial exactness. Constr Approx 15(4):499–522MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Rahman S, Xu H (2004) A univariate dimension-reduction method for multi-dimensional integration in stochastic mechanics. Probabilist Eng Mech 19(4):393–408Google Scholar
  41. Regan HM, Ferson S, Berleant D (2004) Equivalence of methods for uncertainty propagation of real-valued random variables. Int J Approx Reason 36(1):1–30MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Reid N (1988) Saddlepoint methods and statistical inference. Stat Sci 3:213–227MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Rekuc SJ, Aughenbaugh JM, Bruns M, Paredis CJ (2006) Eliminating design alternatives based on imprecise information: SAE Technical PaperGoogle Scholar
  44. Rota GC (1986) Simulation and the Monte-Carlo method: R. Y Rubinstein , Wiley, 1981. Adv Math 60(1):278Google Scholar
  45. Seo HS, Kwak BM (2002) Efficient statistical tolerance analysis for general distributions using three-point information. Int J Prod Res 40(4):931–944zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence: Princeton university pressGoogle Scholar
  47. Smolyak SA (1963) Quadrature and interpolation formulas for tensor products of certain classes of functions. Soviet Math Dokl 4(5):240–243zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Thoft-Cristensen P, Baker MJ (2012) Structural reliability theory and its applications: Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang S (1992) General saddlepoint approximations in the bootstrap. Stat Probabil Lett 13(1):61–66MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Whitley D (1994) A genetic algorithm tutorial. Stat Comput 4(2):65–85Google Scholar
  51. Wiener N (1938) The homogeneous chaos. Am J Math 60(4):897–936MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Williamson RC, Downs T (1990) Probabilistic arithmetic. I. Numerical methods for calculating convolutions and dependency bounds. Int J Approx Reason 4(2):89–158MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Xiao NC, Huang HZ, Wang Z, Liu Y, Zhang XL (2012) Unified uncertainty analysis by the mean value first order saddlepoint approximation. Struct Multidiscip O 46(6):803–812zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Xiao NC, Huang HZ, Wang Z, Pang Y, He L (2011) Reliability sensitivity analysis for structural systems in interval probability form. Struct Multidiscip O 44(5):691–705MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Xiao Z, Han X, Jiang C, Yang G (2016) An efficient uncertainty propagation method for parameterized probability boxes. Acta Mech 227(3):633–649MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. Xiong FF, Greene S, Chen W, Xiong Y, Yang S (2010) A new sparse grid based method for uncertainty propagation. Struct Multidiscip O 41(3):335–349MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. Xiu D, Hesthaven JS (2005) High-order collocation methods for differential equations with random inputs. SIAM J Sci Comput 27(3):1118–1139MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. Xiu D, Karniadakis GE (2002) The wiener--Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations. SIAM J Sci Comput 24(2):619–644MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. Xu H, Rahman S (2004) A generalized dimension-reduction method for multidimensional integration in stochastic mechanics. Int J Numer Meth Eng 61(12):1992–2019zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang H, Mullen R, Muhanna R (2010a) Finite element structural analysis using imprecise probabilities based on p-box representation. The 4th International Workshop on Reliable Engineering Computing, Professional Activities Centre, National University of SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhang H, Mullen RL, Muhanna RL (2010b) Interval Monte Carlo methods for structural reliability. Struct Saf 32(3):183–190Google Scholar
  62. Zhang H, Mullen RL, Muhanna RL (2011) Structural analysis with probability-boxes. Int J Reliab and Saf 6(1–3):110–129Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body, College of Mechanical and Vehicle EngineeringHunan UniversityChangsha CityPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations