Advertisement

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 373–387 | Cite as

Enhanced Morris method for global sensitivity analysis: good proxy of Sobol’ index

  • Kaixuan Feng
  • Zhenzhou LuEmail author
  • Caiqiong Yang
Research Paper
  • 99 Downloads

Abstract

Global sensitivity analysis (GSA) aims at quantifying the effects of inputs on the output response globally. GSA is useful for identifying a few important inputs from a model with large number of inputs, which is critical for structural design and optimization. The method of Sobol’ and the Morris method are two popular GSA techniques, and they have been widely used in many areas of science and engineering. It was proved that the Morris index is a good proxy of the method of Sobol’ in some papers. However, some of the quantitative relationships between Morris index and Sobol’ index are established by only considering the input with standard uniform distribution. When the input does not follow standard uniform distribution, some relationships are no longer valid. Therefore, an enhanced Morris method is developed as a better proxy of the Sobol’ index for the input with arbitrary distribution, and it does not increase the model evaluations compared with the original Morris method. Test examples show the performance of the approximation and its usefulness in practice.

Keywords

Global sensitivity analysis Sobol’ index Enhanced Morris index Arbitrary distribution 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. NSFC 51475370, 51775439).

References

  1. Barth A, Schwab C, Zollinger N (2011) Multi-level Monte Carlo finite element method for elliptic PDEs with stochastic coefficients. Numer Math 119(1):123–161MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Blatman G, Sudret B (2010) Efficient computation of global sensitivity indices using sparse polynomial chaos expansions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95(11):1216–1229Google Scholar
  3. Bobkov SG (1999) Isoperimetric and analytic inequalities for log-concave probability measures. Ann Probab 27(4):1903–1921MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgonovo E (2007) A new uncertainty importance measure. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92(6):771–784Google Scholar
  5. Borgonovo E, Plischke E (2016) Sensitivity analysis: a review of recent advances. Eur J Oper Res 31(1):869–887MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Campolongo F, Saltelli A (1997) Sensitivity analysis of an environmental model: an application of different analysis methods. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 57(1):49–69Google Scholar
  7. Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Saltelli A (2007) An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models. Environ Model Softw 22(10):1509–1518Google Scholar
  8. Campolongo F, Saltelli A, Cariboni J (2011) From screening to quantitative sensitivity analysis. A unified approach. Comput Phys Commun 182(4):978–988zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng K, Lu ZZ (2018) Sparse polynomial chaos expansion based on D-MORPH regression. Appl Math Comput 323:17–30Google Scholar
  10. Cheng K, Lu ZZ, Wei YH, Shi Y, Zhou YC (2017) Mixed kernel function support vector regression for global sensitivity analysis. Mech Syst Signal Process 96:201–214Google Scholar
  11. WG Cochran (1963) Sampling techniques. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu C, Yang HL (2006) Unsteady supercavitating flow past cones. J Hydrodyn 18(3):262–272MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang B, Du XP (2008) Probabilistic uncertainty analysis by mean-value first-order saddlepoint approximation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(2):325–336Google Scholar
  14. Iman RL, Conover W (1987) A measure of top-down correlation. Technometrics 29:351–357zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. B Ioose, AL Popelin, G Blatman, et al. (2012) Some new insights in derivative-based global sensitivity measures. Proceeding of PSAM 11 and ESREL 2012 Conference, Helsinki, pp 1094–1104Google Scholar
  16. Lamboni M, Iooss B, Popelin AL, Gamboa F (2013) Derivative-based global sensitivity measures: general links with Sobol’ indices and numerical tests. Math Comput Simul 87:45–54MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Logvinovich GV, Syeryebryakov VV (1975) On methods of calculations of slender axisymmetric cavities. Gidromehanika 32:64–69Google Scholar
  18. McKay MD, Bechman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometics 21(2):239–245MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Morris MD (1991) Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technimetrics 33(2):161–174Google Scholar
  20. Neumann J (1951) Various techniques used in connection with random digits. Appl Math Ser 12:36–38Google Scholar
  21. Patelli E, Pradlwarter H (2010) Monte Carlo gradient estimation in high dimensions. Int J Numer Methods Eng 81:172–188MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Saltelli A (2002) Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices. Comput Phys Commun 145(2):280–297MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. A Saltelli, K Chan, E Scott (2000) Sensitivity analysis, Wiley series in probability and statistics. WileyGoogle Scholar
  24. Saltelli A, Sobol IM (1995) About the use of rank transformation in sensitivity analysis of model output. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 50(50):225–239Google Scholar
  25. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D et al (2008) Global sensitivity analysis. The primer. Wiley, ChichesterzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Saltelli A, Campolongo F, Cariboni J (2009) Screening important inputs in models with strong interaction properties. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(7):1149–1155Google Scholar
  27. Saltelli A, Annoni P, Azzini I et al (2010) Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Comput Phys Commun 181(2):259–270MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Shi Y, Lu ZZ, Cheng K, Zhou YC (2017) Temporal and spatial multi-parameter dynamic reliability and global reliability sensitivity analysis based on the extreme value moments. Struct Multidiscip Optim 56(1):117–129MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Sobol IM (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55(1):221–280MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Sobol IM, Kucherenko S (2009) Derivative global sensitivity measures and their link with global sensitivity indices. Math Comput Simul 79(10):3009–3017MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Sobol IM, Tarantola S, Gatelli D, Kucherenko S, Mauntz W (2007) Estimating the approximation error when fixing unessential factors in global sensitivity analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92(7):957–960Google Scholar
  32. Sudret B (2008) Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(7):964–979Google Scholar
  33. Wagner HM (1995) Global sensitivity analysis. Oper Res 43(6):948–969MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Wainwright HM, Finsterle S, Jung Y, Zhou Q, Birkholzer JT (2014) Making sense of global sensitivity analyses. Comput Geosci 65:84–94Google Scholar
  35. Wang P, Lu ZZ, Xiao SN (2017) A generalized separation for the variance contributions of input variables and their distribution parameters. Appl Math Model 47:381–399MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Wei PF, Wang YY, Tang CH (2017) Time-variant global sensitivity analysis of structures with both input random variables and stochastic processes. Struct Multidiscip Optim 55(5):1883–1898MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Xiao SN, Lu ZZ, Xu LY (2016) A new effective screening design for structural sensitivity analysis of failure probability with the epistemic uncertainty. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 156:1–14Google Scholar
  38. Xu X, Lu ZZ, Luo XP (2017) A kernel estimate method for characteristic function-based uncertainty importance measure. Appl Math Model 42:58–70MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. Yun WY, Lu ZZ, Zhang KC, Jiang X (2017) An efficient sampling method for variance-based sensitivity analysis. Struct Saf 65:74–83Google Scholar
  40. Yun WY, Lu ZZ, Jiang X, Zhang LG (2018a) Borgonovo moment independent global sensitivity analysis by Gaussian radial basis function meta-model. Appl Math Model 54:378–392MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Yun WY, Lu ZZ, Jiang X (2018b) An efficient sampling approach for variance-based sensitivity analysis based on the law of total variance in the successive intervals without overlapping. Mech Syst Signal Process 106:495–510Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of AeronauticsNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations