Skip to main content

Applying Uncertainty Quantification to Structural Systems: Parameter Reduction for Evaluating Model Complexity

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Model Validation and Uncertainty Quantification, Volume 3

Abstract

Different mathematical models can be developed to represent the dynamic behavior of structural systems and assess properties, such as risk of failure and reliability. Selecting an adequate model requires choosing a model of sufficient complexity to accurately capture the output responses under various operational conditions. However, as model complexity increases, the functional relationship between input parameters varies and the number of parameters required to represent the physical system increases, reducing computational efficiency and increasing modeling difficulty. The process of model selection is further exacerbated by uncertainty introduced from input parameters, noise in experimental measurements, numerical solutions, and model form. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the acceptable level of uncertainty that can be present within numerical models, while reliably capturing the fundamental physics of a subject system. However, before uncertainty quantification can be performed, a sensitivity analysis study is required to prevent numerical ill-conditioning from parameters that contribute insignificant variability to the output response features of interest. The main focus of this paper, therefore, is to employ sensitivity analysis tools on models to remove low sensitivity parameters from the calibration space. The subject system in this study is a modular spring-damper system integrated into a space truss structure. Six different cases of increasing complexity are derived from a mathematical model designed from a two-degree of freedom (2DOF) mass spring-damper that neglects single truss properties, such as geometry and truss member material properties. Model sensitivity analysis is performed using the Analysis of Variation (ANOVA) and the Coefficient of Determination R 2. The global sensitivity results for the parameters in each 2DOF case are determined from the R 2 calculation and compared in performance to evaluate levels of parameter contribution. Parameters with a weighted R 2 value less than .02 account for less than 2% of the variation in the output responses and are removed from the calibration space. This paper concludes with an outlook on implementing Bayesian inference methodologies, delayed-acceptance single-component adaptive Metropolis (DA-SCAM) algorithm and Gaussian Process Models for Simulation Analysis (GPM/SA), to select the most representative mathematical model and set of input parameters that best characterize the system’s dynamic behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Farajpour, I., Atamturktur, S.: Error and uncertainty analysis of inexact and imprecise computer models. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 27, 407–418 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Roy, C.J., Oberkampf, W.L.: A comprehensive framework for verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification in scientific computing. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 200, 2131–2144 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Atamturktur, S., Hemez, F.M., Laman, J.A.: Uncertainty quantification in model verification and validation as applied to large scale historic masonry monuments. Eng. Struct. 43, 221–234 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mallapur, S., Platz, R.: Quantification and evaluation of uncertainty in the mathematical modelling of a suspension strut using Bayesian model validation approach. In: Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series, vol. 3, pp. 113–124 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chopra, A.K.: Dynamics of Structures, Technical Report, Pearson/Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barnard, G.A.: New methods of quality control. J. R. Stat. Soc. 126, 255–258 (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang, R., Mahadevan, S.: Model uncertainty and Bayesian updating in reliability-based inspection. Struct. Saf. 22, 145–160 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eck, V.G., Donders, W.P., Sturdy, J., Feinberg, J., Delhaas, T., Hellevik, L.R., Huberts, W.: A guide to uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis for cardiovascular applications. Int. J. Numer. Methods Biomed. Eng. 32, e02755 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Mallapur, S., Platz, R.: Uncertainty quantification in the mathematical modelling of a suspension strut using bayesian inference. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 118, 158–170 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. ContiTech: Schwingmetall die original gummi-metall- verbindung 28–29 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Czop, P., Gniłka, J.: Reducing aeration and cavitation effect in shock absorbers using fluid-structure interaction simulation, Technical Report (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Duym, S.W., Stiens, R., Baron, G.V., Reybrouck, K.G.: Physical modeling of the hysteretic behaviour of automotive shock absorbers, Technical Report, SAE Technical Paper (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Christen, J., Fox, C.: Markov chain Monte Carlo using an approximation. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 14, 795–810 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Fox, C., Nicholls, G.: Sampling conductivity images via MCMC, Technical Report, University of Leeds (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Haario, H., Saksman, E., Tamminen, J.: Component wise adaptation for high dimensional MCMC. Comput. Stat. 20, 265–273 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Higdon, D., Gattiker, J., Williams, B., Rightley, M.: Computer model calibration using high-dimensional output. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 103, 570–583 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Gattiker, J.R.: Using the Gaussian process model for simulation analysis (GPM/SA) code, Technical Report, Los Alamos National Laboratory (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kennedy, M.C., O’Hagan, A.: Bayesian calibration of computer models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 63, 425–464 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation under grant #1633608, and the German Research Foundation (DFG) SFB 805 project grant for funding this research. In particular, the authors acknowledge Maximilian Schäffner and Robert Feldmann for their assistance during this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Locke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Locke, R., Kupis, S., Gehb, C.M., Platz, R., Atamturktur, S. (2020). Applying Uncertainty Quantification to Structural Systems: Parameter Reduction for Evaluating Model Complexity. In: Barthorpe, R. (eds) Model Validation and Uncertainty Quantification, Volume 3. Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12075-7_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12075-7_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12074-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12075-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics