Advertisement

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 60, Issue 6, pp 2249–2264 | Cite as

A new global sensitivity measure based on derivative-integral and variance decomposition and its application in structural crashworthiness

  • Jie Liu
  • Qiming LiuEmail author
  • Xu HanEmail author
  • Chao Jiang
  • Yourui Tao
Research Paper
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

For the traditional variance-based global sensitivity analysis, the total effect of individual variable commonly involves the interactions with other variables. To further decompose the interactive effects, this paper proposes a new global sensitivity measure based on derivative-integral and variance decomposition. Firstly, the first-order sensitivity index only relating to individual variable and the high-order sensitivity indices involving with other interactive variables are analyzed through analysis of variance (ANOVA) representation. Then, the partial derivatives of high-order interaction terms of ANOVA representation with respect to individual variable and the integrals of the squares of partial derivative functions are calculated in the whole variable space. Consequently, to measure the contribution of individual variable to each high-order interaction term, the ratio of the square root of each integral to their sum is defined as the sensitivity weight factor. A high-order sensitivity index can be further decomposed into a series of sensitivity sub-indices by using the defined sensitivity weight factors. Accordingly, a new global sensitivity measure for individual variable is proposed by combining the first-order sensitivity index with the decomposed sensitivity sub-indices. Finally, three numerical examples and an engineering application are investigated to demonstrate the reasonability and superiority of the proposed sensitivity measure.

Keywords

Global sensitivity analysis Interaction effects Sensitivity weight factor Derivative-integral Variance decomposition ANOVA representation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Prof. Libo Cao’s Group for their help in validating the simulation model of commercial vehicle model. We also thank Mr. Xingfu Wu for his assistants in establishing meta-models and editing graphs.

Funding information

This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFB1301300), the National Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51621004, 11572115), independent research project of State Key Laboratory of Reliability and Intelligence Electrical Equipment, Hebei University of Technology (EERIZZ2018001), independent research project of State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing for the vehicle body, Hunan University (51475003), the Applied Basic Research Project in Changzhou (CJ20179009).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

158_2019_2316_MOESM1_ESM.m (4 kb)
ESM 1 (M 3 kb)
158_2019_2316_MOESM2_ESM.m (1 kb)
ESM 2 (M 905 bytes)
158_2019_2316_MOESM3_ESM.m (4 kb)
ESM 3 (M 3 kb)
158_2019_2316_MOESM4_ESM.m (4 kb)
ESM 4 (M 3 kb)
158_2019_2316_MOESM5_ESM.m (6 kb)
ESM 5 (M 5 kb)
158_2019_2316_MOESM6_ESM.m (5 kb)
ESM 6 (M 5 kb)
158_2019_2316_MOESM7_ESM.m (10 kb)
ESM 7 (M 9 kb)

References

  1. Aliş ÖF, Rabitz H (2001) Efficient implementation of high dimensional model representations. J Math Chem 29(2):127–142MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arwade S, Moradi M, Louhghalam A (2010) Variance decomposition and global sensitivity for structural systems. Eng Struct 32(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blatman G, Sudret B (2010) Efficient computation of global sensitivity indices using sparse polynomial chaos expansions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95(11):1216–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blonigan PJ, Wang Q (2014) Least squares shadowing sensitivity analysis of a modified Kuramoto–Sivashinsky equation. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 64:16–25MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgonovo E, Plischke E (2016) Sensitivity analysis: a review of recent advances. Eur J Oper Res 248(3):869–887MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Saltelli A (2007) An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models. Environ Model Softw 22(10):1509–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castillo E, Conejo AJ, Mínguez R, Castillo C (2006) A closed formula for local sensitivity analysis in mathematical programming. Eng Optim 38(1):93–112MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen H, Chen H, Wang L (2014) Analysis of vehicle seat and research on structure optimization in front and rear impact. World J Eng Technol 02(2):92–99MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen W, Jin R, Sudjianto A (2015) Analytical variance-based global sensitivity analysis in simulation-based design under uncertainty. J Mech Des 127(5):875–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christopher Frey H, Patil SR (2002) Identification and review of sensitivity analysis methods. Risk Anal 22(3):553–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Confalonieri RG, Bellocchi S, Bregaglio M, Donatelli M, Acutis M (2010) Comparison of sensitivity analysis techniques: a case study with the rice model WARM. Ecol Model 221(16):1897–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dai C, Li H, Zhang D (2014) Efficient and accurate global sensitivity analysis for reservoir simulations by use of probabilistic collocation method. SPE J 19(04):621–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delen D, Tomak L, Topuz K, Eryarsoy E (2017) Investigating injury severity risk factors in automobile crashes with predictive analytics and sensitivity analysis methods. J Transp Health 4:118–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haaker MPR, Verheijen PJT (2004) Local and global sensitivity analysis for a reactor design with parameter uncertainty. Chem Eng Res Des 82(5):591–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang X, Wang J (2011) Lightweight vehicle control-oriented modeling and payload parameter sensitivity analysis. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 60(5):1999–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iooss B, Lemaître P (2015) A review on global sensitivity analysis methods. In: Dellino G., Meloni C. (eds) Uncertainty Management in Simulation-Optimization of Complex Systems. Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series, vol 59. Springer, Boston, MA.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7547-8_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ishigami T, Homma T (1990) An importance quantification technique in uncertainty analysis for computer models. [1990] Proceedings. First International Symposium on Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis. IEEE, 1990:398-403.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ISUMA.1990.151285
  18. Jansson T, Nilsson L, Redhe M (2003) Using surrogate models and response surfaces in structural optimization–with application to crashworthiness design and sheet metal forming. Struct Multidiscip Optim 25(2):129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kang Z, Luo Y (2012) Sensitivity analysis of viscoplastic deformation process with application to metal preform design optimization. Eng Optim 44(12):1511–1523MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khaledi K, Mahmoudi E, Datcheva M, König D, Schanz T (2016) Sensitivity analysis and parameter identification of a time dependent constitutive model for rock salt. J Comput Appl Math 293:128–138MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kucherenko S (2010) A new derivative based importance criterion for groups of variables and its link with the global sensitivity indices. Comput Phys Commun 181(7):1212–1217MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu Q, Li Y, Cao L, Lei F, Wang Q (2018) Structural design and global sensitivity analysis of the composite B-pillar with ply drop-off. Struct Multidiscip Optim 57(3):965–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Massada AB, Carmel Y (2008) Incorporating output variance in local sensitivity analysis for stochastic models. Ecol Model 213(3–4):463–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Michiels W, Dirk R (2001) Sensitivity to perturbations in variable structure systems. J Comput Appl Math 132(1):127–140MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morris M (1991) Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics 33(2):161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nguyen AT, Reiter S (2015) A performance comparison of sensitivity analysis methods for building energy models. Build Simul 8(6):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Plischke E, Borgonovo E, Smith C (2013) Global sensitivity measures from given data. Eur J Oper Res 226(3):536–550MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rabitz H, Aliş ÖF (1999) General foundations of high-dimensional model representations. J Math Chem 25(2–3):197–233MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rabitz H, Aliş ÖF, Shorter J, Shim K (1999) Efficient input—output model representations. Comput Phys Commun 117(1–2):11–20zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saltelli A (2002) Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices. Comput Phys Commun 145(2):280–297MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saltelli A, Bolado R (1998) An alternative way to compute Fourier amplitude sensitivity test (FAST). Comput Stat Data Anal 26(4):445–460zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saltelli A, Annoni P, Azzini I, Campolongo F, Ratto M, Tarantola S (2010) Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Comput Phys Commun 181(2):259–270MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sobie EA (2009) Parameter sensitivity analysis in electrophysiological models using multivariable regression. Biophys J 96(4):1264–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sobol’ IM (1993) Sensitivity estimates for nonlinear mathematical models. Math Model Comput Experiment 1:407–414MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Sobol’ IM (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55(1–3):271–280MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sobol’ IM (2003) Theorems and examples on high dimensional model representation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 79(2):187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sobol’ IM, Kucherenko S (2009) Derivative based global sensitivity measures and their link with global sensitivity indices. Math Comput Simul 79(10):3009–3017MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Storlie CB, Swiler LP, Helton JC, Sallaberry CJ (2009) Implementation and evaluation of nonparametric regression procedures for sensitivity analysis of computationally demanding models. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(11):1735–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sudret B, Mai C (2015) Computing derivative-based global sensitivity measures using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 134:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sung CH, Kwon JH (2000) Accurate aerodynamic sensitivity analysis using adjoint equations. AIAA J 38(2):243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tian W (2012) A review of sensitivity analysis methods in building energy analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 20(4):411–419Google Scholar
  42. Wang XY, Wang DF, Sun WL, Liu PW (2012) Lightweight design for a cab of a heavy-duty truck based on passive safety. Adv Mater Res 569:603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang P, Lu Z, Tang Z (2013) An application of the kriging method in global sensitivity analysis with parameter uncertainty. Appl Math Model 37(9):6543–6555MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wei P, Lu Z, Song J (2013) A new variance-based global sensitivity analysis technique. Comput Phys Commun 184(11):2540–2551MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wei P, Lu Z, Song J (2015a) Regional and parametric sensitivity analysis of Sobol indices. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 137:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wei P, Lu Z, Song J (2015b) Variable importance analysis: a comprehensive review. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 142:399–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wei P, Wang Y, Tang C (2017) Time-variant global reliability sensitivity analysis of structures with both input random variables and stochastic processes. Struct Multidiscip Optim 55(5):1883–1889MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Xiao S, Lu Z, Wang P (2018) Multivariate global sensitivity analysis for dynamic models based on energy distance. Struct Multidiscip Optim 57(1):279–291MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yan WJ, Wan HP, Ren WX (2017) Analytical local and global sensitivity of power spectrum density functions for structures subject to stochastic excitation. Comput Struct 182:325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang J (2011) Convergence and uncertainty analyses in Monte-Carlo based sensitivity analysis. Environ Model Softw 26(4):444–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yin X, Chen W (2008) A hierarchical statistical sensitivity analysis method for complex engineering systems. J Mech Des 130(7):071402.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2918913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zeng F, Xie H, Liu Q, Li F, Tan W (2016) Design and optimization of a new composite bumper beam in high-speed frontal crashes. Struct Multidiscip Optim 53(1):115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang Y, Yao W, Ye S, Chen X (2019) A regularization method for constructing trend function in Kriging model. Struct Multidiscip Optim 59(4):1221–1239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Reliability and Intelligence of Electrical Equipment, School of Electrical EngineeringHebei University of TechnologyTianjinPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body, College of Mechanical and Vehicle EngineeringHunan UniversityChangshaPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Reliability and Intelligence of Electrical Equipment, School of Mechanical EngineeringHebei University of TechnologyTianjinPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations