Global sensitivity analysis for the boundary control of an open channel

  • Alexandre Janon
  • Maëlle Nodet
  • Christophe Prieur
  • Clémentine Prieur
Original Article


The goal of this paper is to solve the global sensitivity analysis for a particular control problem. More precisely, the boundary control problem of an open-water channel is considered, where the boundary conditions are defined by the position of a down stream overflow gate and an upper stream underflow gate. The dynamics of the water depth and of the water velocity are described by the Shallow-Water equations, taking into account the bottom and friction slopes. Since some physical parameters are unknown, a stabilizing boundary control is first computed for their nominal values, and then a sensitivity analysis is performed to measure the impact of the uncertainty in the parameters on a given to-be-controlled output. The unknown physical parameters are described by some probability distribution functions. Numerical simulations are performed to measure the first-order and total sensitivity indices.


Sensitivity analysis Shallow-Water equation Saint Venant equation Control Sobol indices Metamodel 


  1. 1.
    Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19(6):716–723MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alabau-Boussouira F (2014) Insensitizing exact controls for the scalar wave equation and exact controllability of 2-coupled cascade systems of PDE’s by a single control. Math Control Signals Syst 26(1):1–46MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bastin G, Coron J-M, d’Andréa Novel B (2008) Using hyperbolic systems of balance laws for modeling, control and stability analysis of physical networks. In: 17th IFAC world congress. Lecture notes for the pre-congress workshop on complex embedded and networked control systems, SeoulGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bastin G, Coron J-M, d’Andréa Novel B (2009) On Lyapunov stability of linearised Saint-Venant equations for a sloping channel. Netw Heterog Media 4(2):177–187MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bodart O, Fabre C (1995) Controls insensitizing the norm of the solution of a semilinear heat equation in unbounded domains. J Math Anal Appl 195:658–683MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bodart O, González-Burgos M, Pérez-García R (2004) Existence of insensitizing controls for a semilinear heat equation with a superlinear nonlinearity. Commun Partial Differ Equ 29(7–8):1017–1050MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coron J-M (2007) Control and nonlinearity. In: Mathematical surveys and monographs, vol 136. American Mathematical Society, ProvidenceGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coron J-M, Bastin G, d’Andréa Novel B (2008) Dissipative boundary conditions for one-dimensional nonlinear hyperbolic systems. SIAM J Control Optim 47(3):1460–1498MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cukier RI, Levine HB, Shuler KE (1978) Nonlinear sensitivity analysis of multiparameter model systems. J Comput Phys 26(1):1–42MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dáger R (2006) Insensitizing controls for the 1-D wave equation. SIAM J Control Optim 45(5):1758–1768MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Teresa L (1997) Controls insensitizing the norm of the solution of a semilinear heat equation in unbounded domains. ESAIM Control Optim Calc Var 2:125–149MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Teresa L (2000) Insensitizing controls for a semilinear heat equation. Commun Partial Differ Equ 25(1–2):39–72MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Teresa L, Zuazua E (2009) Identification of the class of initial data for the insensitizing control of the heat equation. Commun Pure Appl Anal 8(1):457–471MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dos Santos V, Prieur C (2008) Boundary control of open channels with numerical and experimental validations. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 16(6):1252–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Efron B, Stein C (1981) The jackknife estimate of variance. Ann Stat 9(3):586–596MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fang K-T, Li R, Sudjianto A (2005) Design and modeling for computer experiments. CRC Press, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fernández-Cara E, Garcia GC, Osses A (2003) Insensitizing controls for a large-scale ocean circulation model. Comptes Rendus Math 337(4):265–270MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gamboa F, Janon A, Klein T, Lagnoux-Renaudie A, Prieur C (2016) Statistical inference for Sobol pick freeze Monte Carlo method. Statistics (to appear)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grepl MA, Maday Y, Nguyen NC, Patera AT (2007) Efficient reduced-basis treatment of nonaffine and nonlinear partial differential equations. Math Model Numer Anal 41(3):575–605MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grepl MA, Patera AT (2005) A posteriori error bounds for reduced-basis approximations of parametrized parabolic partial differential equations. Mathl Model Numer Anal 39(1):157–181MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guerrero S (2007) Controllability of systems of Stokes equations with one control force: existence of insensitizing controls. Ann de l’Inst Henri Poincare (C) Non Linear Anal 24(6):1029–1054MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gueye M (2013) Insensitizing controls for the Navier–Stokes equations. Ann de l’Inst Henri Poincare (C) Non Linear Anal 30(5):825–844MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hastie T (2014) GAM: generalized additive models. R package version 1.09.1Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Helton JC, Johnson JD, Sallaberry CJ, Storlie CB (2006) Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(10–11):1175–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoeffding WF (1948) A class of statistics with asymptotically normal distributions. Ann Math Stat 19:293–325MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Homma T, Saltelli A (1996) Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models. Reliab Engi Syst Saf 52(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huynh DBP, Rozza G, Sen S, Patera AT (2007) A successive constraint linear optimization method for lower bounds of parametric coercivity and inf-sup stability constants. Comptes Rendus Mathematique 345(8):473–478MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Janon A, Klein T, Lagnoux A, Nodet M, Prieur C (2014) Asymptotic normality and efficiency of two Sobol index estimators. ESAIM Probab Stat 18:342–364MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Janon A, Nodet M, Prieur C (2013) Certified reduced-basis solutions of viscous Burgers equation parametrized by initial and boundary values. ESAIM Math Model Numer Anal 47(2):317–348MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Janon A, Nodet M, Prieur C (2014) Uncertainties assessment in global sensitivity indices estimation from metamodels. Int J Uncertain Quantif 4(1):21–36MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Janon A, Nodet M, Prieur C (2015) Goal-oriented error estimation for reduced basis method, with application to certified sensitivity analysis. J Sci Comput (to appear)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Janon A, Nodet M, Prieur Ch., Prieur Cl. (2014) Global sensitivity analysis for the boundary control of an open channel. In: 53rd IEEE conference on decision and control, Los Angeles, pp 589–594Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li T-T (1994) Global classical solutions for quasilinear hyperbolic systems. In: RAM: research in applied mathematics, vol 32. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Micu S, Ortega JH, de Teresa L (2004) An example of \(\epsilon \)-insensitizing controls for the heat equation with no intersecting observation and control regions. Appl Math Lett 17(8):927–932MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Monod H, Naud C, Makowski D (2006 ) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis for crop models. In: Wallach D, Makowski D, Jones JW (eds) Working with dynamic crop models: evaluation, analysis, parameterization, and applications, chapter 4. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 55–99Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nguyen NC, Veroy K, Patera AT (2005) Certified real-time solution of parametrized partial differential equations. In: Handbook of materials modeling, pp 1523–1558Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prieur C, Winkin J, Bastin G (2008) Robust boundary control of systems of conservation laws. Math Control Signals Syst 20(2):173–197MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott EM (2000) Sensitivity analysis. In: Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Santner TJ, Williams B, Notz W (2003) The design and analysis of computer experiments. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schaback R (2003) Mathematical results concerning kernel techniques. In: Prep. 13th IFAC symposium on system identification, Rotterdam. Citeseer, pp 1814–1819Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sirovich L (1987) Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. Part I–II. Q Appl Math 45(3):561–590MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sobol’ IM (1993) Sensitivity analysis for nonlinear mathematical models. Mathl Model Comput Exp 1:407–414MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sobol’ IM (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55(1–3):271–280MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sudret B (2008) Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(7):964–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tissot J-Y, Prieur C (2015) A randomized orthogonal array-based procedure for the estimation of first- and second-order Sobol’ indices. J Stat Comput Simul 85(7):1358–1381MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Veroy K, Patera AT (2005) Certified real-time solution of the parametrized steady incompressible Navier–Stokes equations: rigorous reduced-basis a posteriori error bounds. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 47(8–9):773–788MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandre Janon
    • 1
  • Maëlle Nodet
    • 2
  • Christophe Prieur
    • 3
  • Clémentine Prieur
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Mathématiques d’OrsayUniversité Paris-Sud, CNRSOrsayFrance
  2. 2.Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, INRIAGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.Gipsa-lab, CNRSGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations