Abstract
The computational model has become an essential tool in many engineering applications. To take full advantage of a computational model, its accuracy must be guaranteed. Validation and verification (V&V) methods have been proposed to enable construction of accurate computational models. One of the challenges in V&V is to calibrate the large number of parameters of the model of interest. To effectively calibrate the large number of calibration parameters, a hierarchical calibration method has been proposed; this method decomposes the system model into smaller models and calibrates the parameters for the decomposed models. However, the method uses only qualitative criteria for model decomposition in the hierarchical calibration. This study identifies the problems of using only these qualitative criteria for hierarchical calibration, and instead proposes to use identifiability, obtained from the Fisher information matrix, as a quantitative criterion. A detailed process for the proposed identifiability-based model decomposition is described. During decomposition, the experiments are designed to meet identifiability requirements. The proposed decomposition method is verified by examining the Pratt truss bridge model as a case study; the method shows accurate calibration results and requires fewer experiments, as compared with two arbitrary decompositions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A.I.o. Aeronautics (1998) Astronautics, AIAA guide for the verification and validation of computational fluid dynamics simulations. American Institute of aeronautics and astronautics
A.S.o.M. Engineers (2006) Guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics. ASME
B.M. Adams, W. Bohnhoff, K. Dalbey, J. Eddy, M. Eldred, D. Gay, K. Haskell, P.D. Hough, L.P. Swiler, DAKOTA, a multilevel parallel object-oriented framework for design optimization, parameter estimation, uncertainty quantification, and sensitivity analysis: version 5.0 user’s manual, Sandia National Laboratories, Tech. Rep. SAND2010-2183, (2009)
Arendt PD, Apley DW, Chen W (2012) Quantification of model uncertainty: calibration, model discrepancy, and identifiability. J Mech Des 134:100908
Chen W, Xiong Y, Tsui K-L, Wang S (2008) A design-driven validation approach using Bayesian prediction models. J Mech Des 130:021101
Choi KK, Kim N-H (2006) Structural sensitivity analysis and optimization 1: linear systems. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin
Cintrón-Arias A, Banks H, Capaldi A, Lloyd AL (2009) A sensitivity matrix based methodology for inverse problem formulation. Journal of Inverse and Ill-Posed Problems 17:545–564
Cobelli C, Distefano JJ 3rd (1980) Parameter and structural identifiability concepts and ambiguities: a critical review and analysis. Am J Phys Regul Integr Comp Phys 239:R7–R24
Eisenberg MC, Hayashi MA (2014) Determining identifiable parameter combinations using subset profiling. Math Biosci 256:116–126
Ferreira AJ (2008) MATLAB codes for finite element analysis: solids and structures. Springer Science & Business Media
Ferson S, Oberkampf WL (2009) Validation of imprecise probability models. Int J Reliab Saf 3:3–22
Haldar A, Mahadevan S (2000) Probability, reliability, and statistical methods in engineering design. Wiley New York, New York
Helton JC, Johnson JD, Oberkampf WL, Sallaberry CJ (2010) Representation of analysis results involving aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. Int J Gen Syst 39:605–646
Higdon D, Nakhleh C, Gattiker J, Williams B (2008) A Bayesian calibration approach to the thermal problem. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197:2431–2441
Kennedy MC, O’Hagan A (2001) Bayesian calibration of computer models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 63:425–464
Lee PM (2012) Bayesian statistics: an introduction. John Wiley & Sons
Lee G, Yi G, Youn BD (2018) A comprehensive study on enhanced optimization-based model calibration using gradient information. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 57:2005–2025
Lehmann EL, Romano JP (2006) Testing statistical hypotheses. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin
Lin J (1991) Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 37:145–151
Ling Y, Mahadevan S (2013) Quantitative model validation techniques: new insights. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 111:217–231
Liu F, Bayarri M, Berger J, Paulo R, Sacks J (2008) A Bayesian analysis of the thermal challenge problem. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197:2457–2466
Liu Y, Chen W, Arendt P, Huang H-Z (2011) Toward a better understanding of model validation metrics. J Mech Des 133:071005
O’Hagan A (1995) Fractional Bayes factors for model comparison. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57:99–118
Oberkampf WL, Barone MF (2006) Measures of agreement between computation and experiment: validation metrics. J Comput Phys 217:5–36
Oberkampf WL, Roy CJ (2010) Verification and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge University Press
Oberkampf WL, Trucano TG (2002) Verification and validation in computational fluid dynamics. Prog Aerosp Sci 38:209–272
Pawitan Y (2001) In all likelihood: statistical modelling and inference using likelihood. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Rebba R, Mahadevan S (2006) Validation of models with multivariate output. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91:861–871
Sankararaman S, Mahadevan S (2015) Integration of model verification, validation, and calibration for uncertainty quantification in engineering systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 138:194–209
Scharf LL, Demeure C (1991) Statistical signal processing: detection, estimation, and time series analysis, Addison-Wesley Reading, MA
Schervish MJ (1996) P values: what they are and what they are not. Am Stat 50:203–206
Seghouane A-K, Bekara M, Fleury G (2005) A criterion for model selection in the presence of incomplete data based on Kullback’s symmetric divergence. Signal Process 85:1405–1417
Youn BD, Jung BC, Xi Z, Kim SB, Lee W (2011) A hierarchical framework for statistical model calibration in engineering product development. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 200:1421–1431
Funding
This work was financially supported by the R&D project (R17GA08) of Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Shapour Azarm
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, T., Youn, B.D. Identifiability-based model decomposition for hierarchical calibration. Struct Multidisc Optim 60, 1801–1811 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-019-02405-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-019-02405-5