Skip to main content
Log in

Identifiability-based model decomposition for hierarchical calibration

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

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)

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt PD, Apley DW, Chen W (2012) Quantification of model uncertainty: calibration, model discrepancy, and identifiability. J Mech Des 134:100908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Xiong Y, Tsui K-L, Wang S (2008) A design-driven validation approach using Bayesian prediction models. J Mech Des 130:021101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi KK, Kim N-H (2006) Structural sensitivity analysis and optimization 1: linear systems. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg MC, Hayashi MA (2014) Determining identifiable parameter combinations using subset profiling. Math Biosci 256:116–126

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haldar A, Mahadevan S (2000) Probability, reliability, and statistical methods in engineering design. Wiley New York, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy MC, O’Hagan A (2001) Bayesian calibration of computer models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 63:425–464

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lin J (1991) Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 37:145–151

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ling Y, Mahadevan S (2013) Quantitative model validation techniques: new insights. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 111:217–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Chen W, Arendt P, Huang H-Z (2011) Toward a better understanding of model validation metrics. J Mech Des 133:071005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hagan A (1995) Fractional Bayes factors for model comparison. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57:99–118

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Oberkampf WL, Barone MF (2006) Measures of agreement between computation and experiment: validation metrics. J Comput Phys 217:5–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawitan Y (2001) In all likelihood: statistical modelling and inference using likelihood. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rebba R, Mahadevan S (2006) Validation of models with multivariate output. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91:861–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was financially supported by the R&D project (R17GA08) of Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Byeng D. Youn.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Shapour Azarm

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(M 3 kb)

ESM 2

(M 1 kb)

ESM 3

(M 358 bytes)

ESM 4

(M 3 kb)

ESM 5

(M 870 bytes)

ESM 6

(M 58 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-019-02405-5

Keywords

Navigation