On the Global Sensitivity Analysis Methods in Geotechnical Engineering: A Comparative Study on a Rock Salt Energy Storage
- 35 Downloads
The large number of input factors involved in a sophisticated geotechnical computational model is a challenge in the concept of probabilistic analysis. In the context of model calibration and validation, conducting a sensitivity analysis is substantial as a first step. Sensitivity analysis techniques can determine the key factors which govern the system responses. In this paper, three commonly used sensitivity analysis methods are implemented on a sophisticated geotechnical problem. The computational model of a compressed air energy storage, mined in a rock salt formation, includes many input parameters, each with large amount of uncertainties. Sensitivity measures of different variables involved in the mechanical response of the cavern are computed by different global sensitivity methods, namely, Sobol/Saltelli, Random Balance Design, and Elementary Effect method. Since performing sensitivity analysis requires a large number of model evaluations, the concept of surrogate modelling is utilised to decrease the computational burden. In the following, the accuracy levels of various surrogate techniques are compared. In addition, a comparative study on the applied sensitivity analysis methods shows that the applied sensitivity analysis techniques provide identical parameter importance rankings, although some may also give more information about the system behaviour.
KeywordsSensitivity analysis Geotechnical engineering Variance-based methods Elementary Effect Sobol’ indices RBD
The Authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of the German Research Foundation (DFG) through the Collaborative Research Center SFB 837 (subproject C2).
- 1.Khaledi K, Mahmoudi E, Datcheva M, Schanz T (2016) Stability and serviceability of underground energy storage caverns in rock salt subjected to mechanical cyclic loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 86:115–131Google Scholar
- 4.Schanz T, Zimmerer MM, Datcheva M, Meier J (2006) Identification of constitutive parameters for numerical models via inverse approach. Felsbau 24(2):11–21Google Scholar
- 12.Ma L-J, Liu X-Y, Wang M-Y, Xu H-F, Hua R-P, Fan P-X, Jiang S-R, Wang G-A, Yi Q-K (2013) Experimental investigation of the mechanical properties of rock salt under triaxial cyclic loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 62:34–41Google Scholar
- 13.Hölter R, Mahmoudi E, Schanz T (2015) Optimal sensor location for parameter identification in soft clay. AIP conference proceedings, vol 1684Google Scholar
- 14.Hölter R, Zhao C, Mahmoudi E, Lavasan AA, Datcheva M, König M, Schanz T (2018) Optimal measurement design for parameter identification in mechanized tunneling. Undergr Space. ISSN 2467-9674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.01.004
- 19.Chan K, Saltelli A, Tarantola S (1997) Sensitivity analysis of model output: variance-based methods make the difference. In: Proceedings of the 29th conference on Winter simulation, IEEE Computer Society, pp 261–268Google Scholar
- 36.Morris MD (1991) Technometrics, factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Taylor & Francis Ltd., RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
- 43.Buljak V (2010) Proper orthogonal decomposition and radial basis functions algorithm for diagnostic procedure based on inverse analysis. FME Trans 38:129–136Google Scholar