A surrogate model for uncertainty quantification and global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear large-scale dome structures

Abstract

Full-scale dome structures intrinsically have numerous sources of irreducible aleatoric uncertainties. A large-scale numerical simulation of the dome structure is required to quantify the effects of these sources on the dynamic performance of the structure using the finite element method (FEM). To reduce the heavy computational burden, a surrogate model of a dome structure was constructed to solve this problem. The dynamic global sensitivity of elastic and elastoplastic structures was analyzed in the uncertainty quantification framework using fully quantitative variance- and distribution-based methods through the surrogate model. The model considered the predominant sources of uncertainty that have a significant influence on the performance of the dome structure. The effects of the variables on the structural performance indicators were quantified using the sensitivity index values of the different performance states. Finally, the effects of the sample size and correlation function on the accuracy of the surrogate model as well as the effects of the surrogate accuracy and failure probability on the sensitivity index values are discussed. The results show that surrogate modeling has high computational efficiency and acceptable accuracy in the uncertainty quantification of large-scale structures subjected to earthquakes in comparison to the conventional FEM.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

large-scale dome structure / surrogate model / global sensitivity analysis / uncertainty quantification / structural performance

References

[1] Zhang H D, Zhu X Q, Yao S. Nonlinear dynamic analysis method for large-scale single-layer lattice domes with uncertain-but-bounded parameters. Engineering Structures, 2020, 203: 109780

[2] Zhang H D, Zhu X Q, Liang X, Guo F Y. Stochastic uncertainty quantification of seismic performance of complex large-scale structures using response spectrum method. Engineering Structures, 2021, 235: 112096

[3] Bhattacharyya B. Global sensitivity analysis: A bayesian learning based polynomial chaos approach. Journal of Computational Physics, 2020, 415: 109539

[4] Wei P, Lu Z, Yuan X. Monte Carlo simulation for moment-independent sensitivity analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2013, 110: 60–67

[5] Gupta H V, Razavi S. Revisiting the basis of sensitivity analysis for dynamical earth system models. Water Resources Research, 2018, 54(11): 8692–8717

[6] Partington D, Knowling M J, Simmons C T, Cook P G, Xie Y, Iwanaga T, Bouchez C. Worth of hydraulic and water chemistry observation data in terms of the reliability of surface water-groundwater exchange flux predictions under varied flow conditions. Journal of Hydrology, 2020, 590: 125441

[7] Sobol I M, Tarantola S, Gatelli D, Kucherenko S S, Mauntz W. Estimating the approximation error when fixing unessential factors in global sensitivity analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2007, 92(7): 957–960

[8] TarantolaSGiglioliNJesinghausJSaltelliA. Can global sensitivity analysis steer the implementation of models for environmental assessments and decision-making? Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2002, 16(1): 63–76

[9] Razavi S, Jakeman A, Saltelli A, Prieur C, Iooss B, Borgonovo E, Plischke E, Lo Piano S, Iwanaga T, Becker W, Tarantola S, Guillaume J H A, Jakeman J, Gupta H, Melillo N, Rabitti G, Chabridon V, Duan Q, Sun X, Smith S, Sheikholeslami R, Hosseini N, Asadzadeh M, Puy A, Kucherenko S, Maier H R. The future of sensitivity analysis: An essential discipline for systems modeling and policy support. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2021, 137: 104954

[10] Nariman N A, Hussain R R, Mohammad I I, Karampour P. Global sensitivity analysis of certain and uncertain factors for a circular tunnel under seismic action. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2019, 13(6): 1289–1300

[11] Zoutat M, Elachachi S M, Mekki M, Hamane M. Global sensitivity analysis of soil structure interaction system using N2-SSI method. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2018, 22(2): 192–211

[12] Menz M, Dubreuil S, Morio J, Gogu C, Bartoli N, Chiron M. Variance based sensitivity analysis for Monte Carlo and importance sampling reliability assessment with Gaussian processes. Structural Safety, 2021, 93: 102116

[13] Zhang K C, Lu Z Z, Wu D Q, Zhang Y L. Analytical variance based global sensitivity analysis for models with correlated variables. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2017, 45: 748–767

[14] Javidan M M, Kim J K. Variance-based global sensitivity analysis for fuzzy random structural systems. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2019, 34(7): 602–615

[15] Arwade S R, Moradi M, Louhghalam A. Variance decomposition and global sensitivity for structural systems. Engineering Structures, 2010, 32(1): 1–10

[16] Boscato G, Russo S, Ceravolo R, Fragonara L Z. Global sensitivity-based model updating for heritage structures. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2015, 30(8): 620–635

[17] Zhang X F, Pandey M D. An effective approximation for variance-based global sensitivity analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2014, 121: 164–174

[18] Cucurachi S, Borgonovo E, Heijungs R. A protocol for the global sensitivity analysis of impact assessment models in life cycle assessment. Risk Analysis, 2016, 36(2): 357–377

[19] Baroni G, Francke T. An effective strategy for combining variance- and distribution-based global sensitivity analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2020, 134: 104851

[20] Wei P F, Wang Y Y, Tang C H. Time-variant global reliability sensitivity analysis of structures with both input random variables and stochastic processes. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2017, 55(5): 1883–1898

[21] Ni P, Xia Y, Li J, Hao H. Using polynomial chaos expansion for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of bridge structures. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2019, 119: 293–311

[22] Ni P H, Li J, Hao H, Zhou H Y. Reliability based design optimization of bridges considering bridge−vehicle interaction by Kriging surrogate model. Engineering Structures, 2021, 246: 112989

[23] Ni P H, Li J, Hao H, Han Q, Du X L. Probabilistic model updating via variational Bayesian inference and adaptive Gaussian process modeling. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2021, 383: 113915

[24] Yuan Z X, Liang P, Silva T, Yu K, Mottershead J E. Parameter selection for model updating with global sensitivity analysis. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2019, 115: 483–496

[25] Wan H P, Ni Y Q. An efficient approach for dynamic global sensitivity analysis of stochastic train-track-bridge system. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2019, 117: 843–861

[26] Amini A, Abdollahi A, Hariri-Ardebili M A, Lall U. Copula-based reliability and sensitivity analysis of aging dams: Adaptive Kriging and polynomial chaos Kriging methods. Applied Soft Computing, 2021, 109: 107524

[27] Xian J H, Su C, Spencer B F Jr. Stochastic sensitivity analysis of energy-dissipating structures with nonlinear viscous dampers by efficient equivalent linearization technique based on explicit time-domain method. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 2020, 61: 103080

[28] Vazna R V, Zarrin M. Sensitivity analysis of double layer diamatic dome space structure collapse behavior. Engineering Structures, 2020, 212: 110511

[29] Wan H P, Ren W X. Parameter selection in finite-element-model updating by global sensitivity analysis using Gaussian process metamodel. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2015, 141(6): 04014164

[30] Sun Q Q, Dias D. Global sensitivity analysis of probabilistic tunnel seismic deformations using sparse polynomial chaos expansions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 141: 106470

[31] Vu-Bac N, Silani M, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. A unified framework for stochastic predictions of mechanical properties of polymeric nanocomposites. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96: 520–535

[32] Tuo R, Wang W J. Kriging prediction with isotropic Matérn correlations: Robustness and experimental designs. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2020, 21(1): 7604–7641

[33] Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhang Y, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Stochastic predictions of interfacial characteristic of polymeric nanocomposites (PNCs). Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2014, 59: 80–95

[34] Liu B, Vu-Bac N, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Stochastic multiscale modeling of heat conductivity of Polymeric clay nanocomposites. Mechanics of Materials, 2020, 142: 103280

[35] Xiao S N, Lu Z Z. Structural reliability sensitivity analysis based on classification of model output. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2017, 71: 52–61

[36] Fenwick D, Scheidt C, Caers J. Quantifying asymmetric parameter interactions in sensitivity analysis: Application to reservoir modeling. Mathematical Geosciences, 2014, 46(4): 493–511

[37] Sheather S J, Jones M C. A reliable data-based bandwidth selection method for kernel density estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B. Methodological, 1991, 53(3): 683–690

[38] Marrel A, Iooss B, Laurent B, Roustant O. Calculations of sobol indices for the Gaussian process metamodel. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2009, 94(3): 742–751

[39] Sudret B. Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2008, 93(7): 964–979

[40] Liu T T, He Z, Yang Y. Vertical earthquake vulnerability of long-span spherical lattice shells with low rise-span ratios. Engineering Structures, 2020, 207: 110181

[41] Kaul M K. Stochastic characterization of earthquakes through their response spectrum. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1978, 6(5): 497–509

[42] Scanlan R, Sachs K. Earthquake time histories and response spectra. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1974, 100(4): 635–655

[43] Bani-Hani K A, Malkawi A I. A multi-step approach to generate response-spectrum-compatible artificial earthquake accelerograms. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 97: 117–132

Acknowledgements

Financial support from the Key Project of the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin City (No. 19JCZDJC39300) is acknowledged.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2023 Higher Education Press