全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Structural Reliability Assessment by Integrating Sensitivity Analysis and Support Vector Machine

DOI: 10.1155/2014/586191

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

To reduce the runtime and ensure enough computation accuracy, this paper proposes a structural reliability assessment method by the use of sensitivity analysis (SA) and support vector machine (SVM). The sensitivity analysis is firstly applied to assess the effect of random variables on the values of performance function, while the small-influence variables are rejected as input vectors of SVM. Then, the trained SVM is used to classify the input vectors, which are produced by sampling the residual variables based on their distributions. Finally, the reliability assessment is implemented with the aid of reliability theory. A 10-bar planar truss is used to validate the feasibility and efficiency of the proposed method, and a performance comparison is made with other existing methods. The results show that the proposed method can largely save the runtime with less reduction of the accuracy; furthermore, the accuracy using the proposed method is the highest among the methods employed. 1. Introduction In recent years, a number of structural reliability assessment methods, including first-order reliability method (FORM) [1], response surface method (RSM) [2], and Monte-Carlo simulation method (MCSM) [3], have been developed and applied to practical engineering structures. Among these methods, the FORM is usually used to directly estimate structural failure probability in the case of the explicit limit state functions. In contrast, the RSM and MCSM are widely used in the case that the limit state functions are complex and implicit. The main idea of RSM is to transfer the original implicit limit state function to an approximated explicit expression, which will then be used for the assessment of failure probability with the aid of FORM. However, in most cases, the hypothetical explicit expressions can hardly be found to represent precisely the original nonlinear and complex functions; thus RSM usually causes an unallowable error, even a wrong assessment result. MCSM not only is the most precise method for failure probability assessment, but also solves theoretically all of reliability problems. However, MCSM is a time-consuming process. It is suitable for solving such problem when structural failure probability is small, because a number of samples are required for the purpose of obtaining a reasonable result. To overcome the low-fidelity of RSM and low computing efficiency of MCSM, several researchers have attempted to construct the limit state function based on the intellectual techniques, such as artificial neural networks [4, 5] and SVM [6, 7]. Due to the

References

[1]  S. Mahadevan, Probability, Reliability, and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design, Wiley, 2000.
[2]  C. G. Bucher and U. Bourgund, “A fast and efficient response surface approach for structural reliability problems,” Structural Safety, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 57–66, 1990.
[3]  R. E. Melchers, Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, Wiley, 1999.
[4]  K. W. Chau, “Reliability and performance-based design by artificial neural network,” Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 145–149, 2007.
[5]  H. M. Gomes and A. M. Awruch, “Comparison of response surface and neural network with other methods for structural reliability analysis,” Structural Safety, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 49–67, 2004.
[6]  A. Basudhar, S. Missoum, and A. Harrison Sanchez, “Limit state function identification using Support Vector Machines for discontinuous responses and disjoint failure domains,” Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2008.
[7]  X.-H. Tan, W.-H. Bi, X.-L. Hou, and W. Wang, “Reliability analysis using radial basis function networks and support vector machines,” Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 178–186, 2011.
[8]  J. Shawe-Taylor and N. Cristianini, Kernel Methods for Pattern Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[9]  H. Aytug and S. Sayin, “Exploring the trade-off between generalization and empirical errors in a one-norm SVM,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 218, no. 3, pp. 667–675, 2012.
[10]  J. E. Hurtado and D. A. Alvarez, “Classification approach for reliability analysis with stochastic finite-element modeling,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 129, no. 8, pp. 1141–1149, 2003.
[11]  J. E. Hurtado, “An examination of methods for approximating implicit limit state functions from the viewpoint of statistical learning theory,” Structural Safety, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 271–293, 2004.
[12]  W.-L. Jin, C.-X. Tang, and J. Chen, “SVM based on response surface method for structural reliability analysis,” Chinese Journal of Computational Mechanics, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 713–718, 2007 (Chinese).
[13]  Z. Guo and G. Bai, “Application of least squares support vector machine for regression to reliability analysis,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 160–166, 2009.
[14]  E. Plischke, “An effective algorithm for computing global sensitivity indices (EASI),” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 354–360, 2010.
[15]  I. M. Sobol', “Sensitivity analysis for nonlinear mathematical models,” Mathematical Modelling and Computational Experiment, vol. 1, pp. 407–414, 1993.
[16]  I. M. Sobol', “Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates,” Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, vol. 55, no. 1–3, pp. 271–280, 2001.
[17]  I. M. Sobol' and Y. L. Levitan, “On the use of variance reducing multipliers in Monte Carlo computations of a global sensitivity index,” Computer Physics Communications, vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 52–61, 1999.
[18]  I. M. Sobol', “Theorems and examples on high dimensional model representation,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 187–193, 2003.
[19]  I. M. Sobol', S. Tarantola, D. Gatelli, S. S. Kucherenko, and W. Mauntz, “Estimating the approximation error when fixing unessential factors in global sensitivity analysis,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 92, no. 7, pp. 957–960, 2007.
[20]  I. M. Sobol' and S. Kucherenko, “A new derivative based importance criterion for groups of variables and its link with the global sensitivity indices,” Computer Physics Communications, vol. 181, no. 7, pp. 1212–1217, 2010.
[21]  J. W. Hall, S. Tarantola, P. D. Bates, and M. S. Horritt, “Distributed sensitivity analysis of flood inundation model calibration,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 117–126, 2005.
[22]  R. I. Cukier, H. B. Levine, and K. E. Shuler, “Nonlinear sensitivity analysis of multiparameter model systems,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–42, 1978.
[23]  J. C. Helton and F. J. Davis, “Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 23–69, 2003.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133

WeChat 1538708413