不确定性量化法验证应力强度因子解

IF 0.5 Q4 ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL
J. Sobotka, R. Mcclung
{"title":"不确定性量化法验证应力强度因子解","authors":"J. Sobotka, R. Mcclung","doi":"10.1115/1.4044868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper summarizes an emerging process to establish credibility for surrogate models that cover multidimensional, continuous solution spaces. Various features lead to disagreement between the surrogate model's results and results from more precise computational benchmark solutions. In our verification process, this disagreement is quantified using descriptive statistics to support uncertainty quantification, sensitivity analysis, and surrogate model assessments. Our focus is stress-intensity factor (SIF) solutions. SIFs can be evaluated from simulations (e.g., finite element analyses), but these simulations require significant preprocessing, computational resources, and expertise to produce a credible result. It is not tractable (or necessary) to simulate a SIF for every crack front. Instead, most engineering analyses of fatigue crack growth (FCG) employ surrogate SIF solutions based on some combination of mechanics, interpolation, and SIF solutions extracted from earlier analyses. SIF values from surrogate solutions vary with local stress profiles and nondimensional degrees-of-freedom that define the geometry. The verification process evaluates the selected stress profiles and the sampled geometries using the surrogate model and a benchmark code (abaqus). The benchmark code employs a Python scripting interface to automate model development, execution, and extraction of key results. The ratio of the test code SIF to the benchmark code SIF measures the credibility of the solution. Descriptive statistics of these ratios provide convenient measures of relative surrogate quality. Thousands of analyses support visualization of the surrogate model's credibility, e.g., by rank-ordering of the credibility measure.","PeriodicalId":52254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Verification of Stress-Intensity Factor Solutions by Uncertainty Quantification\",\"authors\":\"J. Sobotka, R. Mcclung\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/1.4044868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper summarizes an emerging process to establish credibility for surrogate models that cover multidimensional, continuous solution spaces. Various features lead to disagreement between the surrogate model's results and results from more precise computational benchmark solutions. In our verification process, this disagreement is quantified using descriptive statistics to support uncertainty quantification, sensitivity analysis, and surrogate model assessments. Our focus is stress-intensity factor (SIF) solutions. SIFs can be evaluated from simulations (e.g., finite element analyses), but these simulations require significant preprocessing, computational resources, and expertise to produce a credible result. It is not tractable (or necessary) to simulate a SIF for every crack front. Instead, most engineering analyses of fatigue crack growth (FCG) employ surrogate SIF solutions based on some combination of mechanics, interpolation, and SIF solutions extracted from earlier analyses. SIF values from surrogate solutions vary with local stress profiles and nondimensional degrees-of-freedom that define the geometry. The verification process evaluates the selected stress profiles and the sampled geometries using the surrogate model and a benchmark code (abaqus). The benchmark code employs a Python scripting interface to automate model development, execution, and extraction of key results. The ratio of the test code SIF to the benchmark code SIF measures the credibility of the solution. Descriptive statistics of these ratios provide convenient measures of relative surrogate quality. Thousands of analyses support visualization of the surrogate model's credibility, e.g., by rank-ordering of the credibility measure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4044868\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4044868","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本文总结了一个新出现的过程,为覆盖多维、连续解决方案空间的代理模型建立可信度。各种特征导致代理模型的结果与更精确的计算基准解决方案的结果之间存在分歧。在我们的验证过程中,使用描述性统计对这种分歧进行量化,以支持不确定性量化、敏感性分析和替代模型评估。我们的重点是应力强度因子(SIF)解决方案。SIF可以通过模拟(例如有限元分析)进行评估,但这些模拟需要大量的预处理、计算资源和专业知识才能产生可信的结果。模拟每个裂纹前缘的应力强度因子是不容易(或不必要)的。相反,大多数疲劳裂纹扩展(FCG)的工程分析都采用了基于力学、插值和从早期分析中提取的SIF解的替代SIF解。替代解的SIF值随局部应力分布和定义几何结构的无量纲自由度而变化。验证过程使用代理模型和基准代码(abaqus)评估选定的应力剖面和采样的几何形状。基准测试代码使用Python脚本接口来自动化模型开发、执行和关键结果的提取。测试代码SIF与基准代码SIF的比率衡量解决方案的可信度。这些比率的描述性统计提供了相对替代质量的方便测量。成千上万的分析支持代理模型可信度的可视化,例如,通过可信度度量的排序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Verification of Stress-Intensity Factor Solutions by Uncertainty Quantification
This paper summarizes an emerging process to establish credibility for surrogate models that cover multidimensional, continuous solution spaces. Various features lead to disagreement between the surrogate model's results and results from more precise computational benchmark solutions. In our verification process, this disagreement is quantified using descriptive statistics to support uncertainty quantification, sensitivity analysis, and surrogate model assessments. Our focus is stress-intensity factor (SIF) solutions. SIFs can be evaluated from simulations (e.g., finite element analyses), but these simulations require significant preprocessing, computational resources, and expertise to produce a credible result. It is not tractable (or necessary) to simulate a SIF for every crack front. Instead, most engineering analyses of fatigue crack growth (FCG) employ surrogate SIF solutions based on some combination of mechanics, interpolation, and SIF solutions extracted from earlier analyses. SIF values from surrogate solutions vary with local stress profiles and nondimensional degrees-of-freedom that define the geometry. The verification process evaluates the selected stress profiles and the sampled geometries using the surrogate model and a benchmark code (abaqus). The benchmark code employs a Python scripting interface to automate model development, execution, and extraction of key results. The ratio of the test code SIF to the benchmark code SIF measures the credibility of the solution. Descriptive statistics of these ratios provide convenient measures of relative surrogate quality. Thousands of analyses support visualization of the surrogate model's credibility, e.g., by rank-ordering of the credibility measure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
12
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信