4.6 Article

Application of sensitivity analysis in extension, inflation, and torsion of residually stressed circular cylindrical tubes

Journal

PROBABILISTIC ENGINEERING MECHANICS
Volume 73, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.probengmech.2023.103469

Keywords

Sensitivity analysis; Sobol method; FAST method; Circular cylindrical tube; Residual stress

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper applies Sobol method and the Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test (FAST) method to analyze the influence of input parameters on the output variable in the problem of mixed extension, inflation, and torsion of a circular cylindrical tube with residual stress. The input parameters are distributed according to uniform, gamma, and normal distributions. The most influential factors are determined using Sobol and FAST methods, and the bias and standard deviation of Sobol and FAST indices are calculated to assess the results.
This paper deals with applying two main sensitivity analysis (SA) methods, namely, the Sobol method and the Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test (FAST) method on the problem of mixed extension, inflation, and torsion of a circular cylindrical tube in the presence of residual stress. The mechanical side of the problem was previously proposed by Merodio & Ogden (2016). The input parameters in the form of the initial cylinder geometry, the amount of the residual stress, the azimuthal stretch, the axial elongation, and the torsional strain are distributed according to three probability distribution methods, namely the uniform, the gamma, and the normal distribution. In the present work, through applying Sobol and FAST methods, the most influential factors among input parameters on the output variable have been determined. The assessment of our results is then determined by the computation of bias and standard deviation of Sobol and FAST indices for each input parameter in the model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available