4.7 Article

An adaptive surrogate model to structural reliability analysis using deep neural network

期刊

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
卷 189, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116104

关键词

Adaptive surrogate model; Reliability analysis; Monte Carlo Simulation; Deep neural network

资金

  1. NRF (National Research Foundation of Korea) - MEST (Ministry of Education and Science Technology) of Korean government [NRF-2020R1A4A2002855]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces a simple and effective adaptive surrogate model using deep neural network for structural reliability analysis. The approach enhances accuracy by adding important boundary points to the global model and achieves precise failure probability assessment with only a small number of experiments.
This article introduces a simple and effective adaptive surrogate model to structural reliability analysis using deep neural network (DNN). In this paradigm, initial design of experiments (DoEs) are randomly selected from a given Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) population to build the global approximate model of performance function (PF). More important points on the boundary of limit state function (LSF) and their vicinities are subsequently added relied on the surrogate model to enhance its accuracy without any complex techniques. A threshold is proposed to switch from a globally predicting model to a locally one for the approximation of LSF by eradicating previously used unimportant and noise points. Accordingly, the surrogate model becomes more precise for the MCS-based failure probability assessment with only a small number of experiments. Six numerical examples with highly nonlinear properties, various distributions of random variables and multiple failure modes, namely three benchmark ones regarding explicit mathematical PFs and the others relating to finite element method (FEM)-programmed truss structures under free vibration, are examined to validate the present approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据