Multifidelity Modeling by Polynomial Chaos-Based Cokriging to Enable Efficient Model-Based Reliability Analysis of NDT Systems
Source abstract
Abstract
This work proposes a novel multifidelity metamodeling approach, the polynomial chaos-based Cokriging (PC-Cokriging). The proposed approach is used for fast uncertainty propagation in a reliability analysis of nondestructive testing systems using model-assisted probability of detection (MAPOD). In particular, PC-Cokriging is a multivariate version of polynomial chaos-based Kriging (PC-Kriging), which aims at combining the advantages of the regression-based polynomial chaos expansions and the interpolation-based Kriging metamodeling methods. Following a similar process as Cokriging, the PC-Cokriging advances PC-Kriging by enabling the incorporation of multifidelity physics information. The proposed PC-Cokriging is demonstrated on two analytical functions and three ultrasonic testing MAPOD cases. The results show that PC-Cokriging outperforms the state-of-the-art metamodeling approaches when providing the same number of training points. Specifically, PC-Cokriging reduces the high-fidelity training sample cost of the Kriging and PCE metamodels by over one order of magnitude, and the PC-Kriging and conventional Cokriging multifidelity metamodeling by up to $$50\%$$ to reach the same accuracy level (defined by the root mean squared error being no greater than $$1\%$$ of the standard deviation of the testing points). The accuracy and robustness of the proposed method of the key MAPOD metrics versus various detection thresholds are investigated and satisfactory results are obtained.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Advanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (56)
Show source-provided references
1. MIL-HDBK-1823: Department of Defense Handbook, Wright-Patterson AFB, USA (1999)
2. MIL-HDBK-1823A: Department of Defense Handbook, Wright-Patterson AFB, USA (2009)
3. Georgiou, G.A.: Probability of Detection (PoD) Curves. Derivation, Application and Limitations. Jacobi Consulting Limited, London (2006)
4. Thompson, R.B., Gray, T.A.: A model relating ultrasonic scattering measurements through liquid: solid interfaces to unbounded medium scattering amplitudes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 74, 1279–1290 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1121/1.39004510.1121/1.390045 ↗
5. Sharma, A., Sinha, A.K.: Ultrasonic testing for mechanical engineering domain: present and future perspective. Int. J. Res. Ind. Eng. 7, 243–253 (2018)10.5958/2319-6890.2018.00068.5 ↗
6. Grubinskas, C.R.: Development of Eddy Current Inspection Equipment. U.S. Army Materials Research Agency, Technical Report (1963)10.21236/AD0425700 ↗
7. Mgonja, T.C.: Evaluation on use of industrial radiography for weld joints inspection in Tanzania. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. (IJMET) 8, 65–74 (2017)
8. Thompson, R., Brasche, L., Forsyth, D., Lindgren, E., Swindell, P.: MIL-HDBK-1823A. In: Proceedings of the 4th European-American Workshop on Reliability of NDE, Berlin, Germany (2009)
9. Meeker, Q.M.: R. B. Thompson’s contributions to model assisted probability of detection. Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestruct. Eval. 1430, 83–94 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.471621510.1063/1.4716215 ↗
10. Knopp, J.S., Aldrin, J.C., Lindgren, E., Annis, C.: Investigation of a model-assisted approach to probability of detection evaluation. Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestruct. Eval. 895, 1775–1782 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.271817810.1063/1.2718178 ↗
11. Gray, T.A., Thompson, R.B.: Use of models to predict ultrasonic NDE reliability. Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestruct. Eval. 5A, 911–918 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7763-8_9810.1007/978-1-4615-7763-8_98 ↗
12. Aldrin, J., Knopp, J., Sabbagh, H.: Bayesian methods in probability of detection estimation and model-assisted probability of detection evaluation. Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestruct. Eval. 1511, 1733–1740 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.478925010.1063/1.4789250 ↗
13. Jenson, F., Dominguez, N., Willaume, P., Yalamas, T.: A Bayesian approach for the determination of POD curves from empirical data merged with simulation results. Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestruct. Eval. 1511, 1741–1748 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.478925110.1063/1.4789251 ↗
14. Queipo, N.V., et al.: Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 41, 1–28 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2005.02.00110.1016/j.paerosci.2005.02.001 ↗
15. Queipo, N., Pintos, S., Nava, E.: Setting targets in surrogate-based optimization. J. Glob. Optim. 55, 857–875 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-011-9837-410.1007/s10898-011-9837-4 ↗
16. Peherstorfer, B., Willcox, K., Gunzburger, M.: Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. 60, 550–591 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1137/16M108246910.1137/16M1082469 ↗
17. Forrester, A.I.J., Keane, A.J.: Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 45, 50–79 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2008.11.00110.1016/j.paerosci.2008.11.001 ↗
18. Krige, D.G.: A statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems on the witwatersrand. J. Chem. Metall. Min. Eng. Soc. S. Afr. 52, 119–139 (1951)
19. Matheron, G.: Principles of geostatistics. Econ. Geol. 58, 1246–1266 (1963). https://doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.58.8.124610.2113/gsecongeo.58.8.1246 ↗
20. Sacks, J., Welch, W., Michell, J.T., Wynn, P.H.: Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat. Sci. 4, 409–423 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/117701241310.1214/ss/1177012413 ↗
21. Blatman, G.: adaptive sparse polynomial chaos expansion for uncertainty propagation and sensitivity analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Blaise Pascal University - Clermont II. 3, 8, 9 (2009)
22. Smola, A.J., Scholkopf, B.: A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat. Comput. 14, 199–222 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:STCO.0000035301.49549.8810.1023/B:STCO.0000035301.49549.88 ↗
23. Alexandrov, N.M., Lewis, R.M., Gumbert, C.R., Green, L.L., Newman, P .A.: Approximation and model management in aerodynamic optimization with variable-fidelity models. J. Aircr. 38, 1093–1101 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2514/2.287710.2514/2.2877 ↗
24. Rathinam, M., Petzold, L.: A new look at proper orthogonal decomposition. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 41, 1893–1925 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614290138904910.1137/S0036142901389049 ↗
25. Knopp, S.J., Blodgett, P .M., Aldrin, C .A.: Efficient propagation of uncertainty in simulations via the probabilistic collocation method. Stud. Appl. Electromagn. Mech. Electromagn. Nondestruct. Eval. Proc. 35, 141–148 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-750-5-14110.3233/978-1-60750-750-5-141 ↗
26. Cherry, R.M., Knopp, S.J., Blodgett, P.M.: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation 1430, 1741–748, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4716422 (2012)10.1063/1.4716422 ↗
27. Miorelli, R., Artusi, X., Addessalem, B.A., Reboud, C.: Database generation and exploitation for efficient and intensive simulation studies. Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestruct. Eval. 1706, 180002 (2016)
28. Browne, T.: Regression models and sensitivity analysis for stochastic simulators: applications to non-destructive examination. Doctorate Thesis, Paris Descartes University (2017)
29. Browne, T.: PoD-Curves. Sensitivity Analysis & Kriging. GDR Mascot-Num Annual Meeting, Paris, France (2017)
30. Gratiet, L.L., et al.: Model assisted probability of detection curves: new statistical tools and progressive methodology. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 36, 1–12 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-016-0387-z10.1007/s10921-016-0387-z ↗
31. Du, X., Leifsson, L., Meeker, W., Gurrala, P., Song, J., Roberts, R.: Efficient model-assisted probability of detectionand sensitivity analysis for ultrasonic testing simulations using stochastic metamodeling (submitted). ASME J. Nondestruct. Eval. (2019)10.1115/1.4044446 ↗
32. Du, X., Leifsson, L., Gurrala, P., Song, J., Meeker, W., Roberts, R.: Efficient uncertainty propagation via polynomial chaos-based Kriging for MAPOD. Submitted to Engineering Computation (2019)10.1108/EC-04-2019-0157 ↗
33. Du, X., Leifsson, L.: Multifidelity model-assisted probability of detection via cokriging. Submitted to NDT & E International (2019)10.1016/j.ndteint.2019.102156 ↗
34. Schobi, R., Sudret, B., Wiart, J.: Polynomial-chaos-based Kriging. Int. J. Uncertain. Quant. 5, 193–206 (2015)
35. Schobi, R., Sudret, B., Marelli, S.: Rare event estimation using Polynomial-Chaos-Kriging. ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. Part A 3, D4016002 (2016)10.1061/AJRUA6.0000870 ↗
36. Calmon, P., Jenson, F., Reboud, C.: Simulated Probability of detection maps in case of non-monotonic EC signal response. Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestruct. Eval. 1650, 1933–1939 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.491482010.1063/1.4914820 ↗
37. Iooss, B., Gratiet, L.L.: Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of functional risk curves based on Gaussian processes. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 187, 58–66 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.11.02210.1016/j.ress.2017.11.022 ↗
38. Ribay, G., Artusi, X., Jenson, F., Reece, C., Lhuillier, P.-E.: Model-based POD study of manual ultrasound inspection and sensitivity analysis using metamodel. Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestruct. Eval. 1706, 200006-1–200006-7 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.494065010.1063/1.4940650 ↗
39. Miorelli, R., Artusi, X., Reboud, C.: An efficient adaptive database sampling strategy with applications to Eddy current signals. Simul. Modell. Pract. Theory 80, 75–88 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2017.10.00310.1016/j.simpat.2017.10.003 ↗
40. Shapiro, A.: Monte Carlo sampling methods. Handbooks Oper. Res. Manag. Sci. 10, 353–425 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-0507(03)10006-010.1016/S0927-0507(03)10006-0 ↗
41. Shields, M.D., Zhang, J.: The generalization of Latin Hypercube sampling. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 148, 96–108 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.12.00210.1016/j.ress.2015.12.002 ↗
42. Forrester, I.J .A., Sobester, A., Keane, J.A.: Multi-Fidelity optimization via surrogate modelling. Proc. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 463, 3251–3269 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2007.190010.1098/rspa.2007.1900 ↗
43. Kennedy, C.M., O’Hagan, A.: Predicting the output from a complex computer code when fast approximations are available. Biometrika 87, 1–13 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/87.1.110.1093/biomet/87.1.1 ↗
44. Wiener, N.: The homogeneous chaos. Am. J. Math. 60, 897–936 (1938). https://doi.org/10.2307/237126810.2307/2371268 ↗
45. Efron, B., Hatie, T., Johnstone, I., Tibshirani, R.: Least angle regression. Ann.Stat. 32, 407–499 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1214/00905360400000006710.1214/009053604000000067 ↗
46. Baker, A.: Simplicity. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford (2016)
47. Udell, M., Horn, C., Zadeh, R., Boyd, S.: Generalized low rank models, generalized low rank models. Found. Trends Mach. Learn. 9, 1–118 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1561/220000005510.1561/2200000055 ↗
48. Forrester, J. I. A., Sobester, A., Keane, J.A.: Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. In Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling: A Practical Guide, pp. 33–76, https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470770801 (2008)10.1002/9780470770801 ↗
49. Ryu, J., Kim, K., Lee, T., Choi, D.: Kriging interpolation methods in geostatistics and DACE model. Korean Soc. Mech. Eng. Int. J. 16, 619–632 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0318481110.1007/BF03184811 ↗
50. Gneiting, T., Kleiber, W., Schlather, M.: Matern cross-covariance functions for multivariate random fields. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 105, 1167–1177 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2010.tm0942010.1198/jasa.2010.tm09420 ↗
51. Stigler, S .M.: The epic story of maximum likelihood. Stat. Sci. 22, 592–620 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1214/07-STS24910.1214/07-STS249 ↗
52. Currin, C., Mitchell, T., Morris, M., Ylvisaker, D.: A Bayesian Approach to the Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments. Technical Report 6498, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1988)
53. Xiong, S., Qian, P.Z., Wu, C.J.: Sequential design and analysis of high-accuracy and low-accuracy computer codes. Technometrics 55, 37–46 (2013)10.1080/00401706.2012.723572 ↗
54. Park, J.S.: Tuning complex computer codes to data and optimal designs. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Champaign (1991)
55. Gurrala, P., Chen, K., Song, J., Roberts, R.: Full wave modeling of ultrasonic NDE benchmark problems using nystrom method. Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestruct. Eval. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.497472710.1063/1.4974727 ↗
56. Schmerr, L.: Fundamentals of Ultrasonic Nondestructive Evaluation: A Modeling Approach. Springer, New York (2013)