Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (63)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = sobol global sensitivity

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
15 pages, 5565 KiB  
Article
The Sensitivity Analysis of Parameters in the 1D–2D Coupled Model for Urban Flooding
by Zuohuai Tang, Junying Chu, Zuhao Zhou, Tianhong Zhou and Kangqi Yuan
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(4), 2157; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15042157 - 18 Feb 2025
Viewed by 268
Abstract
The ongoing changes in climate and the rapid pace of urbanization are contributing to an alarming increase in the prevalence of urban flooding, which is having a profound impact on the quality of life for residents and the smooth functioning of urban areas. [...] Read more.
The ongoing changes in climate and the rapid pace of urbanization are contributing to an alarming increase in the prevalence of urban flooding, which is having a profound impact on the quality of life for residents and the smooth functioning of urban areas. The 1D–2D coupled model is an effective tool for simulating the process of urban flooding, thereby providing a scientific basis for urban planning, flood prevention, and mitigation strategies. The values of numerous parameters within the model not only influence the computational efficiency but also influence the precision of the simulation outcomes. It is of particular significance to ascertain the sensitivity of model parameters. In this study, a 1D–2D coupled model of urban flooding was constructed, and a parameter sensitivity analysis was conducted using the modified Morris method and the Sobol method in two ways, with the amount of waterlogging as the target. The findings indicate that the minimum infiltration rate is the most sensitive parameter in the local sensitivity analysis, whereas the Manning coefficient of the permeable surface area is the most sensitive in the global sensitivity analysis. The research outcomes can facilitate the optimization of the model parameters and enhance the precision and dependability of the model predictions, thereby providing more accurate data support for urban flooding early warning and emergency response. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Identification of rainfall patterns with long durations in Nanchang City.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Geographic location of Honggutan District and distribution of existing waterlogging points.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Simplified coupled model diagrams: (<b>a</b>) simplified SWMM diagram; (<b>b</b>) simplified Telemac diagram.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Morris method sensitivity analysis. (<b>a</b>) Sensitivity <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>i</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> of different parameters; (<b>b</b>) Sensitivity strength ranking <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>i</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>*</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> of different parameters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Sobol sensitivity analysis: (<b>a</b>)<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mtext> </mtext> <msub> <mrow> <mi>S</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> sensitivity; (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>S</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> sensitivity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of Sobol’s <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mtext> </mtext> <msub> <mrow> <mi>S</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>S</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> result.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 2843 KiB  
Article
The Application of Structural Reliability and Sensitivity Analysis in Engineering Practice
by Urszula Radoń and Paweł Zabojszcza
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(1), 342; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010342 - 1 Jan 2025
Viewed by 748
Abstract
Standard safety assessments of civil engineering systems are conducted using safety factors. An alternative method to this approach is the assessment of the engineering system using reliability analysis of the structure. In reliability analysis of the structure, both the uncertainty of the load [...] Read more.
Standard safety assessments of civil engineering systems are conducted using safety factors. An alternative method to this approach is the assessment of the engineering system using reliability analysis of the structure. In reliability analysis of the structure, both the uncertainty of the load and the properties of the materials or geometry are explicitly taken into account. The uncertainties are described in a probabilistic manner. After defining the ultimate and serviceability limit state functions, we can calculate the failure probability for each state. When assessing structural reliability, it is useful to calculate measures that provide information about the influence of random parameters on the failure probability. Classical measures are vectors, whose coordinates are the first partial derivatives of reliability indices evaluated in the design point. These values are obtained as a by-product of the First-Order Reliability Method. Furthermore, we use Sobol indices to describe the sensitivity of the failure probability to input random variables. Computations of the Sobol indices are carried out using the classic Monte Carlo method. The aim of this article is not to define new sensitivity measures, but to show the advantages of using structural reliability and sensitivity analysis in everyday design practice. Using a simple cantilever beam as an example, we will present calculations of probability failure and local and global sensitivity measures. The calculations will be performed using COMREL modules of the STRUREL computing environment. Based on the results obtained from the sensitivity analysis, we can conclude that in the case of the serviceability limit state, the most significant influence on the results is exerted by variables related to the geometry of the beam under consideration. The influence of changes in Young’s modulus and load on the probability of failure is minimal. In further calculations, these quantities can be treated as deterministic. In the case of the ultimate limit state, the influence of changes in the yield strength is significant. The influence of changes in the load and length of the beam is significantly smaller. The authors present two alternative ways of designing with a probabilistic approach, using the FORM (SORM) and Monte Carlo simulation. The approximation FORM cannot be used in every case in connection with gradient determination problems. In such cases, it is worth using the Monte Carlo simulation method. The results of both methods are comparable. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Illustration of limit state function g(<b>x</b>), safe area Ω<sub>s</sub>, and failure area Ω<sub>f</sub> for two random variables.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Transformation of a limit state function to a standard Gaussian space.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Concept of the Monte Carlo method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Illustration of the elasticity of reliability index β as a function of parameter p.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Geometry and load of the cantilever beam.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Graphical illustration of the coordinates of vector <b>α</b> for SLS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Graphical illustration of the elasticity of the reliability index based on mean value for SLS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Graphical illustration of the elasticity of the reliability index based on standard deviation for SLS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Graphical illustration of the coordinates of vector <b>α</b> for ULS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Graphical illustration of the elasticity of the reliability index based on mean value for ULS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Graphical illustration of the elasticity of the reliability index based on standard deviation for ULS.</p>
Full article ">
27 pages, 3052 KiB  
Article
Sensitivity Analysis of Factors Influencing Coal Prices in China
by Jingye Lyu, Chong Li, Wenwen Zhou and Jinsuo Zhang
Mathematics 2024, 12(24), 4019; https://doi.org/10.3390/math12244019 - 21 Dec 2024
Viewed by 739
Abstract
A scientific assessment of the sensitivity of the Chinese coal market has become an important research topic. This paper combines Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) and Sobol sensitivity analysis to construct a GPR–Sobol hybrid model innovatively applied to the Chinese coal market, thus addressing [...] Read more.
A scientific assessment of the sensitivity of the Chinese coal market has become an important research topic. This paper combines Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) and Sobol sensitivity analysis to construct a GPR–Sobol hybrid model innovatively applied to the Chinese coal market, thus addressing a gap in the economic applications of this method. The model is used to analyze the sensitivity of factors influencing coal prices in China. The GPR–Sobol model effectively handles nonlinear relationships, enabling an in-depth exploration of key factors affecting price volatility and quantifying their impacts, thus overcoming the limitations of traditional econometric models in nonlinear data processing. The results indicate that economic growth, energy prices, interest rates, exchange rates, and uncertainty factors exhibit high sensitivity and significantly impact coal price fluctuations in China. Coal prices in northwest China are more sensitive to interest rates and geopolitical risks, while prices in east and south China are more responsive to exchange rates but less so to economic policy uncertainty. Additionally, coal prices in north, south, and east China are highly sensitive to international energy prices, indicating that coal prices are dominated by the global energy market, yet their weak response to macroeconomic indicators suggests these regions is still insufficiently mature. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Coal prices in China’s seven major regions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Theoretical analysis of factors influencing coal prices.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Predicted and actual values for seven regional markets: (<b>a</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of HB; (<b>b</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of HZ; (<b>c</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of HD; (<b>d</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of HN; (<b>e</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of XB; (<b>f</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of XN; (<b>g</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of DB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3 Cont.
<p>Predicted and actual values for seven regional markets: (<b>a</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of HB; (<b>b</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of HZ; (<b>c</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of HD; (<b>d</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of HN; (<b>e</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of XB; (<b>f</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of XN; (<b>g</b>) predicted values vs. actual values of DB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>First-order sensitivity index (S1).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>S1 of factors influencing coal prices in China: (<b>a</b>) S1 of factors influencing coal prices in HB; (<b>b</b>) S1 of factors influencing coal prices in HZ; (<b>c</b>) S1 of factors influencing coal prices in HD; (<b>d</b>) S1 of factors influencing coal prices in HN; (<b>e</b>) S1 of factors influencing coal prices in XB; (<b>f</b>) S1 of factors influencing coal prices in XN; (<b>g</b>) S1 of factors influencing coal prices in DB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The results of Gaussian regression and the Sobol index of thermal coal (Q5500K) at Qinhuangdao Port: (<b>a</b>) Gaussian regression results of thermal coal (Q5500K) at Qinhuangdao Port; (<b>b</b>) Sobol index of Qinhuangdao Port closing price thermal coal (Q5500K).</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 2006 KiB  
Article
Sensitivity Analysis Study of Engine Control Parameters on Sustainable Engine Performance
by Bingfeng Huang, Wei Hong, Kun Shao and Heng Wu
Sustainability 2024, 16(24), 11107; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411107 - 18 Dec 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 654
Abstract
With the increasing global concern for environmental protection and sustainable resource utilization, sustainable engine performance has become the focus of research. This study conducts a sensitivity analysis of the key parameters affecting the performance of sustainable engines, aiming to provide a scientific basis [...] Read more.
With the increasing global concern for environmental protection and sustainable resource utilization, sustainable engine performance has become the focus of research. This study conducts a sensitivity analysis of the key parameters affecting the performance of sustainable engines, aiming to provide a scientific basis for the optimal design and operation of engines to promote the sustainable development of the transportation industry. The performance of an engine is essentially determined by the combustion process, which in turn depends on the fuel characteristics and the work cycle mode suitability of the technical architecture of the engine itself (oil-engine synergy). Currently, there is a lack of theoretical support and means of reference for the sensitivity analysis of the core parameters of oil–engine synergy. Recognizing the problems of unclear methods of defining sensitivity parameters, unclear influence mechanisms, and imperfect model construction, this paper proposes an evaluation method system composed of oil–engine synergistic sensitivity factor determination and quantitative analysis of contribution. The system contains characteristic data acquisition, model construction and research, and sensitivity analysis and application. In this paper, a hierarchical SVM regression model is constructed, with fuel physicochemical characteristics and engine control parameters as input variables, combustion process parameters as an intermediate layer, and diesel engine performance as output parameters. After substituting the characteristic data into the model, the following results were obtained, R2 > 0.9, MSE < 0.014, MAPE < 3.5%, indicating the model has high accuracy. On this basis, a sensitivity analysis was performed using the Sobol sensitivity analysis algorithm. It was concluded that the load parameters had the highest influence on the ID (ignition delay time), combustion duration (CD), and combustion temperature parameters of the combustion elements, reaching 0.24 and above. The influence weight of the main spray strategy was greater than that of the pre-injection strategy. For the sensitivity analysis of the premix ratio, the injection timing, EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) rate, and load have significant influence weights on the premix ratio, while the influence weights of the other parameters are not more than 0.10. In addition, the combustion temperature among the combustion elements has the highest influence weights on the NOx, PM (particulate matter) concentration, and mass, as well as on the BTE (brake thermal efficiency) and BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption). The ID has the highest influence weight on HC and CO at 0.35. Analysis of the influence weights of the index parameters shows that the influence weights of the fuel physicochemical parameters are much lower than those of the engine control parameters, and the influence weights of the fuel CN (cetane number) are about 5% greater than those of the volatility, which is about 3%. From the analysis of the proportion of index parameters, the engine control parameter influence weights are in the following order: load > EGR > injection timing > injection pressure > pre-injection timing> pre-injection ratio. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Technology Applications in Sustainable Energy and Power Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic diagram of the engine stand.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic digamma of SVM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison of training and test data for NOx and CO in SVMs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Input parameter impact weights for the ID.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>HC impact weighting analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Weighting of the impact of each parameter on the indicator parameter.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 5855 KiB  
Article
Suspension Parameter Estimation Method for Heavy-Duty Freight Trains Based on Deep Learning
by Changfan Zhang, Yuxuan Wang and Jing He
Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2024, 8(12), 181; https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc8120181 - 4 Dec 2024
Viewed by 689
Abstract
The suspension parameters of heavy-duty freight trains can deviate from their initial design values due to material aging and performance degradation. While traditional multibody dynamics simulation models are usually designed for fixed working conditions, it is difficult for them to adequately analyze the [...] Read more.
The suspension parameters of heavy-duty freight trains can deviate from their initial design values due to material aging and performance degradation. While traditional multibody dynamics simulation models are usually designed for fixed working conditions, it is difficult for them to adequately analyze the safety status of the vehicle–line system in actual operation. To address this issue, this research provides a suspension parameter estimation technique based on CNN-GRU. Firstly, a prototype C80 train was utilized to build a simulation model for multibody dynamics. Secondly, six key suspension parameters for wheel–rail force were selected using the Sobol global sensitivity analysis method. Then, a CNN-GRU proxy model was constructed, with the actually measured wheel–rail forces as a reference. By combining this approach with NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II), the key suspension parameters were calculated. Finally, the estimated parameter values were applied into the vehicle–line coupled multibody dynamical model and validated. The results show that, with the corrected dynamical model, the relative errors of the simulated wheel–rail force are reduced from 9.28%, 6.24% and 18.11% to 7%, 4.52% and 10.44%, corresponding to straight, curve, and long and steep uphill conditions, respectively. The wheel–rail force simulation’s precision is increased, indicating that the proposed method is effective in estimating the suspension parameters for heavy-duty freight trains. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Perception and Detection of Intelligent Vision)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Overall block diagram of CNN-GRU parameter estimation algorithm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Sensitivity analysis results of dynamical parameters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Architecture of the CNN-GRU agent model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of SIMPACK simulation values and model prediction values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Instrumented wheelset detection system.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Schematic depiction of the NSGA-II principle.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Flow diagram of NSGA-II.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Convergence of primary suspension longitudinal stiffness.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The Pareto frontier of NSGA-II.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparison of predicted and simulated values of wheel–track lateral interaction force by different combinations of models and algorithms.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10 Cont.
<p>Comparison of predicted and simulated values of wheel–track lateral interaction force by different combinations of models and algorithms.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of predicted and simulated values of wheel–track vertical interaction force by integrating various models and algorithms.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11 Cont.
<p>Comparison of predicted and simulated values of wheel–track vertical interaction force by integrating various models and algorithms.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Comparison of simulated and measured values of wheel–track lateral interaction force before and after using the estimated parameters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Comparison of simulated and real-world values of wheel–track lateral interaction force after using the estimated parameters.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 2917 KiB  
Article
Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis of the GeeSEBAL Model Using High-Resolution Remote-Sensing Data and Global Flux Site Data
by Shunjun Hu, Changyan Tian and Ping Jiao
Water 2024, 16(20), 2978; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16202978 - 18 Oct 2024
Viewed by 829
Abstract
Actual evapotranspiration (ETa) is an important component of the surface water cycle. The geeSEBAL model is increasingly being used to estimate ETa using high-resolution remote-sensing data (Landsat 4/5/7/8). However, due to surface heterogeneity, there is significant uncertainty. By optimizing [...] Read more.
Actual evapotranspiration (ETa) is an important component of the surface water cycle. The geeSEBAL model is increasingly being used to estimate ETa using high-resolution remote-sensing data (Landsat 4/5/7/8). However, due to surface heterogeneity, there is significant uncertainty. By optimizing the quantile values of the reverse-modelling automatic calibration algorithm (CIMEC) endpoint-component selection algorithm under extreme conditions through 212 global flux sites, we obtained the optimized quantile values of 11 vegetation types of cold- and hot-pixel endpoint components (Ts and NDVI). Based on the observation data of the global FLUXNET tower, the sensitivity of 20 parameters in the improved geeSEBAL model was determined through Sobol’s sensitivity analysis. Among them, the parameters dT and SAVI,hot were confirmed as the most sensitive parameters of the algorithm. Subsequently, we used the differential evolution Markov chain (DE-MC) method to analyse the uncertainty of the parameters in the geeSEBAL model used the posterior distribution of the parameters to modify the sensitive parameter values or ranges in the improved geeSEBAL model and to simulate the daily ETa. The results indicate that by analysing the end element components of the geeSEBAL model (Ts and NDVI), quantile numerical optimization and parameter optimization can be performed. Compared with the original algorithm, the improved geeSEBAL model has significantly improved simulation performance, as shown by higher R2 values, higher NSE values, smaller bias values, and lower RMSE values. The most suitable values of the predefined parameter Zoh were determined, and the reanalysis of meteorological data inputs (relative humidity (RH), temperature (T), wind speed (WS), and net radiation (Rn)) was also found to be an important source of uncertainty for the accurate estimation of ETa. This study indicates that optimizing the quantiles and key parameters of the model end component has certain potential for further improving the accuracy of the geeSEBAL model based on high-resolution remote-sensing data in estimating the ETa for various vegetation types. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agricultural Water-Land-Plant System Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Framework diagram of geeSEBAL model based on the CIMEC algorithm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Spatial distribution of available global flux sites in the FLUXNET2015 dataset (review number: GS (2021) 6375).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Changes in the quantile value q of end-element components on cold and hot pixels Δ<span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>s</sub>, Δ<span class="html-italic">ET</span><sub>a</sub>, Δ<span class="html-italic">NDVI,</span> and Δ<span class="html-italic">H</span> sensitivity: the high and low lines in the graph represent the maximum and minimum changes, and the points represent the average changes. (<b>a</b>) Δ<span class="html-italic">T</span> − <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>s,q</sub>, (<b>b</b>) Δ<span class="html-italic">ET</span><sub>a</sub> − <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>s,q</sub>, (<b>c</b>) Δ<span class="html-italic">NDVI</span> − <span class="html-italic">NDVI</span><sub>,q</sub> and (<b>d</b>) Δ<span class="html-italic">H</span> − <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>s,q</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Sensitivity of the Sobol first-order and total-order parameters for different vegetation types.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>First-order (Si) (<b>a</b>) and full-order (Sti) (<b>b</b>) sensitivity analyses of the SEBAL model parameters based on Sobol’s method. The red dotted line and the black dotted line represent 0.1 and 0, respectively, and the parameters above the red dashed line are extremely sensitive parameters, and the parameters above the black dashed line are sensitive parameters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Posterior distribution of the geeSEBAL model parameters for various vegetation types.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>Posterior distribution of the geeSEBAL model parameters for various vegetation types.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>ERA5 Meteorological input evaluation station verification Taylor chart relative humidity <span class="html-italic">RH</span> (<b>a</b>), temperature <span class="html-italic">T</span> (<b>b</b>), wind speed <span class="html-italic">WS</span> (<b>c</b>), and net radiation <span class="html-italic">R</span><sub>n</sub> (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 10053 KiB  
Article
Sensitivity Analysis of Fatigue Life for Cracked Carbon-Fiber Structures Based on Surrogate Sampling and Kriging Model under Distribution Parameter Uncertainty
by Haodong Liu, Zheng Liu, Liang Tu, Jinlong Liang and Yuhao Zhang
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(18), 8313; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14188313 - 15 Sep 2024
Viewed by 943
Abstract
The quality and reliability of wind turbine blades, as core components of wind turbines, are crucial for the operational safety of the entire system. Carbon fiber is the primary material for wind turbine blades. However, during the manufacturing process, manual intervention inevitably introduces [...] Read more.
The quality and reliability of wind turbine blades, as core components of wind turbines, are crucial for the operational safety of the entire system. Carbon fiber is the primary material for wind turbine blades. However, during the manufacturing process, manual intervention inevitably introduces minor defects, which can lead to crack propagation under complex working conditions. Due to limited understanding and measurement capabilities of the input variables of structural systems, the distribution parameters of these variables often exhibit uncertainty. Therefore, it is essential to assess the impact of distribution parameter uncertainty on the fatigue performance of carbon-fiber structures with initial cracks and quickly identify the key distribution parameters affecting their reliability through global sensitivity analysis. This paper proposes a sensitivity analysis method based on surrogate sampling and the Kriging model to address the computational challenges and engineering application difficulties in distribution parameter sensitivity analysis. First, fatigue tests were conducted on carbon-fiber structures with initial cracks to study the dispersion of their fatigue life under different initial crack lengths. Next, based on the Hashin fatigue failure criterion, a simulation analysis method for the fatigue cumulative damage life of cracked carbon-fiber structures was proposed. By introducing uncertainty parameters into the simulation model, a training sample set was obtained, and a Kriging model describing the relationship between distribution parameters and fatigue life was established. Finally, an efficient input variable sampling method using the surrogate sampling probability density function was introduced, and a Sobol sensitivity analysis method based on surrogate sampling and the Kriging model was proposed. The results show that this method significantly reduces the computational burden of distribution parameter sensitivity analysis while ensuring computational accuracy. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Manufacturing Process of Wind Turbine Blades.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic Diagram of Distribution Parameter Uncertainty Transfer.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Sensitivity Index Solving Process Based on Kriging and Surrogate Sampling.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Geometry of the Specimen.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Experimental Procedure. (<b>a</b>) Tensile strength testing; (<b>b</b>) fatigue testing; (<b>c</b>) fracture details.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Experimental Data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Finite Element Model Setup.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Cumulative Fatigue Damage Flow Chart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Stress Cloud of Cracked Carbon Fibers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparison of Fatigue Life Simulation and Experimental Results.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Flowchart of Cyclic Calculation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Model Prediction Results.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Comparison of Life Prediction Results from Different Models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Fatigue Life Frequency Fitting Curves.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Comparison of Sensitivity Index Results.</p>
Full article ">
31 pages, 29333 KiB  
Article
VARS and HDMR Sensitivity Analysis of Groundwater Flow Modeling through an Alluvial Aquifer Subject to Tidal Effects
by Javier Samper, Brais Sobral, Bruno Pisani, Alba Mon, Carlos López-Vázquez and Javier Samper-Pilar
Water 2024, 16(17), 2526; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16172526 - 5 Sep 2024
Viewed by 1088
Abstract
Groundwater flow and transport models are essential tools for assessing and quantifying the migration of organic contaminants at polluted sites. Uncertainties in the hydrodynamic and transport parameters of the aquifer have a significant effect on model predictions. Uncertainties can be quantified with advanced [...] Read more.
Groundwater flow and transport models are essential tools for assessing and quantifying the migration of organic contaminants at polluted sites. Uncertainties in the hydrodynamic and transport parameters of the aquifer have a significant effect on model predictions. Uncertainties can be quantified with advanced sensitivity methods such as Sobol’s High Dimensional Model Reduction (HDMR) and Variogram Analysis of Response Surfaces (VARS). Here we present the application of VARS and HDMR to assess the global sensitivities of the outputs of a transient groundwater flow model of the Gállego alluvial aquifer which is located downstream of the Sardas landfill in Huesca (Spain). The aquifer is subject to the tidal effects caused by the daily oscillations of the water level in the Sabiñánigo reservoir. Global sensitivities are analyzed for hydraulic heads, aquifer/reservoir fluxes, groundwater Darcy velocity, and hydraulic head calibration metrics. Input parameters include aquifer hydraulic conductivities and specific storage, aquitard vertical hydraulic conductivities, and boundary inflows and conductances. VARS, HDMR, and graphical methods agree to identify the most influential parameters, which for most of the outputs are the hydraulic conductivities of the zones closest to the landfill, the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the most permeable zones of the aquitard, and the boundary inflow coming from the landfill. The sensitivity of heads and aquifer/reservoir fluxes with respect to specific storage change with time. The aquifer/reservoir flux when the reservoir level is high shows interactions between specific storage and aquitard conductivity. VARS and HDMR parameter rankings are similar for the most influential parameters. However, there are discrepancies for the less relevant parameters. The efficiency of VARS was demonstrated by achieving stable results with a relatively small number of simulations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrogeology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Flowchart of the methodology used in this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Location of the study area; (<b>b</b>) enlargement showing the model domain, the Sabiñánigo reservoir, the Sardas landfill, the Gállego River course, and the INQUINOSA (Sabiñánigo, Spain) former production site. The arrows along the Gállego River course indicate the flow direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Cross-sectional geological profile of the Sabiñánigo reservoir and the Gállego River alluvial plain as reported by Sobral et al. [<a href="#B38-water-16-02526" class="html-bibr">38</a>]. Alluvial deposits include a shallow silt layer (green) and a deep layer of sand and gravel.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>2D finite element mesh, monitoring wells, material zones, boundary conditions, and GSA input parameters (<b>top plot</b>) and enlargement showing the area downstream of the Sardas landfill (<b>bottom plot</b>). The confined storage coefficient (S<sub>S</sub>) is the same in the four material zones. The sands and gravels are assumed to be confined in the alluvial (r<sub>c</sub>), except in the wooded areas (r<sub>u</sub>). Unconfined areas are shown with a back-hashed polygon.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Map showing the reservoir tail area (hashed blue polygon) where aquifer/reservoir fluxes were calculated at times t1, t2, and t3, the monitoring wells whose piezometric data were used to calculate the calibration metrics, monitoring wells ST1C, PS19B, SPN1, and PS16C (where the average Darcy velocity is computed).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Measured reservoir hydrograph and piezometric heads in well ST1C from 18–20 September 2020. The computed piezometric heads in monitoring wells ST1C, PS19B, and SPN1 and the aquifer/reservoir fluxes are analyzed at the following times: (1) t1, 18 September 2020, 20:00 (low reservoir water level), (2) t2, 18 September 2020, 22:30 (peak reservoir water level) and (3) t3, 19 September 2020, 04:30 (descending reservoir water level).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Scatterplots of the computed piezometric heads in wells ST1Ct2 (<b>upper left plot</b>), PS19Bt2 (<b>upper right plot</b>), SPN1t2 (<b>lower left plot</b>), and Qt2 (<b>lower right plot</b>) versus the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the silting sediments in the former river course (Kvs1). The sample of 16384 points was generated with a Sobol sequence. The clouds of plots are shown for the following three ranges of percentiles, p, of the specific storage coefficient (S<sub>S</sub>): (1) p &lt; 30%; (2) 30% &lt; p &lt; 70%, and (3) p &gt; 70%.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>CUSUNORO curves of computed head in wells ST1C and PS19B at times t1, t2 and t3; and well SPN1 at times t1 and t2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>CUSUNORO curves of the computed head in well SPN1 at time t3, MAEg, NRMSEg, NSEg, Q<sub>t1</sub>, Q<sub>t2</sub>, Q<sub>t3</sub>, and q<sub>av</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>IVARS<sub>50</sub> indexes of input parameters as a function of the number of star centers for MAEg (<b>upper plot</b>), and robustness of ranking as a function of the number of star centers (<b>bottom plot</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>IVARS<sub>50</sub> indexes of input parameters as a function of the number of star centers for the average Darcy velocity (q<sub>av</sub>) (<b>upper plot</b>), and robustness of ranking as a function of the number of star centers (<b>bottom plot</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Sample variograms of the computed heads in monitoring wells ST1C and PS19B at times t1, t2, and t3 and monitoring well SPN1 at times t1 and t2. Only the variograms of the five most influential parameters are shown in the plots.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Sample variograms of the computed head in well SPN1 at time t3, MAEg, NRMSEg, NSEg, Q<sub>t1</sub>, Q<sub>t2</sub>, Q<sub>t3</sub>, and q<sub>av</sub>. Only the variograms of the five most influential parameters are shown in the plots.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>VARS-TO, IVARS<sub>50</sub>, and VARS-ABE indexes for the computed heads in wells ST1C and PS19B at times t1, t2, and t3 and well SPN1 at times t1 and t2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>VARS-TO, IVARS<sub>50</sub>, and VARS-ABE indexes for the computed head in well SPN1 at time t3, MAEg, NRMSEg, NSEg, Q<sub>t1</sub>, Q<sub>t2</sub>, Q<sub>t3</sub>, and q<sub>av</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>IVARS<sub>50</sub> sensitivity indexes for computed heads in wells ST1C (<b>top left plot</b>), PS19B (<b>top right plot</b>), and SPN1 (<b>bottom left plot</b>) and aquifer/reservoir flow (<b>bottom right plot</b>) at times t1, t2, and t3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>IVARS<sub>50</sub> sensitivity indexes for calibration metrics MAEg, NRMSEg, and NSEg.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 5940 KiB  
Article
Electromagnetic Fields Calculation and Optimization of Structural Parameters for Axial and Radial Helical Air-Core Inductors
by Jinguo Wu, Yujie Zhang, Bin Yang, Sihan Li and Haipeng Song
Electronics 2024, 13(17), 3463; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13173463 - 31 Aug 2024
Viewed by 857
Abstract
To improve the current density distribution and electromagnetic performance of air-core inductors, a structural optimization method combining back-propagation(BP) neural network and genetic algorithm(GA) is proposed for the study of axial and radial spiral multi-winding inductors. The Monte Carlo method was used to extract [...] Read more.
To improve the current density distribution and electromagnetic performance of air-core inductors, a structural optimization method combining back-propagation(BP) neural network and genetic algorithm(GA) is proposed for the study of axial and radial spiral multi-winding inductors. The Monte Carlo method was used to extract the structural size samples of the inductors, and the training dataset was obtained through the finite element calculation of electromagnetic fields. Based on BP neural networks, nonlinear mapping models between the inductance value, volumetric inductance density, current distribution non-uniformity coefficient, and inductor structural parameters were constructed. A sensitivity analysis of the inductor inductance value affected by the structural parameters was conducted using the Sobol index calculation. Using the current distribution non-uniformity coefficient as the fitness function and the volumetric inductance density as the constraint condition, a genetic algorithm was applied to globally optimize the structural parameters of the inductor. The optimization results were verified through a finite element comparison. The results show that, under the requirement of satisfying the volumetric inductance density, the current distribution non-uniformity coefficient of the Axial Helical Inductor (AHI)-type inductor was reduced by 4.57% compared with the best sample in the sampling, while that of the Radial Helical Inductor (RHI)-type inductor was reduced by 5.33%, demonstrating the practicality of the BP-GA joint algorithm in the structural optimization design of inductors. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>3D models of two types of inductors: (<b>a</b>) AHI and (<b>b</b>) RHI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Structural parameters of two types of inductors: (<b>a</b>) AHI and (<b>b</b>) RHI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Finite element mesh: (<b>a</b>) AHI and (<b>b</b>) RHI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Spatial distribution of magnetic flux density around inductors: (<b>a</b>) AHI and (<b>b</b>) RHI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Radial and axial variation of the flux density of inductors: (<b>a</b>) AHI and (<b>b</b>) RHI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>BP neural network model training results for two types of inductors: (<b>a</b>) Inductance <span class="html-italic">L</span> of AHI (<b>b</b>) Inductance <span class="html-italic">L</span> of RHI (<b>c</b>) Volumetric inductance density <span class="html-italic">L/V</span> of AHI (<b>d</b>) Volumetric inductance density <span class="html-italic">L/V</span> of RHI (<b>e</b>) Current distribution non-uniformity coefficient <span class="html-italic">W<sub>j</sub></span> of AHI (<b>f</b>) Current distribution non-uniformity coefficient <span class="html-italic">W<sub>j</sub></span> of RHI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Sobol index of structural parameters for two types of inductors: (<b>a</b>) AHI and (<b>b</b>) RHI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Variation in inductance of inductor with excitation frequency: (<b>a</b>) AHI (<b>b</b>) RHI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Magnetic flux density distribution of inductors at 500 Hz and 2000 Hz frequencies: (<b>a</b>) AHI 500 Hz (<b>b</b>) AHI 2000 Hz (<b>c</b>) RHI 500 Hz (<b>d</b>) RHI 2000 Hz.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The optimization process of the BP-GA joint algorithm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Fitness evolution curve: (<b>a</b>) AHI and (<b>b</b>) RHI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The optimized inductor finite element simulation results: (<b>a</b>) Magnetic flux density distribution of AHI (<b>b</b>) Magnetic flux density distribution of RHI (<b>c</b>) Current density distribution of AHI (<b>d</b>) Current density distribution of RHI.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 14055 KiB  
Article
Aerodynamic Characteristics and Its Sensitivity Analysis of a Cylindrical Projectile at Different Incidences
by Shenghai Jiao, Ling Tao, Hao Wang, Xiao Wang and Wenjun Ruan
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(15), 6683; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14156683 - 31 Jul 2024
Viewed by 1070
Abstract
The accurate evaluation of aerodynamic characteristics is a prerequisite and foundation for the design of high-performance aerodynamic shapes, navigation guidance, and strength of projectiles. The nonlinearity of aerodynamic calculations for a projectile is high, and the modeling and simulation are difficult, especially under [...] Read more.
The accurate evaluation of aerodynamic characteristics is a prerequisite and foundation for the design of high-performance aerodynamic shapes, navigation guidance, and strength of projectiles. The nonlinearity of aerodynamic calculations for a projectile is high, and the modeling and simulation are difficult, especially under the high-angle of attack flight conditions. Small variations in flight conditions, and structural parameters, etc., may cause large deviations in aerodynamic responses. Taking a small cylindrical projectile as an example, and to realize its attitude control, it is necessary to conduct aerodynamic characteristics analysis on it and analyze the main influencing factors of its aerodynamic characteristics parameters. In this paper, the finite volume method is used to solve the three-dimensional unsteady N-S equation, combined with the SST k-ω turbulence model, the overlapping grid technology, and the forced pitching vibration method, and the aerodynamic characteristics analysis model of the projectile is established, which realizes the accurate simulation of the surrounding flow field, aerodynamic coefficients, and dynamic derivative of the projectile under different flight conditions. On this basis, the Sobol global sensitivity analysis method based on the augmented radial basis function surrogate model of aerodynamics characteristics and Latin hypercube sampling is used to efficiently analyze and obtain the main influence parameters of cylindrical projectile aerodynamic characteristics. This paper provides a basic theory and fast algorithm for subsequent engineering system design, which has important theoretical and engineering value. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Fluid Science and Technology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Basic model of the cylindrical projectile.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of the aerodynamic characteristics simulation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Meshing of the external flow field zone and surface of the projectile.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Velocity vector diagram and its streamline distribution diagram on the symmetry plane with different angles of attack. (<b>a</b>) The attack angles of 0°; (<b>b</b>) The attack angles of 10°; (<b>c</b>) The attack angles of 30°; (<b>d</b>) The attack angles of 60°; (<b>e</b>) The attack angles of 90°.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Velocity distribution of circumferential flow field with different angles of attack. (<b>a</b>) The attack angles of 0°; (<b>b</b>) The attack angles of 10°; (<b>c</b>) The attack angles of 30°; (<b>d</b>) The attack angles of 60°; (<b>e</b>)the attack angles of 90°.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Aerodynamic coefficients in the pitch plane at different initial angles of attack. (<b>a</b>) The lift coefficient; (<b>b</b>) The Lift-to-drag ratio; (<b>c</b>) The Pitch moment coefficient.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Histogram of sensitivity analysis results at the angle of attack at 10°. (<b>a</b>) The first-order sensitivity; (<b>b</b>) The total sensitivity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Histogram of total sensitivity analysis results of the pitch moment coefficient with the different angles of attack.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 5511 KiB  
Article
Global Sensitivity Analysis of Structural Reliability Using Cliff Delta
by Zdeněk Kala
Mathematics 2024, 12(13), 2129; https://doi.org/10.3390/math12132129 - 7 Jul 2024
Viewed by 2186
Abstract
This paper introduces innovative sensitivity indices based on Cliff’s Delta for the global sensitivity analysis of structural reliability. These indices build on the Sobol’ method, using binary outcomes (success or failure), but avoid the need to calculate failure probability Pf and the [...] Read more.
This paper introduces innovative sensitivity indices based on Cliff’s Delta for the global sensitivity analysis of structural reliability. These indices build on the Sobol’ method, using binary outcomes (success or failure), but avoid the need to calculate failure probability Pf and the associated distributional assumptions of resistance R and load F. Cliff’s Delta, originally used for ordinal data, evaluates the dominance of resistance over load without specific assumptions. The mathematical formulations for computing Cliff’s Delta between R and F quantify structural reliability by assessing the random realizations of R > F using a double-nested-loop approach. The derived sensitivity indices, based on the squared value of Cliff’s Delta δC2, exhibit properties analogous to those in the Sobol’ sensitivity analysis, including first-order, second-order, and higher-order indices. This provides a framework for evaluating the contributions of input variables on structural reliability. The results demonstrate that the Cliff’s Delta method provides a more accurate estimate of Pf. In one case study, the Cliff’s Delta approach reduces the standard deviation of Pf estimates across various Monte Carlo run counts. This method is particularly significant for FEM applications, where repeated simulations of R or F are computationally intensive. The double-nested-loop algorithm of Cliff’s Delta maximizes the extraction of information about structural reliability from these simulations. However, the high computational demand of Cliff’s Delta is a disadvantage. Future research should optimize computational demands, especially for small values of Pf. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensitivity Analysis and Decision Making)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Cliff’s Delta sensitivity indices for <span class="html-italic">K</span> = 0.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Cliff’s Delta sensitivity indices for <span class="html-italic">K</span> = 1 and <span class="html-italic">K</span> = 2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Cliff’s Delta sensitivity indices for <span class="html-italic">K</span> = 3 and <span class="html-italic">K</span> = 4.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Cliff’s Delta total sensitivity indices for all <span class="html-italic">K</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The results of sensitivity analysis based on failure probability from Equation (22).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Convergence of <span class="html-italic">P<sub>f</sub></span> estimation using basic definition with varying MC run counts.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Convergence of <span class="html-italic">P<sub>f</sub></span> estimation using Cliff’s Delta with varying MC run counts.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Convergence of <span class="html-italic">P<sub>f</sub></span> estimation using Cliff’s Delta with increasing MC runs for <span class="html-italic">F</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Convergence of <span class="html-italic">P<sub>f</sub></span> estimation using Cliff’s Delta with increasing MC runs for <span class="html-italic">F</span>.</p>
Full article ">
25 pages, 4502 KiB  
Article
Parsimonious Random-Forest-Based Land-Use Regression Model Using Particulate Matter Sensors in Berlin, Germany
by Janani Venkatraman Jagatha, Christoph Schneider and Tobias Sauter
Sensors 2024, 24(13), 4193; https://doi.org/10.3390/s24134193 - 27 Jun 2024
Viewed by 1102
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) methods are widely used in particulate matter prediction modelling, especially through use of air quality sensor data. Despite their advantages, these methods’ black-box nature obscures the understanding of how a prediction has been made. Major issues with these types of [...] Read more.
Machine learning (ML) methods are widely used in particulate matter prediction modelling, especially through use of air quality sensor data. Despite their advantages, these methods’ black-box nature obscures the understanding of how a prediction has been made. Major issues with these types of models include the data quality and computational intensity. In this study, we employed feature selection methods using recursive feature elimination and global sensitivity analysis for a random-forest (RF)-based land-use regression model developed for the city of Berlin, Germany. Land-use-based predictors, including local climate zones, leaf area index, daily traffic volume, population density, building types, building heights, and street types were used to create a baseline RF model. Five additional models, three using recursive feature elimination method and two using a Sobol-based global sensitivity analysis (GSA), were implemented, and their performance was compared against that of the baseline RF model. The predictors that had a large effect on the prediction as determined using both the methods are discussed. Through feature elimination, the number of predictors were reduced from 220 in the baseline model to eight in the parsimonious models without sacrificing model performance. The model metrics were compared, which showed that the parsimonious_GSA-based model performs better than does the baseline model and reduces the mean absolute error (MAE) from 8.69 µg/m3 to 3.6 µg/m3 and the root mean squared error (RMSE) from 9.86 µg/m3 to 4.23 µg/m3 when applying the trained model to reference station data. The better performance of the GSA_parsimonious model is made possible by the curtailment of the uncertainties propagated through the model via the reduction of multicollinear and redundant predictors. The parsimonious model validated against reference stations was able to predict the PM2.5 concentrations with an MAE of less than 5 µg/m3 for 10 out of 12 locations. The GSA_parsimonious performed best in all model metrics and improved the R2 from 3% in the baseline model to 17%. However, the predictions exhibited a degree of uncertainty, making it unreliable for regional scale modelling. The GSA_parsimonious model can nevertheless be adapted to local scales to highlight the land-use parameters that are indicative of PM2.5 concentrations in Berlin. Overall, population density, leaf area index, and traffic volume are the major predictors of PM2.5, while building type and local climate zones are the less significant predictors. Feature selection based on sensitivity analysis has a large impact on the model performance. Optimising models through sensitivity analysis can enhance the interpretability of the model dynamics and potentially reduce computational costs and time when modelling is performed for larger areas. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Flowchart showing the methodology of the study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Mobile measurement transects in Berlin-Germany at Hermsdorf, Charlottenburg-Ernst-Reuter-Platz, and Adlershof. The triangular points mark the locations of the official Berlin air quality measurement stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Histogram and density distribution of the PM<sub>2.5</sub> data used in the study. <b>Left:</b> Distribution of the whole data set. <b>Centre:</b> Distribution of the training data that constitute 70% of the entire data. <b>Right:</b> Distribution of the test data that constitute 30% of the whole data set.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The mean test accuracy of predictors selected using RFE with cross-validation. The <span class="html-italic">Y</span>-axis shows the mean test accuracy, and the <span class="html-italic">X</span>-axis shows the selected predictors: leaf area index (LAI), local climate zone (LCZ), population density per hectare (PD_ha), and daily traffic volume (DTV). Categorical data are indicated by “cat” after the name of the predictor. The number at the end of the predictor indicates the buffer size in meter and whether the mean, minimum (min), or maximum (max) of the predictor within the buffer is considered.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Variance decomposition of the random forest model through attribution of the input to the model output variance using the Sobol method. The <span class="html-italic">X</span>-axis shows the sensitivity indices and both the total order sensitivity of the predictors (blue) and the first-order sensitivity (orange) of the predictors. The <span class="html-italic">Y</span>-axis shows the predictors used: leaf area index (LAI), local climate zone (LCZ), population density per hectare (PD_ha), daily traffic volume (DTV), and building type. Categorical data are indicated by “cat” after the name of the predictor. The number at the end of the predictor indicates the buffer size in meter and whether the minimum (min) or maximum (max) of the predictor within the buffer is considered.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Q-Q plot showing the data distributions and model metrics of six random forest models assessed using hold-out validation. The red line shows the best-fit line and the blue circles show the data points. The top left corner of the Q-Q plots show the MSE, MAE, RMSE, NRMSE, and R<sup>2</sup> metrics for the baseline (M1), GSA_parsimonious (M2), GSA_streets models (M3), RFE (M4), RFECV_baseline (M5), and RFECV_parsimonious models (M6) respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Q-Q plot showing the data distributions and model metrics of six random forest models assessed using BLUME station data for validation. The red line shows the best-fit line and the blue circles show the data points. The top left corner of the Q-Q plots show the metrics MSE, MAE, RMSE, NRMSE and R<sup>2</sup> for the models baseline (M1), GSA_parsimonious (M2), GSA_streets models (M3), RFE (M4), RFECV_baseline (M5) and RFECV_parsimonious models, (M6) respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Box plot showing the absolute error at each BLUME station for each of the six models: baseline (M1), GSA_parsimonious (M2), GSA_streets models (M3), RFE (M4), RFECV_baseline (M5), and RFECV_parsimonious (M6). Each plot includes the absolute errors of all the 1000 predicted PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations on the <span class="html-italic">Y</span>-axis and the model used on the <span class="html-italic">X</span>-axis.</p>
Full article ">
27 pages, 4867 KiB  
Article
A Novel Remote Sensing-Based Modeling Approach for Maize Light Extinction Coefficient Determination
by Edson Costa-Filho, José L. Chávez and Huihui Zhang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(6), 1012; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16061012 - 13 Mar 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1371
Abstract
This study focused on developing a novel semi-empirical model for maize’s light extinction coefficient (kp) by integrating multiple remotely sensed vegetation features from several different remote sensing platforms. The proposed kp model’s performance was independently evaluated using Campbell’s (1986) original [...] Read more.
This study focused on developing a novel semi-empirical model for maize’s light extinction coefficient (kp) by integrating multiple remotely sensed vegetation features from several different remote sensing platforms. The proposed kp model’s performance was independently evaluated using Campbell’s (1986) original and simplified kp approaches. The Limited Irrigation Research Farm (LIRF) in Greeley, Colorado, and the Irrigation Innovation Consortium (IIC) in Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, served as experimental sites for developing and evaluating the novel maize kp model. Data collection involved multiple remote sensing platforms, including Landsat-8, Sentinel-2, Planet CubeSat, a Multispectral Handheld Radiometer, and an unmanned aerial system (UAS). Ground measurements of leaf area index (LAI) and fractional vegetation canopy cover (fc) were included. The study evaluated the novel kp model through a comprehensive analysis using statistical error metrics and Sobol global sensitivity indices to assess the performance and sensitivity of the models developed for predicting maize kp. Results indicated that the novel kp model showed strong statistical regression fitting results with a coefficient of determination or R2 of 0.95. Individual remote sensor analysis confirmed consistent regression calibration results among Landsat-8, Sentinel-2, Planet CubeSat, the MSR, and UAS. A comparison with Campbell’s (1986) kp models reveals a 44% improvement in accuracy. A global sensitivity analysis identified the role of the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) as a critical input variable to predict kp across sensors, emphasizing the model’s robustness and potential practical environmental applications. Further research should address sensor-specific variations and expand the kp model’s applicability to a diverse set of environmental and microclimate conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vegetation Structure Monitoring with Multi-Source Remote Sensing Data)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Flowchart of the novel spatial k<sub>p</sub> modeling approach.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The LIRF experiment site in 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021. The sampling locations provided concurrent measurements of the LAI, f<sub>PAR</sub>, and h<sub>c</sub>. In 2020 (Field 1) and 2021 (Field 2), only one sampling location at the frequently irrigated field was part of the experiment design. In 2017 and 2018, each field had its sampling station for maize canopy architecture data. The red areas are vegetation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Maize varieties at the LIRF in 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The IIC experiment site in 2020 and 2021. The sampling locations provided concurrent measurements of the LAI and h<sub>c</sub>. The f<sub>PAR</sub> measurement station is located on the field’s east side. The green areas are vegetation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scatter plots of observed f<sub>c</sub> vs. estimated f<sub>c</sub> (<b>a</b>) and the observed LAI vs. the estimated LAI (<b>b</b>) with the error analysis statistics. LIRF 2018 and 2022 datasets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Scatter plots of observed NDVI<sub>c</sub> vs. estimated NDVI<sub>c</sub> (<b>a</b>) and observed NDVI<sub>soil</sub> vs. estimated NDVI<sub>soil</sub> (<b>b</b>) with the error analysis statistics. LIRF 2018 and 2022 datasets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The fitted k<sub>p</sub> model considering LIRF 2020 and IIC 2020–2021 datasets across all remote sensors in this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The fitted k<sub>p</sub> model parameters considering LIRF 2020 and IIC 2020–2021 datasets across all RS sensors in this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Scatter plots of the calculations regarding <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mfrac> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>df</mi> </mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">c</mi> </msub> </mrow> </mfrac> <mfenced> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>NDVI</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>min</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </mfenced> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mfrac> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>df</mi> </mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">c</mi> </msub> </mrow> </mfrac> <mfenced> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>NDVI</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>max</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </mfenced> </mrow> </semantics></math> values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Scatter plots of observed k<sub>p</sub> vs. estimated k<sub>p</sub> regarding the novel k<sub>p</sub> approach (<b>a</b>), the original [<a href="#B27-remotesensing-16-01012" class="html-bibr">27</a>] k<sub>p</sub> model (<b>b</b>), and the simplified [<a href="#B27-remotesensing-16-01012" class="html-bibr">27</a>] k<sub>p</sub> model (<b>c</b>). This analysis involved LIRF 2018 and 2022 datasets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Bar plots for the NBME and NRMSE of estimated k<sub>p</sub> values for each remote sensor. This analysis involved LIRF 2018 and 2022 datasets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Bar plots of observed Sobol global sensitivity indices for the novel k<sub>p</sub> model.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 3665 KiB  
Article
Global Sensitivity Analysis of Factors Influencing the Surface Temperature of Mold during Autoclave Processing
by Jiayang He, Lihua Zhan, Youliang Yang and Yongqian Xu
Polymers 2024, 16(5), 705; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16050705 - 5 Mar 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1306
Abstract
During the process of forming carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) in an autoclave, deeply understanding the global sensitivity of factors influencing mold surface temperature is of paramount importance for optimizing large frame-type mold thermally and enhancing curing quality. In this study, the convective [...] Read more.
During the process of forming carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) in an autoclave, deeply understanding the global sensitivity of factors influencing mold surface temperature is of paramount importance for optimizing large frame-type mold thermally and enhancing curing quality. In this study, the convective heat transfer coefficient (CHTC), the thickness of composite laminates (TCL), the thickness of mold facesheet (TMF), the mold material type (MMT), and the thickness of the auxiliary materials layer (TAL) have been quantitatively assessed for the effects on the mold surface temperature. This assessment was conducted by building the thermal–chemical curing model of composite laminates and utilizing the Sobol global sensitivity analysis (GSA) method. Additionally, the interactions among these factors were investigated to gain a comprehensive understanding of their combined effects. The results show that the sensitivity order of these factors is as follows: CHTC > MMT > TMF > TCL > TAL. Moreover, CHTC, MMT, and TMF are the main factors influencing mold surface temperature, as the sum of their first-order sensitivity indices accounts for over 97.3%. The influence of a single factor is more significant than that of the interaction between factors since the sum of the first-order sensitivity indices of the factors is more than 78.1%. This study will support the development of science-based guidelines for the thermal design of molds and associated heating equipment design. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Polymer Processing and Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Preparation of composite laminates and mold for autoclave processing.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Temperature and pressure profiles of the curing process.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Schematic of composite laminates dimensions and layup orientation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Schematic of thermocouples arrangement.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The FE model for curing process of the composite laminates: (<b>a</b>) description of mesh and temperature monitoring locations; (<b>b</b>) description of boundary condition.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Temperature boundary conditions of the FE model for the laminates curing process: (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>1</sub>; (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>2</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison results and deviation between experiment and simulation: (<b>a</b>) 3#; (<b>b</b>) 4#; (<b>c</b>) 5#.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The FE model of curing process for auxiliary materials-laminates-mold: (<b>a</b>) description of mesh and layers thicknesses; (<b>b</b>) description of boundary condition.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Schematic diagram of the output variable <span class="html-italic">Y</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Sensitivity indices, with 95% confidence bounds, and for parameters within the default ranges: (<b>a</b>) first-order sensitivity indices; (<b>b</b>) total-order sensitivity indices; (<b>c</b>) interaction sensitivity indices.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Second-order sensitivity indices between five parameters within the default ranges.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Sensitivity indices of parameters with 95% confidence bounds: (<b>a</b>) first-order sensitivity indices for different ranges of TAL and TCL; (<b>b</b>) total-order sensitivity indices for different ranges of TAL and TCL.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Second-order sensitivity indices between five parameters based on different ranges of TAL and TCL: (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">δ</span><sub>1</sub> ∈ [1, 13], <span class="html-italic">δ</span><sub>2</sub> ∈ [1, 39]; (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">δ</span><sub>1</sub> ∈ [1, 19], <span class="html-italic">δ</span><sub>2</sub> ∈ [1, 58]; (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">δ</span><sub>1</sub> ∈ [1, 25], <span class="html-italic">δ</span><sub>2</sub> ∈ [1, 77].</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Sensitivity indices of parameters with 95% confidence bounds: (<b>a</b>) first-order sensitivity indices for different ranges of <span class="html-italic">h</span>; (<b>b</b>) total-order sensitivity indices for different ranges of <span class="html-italic">h</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Second-order sensitivity indices between five parameters based on different ranges of CHTC: (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">h</span> ∈ [10, 155]; (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">h</span> ∈ [155, 300].</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 10007 KiB  
Article
Analysis of Factors Affecting Vacuum Formation and Drainage in the Siphon-Vacuum Drainage Method for Marine Reclamation
by Junwei Shu, Jun Wang, Kexing Chen, Qingsong Shen and Hongyue Sun
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(3), 430; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12030430 - 28 Feb 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1518
Abstract
Traditional drainage methods for marine reclamation typically consume large amounts of energy and have a negative environmental impact. The siphon-vacuum drainage method (SVD) automatically forms a vacuum and drains using less energy. It has significant potential for research and application. In this study, [...] Read more.
Traditional drainage methods for marine reclamation typically consume large amounts of energy and have a negative environmental impact. The siphon-vacuum drainage method (SVD) automatically forms a vacuum and drains using less energy. It has significant potential for research and application. In this study, a theoretical model is used to calculate the vacuum formation process and drainage rate. Qualitative analysis and global sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the effect of various factors in the SVD on vacuum formation and drainage. The qualitative analysis suggests that modifying the length and diameter of the siphon pipe and the thickness of the sealing soil column to increase the siphon rate can improve the vacuum degree and drainage efficiency. Sobol global sensitivity analysis reveals that the sealing soil column thickness is the main factor affecting the vacuum, with a first-order sensitivity index accounting for up to 79.48%. The impact of cylinder diameter and the local resistance coefficient (0.43%) can be almost neglected. A fitting equation for estimating the maximum achievable vacuum is provided. Calculations show that the vacuum formed by the SVD can reach over 80 kPa. This work can help optimize SVD design and advance environmentally friendly marine reclamation projects. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advance in Marine Geotechnical Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic diagram of the SVD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Form of vertical drainage wells arrangement: (<b>a</b>) square; (<b>b</b>) equilateral triangle.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Schematic diagram of a cylindrical model of a single permeable chamber.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Test results and calculations of air pressure changes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Drainage flow rate of siphon and seepage.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vacuum formation and (<b>b</b>) drainage rate under the influence of the siphon pipe diameter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vacuum formation and (<b>b</b>) drainage rate under the influence of the siphon pipe length.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vacuum formation and (<b>b</b>) drainage rate under the influence of the minor head loss coefficient of siphon pipe.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vacuum formation and (<b>b</b>) drainage rate under the influence of the thickness of sealing soil column.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vacuum formation and (<b>b</b>) drainage rate under the influence of the permeable chamber diameter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vacuum formation and (<b>b</b>) drainage rate under the influence of the horizontal permeability coefficients.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vacuum formation and (<b>b</b>) drainage rate under the influence of the cylinder diameter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Distribution of randomly collected data points for sealing soil column thickness.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Sensitivity indices of various factors corresponding to different sample sizes: (<b>a</b>) first-order; (<b>b</b>) total-order.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Maximum vacuum degree achievable with different thicknesses of sealing soil column.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop