当前位置: X-MOL 学术Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Comparative study of the effects of three data‐interpretation methodologies on the performance of geotechnical back analysis
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics ( IF 3.4 ) Pub Date : 2020-07-12 , DOI: 10.1002/nag.3120
Ze‐Zhou Wang 1, 2 , Siang Huat Goh 1, 2 , Chan Ghee Koh 1, 2 , Ian F.C. Smith 2, 3
Affiliation  

Back analysis can provide engineers with important information for better decision‐making. Over the years, research on back analysis has focused mainly on optimisation techniques, while comparative studies of data‐interpretation methodologies have seldom been reported. This paper examines the use of three data‐interpretation methodologies on the performance of geotechnical back analysis. In general, there are two types of approaches for interpreting model predictions using field measurements, deterministic versus population‐based, both of which are considered in this study. The methodologies that are compared are (a) error‐domain model falsification (EDMF), (b) Bayesian model updating and (c) residual minimisation. Back analyses of an excavation case history in Singapore using the three methodologies indicate that each has strengths and limitations. Residual minimisation, though easy to implement, shows limited capabilities of interpreting measurement data with large uncertainty errors. EDMF provides robustness against incomplete information of the correlation structure. This is achieved at the expense of precision, as EDMF yields wider confidence intervals of the identified parameter values and predicted quantities compared with Bayesian model updating. In this regard, a modified EDMF implementation is proposed, which can improve upon the limitations of the traditional EDMF method, thus enhancing the quality of the identification outcomes.

中文翻译:

三种数据解释方法对岩土反分析性能影响的比较研究

反向分析可以为工程师提供重要信息,以帮助他们做出更好的决策。多年来,关于反向分析的研究主要集中在优化技术上,而很少有关于数据解释方法的比较研究的报道。本文考察了三种数据解释方法在岩土反分析中的应用。通常,使用现场测量来解释模型预测的方法有两种,即确定性方法和基于人口的方法,本研究均考虑了这两种方法。比较的方法是(a)错误域模型伪造(EDMF),(b)贝叶斯模型更新和(c)残差最小化。使用三种方法对新加坡的一个挖掘案例历史进行的回溯分析表明,每种方法都有其优势和局限性。残差最小化虽然易于实现,但其解释具有较大不确定性误差的测量数据的能力有限。EDMF针对相关结构的不完整信息提供了鲁棒性。这是通过牺牲精度来实现的,因为与贝叶斯模型更新相比,EDMF产生的已识别参数值和预测量的置信区间更宽。在这方面,提出了一种改进的EDMF实现方案,它可以改善传统EDMF方法的局限性,从而提高识别结果的质量。显示了解释具有较大不确定性误差的测量数据的能力有限。EDMF针对相关结构的不完整信息提供了鲁棒性。这是通过牺牲精度来实现的,因为与贝叶斯模型更新相比,EDMF产生的已识别参数值和预测量的置信区间更宽。在这方面,提出了一种改进的EDMF实施方案,它可以改善传统EDMF方法的局限性,从而提高识别结果的质量。显示了解释具有较大不确定性误差的测量数据的能力有限。EDMF针对相关结构的不完整信息提供了鲁棒性。这是通过牺牲精度来实现的,因为与贝叶斯模型更新相比,EDMF产生的已识别参数值和预测量的置信区间更大。在这方面,提出了一种改进的EDMF实现方案,它可以改善传统EDMF方法的局限性,从而提高识别结果的质量。
更新日期:2020-07-12
down
wechat
bug