At Esaform 2013 a hierarchical metamodeling approach had been presented, able to com- bine the results of numerical simulations and physical experiments into a unique response surface, which is a "fusion'' of both data sets. The method had been presented with respect to the structural optimization of a steel tube, filled with an aluminium foam, intended as an anti-intrusion bar. The prediction yielded by a conventional way of metamodeling the results of FEM simulations can be considered trustworthy only if the accuracy of numerical models have been thoroughly tested and the simulation parameters have been sufficiently calibrated. On the contrary, the main advantage of a hierarchical metamodel is to yield a reliable prediction of a response variable to be optimized, even in the presence of non-completely calibrated or accurate FEM models. In order to demonstrate these statements, in this paper the authors wish to compare the prediction ability of a "fusion'' metamodel based on under-calibrated simulations, with a conventional approach based on calibratedFEMresults. Both metamodels will be cross validated with a "leave-one-out'' technique, i.e. by excluding one ex- perimental observation at a time and assessing the predictive ability of the model. Furthermore, the paper will demonstrate how the hierarchical metamodel is able to provide not only an average esti- mated value for each excluded experimental observation, but also an estimation of uncertainty of the prediction of the average value.

Hierarchical metamodeling: Cross validation and predictive uncertainty

COLOSIMO, BIANCA MARIA;PAGANI, LUCA;STRANO, MATTEO
2014-01-01

Abstract

At Esaform 2013 a hierarchical metamodeling approach had been presented, able to com- bine the results of numerical simulations and physical experiments into a unique response surface, which is a "fusion'' of both data sets. The method had been presented with respect to the structural optimization of a steel tube, filled with an aluminium foam, intended as an anti-intrusion bar. The prediction yielded by a conventional way of metamodeling the results of FEM simulations can be considered trustworthy only if the accuracy of numerical models have been thoroughly tested and the simulation parameters have been sufficiently calibrated. On the contrary, the main advantage of a hierarchical metamodel is to yield a reliable prediction of a response variable to be optimized, even in the presence of non-completely calibrated or accurate FEM models. In order to demonstrate these statements, in this paper the authors wish to compare the prediction ability of a "fusion'' metamodel based on under-calibrated simulations, with a conventional approach based on calibratedFEMresults. Both metamodels will be cross validated with a "leave-one-out'' technique, i.e. by excluding one ex- perimental observation at a time and assessing the predictive ability of the model. Furthermore, the paper will demonstrate how the hierarchical metamodel is able to provide not only an average esti- mated value for each excluded experimental observation, but also an estimation of uncertainty of the prediction of the average value.
2014
Proceedings of Esaform 2014
9783038351061
9783038351061
Hierarchical Fusion Model; Metal Foams; Metamodeling; Materials Science (all); Mechanics of Materials; Mechanical Engineering
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Hierarchical metamodeling cross validation and predictive uncertainty.pdf

Accesso riservato

Descrizione: Paper definitivo
: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 484.81 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
484.81 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri
0Hierarchical_metamodeling_cross_validation_and_predictive_uncertainty_postprint.pdf

Open Access dal 02/01/2016

Descrizione: Post-print
: Post-Print (DRAFT o Author’s Accepted Manuscript-AAM)
Dimensione 253.26 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
253.26 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/978234
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact