2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.10.037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantile-based versus Sobol sensitivity analysis in limit state design

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The findings presented here correlate very well with the results of SA of a beam under bending exposed to lateral-torsional buckling, where contrast Q indices and Sobol indices identified very similar sensitivity rank of input random variables [78,80].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The findings presented here correlate very well with the results of SA of a beam under bending exposed to lateral-torsional buckling, where contrast Q indices and Sobol indices identified very similar sensitivity rank of input random variables [78,80].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…All three types of SA are based on double-nested-loop algorithms. Estimation of indices was software-based by implementing randomized Latin Hypercube Sampling-based Monte Carlo simulation (LHS) algorithms [92,93], which have been tuned for sensitivity assessments [78,80]. Using LHS runs, the outer loop is repeated 2000 times to estimate the arithmetic mean E(•) of the samples (l, l 2 or variance), which are estimated using an inner loop algorithm.…”
Section: Results Of Sensitivity Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In future work, the initial imperfections will be considered as random variables. This will make it possible to study their influence on the ultimate limit state using stochastic sensitivity analysis [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ], where the main influences and interaction effects between imperfections can be the subject of research.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%