IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jnlmpe/v2023y2023i1n9937158.html

Reduced Space Optimization‐Based Evidence Theory Method for Response Analysis of Space‐Coiled Acoustic Metamaterials with Epistemic Uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Shengwen Yin
  • Linfang Chen
  • Haogang Qin

Abstract

Acoustic metamaterials have been widely concerned by researchers because of their excellent sound absorption properties. Traditional uncertainty analysis methods for response analysis of acoustic metamaterials with evidence variables have limitations. The excessive time spent on repetitive extreme analysis of focal elements severely impedes the practical application of evidence theory. To reduce the computational costs of uncertainty quantification for acoustic metamaterials under the evidence theory, a reduced space optimization‐based evidence theory method (RSO‐ETM) is proposed. In RSO‐ETM, a simplified surrogate model is first constructed by a modified adaptive arbitrary orthogonal polynomial (MAAOP) expansion method, and then, the monotonicity of the response surface is examined to reduce the space. Subsequently, the Newton iteration technique and a transformation boundary method are used to obtain the extreme points in the reduced space, through which the boundary of the response over each focal element can be readily obtained. By using RSO‐ETM, the optimization for each focal element can be avoided, and correspondingly the computational costs are reduced. Two mathematical examples and acoustic problems are employed to demonstrate the practicality of the methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Shengwen Yin & Linfang Chen & Haogang Qin, 2023. "Reduced Space Optimization‐Based Evidence Theory Method for Response Analysis of Space‐Coiled Acoustic Metamaterials with Epistemic Uncertainty," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2023(1).
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jnlmpe:v:2023:y:2023:i:1:n:9937158
    DOI: 10.1155/2023/9937158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9937158
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2023/9937158?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. F. Owen Hoffman & Jana S. Hammonds, 1994. "Propagation of Uncertainty in Risk Assessments: The Need to Distinguish Between Uncertainty Due to Lack of Knowledge and Uncertainty Due to Variability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 707-712, October.
    2. Shengwen Yin & Yuan Gao & Xiaohan Zhu & Zhonggang Wang, 2023. "Anisotropy-Based Adaptive Polynomial Chaos Method for Hybrid Uncertainty Quantification and Reliability-Based Design Optimization of Structural-Acoustic System," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhou, Yuekuan & Zheng, Siqian, 2020. "Uncertainty study on thermal and energy performances of a deterministic parameters based optimal aerogel glazing system using machine-learning method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. Little, Andrew T. & Moore, Don A & Augenblick, Ned & Backus, Matthew, 2025. "Assumptions, Disagreement, and Overprecision: Theory and Evidence," OSF Preprints mnv4k_v1, Center for Open Science.
    3. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    4. Jingwen Song & Zhenzhou Lu & Pengfei Wei & Yanping Wang, 2015. "Global sensitivity analysis for model with random inputs characterized by probability-box," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 229(3), pages 237-253, June.
    5. Helton, Jon C. & Brooks, Dusty M. & Sallaberry, Cédric J., 2020. "Property values associated with the failure of individual links in a system with multiple weak and strong links," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    6. Junyu Zheng & H. Christopher Frey, 2005. "Quantitative Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty with Known Measurement Error: Methodology and Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 663-675, June.
    7. Liu, Yushan & Li, Luyi & Zhao, Sihan & Song, Shufang, 2021. "A global surrogate model technique based on principal component analysis and Kriging for uncertainty propagation of dynamic systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    8. Adam T Biggs & Kyle A Pettijohn, 2021. "Prospect theory and its implications for adversarial decision-making," The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, , vol. 18(2), pages 125-134, April.
    9. T. Chatzivasileiadis & F. Estrada & M. W. Hofkes & R. S. J. Tol, 2019. "Systematic Sensitivity Analysis of the Full Economic Impacts of Sea Level Rise," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(3), pages 1183-1217, March.
    10. Natalie Commeau & Marie Cornu & Isabelle Albert & Jean‐Baptiste Denis & Eric Parent, 2012. "Hierarchical Bayesian Models to Assess Between‐ and Within‐Batch Variability of Pathogen Contamination in Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 395-415, March.
    11. Bas Groot Koerkamp & Theo Stijnen & Milton C. Weinstein & M. G. Myriam Hunink, 2011. "The Combined Analysis of Uncertainty and Patient Heterogeneity in Medical Decision Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(4), pages 650-661, July.
    12. Pieter Busschaert & Annemie H. Geeraerd & Mieke Uyttendaele & Jan F. Van Impe, 2011. "Sensitivity Analysis of a Two‐Dimensional Quantitative Microbiological Risk Assessment: Keeping Variability and Uncertainty Separated," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(8), pages 1295-1307, August.
    13. Helton, Jon C. & Brooks, Dusty M. & Sallaberry, Cédric J., 2020. "Margins associated with loss of assured safety for systems with multiple weak links and strong links," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    14. Thomas Ying‐Jeh Chen & Valerie Nicole Washington & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema, 2020. "Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 608-623, March.
    15. Sarazin, Gabriel & Morio, Jérôme & Lagnoux, Agnès & Balesdent, Mathieu & Brevault, Loïc, 2021. "Reliability-oriented sensitivity analysis in presence of data-driven epistemic uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    16. Junyu Zheng & H. Christopher Frey, 2004. "Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty Using Mixture Distributions: Evaluation of Sample Size, Mixing Weights, and Separation Between Components," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 553-571, June.
    17. S. N. Rai & D. Krewski, 1998. "Uncertainty and Variability Analysis in Multiplicative Risk Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 37-45, February.
    18. Zhou, Yuekuan & Zheng, Siqian & Zhang, Guoqiang, 2020. "Machine-learning based study on the on-site renewable electrical performance of an optimal hybrid PCMs integrated renewable system with high-level parameters’ uncertainties," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 403-418.
    19. Emanuele Borgonovo, 2008. "Epistemic Uncertainty in the Ranking and Categorization of Probabilistic Safety Assessment Model Elements: Issues and Findings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 983-1001, August.
    20. Amirhossein Mokhtari & H. Christopher Frey, 2005. "Sensitivity Analysis of a Two‐Dimensional Probabilistic Risk Assessment Model Using Analysis of Variance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1511-1529, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jnlmpe:v:2023:y:2023:i:1:n:9937158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2629 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.