material model parameter identification via markov chain monte carlo christian knipprath 1...
TRANSCRIPT
Material Model Parameter Identification via Markov Chain Monte Carlo
Christian Knipprath1 Alexandros A. Skordos2
www.bris.ac.uk/composites
1 – ACCIS, University of Bristol, UK
2 – Composites Centre, Cranfield University, UK
2/19Roadmap
• Introduction– Origin of the MCMC method
– Motivation
• Numerical Implementation– Outline of the algorithm used
– Application to a simple problem
• Application to material models for composites – Description of constitutive model
– Conventional parameter identification method
– Employment of MCMC algorithm
– Comparison of conventional to MCMC
• Conclusions
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
3/19Introduction
• Origins of Markov Chain Monte Carlo
– First presented in 1953 (Metropolis algorithm) by physicists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory to compute the potential fields of molecules in liquids
– Generalisation by Hastings lead to the Metropolis-Hasting.
– Conceptually able of solving inverse problems. Such problems are often subject to ill-posedness and benefit from the regularising properties of MCMC
– MCMC was a well established method in the context of statistical physics before the method was applied to other fields in the 1990s. Initially in econometric and financial modelling.
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
4/19Introduction
• Motivation
– Treatment of the material model as an inverse problem.
– Certainty of the parameters as an answer of the model response with relation to experimental data sets
– Uncertainty quantification
– Simultaneous analysis of large data sets
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
5/19
• Random walk Metropolis-Hastings algorithm– Iterative algorithm
– Employment of Bayes’ theorem of conditional probability to compute the joint posterior used in the acceptance probability
Numerical Implementation
posterior
likelihoodprior
marginal
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
6/19Numerical Implementation
• Joint likelihood distribution– Addresses the certainty of an
experimental data point in respect to the theoretical value
– All data points are considered
• Joint prior distribution– Addresses the certainty of a
proposed parameter considering its characteristic distribution
– Appropriate distribution to describe the parameter best is often difficult to identify, hence normal distribution is a “generic” choice
– Note: Traditional techniques imply of uniform prior
Log-Normal distribution
Normal distribution
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
7/19Numerical Implementation
• Application to a simple problem– Hooke’s law
– Setup:
• starting value 6 GPa
• 1000 iterations
• Tuning to reach acceptance ratio of 48%
• Burn-in range: 200 iterations
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
8/19Numerical Implementation
• Use of auto-correlation function (ACF) to determine thinning step size for sequence
• The resulting sample vector contains uncorrelated values gathered from the stationary sequence
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
9/19Application
• Ladevèze model for in-plane damage– Thermodynamic framework model
– Constitutive law used effective properties
– Damage evolution is determined using the energy dissipation threshold values
– Inelastic strains are computed via a Hill-type yield criterion
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
10/19Application
• Cohesive law for out-of-plane behaviour– Bilinear law
– Definition of stresses and energy limits
• For the use in MCMC both material models were implemented in an explicit manner
• Parameter set comprises 27 parameters (no rate effects)
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
11/19Application
• Conventional parameter identification method– Experiments required for in-plane parameter identification
• [0º]8 in tension and compression
• [±45º]2s, [+45º]2s, [±67.5º]2s under cyclic tensile loading for damage behaviour
– Mode I & II delamination for cohesive interfaces
– Information is extracted from experimental data (shown for shear)
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
12/19Application
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
• Employment of MCMC algorithm– Setup:
• Starting vector obtained from conventional method on single experiment
• 4,000,000 iterations
• Tuning to reach acceptance probability of around 25%
• Burn-in range: 1,000,000 iterations
• 4 chains in parallel
• Application of 3 convergenceassessment methods
13/19Application
• Probability density plots– Elastic tensile modulus in fibre
directions shows a single mode answer for the PDF
– Additional modes were found for m and R0
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
14/19Application
• Application of Parallel Tempering (PT)– Introduction of temperature parameter with
– Tempering parameter is used for numerical purposes:
– Higher values for T flatten the target distribution and allow the acceptance of a broader range of proposed parameters. These distributions are less likely to be trapped in local modes
– Parameter sets are swapped between chains based on a computed swapping probability
– Only the neutral (=1) can be used for the analysis
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
15/19Application
• Comparison for a single experiment– For transverse response the conventional method indicated
premature failure
– In the shear response stresses are over-predicted by the conventional method
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
16/19Comparison
• Comparison for a single experiment– Compression
- non-linear behaviour due to fibre buckling
– Conventional method leads to a value of 0.064
– MCMC method leads yields a value of 6.37±1.86
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
17/19Conclusion
• Parameters were identified with additional information provided by probability density functions
• This type of information can be the basis of stochastic simulations of the mechanical and damage response
• Although mean/median values are used in FE models the PDFs provide further information on parameters
• Further development will address– Tuning procedure
• Automated tuning algorithm
– Overall runtime
• Parallelisation
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011
18/19
Financial support from the CEC under the PreCarBi project (FP6-30848) is gratefully acknowledged
Acknowledgement
5th CompTest conference14-16 February 2011