This paper examines the variability of predicted responses when multiple stress-strain curves (reflecting variability from replicate material tests) are propagated through a finite element model of a ductile steel can being slowly crushed. Over 140 response quantities of interest (including displacements, stresses, strains, and calculated measures of material damage) are tracked in the simulations. Each response quantity’s behavior varies according to the particular stress-strain curves used for the materials in the model. We desire to estimate response variability when only a few stress-strain curve samples are available from material testing. Propagation of just a few samples will usually result in significantly underestimated response uncertainty relative to propagation of a much larger population that adequately samples the presiding random-function source. A simple classical statistical method, Tolerance Intervals, is tested for effectively treating sparse stress-strain curve data. The method is found to perform well on the highly nonlinear input-to-output response mappings and non-standard response distributions in the can-crush problem. The results and discussion in this paper support a proposition that the method will apply similarly well for other sparsely sampled random variable or function data, whether from experiments or models. Finally, the simple Tolerance Interval method is also demonstrated to be very economical.
This work examines the variability of predicted responses when multiple stress-strain curves (reflecting variability from replicate material tests) are propagated through a transient dynamics finite element model of a ductile steel can being slowly crushed. An elastic-plastic constitutive model is employed in the large-deformation simulations. The present work assigns the same material to all the can parts: lids, walls, and weld. Time histories of 18 response quantities of interest (including displacements, stresses, strains, and calculated measures of material damage) at several locations on the can and various points in time are monitored in the simulations. Each response quantity's behavior varies according to the particular stressstrain curves used for the materials in the model. We estimate response variability due to variability of the input material curves. When only a few stress-strain curves are available from material testing, response variance will usually be significantly underestimated. This is undesirable for many engineering purposes. This paper describes the can-crush model and simulations used to evaluate a simple classical statistical method, Tolerance Intervals (TIs), for effectively compensating for sparse stress-strain curve data in the can-crush problem. Using the simulation results presented here, the accuracy and reliability of the TI method are being evaluated on the highly nonlinear inputto- output response mappings and non-standard response distributions in the can-crush UQ problem.
This report demonstrates versatile and practical model validation and uncertainty quantification techniques applied to the accuracy assessment of a computational model of heated steel pipes pressurized to failure. The Real Space validation methodology segregates aleatory and epistemic uncertainties to form straightforward model validation metrics especially suited for assessing models to be used in the analysis of performance and safety margins. The methodology handles difficulties associated with representing and propagating interval and/or probabilistic uncertainties from multiple correlated and uncorrelated sources in the experiments and simulations including: material variability characterized by non-parametric random functions (discrete temperature dependent stress-strain curves); very limited (sparse) experimental data at the coupon testing level for material characterization and at the pipe-test validation level; boundary condition reconstruction uncertainties from spatially sparse sensor data; normalization of pipe experimental responses for measured input-condition differences among tests and for random and systematic uncertainties in measurement/processing/inference of experimental inputs and outputs; numerical solution uncertainty from model discretization and solver effects.