ArticleHeliyon2025
An integrated approach to uncertainty and global sensitivity analysis in penstock structural modeling.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enhanced penstock structural models significantly advance hydropower engineering, yet their increasing complexity introduces challenges. As model interactions intensify, predictability and comprehensibility decrease, complicating the evaluation of model accuracy and alignment with operational performance metrics and safety standards. This issue is particularly pronounced in dynamic modeling, where knowledge gaps hinder straightforward validation via observational data. Traditional techniques for model calibration and validation are becoming impractical, necessitating a strategic approach to prioritize sources of uncertainty related to critical response variability. This study aims to advance our understanding and management of structural variabilities in penstock models by developing a comprehensive, step-by-step Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA), designed to meet the specific needs of penstock modeling. Illustrated through a free vibration analysis model of a penstock span, this structured methodology begins with Uncertainty Analysis (UA) to identify variabilities, followed by a screening phase using the Morris method to enhance computational efficiency. Subsequent application of multi-method GSA ranks parameter sensitivities, assesses robustness, and provides a comparative evaluation, providing insights into the effective tools for conducting GSA on penstock models. The process culminates with Regional Sensitivity Analysis (RSA), targeting local sensitivities and enhancing understanding of local parameter influences, thereby supporting model adjustments and design optimization. Results from this application characterize model sensitivities for the most prominent mode shapes to specific structural parameters and indicate that these sensitivity outcomes are influenced by variability in parameter spaces and output sub-range definitions. This study provides a practical framework for addressing uncertainties in penstock design, enhancing model accuracy, prioritizing parameters, managing risks, and improving the reliability and efficiency of hydropower infrastructure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.