IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v202y2024ics136403212400354x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hydrogen storage systems performance and design parameters using response surface methods and sensitivity analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Tiwari, Saurabh
  • Kumar, Akshay
  • Gupta, Nandlal
  • Tiwari, Gaurav
  • Sharma, Pratibha

Abstract

Design of metal hydride-based hydrogen storage reactors is often performed using numerical/experimental modelling which is computationally/economically difficult. This paper investigates the applicability of Response Surface Methodology (RSM) coupled Local/Global Sensitivity Analysis (L/GSA) to investigate – i) the applicability of advanced RSMs in predicting the responses for storage systems efficiently, ii) the applicability of advanced RSMs to perform L/GSA to identify the sensitive input design parameters based on their effect on the Outputs of Interests (OIs), i.e., reaction fraction (i.e., C) and bed temperature (i.e., T), and iii) the dependence of importance ranking of design parameters on the employed L/GSA methodology. The study is conducted in two stages. In the first stage, the most accurate RSM was identified among fourteen traditional and advanced RSMs, i.e., radial basis, kriging, quadratic, moving least square, support vector machine etc., employing a measure of precision, i.e., Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE). RSMs were constructed based on the values of OIs estimated using finite element simulation using COMSOL software for random realizations of inputs generated via Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS). In the second stage, the importance ranking of design parameters was estimated for both OIs using six different L/GSAs based on the input-output relationships estimated in stage one. All the codes of RSMs and L/GSAs were written and validated in MATLAB. Finite element simulations of the random realizations were performed using COMSOL software. For the present study, NSEs of the considered RSMs were ranging between 0.6262-0.8544 and 0.4652–0.8081 for C and T respectively, indicating the importance of selection of appropriate RSM. RBF-augmented Compact-I and kriging were the most accurate RSMs with NSEs approximately 10%–20 % higher to those of frequently used polynomial RSM. Time (t) and mass of hydrogen to be stored (MH) were the most; and external temperature (Text) and porosity (E) were the least sensitive inputs corresponding to C and T, with differences of 80–90 % in the sensitivity indices respectively. The ranking prediction was highly dependent upon the employed L/GSA methodology, with Morris's screening observed to be the least accurate. The RSM methods described in this study help to design and investigate the metal hydride reactors for various applications (space heating, hydrogen storage, storage for vehicular application, metal hydride compressor) without undergoing detailed mathematical modelling of the system. The proposed methodology may significantly assist the designers to focus (or vary) on the sensitive inputs only during the physical modelling of systems to improve their performance. This sensitivity analysis is helpful to find out the most advance sensitivity analysis method which can be used to find out the most sensitivity parameter which can be varied according to their rankings to achieve the required performance of metal hydride reactor for the particular application. The advanced RSMs assist to identify these sensitive inputs quickly by reducing the mathematical efforts in the L/GSA by providing the accurate input-OIs relationships based on the limited numerical simulations. This will significantly save the resources and time of industries required in physical modelling/numerical simulations significantly, which otherwise would have been invested on investigating the non-sensitive inputs.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiwari, Saurabh & Kumar, Akshay & Gupta, Nandlal & Tiwari, Gaurav & Sharma, Pratibha, 2024. "Hydrogen storage systems performance and design parameters using response surface methods and sensitivity analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:202:y:2024:i:c:s136403212400354x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.114628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212400354X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114628?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeremy E. Oakley & Anthony O'Hagan, 2004. "Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of complex models: a Bayesian approach," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(3), pages 751-769, August.
    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. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    2. Jakub Bijak & Jason D. Hilton & Eric Silverman & Viet Dung Cao, 2013. "Reforging the Wedding Ring," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(27), pages 729-766.
    3. Acharki, Naoufal & Bertoncello, Antoine & Garnier, Josselin, 2023. "Robust prediction interval estimation for Gaussian processes by cross-validation method," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    4. Xueping Chen & Yujie Gai & Xiaodi Wang, 2023. "A-optimal designs for non-parametric symmetrical global sensitivity analysis," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 86(2), pages 219-237, February.
    5. Matieyendou Lamboni, 2020. "Uncertainty quantification: a minimum variance unbiased (joint) estimator of the non-normalized Sobol’ indices," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 61(5), pages 1939-1970, October.
    6. Isaac Corro Ramos & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken & Maiwenn J. Al, 2013. "The Role of Value-of-Information Analysis in a Health Care Research Priority Setting," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 472-489, May.
    7. Veiga, Sébastien Da & Marrel, Amandine, 2020. "Gaussian process regression with linear inequality constraints," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    8. Petropoulos, G. & Wooster, M.J. & Carlson, T.N. & Kennedy, M.C. & Scholze, M., 2009. "A global Bayesian sensitivity analysis of the 1d SimSphere soil–vegetation–atmospheric transfer (SVAT) model using Gaussian model emulation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(19), pages 2427-2440.
    9. Lu, Xuefei & Borgonovo, Emanuele, 2023. "Global sensitivity analysis in epidemiological modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(1), pages 9-24.
    10. Tianyang Wang & James S. Dyer & Warren J. Hahn, 2017. "Sensitivity analysis of decision making under dependent uncertainties using copulas," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 5(1), pages 117-139, November.
    11. Hemez, François M. & Atamturktur, Sezer, 2011. "The dangers of sparse sampling for the quantification of margin and uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(9), pages 1220-1231.
    12. Al Ali, Hannah & Daneshkhah, Alireza & Boutayeb, Abdesslam & Malunguza, Noble Jahalamajaha & Mukandavire, Zindoga, 2022. "Exploring dynamical properties of a Type 1 diabetes model using sensitivity approaches," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 324-342.
    13. Zhai, Qingqing & Yang, Jun & Zhao, Yu, 2014. "Space-partition method for the variance-based sensitivity analysis: Optimal partition scheme and comparative study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 66-82.
    14. Andrew Gelman & Christian Hennig, 2017. "Beyond subjective and objective in statistics," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(4), pages 967-1033, October.
    15. Pesenti, Silvana M. & Millossovich, Pietro & Tsanakas, Andreas, 2019. "Reverse sensitivity testing: What does it take to break the model?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 654-670.
    16. Ioannis Andrianakis & Ian R Vernon & Nicky McCreesh & Trevelyan J McKinley & Jeremy E Oakley & Rebecca N Nsubuga & Michael Goldstein & Richard G White, 2015. "Bayesian History Matching of Complex Infectious Disease Models Using Emulation: A Tutorial and a Case Study on HIV in Uganda," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Emanuele Borgonovo, 2006. "Measuring Uncertainty Importance: Investigation and Comparison of Alternative Approaches," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1349-1361, October.
    18. Ge, Qiao & Menendez, Monica, 2017. "Extending Morris method for qualitative global sensitivity analysis of models with dependent inputs," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 28-39.
    19. Lambert, Romain S.C. & Lemke, Frank & Kucherenko, Sergei S. & Song, Shufang & Shah, Nilay, 2016. "Global sensitivity analysis using sparse high dimensional model representations generated by the group method of data handling," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 42-54.
    20. Marc Kennedy & Clive Anderson & Anthony O'Hagan & Mark Lomas & Ian Woodward & John Paul Gosling & Andreas Heinemeyer, 2008. "Quantifying uncertainty in the biospheric carbon flux for England and Wales," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(1), pages 109-135, January.

    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:eee:rensus:v:202:y:2024:i:c:s136403212400354x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.