References

• Apel, H., Merz, B., & Thieken, A. H. (2008). Quantification of uncertainties in flood risk assessments. International Journal of River Basin Management, 6(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2008.9635344
   Google Scholar
• Bacchi, V., Duluc, C.-M., Bardet, L., Bertrand, N., & Rebour, V. (2018). Feedback from uncertainties propagation research projects conducted in different hydraulic fields: Outcomes for engineering projects and nuclear safety assessment. In Advances in hydroinformatics (pp. 221–241). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bacchi, V., Richet, Y., Bertrand, N., Moiriat, D., & Duluc, C., (2018). Beyond a sensitivity study of levee-breach geometry using an inversion algorithm: Application to a simplified river case., Conference CMWR 2018: Computational Methods in Water Resources XXII, Saint-Malo, France, 4–7 June 2018
   Google Scholar
• Balistrocchi, M., Ranzi, R., & Bacchi, B. (2014). Multivariate statistical analysis of flood variables by copulas: Two Italian case studies (pp. 12). Conference Paper: 3rd IAHR Europe Congress.
   Google Scholar
• Bertrand, N., Liquet, M., Moiriat, D., Bardet, L., Duluc, CM.et al (2018) Uncertainties of a 1D hydraulic Model with levee breaches: The benchmark Garonne. In: Gourbesville P., Cunge J., and Caignaert G. (eds) Advances in Hydroinformatics. Springer Water. Springer, Singapore
   Google Scholar
• Da Veiga, S., Wahl, F., & Gamboa, F. (2009, November). Local polynomial estimation for sensitivity analysis on models with correlated inputs. Technometrics, 51(4), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1198/TECH.2009.08124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domeneghetti, A., Vorogushyn, S., Castellarin, A., Merz, B., & Brath, A. (2013, August). Probabilistic flood hazard mapping: Effects of uncertain boundary conditions. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(8), 3127–3140. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3127-2013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DREAL Centre. (2011). Étude de dangers des digues de classe A de la Loire moyenne – Étude des brèches du val d’Orléans (code C4) – Annexe – Fiches de brèches.
   Google Scholar
• Dupuy, D., Helbert, C., & Franco, J. (2015). DiceDesign and DiceEval: Two R packages for design and analysis of computer experiments. Journal of Statistical Software, 65(11), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v065.i11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang, K.-T., Li, R., & Sudjianto, A. (2005). Design and modeling for computer experiments. CRC press.
   Google Scholar
• Gratiet, L. L., Marelli, S., & Sudret, B. (2016). Metamodel-based sensitivity analysis: Polynomial chaos expansions and Gaussian processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04273
   Google Scholar
• Hervouet, J. M., & Ata, R. (2017). User manual of opensource software TELEMAC-2D (Report). EDF-R&D. www.opentelemac.org
   Google Scholar
• Iooss, B., Janon, A., Pujol, G., Broto, B., Boumhaout, K., Da Veiga, S., Delage, T., Fruth, J., Gilquin, L., & Guillaume, J. (2020). Sensitivity: Global sensitivity analysis of model outputs. R package version 1.24.0. Package available in https://cran.r-project.org/package=sensitivity
   Google Scholar
• Iooss, B., Mahévas, S., Makowski, D., & Monod, H. (2013). Analyse de sensibilité et exploration de modèles : Application aux sciences de la nature et de l’environnement. Editions Quae.
   Google Scholar
• Iooss, B., & Prieur, C. (2018). Shapley effects for sensitivity analysis with dependent inputs: Comparisons with Sobol’ indices, numerical estimation and applications. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, 39.
   Google Scholar
• Jacques, J., Lavergne, C., & Devictor, N. (2006, October). Sensitivity analysis in presence of model uncertainty and correlated inputs. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91(10–11), 1126–1134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.11.047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The issue number is 76. The complete reference is: Korswagen, P. A., Jonkman, S. N., & Terwel, K. C. (2019). The issue number is 76. The complete reference is. Structural Safety, 76(june 2019), pp 135–148 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.08.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, C., & Mahadevan, S. (2016). An efficient modularized sample-based method to estimate the first order Sobol׳ index. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 153(September 2016), pp 110–121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.04.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, C., & Mahadevan, S. (2016, September). An efficient modularized sample-based method to estimate the first-order Sobol׳ index. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 153, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.04.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mara, T. A., Tarantola, S., & Annoni, P. (2015). Non-parametric methods for global sensitivity analysis of model output with dependent inputs. Environmental Modelling & Software, 72(2015), pp 173–183.
   Google Scholar
• Marrel, A., Iooss, B., Van Dorpe, F., & Volkova, E. (2008). An efficient methodology for modeling complex computer codes with Gaussian processes. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52(10), 4731–4744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2008.03.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazo, G. (2014). Construction et estimation de copules en grande dimension. PhD Thesis, Université de Grenoble PhD Thesis
   Google Scholar
• McKay, M. D. (1995). Evaluating prediction uncertainty. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
   Google Scholar
• McRae, G. J., Tilden, J. W., & Seinfeld, J. H. (1982). Global sensitivity analysis – A computational implementation of the Fourier amplitude sensitivity test (FAST). Computers & Chemical Engineering, 6(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-1354(82)80003-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagler, T., Schepsmeier, U., Stoeber, J., Brechmann, E. C., Graeler, B., & Erhardt, T. (2019). VineCopula: Statistical inference of Vine Copulas. R package version 2.3.0. Package available in https://cran.r-project.org/package=VineCopula
   Google Scholar
• Nelsen, R. B. (2007). An introduction to copulas. Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, A. B., & Prieur, C. (2016, October). On Shapley value for measuring importance of dependent inputs. arXiv:1610.02080 [Math, Stat] [ Online]. Retrieved February 13, 2019, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02080.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, A. B. (2014, janv). Sobol’ indices and Shapley value. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 2(1), 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1137/130936233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pheulpin, L., Bacchi, V., and Bertrand, N. (2019). Analyse de sensibilité des paramètres de rupture des digues : Application au cas de la Garonne. Conference Digues Maritimes et Fluviales de Protection contre les Inondations, Digues 2019, Aix-en-Provence, France. pp. Art N°8. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2530017.
   Google Scholar
• Pheulpin, L., Bacchi, V., & Bertrand, N. (2020). Comparison between two hydraulic models (1D and 2D) of the Garonne River: Application to uncertainty propagations and sensitivity analyses of levee breach parameters. In Advances in hydroinformatics (pp. 991–1007). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ratto M, Tarantola S, Saltelli A, Young PC.et al Accelerated estimation of sensitivity indices using state dependent parametermodels. In: Hanson KM, and Hemez FM, editors, Sensitivity analysis of model output, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on sensitivity analysis of model output (SAMO 2004). Santa Fe, New Mexico; March 8–11 2004. p. 61–70.
   Google Scholar
• Richet, Y., & Bacchi, V. (2019). Inversion algorithm for civil flood defense optimization: Application to two-dimensional numerical model of the Garonne River in France. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 7, 160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roustant, O., Ginsbourger, D., & Deville, Y. (2012). DiceKriging, DiceOptim: Two R packages for the analysis of computer experiments by kriging-based metamodeling and optimization. Journal of Statistical Software, 51(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v051.i01.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2008). Global sensitivity analysis: The primer. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Campolongo, F., & Ratto, M. (2004). Sensitivity analysis in practice: A guide to assessing scientific models. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Saltelli, A. (2002). Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices. Computer Physics Communications, 145(2), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(02)00280-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanyal, J. (2017, juill). Uncertainty in levee heights and its effect on the spatial pattern of flood hazard in a floodplain. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 62(9), 1483–1498. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2017.1334887.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, E., Nelson, B., and Staum, J. (2016). Shapley effects for global sensitivity analysis: Theory and computation, SIAM/ASA. Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 4(1), 1060–1083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vorogushyn, S., Apel, H., & Merz, B. (2011, January). The impact of the uncertainty of dike breach development time on flood hazard. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 36(7–8), 319–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2011.01.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahl, T. L. (2004). Uncertainty of predictions of embankment dam breach parameters. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 130(5), 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2004)130:5(389).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar