KSME International Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 203–210 | Cite as

Augmented D-optimal design for effective response surface modeling and optimization

Materials & Fracture · Solids & Structures · Dynamics & Control · Production & Design

Abstract

For effective response surface modeling during sequential approximate optimization (SAO), thenormalized and the augmented D-optimality criteria are presented. Thenormalized D-optimality criterion uses the normalized Fisher information matrix by its diagonal terms in order to obtain a balance among the linear-order and higher-order terms. Then, it is augmented to directly include other experimental designs or the pre-sampled designs. This augmentation enables the trust region managed sequential approximate optimization to directly use the pre-sampled designs in the overlapped trust regions in constructing the new response surface models. In order to show the effectiveness of the normalized and theaugmented D-optimality criteria, following two comparisons are performed. First, the information surface of thenormalized D-optimal design is compared with those of the original D-optimal design. Second, a trust-region managed sequential approximate optimizer having three D-optimal designs is developed and three design problems are solved. These comparisons show that thenormalized D-optimal design gives more rotatable designs than the original D-optimal design, and theaugmented D-optimal design can reduce the number of analyses by 30 % –40 % than the original D-optimal design.

Key Words

Sequential Approximate Optimization RSM D-Optimality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexandrov, N, 1996, Robustness Properties of a Trust Region Frame Work for Managing Approximations in Engineering Optimization.Proceedings of the 6th AIAA NASA! USAF Multidisdplinary Analysis & Optimization Symposium, AIAA 96-4102-CP, Bellevue, Washington, September 7–9, pp. 1056–1059.Google Scholar
  2. Azam, S and Li, W. -C., 1989, Multi-Level Design Optimization Using Global Monotonicity Analysis,Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, Vol. 111, pp. 259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barthelemy, J. F. and Haftka, R. T., 1993, Approximation Concepts for Optimum Structural Design-a Review,Struct. Optim. 5, pp. 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Box, G. P. and Wilson, K. B., 1951, On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions,Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Vol. 13, pp. 1–45.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Box, G. P. and Draper, N. R., 1987, Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces,John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 481–489.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Box, M. J. and Draper, N. R, 1971, Fractional Designs, the |XX Criterion, and Some Related Matters.Technometrics Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 731–742.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, W. C, 1993, Effect of Design Selection on Response Surface Performance.NASA Contract Report4520 Google Scholar
  8. Dennis, J. E. and Torczon, T, 1996, Approximation Model Management for Optimization.Proceedings of the 6 th AIAA/NASA/ USAF Multidisciplinary Analysis & Optimization Symposium, AIAA 96–4046, Bellevue, Washington, September 7–9, pp. 1044–1046.Google Scholar
  9. Fletcher, R., 1987,Practical Method of Optimization. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, pp. 296–304.Google Scholar
  10. Haftka, R. T, Scott, E. P. and Cruz, J. R., 1998, Optimization and Experiments: A Survey.ASME AppL Mech. Vol. 51, No. 7, pp. 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haug, E. J. and Arora, J. S., 1979,Applied Optimal Design. Wiley-Interscience: New York, pp. 242–245.Google Scholar
  12. Hong, K. -J, Kim, M. -S., Choi, D. -H., 2001, Efficient Approximation Method for Constructing Quadratic Response Surface Model,KSME International Journal, Vol. 15, No 7, pp 876–888.Google Scholar
  13. John, P. W. M., 1998,Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments (Classics In Applied Mathematics 22), SlAM: Philadelpia, pp. 123–216.Google Scholar
  14. Kim, M. -S. and Choi, D. -H., 1998, Min-Max Dynamic Response Optimization of Mechanical Systems Using Approximate Augmented Lagrangian, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 43, pp. 549–564.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim, M. -S. and Park, H. -W., 2001, Fast and Global Convergent Genetic Program with Adaptive Fitness Target,iDOT Technical Report OPT-01-01.Google Scholar
  16. Miller, A. J. and Nguyen, N. K., 1993, An algorithm for generating experimental designs which are close to being D-optimal designs using Fedorov’s exchange algorithm. http: //lib.stat. cmu.edu/design/dopt.Google Scholar
  17. Rodriguez, J. F., Renaud, J. E. and Watson, L. T., 1998, Trust Region Augmented Lagrangian methods for Sequential Response Surface Approximation and Optimization.Journal of Mechanical Design, ASME Vol. 120, pp. 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roux, W. J., Stander, N. and Haftka, R. T., 1998, Response Surface Approximation for Structural Optimization.International Journal for Numerical methods in Engineering, Vol. 42, pp. 517–534.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Unal, R, Lepscb, R. A. and McMilin, M. L., 1998, Response Surface Model Building and Multidisciplinary Optimization Using D-Optimal Designs.Proceedings of the 7th AIAA/ USAF/ NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, St. Louis, Missouri, September 2–4 AIAA-98-4759, pp. 405–411.Google Scholar
  20. Sobieski, J. S., Kodiyalam, S., Yang, R. J., 2000, Optimization of Car body under Constraints of Noise, Vibration, and Harshness (NVH), and Crash.Proceedings of the 41st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC, Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and Exhibit, April 3–6 AlAA-2000-1521.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers (KSME) 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Innovative Design Optimization TechnologyHanyang UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Center of Innovative Design Optimization TechnologyHanyang UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations