The use of metamodeling techniques for optimization under uncertainty

Research paper

Abstract

Metamodeling techniques have been widely used in engineering design to improve efficiency in the simulation and optimization of design systems that involve computationally expensive simulation programs. Many existing applications are restricted to deterministic optimization. Very few studies have been conducted on studying the accuracy of using metamodels for optimization under uncertainty. In this paper, using a two-bar structure system design as an example, various metamodeling techniques are tested for different formulations of optimization under uncertainty. Observations are made on the applicability and accuracy of these techniques, the impact of sample size, and the optimization performance when different formulations are used to incorporate uncertainty. Some important issues for applying metamodels to optimization under uncertainty are discussed.

Keywords

metamodeling optimization under uncertainty 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Box, G.E.P.; Hunter, W.G.; Hunter, J.S. 1978: Statistics for experimenters. New York: John Wiley & Sons Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, W.; Allen, J.K.; Tsui, K.L.; Mistree, F. 1996: A procedure for robust design. ASME J. Mech. Design 118, 478–485 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Du, X.; Chen, W. 2000: Towards a better understanding of modeling feasibility robustness in engineering design. ASME J. Mech. Design 122, 385–394 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dyn, N.; Levin, D.; Rippa, S. 1986: Numerical procedures for surface fitting of scattered data by radial basis functions. SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comp. 7, 639–659 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geilen, J. 1986: Sensitivity analysis at optimal point. Studienarbeit, UNJGH Siegen, Institut für Mechanik und Regelungstechnik Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hazelrigg, G.A. 1998: A framework for decision-based engineering design. ASME J. Mech. Design 120, 653–658 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hardy, R.L. 1971: Multiquadratic equations of topography and other irregular surfaces. J. Geophys. Res. 76, 1905–1915 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jin, R.; Chen, W.; Simpson, T. 2001: Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 23, 1–13 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kleijnen, J.P.C. 1987: Statistical tools for simulation practitioners. New York: Marcel Dekker Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McKay, M.D.; Beckman, R.J. Conover, W.J. 1979: A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21, 239–245 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Myers, R.H.; Montgomery, D.C. 1995: Response surface methodology: Process and product optimization using designed experiments. New York: Wiley & Sons Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parkinson, A.; Sorensen, C.; Pourhassan, N. 1993: A general approach for robust optimal design. Trans. ASME 115, 74–80 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Padmanabhan, D.; Batill, S.M. 2000: An iterative concurrent subspace robust design framework. In: Proc. 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symp. Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization (held in Long Beach 2000), AIAA-2000-4841 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Phadke, M.S. 1989: Quality engineering using robust design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Powell, M.J.D. 1987: Radial basis functions for multivariable interpolation: A review. In: Mason, J.C.; Cox, M.G. (eds.): Algorithms for approximation. London: Oxford University Press Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rao, S.S. 1992: Reliability-based design. New York: McGraw–Hill Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sacks, J.; Welch, W.J.; Mitchell, T.J.; Wynn, H.P. 1989: Design and analysis of computer experiments. Statist. Sci. 4, 409–435 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simpson, T.W.; Peplinski, J.; Koch, P.N.; Allen, J.K. 1997: On the use of statistics in design and the implications for deterministic computer experiments. In: Proc. Design Theory and Methodology (DTM ’97) (held in Sacramento 1997), ASME-DETC97/DTM-3881 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Su, J.; Renaud, J.E. 1997: Automatic differentiation in robust optimization. AIAA J. 35, 1072–1079 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sundaresan, S.; Ishii, K.; Houser, D.R. 1993: A robust optimization procedure with variations on design variables and constraints. Adv. Design Autom. 69, 379–386 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taguchi, G. 1993: Taguchi on robust technology development: Bringing quality engineering upstream. New York: ASME Press Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Von Neumann, J.; Morgenstern, O. 1953: Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Integrated Design Automation Laboratory (IDEAL), Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Engineering MechanicsUniversity of MissouriUSA

Personalised recommendations