Weighted stochastic response surface method considering sample weights

  • Fenfen Xiong
  • Wei Chen
  • Ying Xiong
  • Shuxing YangEmail author
Research Paper


Conventional stochastic response surface methods (SRSM) based on polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) for uncertainty propagation treat every sample point equally during the regression process and may produce inaccurate estimations of PCE coefficients. To address this issue, a new weighted stochastic response surface method (WSRSM) that considers the sample probabilistic weights in regression is studied in this work. Techniques for determining sample probabilistic weights for three sampling approaches Gaussian Quadrature point (GQ), Monomial Cubature Rule (MCR), and Latin Hypercube Design (LHD) are developed. The advantage of the proposed method is demonstrated through mathematical and engineering examples. It is shown that for various sampling techniques WSRSM consistently achieves higher accuracy of uncertainty propagation without introducing extra computational cost compared to the conventional SRSM. Insights into the relative accuracy and efficiency of various sampling techniques in implementation are provided as well.


Stochastic response surface method Sample probabilistic weights Gauss quadrature Monomial Cubature rule Latin hypercube design 



Stochastic response surface method;


Weighted stochastic response surface method;


Polynomial Chaos Expansion;


Gaussian Quadrature;


Monomial Cubature rule;


Latin Hypercube design;


Dimension of the input random variable;


Number of sample points;


PCE order;


PCE coefficients;


Number of PCE coefficients;


Standard normal random variable;


Cumulative density function (CDF);


Probability density function (PDF)



The grant supports from National Science Foundation of China (NO. 10972034), US National Science Foundation (NO. CMMI-0928320) and China Poster-doctoral Science Foundation (20100470213) are greatly acknowledged. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.


  1. Acharjee S, Zabaras N (2006) Uncertainty propagation in finite deformations—a spectral stochastic Lagrangian approach. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195(19–22):2289–2312MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acharjee S, Zabaras N (2007) A non-intrusive stochastic Galerkin approach for modeling uncertainty propagation in deformation processes. Comput Struct 85(5–6):244–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choi S, Grandhi R, Canfield R (2007) Reliability-based structural design. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  4. Creveling CM (1997) Tolerance design: a handbook for developing optimal specifications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Eldred MS, Webster CG, Constantine P (2008) Evaluation of non-intrusive approaches for Wiener–Askey generalized polynomial chaos. In: Proceedings of the 10th AIAA nondeterministic approaches conference, Schaumburg, IL, 7–10 April 2008. No. AIAA-2008-1892Google Scholar
  6. Finette S (2006) A stochastic representation of environmental uncertainty and its coupling to acoustic wave propagation in ocean waveguides. J Acoust Soc Am 120(5):67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghanem R, Spanos P (1991) Stochastic finite elements: a spectral approach. Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  8. Hosder S, Walters RW, Balch M (2007) Efficient sampling for non-intrusive polynomial chaos. In: 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference 15th 23–26 April 2007, Honolulu, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  9. Isukapalli SS (1999) Uncertainty analysis of transport-transformation models. PhD thesis, The State University of New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  10. Isukapalli SS, Roy A, Georgopoulos PG (1998) Stochastic response surface methods (SRSMs) for uncertainty propagation: application to environmental and biological systems. Risk Anal 18(3):351–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Isukapalli SS, Roy A, Georgopoulos PG (2000) Efficient sensitivity/ uncertainty analysis using the combined stochastic response surface method and automated differentiation: application to environmental and biological systems. Risk Anal 20(5):591–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jin R, Chen W, Sudjianto A (2005) An efficient algorithm for constructing optimal design of computer experiments. Stat J Stat Plan Inf 134(1):268–287MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kewlani G, Iagnemma K (2008) A stochastic response surface approach to statistical prediction of mobile robot mobility. Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2008. IEEE/RSJ International Conference, 2008, pp 2234–2239Google Scholar
  14. Kim YK, Lee GH, Hong JP, Hur J et al (2004) Prediction of torque characteristic on barrier-type SRM using stochastic response surface methodology combined with moving least square. IEEE Trans Magn 40(2):738–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kokkolaras M, Mourelatos ZP, Papalambros PY (2006) Design optimization of hierarchically decomposed multilevel system under uncertainty. J Mech Des 128(2):503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee SH, Chen W (2008) A comparative study of uncertainty propagation methods for black-box type functions. Struct Multidisc Optim 37(3):239–253MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee SH, Choi HS, Kwak BM (2007) Multi-level design of experiments for statistical moment and probability calculation. Struct Multidisc Optim 37(1):1615–1488Google Scholar
  18. Noh Y, Choi KK, Du L (2009) Reliability-based design optimization of problems with correlated input variables using a Gaussian Copula. Struct Multidisc Optim 38(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rahman S, Wei D (2006) A univariate approximation at most probable point for higher-order reliability analysis. Int J Solids Struct 43(9):2820–2839zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosenblatt M (1952) Remarks on a multivariate transformation. Ann Math Stat 23:470–472MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sarkar A, Ghanem R (2002) Mid-frequency structural dynamics with parameter uncertainty. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191(47):5499–5513zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stroud AH (1971) Approximate calculation of multiple integrals. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Sudret B (2005) Des ’el’ements finis stochastiques spectraux aux surfaces de r’eponses stochastiques: une approche unifi’ee,” 17 ‘eme Congr‘es Franc¸ais de M’ecanique, Troyes,—septembre, 2005Google Scholar
  24. Sudret B (2008) Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(7):964–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tatang MA, Pan W, Prinn RG, McRae GJ (1997) An efficient method for parametric uncertainty analysis of numerical geophysical models. J Geophys Res 102(D18):21925–21932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walters RW (2003) Towards stochastic fluid mechanics via polynomial chaos. In: Proceedings of the 41st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 6–9 January 2003. No. AIAA-2003-0413Google Scholar
  27. Wang H, Kim NH (2006) Robust design using stochastic response surface and sensitivities. In: 11th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, 6–8 September 2006, Portsmouth, Virginia. No. AIAA 2006-7015Google Scholar
  28. Wei DL, Cui ZS, Chen J (2008) Uncertainty quantification using polynomial chaos expansion with points of monomial cubature rules. Comput Struct 86(23–24):2102–2108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Xiu D, Karniadakis GE (2002) The Wiener–Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations. SIAM J Sci Comput 24(2):19–44MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fenfen Xiong
    • 1
  • Wei Chen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ying Xiong
    • 4
  • Shuxing Yang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Aerospace EngineeringBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  3. 3.School of Mechanical EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  4. 4.Bank of AmericaCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations