In most industrial applications, only limited statistical information is available to describe the input uncertainty model due to expensive experimental testing costs. It would be unreliable to use the estimated input uncertainty model obtained from insufficient data for the design optimization. Furthermore, when input variables are correlated, we would obtain non-optimum design if we assume that they are independent. In this paper, two methods for problems with a lack of input statistical information—possibility-based design optimization (PBDO) and reliability-based design optimization (RBDO) with confidence level on the input model—are compared using mathematical examples and an Abrams M1A1 tank roadarm example. The comparison study shows that PBDO could provide an unreliable optimum design when the number of samples is very small. In addition, PBDO provides an optimum design that is too conservative when the number of samples is relatively large. Furthermore, the obtained PBDO designs do not converge to the optimum design obtained using the true input distribution as the number of samples increases. On the other hand, RBDO with confidence level on the input model provides a conservative and reliable optimum design in a stable manner. The obtained RBDO designs converge to the optimum design obtained using the true input distribution as the number of samples increases.
Identification of joint and marginal CDFs Confidence level Reliability-based design optimization (RBDO) Possibility-based design optimization (PBDO) Correlated input Copula
Research is supported by the Automotive Research Center, which is sponsored by the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC). This research was also partially supported by the World Class University Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Grant Number R32-2008-000-10161-0 in 2009).
Ang AH-S, Tang WH (1984) Probability concepts in engineering design, vol I: decision, risk and reliability. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Lee I, Choi KK, Du L, Gorsich D (2008) Inverse analysis method using MPP-based dimension reduction for reliability-based design optimization of nonlinear and multi-dimensional systems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198(1):14–27MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meggiolaro MA, Castro JTP (2004) Statistical evaluation of strain-life fatigue crack initiation predictions. Int J Fatigue 26(5):463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mourelatos ZP, Zhou J (2005) Reliability estimation and design with insufficient data based on possibility theory. AIAA J 43(8):1696–1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaidis E, Cudney HH, Chen S, Haftka RT, Rosca R (2004) Comparison of probability and possibility for design against catastrophic failure under uncertainty. J Mech Des 126:386–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noh Y, Choi KK, Lee I (2009) Reduction of transformation ordering effect in RBDO using MPP-based dimension reduction method. AIAA J 47(4):994–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noh Y, Choi KK, Lee I (2010) Identification of marginal and joint CDFs using the Bayesian method for RBDO. Struct Multidiscip Optim 40(1):35–51MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noh Y, Choi KK, Lee I (2011a) Reliability-based design optimization with confidence level under input model uncertainty due to limited test data. J Struct Multidiscip Optim 43(4):443–458MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noh Y, Choi KK, Lee I (2011b) Reliability-based design optimization with confidence level for non-Gaussian distributions using bootstrap method. J Mech Des 133(9):91001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picheny V, Kim NH, Haftka RT (2010) Application of bootstrap method in conservative estimation of reliability with limited samples. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41(2):205–217MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman S, Wei D (2006) A univariate approximation at most probable point for Higer-order reliability analysis. Int J Solids Struct 43:2820–2839MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou J, Mourelatos ZP (2008) Design under uncertainty using a combination of evidence theory and a bayesian approach. In: Proceedings of the third international workshop on reliable engineering computing (REC). NSF Workshop on Imprecise Probability in Engineering Analysis & Design, Savannah, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar