Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 175–189 | Cite as

Comparison study between probabilistic and possibilistic methods for problems under a lack of correlated input statistical information

Research Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Identification of joint and marginal CDFs Confidence level Reliability-based design optimization (RBDO) Possibility-based design optimization (PBDO) Correlated input Copula 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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).

References

  1. Ang AH-S, Tang WH (1984) Probability concepts in engineering design, vol I: decision, risk and reliability. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Annis C (2004) Life prediction isn’t as easy as it looks. J ASTM Int 1(2):3–14MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aughenbaugh JM, Paredis CJJ (2006) The value of using imprecise probabilities in engineering design. J Mech Des 128(4):969–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Haim Y, Elishakoff I (1990) Convex models of uncertainty in applied mechanics. Elsevier, AmsterdamMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Breitung K (1984) Asymptotic approximations for multinormal integrals. ASCE J Eng Mech 110(3):357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Center for Computer-Aided Design, College of Engineering (1999a) DRAW Concept Manual. The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IAGoogle Scholar
  7. Center for Computer-Aided Design, College of Engineering (1999b) DRAW User Reference. The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IAGoogle Scholar
  8. Denny M (2001) Introduction to importance sampling in rare-event simulations. Eur J Phys 22:403–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Du L, Choi KK (2006) Possibility-based design optimization method for design problems with both statistical and fuzzy input data. ASME J 128(4):928–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Du L, Choi KK (2008) An inverse analysis method for design optimization with both statistical and fuzzy uncertainties. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37(2):107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Du X, Sudjianto A, Huang B (2005) Reliability-based design with the mixture of random and interval variables. J Mech Des 127(6):1068–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Du L, Choi KK, Youn BD (2006) An inverse possibility analysis method for possibility-based design optimization. AIAA J 44(11):2682–2690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Efron B (1982) The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans. SIAM, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  15. Efstratios N, Ghiocel DM, Singhal S (2004) Engineering design reliability handbook. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Genest C, Favre A-C (2007) Everything you always wanted to know about copula modeling but were afraid to ask. J Hydrol Eng 12(4):347–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haldar A, Mahadevan S (2000) Probability, reliability and statistical methods in engineering design. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasofer AM, Lind NC (1974) An exact and invariant first order reliability format. ASCE J Eng Mech Div 100(1):111–121Google Scholar
  19. Hoel PG (1962) Introduction to mathematical statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hohenbichler M, Rackwitz R (1988) Improvement of second-order reliability estimates by importance sampling. ASCE J Eng Mech 114(12):2195–2199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huard D, Évin G, Favre AC (2006) Bayesian copula selection. Comput Stat Data Anal 51(2):809–822MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Meggiolaro MA, Castro JTP (2004) Statistical evaluation of strain-life fatigue crack initiation predictions. Int J Fatigue 26(5):463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mourelatos ZP, Zhou J (2005) Reliability estimation and design with insufficient data based on possibility theory. AIAA J 43(8):1696–1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nelsen RB (1999) An introduction to copulas. Springer, New YorkMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Noh Y, Choi KK, Du L (2008) Reliability based design optimization of problems with correlated input variables using copulas. Struct Multidiscip Optim. doi: 10.1007/s00158-008-0277-9 Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Rosenblatt M (1952) Remarks on a multivariate transformation. Ann Math Stat 23:470–472MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ross TJ (2010) Fuzzy logic with engineering application, 3rd edn. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Socie DF (2003) Seminar notes: “Aspects of Fatigue”. URL:https://www.efatigue.com. Accessed 1 Jan 2011
  37. Swanson Analysis System Inc. (1989) ANSYS engineering analysis system user’s manual, vol I, II. Houston, PAGoogle Scholar
  38. Tu J, Choi KK (1999) A new study on reliability-based design optimization. J Mech Des 121(4):557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tu J, Choi KK, Park YH (2001) Design potential method for reliability-based system parameter design using adaptive constraint evaluation. AIAA J 39(4):667–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wu W, Rao SS (2004) Interval approach for the modeling of tolerances and clearances in mechanism analysis. J Mech Des 126(4):581–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Youn BD, Choi KK, Du L (2005) Enriched Performance Measure Approach (PMA+) for reliability-based design optimization. AIAA J 43(4):874–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inform Control 8(12):338–353MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ikjin Lee
    • 1
  • K. K. Choi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yoojeong Noh
    • 4
  • David Lamb
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical & Industrial EngineeringThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical & Automotive EngineeringKeimyung UniversityDaeguKorea
  5. 5.US Army RDECOM/TARDECWarrenUSA

Personalised recommendations