Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 55, Issue 5, pp 1787–1796 | Cite as

Direct computation of solution spaces

  • Johannes Fender
  • Fabian Duddeck
  • Markus Zimmermann
RESEARCH PAPER

Abstract

In engineering, it is often desirable to find a subset of the set of feasible designs, a solution space, rather than a single solution. A feasible design is defined as a design which does not violate any constraints and has a performance value below a desired threshold. Performance measure, threshold value and constraints depend on the specific problem. For evaluation of a design with respect to feasibility, a model is required which maps the design parameters from the input space onto the performance measures in the output space. In state-of-the-art methodology, iterative sampling is used to generate an estimate of the frontier between feasible and infeasible regions in the input space. By evaluating each sample point with respect to feasibility, areas which contain a large fraction of feasible designs are identified and subsequently resampled. The largest hypercube containing only feasible designs is sought, because this results in independent intervals for each design parameter. Estimating this hypercube with sufficient precision may require a large number of model evaluations, depending on the dimensionality of the input space. In this paper, a novel approach is proposed for modeling the inequality constraints and an objective function in a way for which a linear formulation can be used, independently of the dimensionality of the problem. Thereby the exact solution for the largest feasible hypercube can be calculated at much lower cost than with stochastic sampling as described above, as the problem is reduced to solving a linear system of equations. The method is applied to structural design with respect to the US-NCAP frontal impact. The obtained solution is compared to numerical solutions of an identical system, which are computed using reduced order models and stochastic methods. By this example, the high potential of the new direct method for solution space computation is shown.

Keywords

Solution Space Crashworthiness Optimization Surrogate Model Systems Engineering 

References

  1. Carvalho M, Ambrosio J, Eberhard P (2011) Identification of validated multibody vehicle models for crash analysis using a hybrid optimization procedure. Struct Multidiscip Optim 44(1):85–97. doi:10.1007/s00158-010-0590-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Doyle J, Csete ME (2011) Architecture, constraints and behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108Google Scholar
  3. Duddeck F (2008) Multidisciplinary optimization of car bodies. Struct Multidiscip Optim 35(4):375–389Google Scholar
  4. Duddeck F, Wehrle EJ (2015) Recent advances on surrogate modeling for robustness assessment of structures with respect to crashworthiness requirements. In: 10th Europ. LS-DYNA Conf., Würzburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  5. Fender J. (2013) Solution Spaces for Vehicle Crash Design. PhD thesis, Department of Civil, Geo, and Environmental Engineering, Technische Universität MünchenGoogle Scholar
  6. Fender J, Duddeck F, Zimmermann M (2014) On the calibration of simplified vehicle crash models. Struct Multidiscip Optim 49(3):455–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fender J, Graff L, Harbrecht H, Zimmermann M (2014) Identifying key parameters for design improvement in high-dimensional systems with uncertainty. J Mech DesGoogle Scholar
  8. Huang M (2002) Vehicle Crash Mechanics. CRC Press LLCGoogle Scholar
  9. Kim CH, Mijar AR, Arora JS (2001) Development of simplified models for design and optimization of automotive structures for crashworthiness. Struct Multidiscip Optim 4(22):307–321. doi:10.1007/PL00013285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ladeveze P (2002) On a theory of the lack of knowledge in structural computation. Technical Note SY/XS 136 127, EADS Launch Vehicles, in FrenchGoogle Scholar
  11. Ladeveze P, Puel G, Romeuf T (2006) On a strategy for the reduction of the lack of knowledge (lok) in model validation. Reliab Eng Syst SafGoogle Scholar
  12. Lehar M, Zimmermann M (2012) An inexpensive estimate of failure probability for high-dimensional systems with uncertainty. Struct Saf 3637:3238. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2011.10.001 Google Scholar
  13. Nocedal J, Wright SJ (1999) Numerical Optimization. Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  14. Zimmermann M, Hoessle JEV (2013) Computing solution spaces for robust design. Int J Numer Methods Eng 94(3):290–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Fender
    • 1
  • Fabian Duddeck
    • 2
  • Markus Zimmermann
    • 1
  1. 1.BMW Group, Research and Innovation CenterMunichGermany
  2. 2.Technische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations