Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 663–679 | Cite as

Optimal design of computer experiments for surrogate models with dimensionless variables

  • Ion Hazyuk
  • Marc Budinger
  • Florian Sanchez
  • Christian Gogu
RESEARCH PAPER
  • 314 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents a method for constructing optimal design of experiments (DoE) intended for building surrogate models using dimensionless (or non-dimensional) variables. In order to increase the fidelity of the model obtained by regression, the DoE needs to optimally cover the dimensionless space. However, in order to generate the data for the regression, one still needs a DoE for the physical variables, in order to carry out the simulations. Thus, there exist two spaces, each one needing a DoE. Since the dimensionless space is always smaller than the physical one, the challenge for building a DoE is that the relation between the two spaces is not bijective. Moreover, each space usually has its own domain constraints, which renders them not-surjective. This means that it is impossible to design the DoE in one space and then automatically generate the corresponding DoE in the other space while satisfying the constraints from both spaces. The solution proposed in the paper transforms the computation of the DoE into an optimization problem formulated in terms of a space-filling criterion (maximizing the minimum distance between neighboring points). An approach is proposed for efficiently solving this optimization problem in a two steps procedure. The method is particularly well suited for building surrogates in terms of dimensionless variables spanning several orders of magnitude (e.g. power laws). The paper also proposes some variations of the method; one when more control is needed on the number of levels on each non-dimensional variable and another one when a good distribution of the DoE is desired in the logarithmic scale. The DoE construction method is illustrated on three case studies. A purely numerical case illustrates each step of the method and two other, mechanical and thermal, case studies illustrate the results in different configurations and different practical aspects.

Keywords

Optimal space filling Optimization with space transformation Dimensional analysis Non-dimensional variables Surrogate modelling 

References

  1. Audze P, Eglais V (1977) New approach for planning out of experiments. Problems of Dynamics and Strengths 35:104–107Google Scholar
  2. Bates SJ, Sienz J, Toropov VV (2011) Formulation of the optimal Latin hypercube design of experiments using a permutation genetic algorithm. 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Palm Springs, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Benner P, Gugercin S, Willcox K (2015) A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems. SIAM Rev 57(4):483–531MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Box GE, Behnken DW (1960) Some new three level designs for the study of quantitative variables. Technometrics 2(4):455–475MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Box GE, Wilson KB (1951) On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 13(1):1–45MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Brayton RK, Director SW, Hachtel GD, Vidigal L (1979) A new algorithm for statistical circuit design based on quasi-Newton methods and function splitting. IEEE Trans Circuits and Systems 26:784–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buckingham E (1914) On physically similar systems: illustration of the use of dimensional equations. Phys Rev 4:345–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Budinger M, Passieux J-C, Gogu C, Fraj A (2013) Scaling-law-based metamodels for the sizing of mechatronic systems. Mechatronics 24(7):775–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Catalina T, Virgone J, Blanco E (2008) Development and validation of regression models to predict monthly heating demand for residential buildings. Energy and Buildings 40:1825–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chinesta F, Huerta A, Rozza G, Willcox K (2016) Model Order Reduction: a survey. WileyGoogle Scholar
  11. Fang K-T, Li R, Sudjianto A (2006) Design and modeling for computer experiments. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Forrester AIJ, Sóbester A, Keane AJ (2008) Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling. WileyGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuerle F, Sienz J (2011) Formulation of the Audze–Eglais uniform Latin hypercube design of experiments for constrained design spaces. Adv Eng Softw 42(9):680–689CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Gogu C, Haftka RT, Bapanapalli SK, Sankar BV (2009) Dimensionality reduction approach for response surface approximations: application to thermal design. AIAA J 47:1700–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hifi M, M'hallah R (2009) A literature review on circle and sphere packing problems: models and methodologies. Advances in Operations Research. doi:10.1155/2009/150624 MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Hofwing M, Strömberg N (2010) D-optimality of non-regular design spaces by using a Bayesian modification and a hybrid method. Struct Multidiscip Optim 42(1):73–88CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Iman RL, Conover WJ (1980) Small sample sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models. With an application to risk assessment. Communications in statistics-theory and methods 9(17):1749–1842MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Incropera FP, DeWitt DP, Bergman TL, Lavine AS (2007) Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  19. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2001) Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multidisc Optim 23:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jin R, Chen W, Sudjianto A (2005) An efficient algorithm for constructing optimal design of computer experiments. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 134(1):268–287MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaufman M, Balabanov V, Grossman B, Mason WH, Watson LT, Haftka RT (1996) Multidisciplinary Optimization via Response Surface Techniques. Proceedings of the 36th Israel Conference on Aerospace Sciences, Omanuth, Haifa, IsraelGoogle Scholar
  22. Koehler JR, Owen AB (1996) 9 computer experiments. Handbook of statistics 13:261–308MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuneš J (2012) Similarity and modeling in science and engineering. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  24. Lacey D, Steele C (2006) The use of dimensional analysis to augment Design of Experiments for optimization and Robustification. J Eng Des 17(1):55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li C-C, Lee Y-C (1990) A statistical procedure for model building in dimensional analysis. Int J Heat Mass Transf 33:1566–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21:239–324MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Mendez P, Ordonez F (2005) Scaling laws from statistical data and dimensional analysis. J Appl Mech 72(5):648–658CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Morris MD, Mitchell TJ (1995) Exploratory designs for computational experiments. Journal of statistical planning and inference 43(3):381–402CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Myers RH, Montgomery DC (2002) Response surface methodology: process and product in optimization using designed experiments. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Myšáková E, Lepš M, Kucerová A (2012) A Method for Maximin Constrained Design of Experiments. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Engineering Computational Technology. Civil-Comp Press, StirlingshireGoogle Scholar
  31. Pahl G, Beits W, Feldhusen J, Grote K-H (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer-Verlag, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peikert R, Würtz D, Monagan M, de Groot C (1991) Packing circles in a square: a review and new results. In System Modelling and Optimization, Proceedings of the Fifteenth IFIP Conference, September 2–6, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. Pereira FC, Antoniou C, Fargas JA, Ben-Akiva M (2014) A Metamodel for estimating error bounds in real-time traffic prediction systems. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 15(3):1310–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petelet M, Iooss B, Asserin O, Loredo A (2010) Latin hypercube sampling with inequality constraints. AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis 94(4):325–339MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pukelsheim F (1993) Optimal design of experiments. SIAMGoogle Scholar
  36. Queipo NV, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Goel T, Vaidyanathan R, Tucker PK (2005) Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 41(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raymer DP (2002) Aircraft design: a conceptual approach. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Sanchez F, Delbecq S (2016) Surrogate modeling technique for the conceptual and preliminary design of embedded actuation systems and components. ICAS 2016, Seoul, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  39. Sanchez F, Budinger M, Hazyuk I (2017) Dimensional analysis and surrogate models for the thermal modeling of Multiphysics systems. Appl Therm Eng 110:758–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Santner TJ, Williams BJ, Notz WI (2013) The design and analysis of computer experiments. Springer Science & Business Media.MATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Shewy M, Wynn H (1987) Maximum entropy design. Appl Stat 14(2):165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simpson T, Booker A, Ghosh D, Giunta A, Koch P, Yang R-J (2002) Approximation Methods in Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization:A Panel Discussion. in 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis & Optimization, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  43. Sonin AA (2001) The Physical Basis of Dimensional Analysis. 2nd edition. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. Vaschy A (1892) Sur les lois de similitude en physique. Annales télégraphiques 19:25–28Google Scholar
  45. VDI (2004) Design methodology for mechatronic systems. Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  46. Venter G, Haftka RT, Starnes JH (1998) Construction of response surface approximations for design optimization. AIAA J 36(12):2242–2249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Viana FA (2013) Things you wanted to know about the Latin hypercube design and were afraid to ask. In 10th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Orlando, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. Viana FA, Venter G, Balabanov V (2010) An algorithm for fast optimal Latin hypercube design of experiments. Int J Numer Methods Eng 82(2):135–156MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Vignaux GA, Scott JL (1999) Simplifying regression models using dimensional analysis. Austral & New Zealand J Statist 41:31–41CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilhelmus HAS, Henk A v-d V, Joost R (eds) (2008) Model order reduction: theory, research aspects and applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut Clément Ader, UMR CNRS 5312, INSA ToulouseToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Institut Clément Ader, UMR CNRS 5312Université Paul Sabatier (UPS)ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations