A novel evolution control strategy for surrogate-assisted design optimization

Research Paper
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Optimization solutions of real-world engineering problems mainly suffer from the large computational cost, the curse of dimensionality, and the multi-disciplinary nature of the involved disciplines. These issues may be intensified by incorporating uncertainties into the design and optimization of the problem. In this context, Surrogate-Assisted Optimization (SAO) methods and Evolution Control Strategies (ECS) have been considered as powerful paradigms to overcome or at least to alleviate the mentioned issues over the last two decades. This paper presents a novel ECS strategy based on the meta-models along with the real models. This strategy calculates the accuracy of the meta-model at each design point and determines if the real-model needs to be replaced with the meta-model. Moreover, the SAO and ECS are integrated to develop an augmented strategy to solve complex problems like Uncertainty-based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (UMDO). In this context, the artificial neural networks are used along with the improved Latin hypercube sampling technique. Performance benefits of the proposed strategy in achieving the near-global optimum solution are shown by solving two simple mathematical problems and an engineering benchmark problem. To demonstrate the potential capability of this strategy, it applies to the UMDO problem of a space transportation system. Simulation results illustrate that the proposed strategy improves the computational efficiency as well as the globality of the optimal solution by proper management of the meta-models and real-models within the optimization process.

Keywords

Surrogate-assisted optimization Evolution control strategy Meta-model Uncertainty-based design Multidisciplinary design optimization 

References

  1. Adams BM, Bohnhoff WJ, Dalbey KR, Eddy JP, Eldred MS, Gay DM, Swiler LP (2009) DAKOTA, a multilevel parallel object-oriented framework for design optimization, parameter estimation, uncertainty quantification, and sensitivity analysis: version 5.0 user’s manual. Sandia National Laboratories, Tech. Rep. SAND2010–2183Google Scholar
  2. Akhtar S, Linshu H (2006) Support vector regression-driven multidisciplinary design optimization for multi-stage launch vehicle considering throttling effect. 44th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Akhtar S, Linshu H (2005) Support vector machine based trajectory metamodel for conceptual design of multi-stage space launch vehicle. Comput Intell Secur 528–535.  https://doi.org/10.1007/11596448_77
  4. Ariyarit A, Sugiura M, Tanabe Y, Kanazaki M (2017) Hybrid surrogate-model-based multi-fidelity efficient global optimization applied to helicopter blade design. Eng Optim 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2017.1367391
  5. Bataleblu AA, Roshanian J (2015) Robust trajectory optimization of space launch vehicle using computational intelligence. 2015 I.E. Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) (pp 455–460)Google Scholar
  6. Balesdent M, Bérend N, Dépincé P, Chriette A (2012) A survey of multidisciplinary design optimization methods in launch vehicle design. Struct Multidiscip Optim 45(5):619–642MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Basudhar A, Dribusch C, Lacaze S, Missoum S (2012) Constrained efficient global optimization with support vector machines. Struct Multidiscip Optim 46(2):201–221CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Beachkofski B, Grandhi R (2002) Improved distributed hypercube sampling. In 43rd AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference (p 1274)Google Scholar
  9. Belyaev M, Burnaev E, Kapushev E, Panov M, Prikhodko P, Vetrov D, Yarotsky D (2016) GTApprox: surrogate modeling for industrial design. Adv Eng Softw 102:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blake WB (1997) Missile Datcom: user’s manual-1997 FORTRAN 90 Revision (No. AFRL-VA-WP-TR-1998-3009). Air force research labGoogle Scholar
  11. Booker AJ, Jr D, Frank PD, Serafini DB, Torczon V, Trosset MW (1999) A rigorous framework for optimization of expensive functions by surrogates. Struct Optim 17(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brévault L, Balesdent M, Bérend N, Le Riche R (2013) Challenges and future trends in Uncertainty-Based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization for space transportation system design. 5th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences (EUCASS 2013)Google Scholar
  13. Brevault L (2015) Contributions to multidisciplinary design optimization under uncertainty, application to launch vehicle design. Doctoral dissertation, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-EtienneGoogle Scholar
  14. Chatterjee T, Chakraborty S, Chowdhury R (2017) A critical review of surrogate assisted robust design optimization. Arch Comput Meth Eng 1–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-017-9240-5
  15. Chen S, Zhang F, Khalid M (2002) Evaluation of three decomposition MDO algorithms. In: Proceedings of 23rd international congress of aerospace sciences, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  16. Darabi H, Roshanian J, Zare H (2015) Design of liquid-propellant engine using collaborative optimization and evolutionary algorithms. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aerosp Eng 229(2):232–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dees PD, Zwack MR, Steffens M, Edwards S, Diaz MJ, Holt JB (2015) An expert system-driven method for parametric trajectory optimization during conceptual design. AIAA Space, PasadenaGoogle Scholar
  18. Dellino G, Meloni C (2015) Uncertainty management in simulation-optimization of complex systems: algorithms and applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Engelund WC, Stanley DO, Lepsch RA, McMillin MM, Unal R (1993) Aerodynamic configuration design using response surface methodology analysis. NASA STI/Recon Technical Report A, 94, 10718Google Scholar
  20. Erfani T, Utyuzhnikov SV (2010) Handling uncertainty and finding robust Pareto frontier in multiobjective optimization using fuzzy set theory. In: 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference et al, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  21. Forrester AI, Sóbester A, Keane AJ (2007) Multi-fidelity optimization via surrogate modelling. Proc R Soc Lond Math Phys Eng Sci 463(2088):3251–3269MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Forrester A, Sobester A, Keane A (2008) Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forrester AIJ, Keane AJ (2009) Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 45(1–3):50–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghosh S (2016) Concurrent optimization using probabilistic analysis of distributed multidisciplinary architectures for design under uncertainty. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  25. Gong W, Zhou A, Cai Z (2015) A multioperator search strategy based on cheap surrogate models for evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(5):746–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haftka RT, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Padula S (1992) On options for interdisciplinary analysis and design optimization. Struct Optim 4(2):65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horng SC, Lin SY (2013) Evolutionary algorithm assisted by surrogate model in the framework of ordinal optimization and optimal computing budget allocation. Inf Sci 233:214–229MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hu W (2012) Approximation assisted multiobjective and collaborative robust optimization under interval uncertainty. University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  29. Hu W, Azarm S, Almansoori A (2013) New approximation assisted multi-objective collaborative robust optimization (new AA-McRO) under interval uncertainty. Struct Multidiscip Optim 47(1):19–35MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Hu X, Chen X, Parks GT, Yao W (2016) Review of improved Monte Carlo methods in uncertainty-based design optimization for aerospace vehicles. Prog Aerosp Sci 86:20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Humble RW, Larson WJ, Henry GN (1995) Space propulsion analysis and design. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Jin Y (2011) Surrogate-assisted evolutionary computation: recent advances and future challenges. Swarm Evol Comput 1(2):61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones DR, Schonlau M, Welch WJ (1998) Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Glob Optim 13(4):455–492MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Kanazaki M, Imamura T, Matsuno T, Chiba K (2017) Multiple additional sampling by expected improvement maximization in efficient global optimization for real-world design problems. In Intelligent and evolutionary systems: the 20th Asia pacific symposium, IES 2016, Canberra, Australia, Proceedings (pp 183–194), Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
  35. Kroo I (1997) MDO for large-scale design, multidisciplinary design optimization: state of the art, SIAM pp 22–44Google Scholar
  36. Landau DP, Binder K (2014) A guide to Monte Carlo simulations in statistical physics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Lafleur JM, Fleming ES, Saleh JH (2012) Response surface equations for expendable launch vehicle payload mass capability. J Spacecr Rocket 49(1):185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee JW, Jeon KS, Byun YH, Kim SJ (2005) Optimal space launcher design using a refined response surface method. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Lin C, Gao F, Bai Y (2018) An intelligent sampling approach for metamodel-based multi-objective optimization with guidance of the adaptive weighted-sum method. Struct Multidiscip Optim 57(3):1047–1060Google Scholar
  40. Martinez J, Marti P (2012) Metamodel-based multi-objective robust design optimization of structures. 12th International conference on optimum design of structures and materials in engineering, New Forest, UKGoogle Scholar
  41. Martins JR, Lambe AB (2013) Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures. AIAA J 51(9):2049–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Qazi MU, Linshu H, Elhabian T (2005) Rapid trajectory optimization using computational intelligence for guidance and conceptual design of multistage space launch vehicles. AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference and exhibit (pp 1–18)Google Scholar
  43. Qazi MU, Linshu H (2006) Nearly-orthogonal sampling and neural network metamodel driven conceptual design of multistage space launch vehicle. Comput Aided Des 38(6):595–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Qazi MUD, He L, Mateen P (2007) Hammersley sampling and support-vector-regression-driven launch vehicle design. J Spacecr Rocket 44(5):1094–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rajabi MM, Ataie-Ashtiani B, Janssen H (2015) Efficiency enhancement of optimized Latin hypercube sampling strategies: application to Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis and meta-modeling. Adv Water Resour 76:127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saleh K, Aute V, Azarm S, Radermacher R (2010) Online approximation assisted multiobjective optimization with space filling, variance and Pareto measures. In 13th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, AIAA-2010Google Scholar
  47. Ryberg AB, Domeij Bäckryd R, Nilsson L (2012) Metamodel-based multidisciplinary design optimization for automotive applications. Linköping University Electronic Press, LinköpingGoogle Scholar
  48. Sayyafzadeh M (2017) Reducing the computation time of well placement optimisation problems using self-adaptive metamodelling. J Pet Sci Eng 151:143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shimoyama K, Fujii K, Kobayashi H (2004) Development of realistic optimization method of TSTO space-plane multi-objective and robust optimization. In 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference (p 4475)Google Scholar
  50. Simpson TW, Booker AJ, Ghosh D, Giunta AA, Koch PN, Yang RJ (2004) Approximation methods in multidisciplinary analysis and optimization: a panel discussion. Struct Multidiscip Optim 27(5):302–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simpson TW, Peplinski J, Koch PN, Allen JK (2001) Meta-models for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Eng Comput 17(2):129–150CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Sóbester A, Forrester AI, Toal DJ, Tresidder E, Tucker S (2014) Engineering design applications of surrogate-assisted optimization techniques. Optim Eng 15(1):243–265CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka RT (1997) Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments. Struct Optim 14(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steffens M (2016) Trajectory-based launch vehicle performance analysis for design-space exploration in conceptual design. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  55. Sudret B (2012) Meta-models for structural reliability and uncertainty quantification. In Proc. 5th Asian-Pacific Symp. Stuctural reliab, its appl. (APSSRA, 2012), Singapore, pp 53–76Google Scholar
  56. Sun C, Jin Y, Cheng R, Ding J, Zeng J (2017) Surrogate-assisted cooperative swarm optimization of high-dimensional expensive problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 21:644–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Suresh BN, Sivan K (2015) Integrated design for space transportation system. Springer, New York, p 1–455Google Scholar
  58. Tedford N, Martins J (2010) Benchmarking multidisciplinary design optimization algorithms. Optim Eng 11(1):159–183MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. Tenne Y, Goh CK (2010) Computational intelligence in expensive optimization problems (Vol. 2). Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. Tzannetakis N, Van de Peer J (2002) Design optimization through parallel-generated surrogate models, optimization methodologies and the utility of legacy simulation software. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23(2):170–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Viana FA, Haftka RT, Watson LT (2013) Efficient global optimization algorithm assisted by multiple surrogate techniques. J Glob Optim 56(2):669–689CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. Viana FA, Simpson TW, Balabanov V, Toropov V (2014) Special section on multidisciplinary design optimization: metamodeling in multidisciplinary design optimization: how far have we really come? AIAA J 52(4):670–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang GG, Shan S (2007) Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. J Mech Des 129(4):370–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Xu C, He HS, Hu Y, Chang Y, Li X, Bu R (2005) Latin hypercube sampling and geostatistical modeling of spatial uncertainty in a spatially explicit forest landscape model simulation. Ecol Model 185(2):255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yao W, Chen X, Luo W, van Tooren M, Guo J (2011) Review of uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design optimization methods for aerospace vehicles. Prog Aerosp Sci 47(6):450–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yeniay O, Unal R, Lepsch RA (2006) Using dual response surfaces to reduce variability in launch vehicle design: a case study. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(4):407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yi SI, Shin JK, Park GJ (2008) Comparison of MDO methods with mathematical examples. Struct Multidisc Optim 35:391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zang TA, Hemsch MJ, Hilburger MW, Kenny SP, Luckring JM, Maghami P, Stroud WJ (2002) Needs and opportunities for uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design methods for aerospace vehicles. NASA Langley Research Center, HamptonGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang SL, Zhu P, Arendt PD, Chen W (2012) Extended objective-oriented sequential sampling method for robust design of complex systems against design uncertainty. In Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE (pp 12–15)Google Scholar
  70. Zipfel Peter H (2007) Modeling and simulation of aerospace vehicle dynamics. 2nd Edition, p 1–600, University of Florida, AIAA education seriesGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhou Q, Shao X, Jiang P, Gao Z, Zhou H, Shu L (2016) An active learning variable-fidelity metamodelling approach based on ensemble of metamodels and objective-oriented sequential sampling. J Eng Des 27(4–6):205–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhu H, Hui T, Guobiao C, Bao W (2015) Uncertainty analysis and design optimization of hybrid rocket motor powered vehicle for suborbital flight. Chin J Aeronaut 28(3):676–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zwack MR, Dees PD, Holt JB (2016) Application of design of experiments and surrogate modeling within the NASA advanced concepts office, earth-to-orbit design process. In AIAA SPACE 2016 (p 5649)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aerospace EngineeringK. N. Toosi University of TechnologyTehranIslamic Republic of Iran
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringTarbiat Modares University of TechnologyTehranIslamic Republic of Iran

Personalised recommendations