Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 59, Issue 6, pp 1969–1990 | Cite as

Decoupling uncertainty quantification from robust design optimization

  • Tanmoy ChatterjeeEmail author
  • Rajib Chowdhury
  • Palaniappan Ramu
Research Paper


Robust design optimization (RDO) has been eminent in determining the optimal design of real-time complex systems under stochastic environment. Unlike conventional optimization, RDO involves uncertainty quantification which may render the procedure to be computationally intensive, if not prohibitive. In order to deal with such issues, an efficient approximation-based generalized RDO framework has been proposed. Since RDO formulation comprises of statistical terms of the performance functions, the proposed framework deals with approximation of those statistical quantities, rather than the performance functions. Consequently, the proposed framework allows transformation of the RDO problem to an equivalent deterministic one. As a result, unlike traditional surrogate-assisted RDO, the proposed framework yields desirable results in significantly less number of functional evaluations. For performing such response statistical approximation, two adaptive sparse refined Kriging-based computational models have been proposed. However, the generality of the proposed methodology allows any surrogate models to be employed within this framework, provided it is capable of capturing the functional non-linearity. Implementation of the proposed framework in three test examples and two finite element-based practical problems clearly illustrates its potential for further complicated applications.


RDO Kriging HDMR PCE Compressive sampling Response statistics 



TC and RC acknowledge the support of CSIR via Grant No. 22(0712)/16/EMR-II.


  1. Berg E, Friedlander M (2007) SPGL1: a solver for large-scale sparse reconstruction.
  2. Berg E, Friedlander M (2008) Probing the Pareto frontier for basis pursuit solutions. SIAM J Sci Comput 31:890–912MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyer H-G, Sendhoff B (2007) Robust optimization—a comprehensive survey. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196:3190–3218MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharjya S (2010) Robust optimization of structures under uncertainty. PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Bengal Engineering and Science University, ShibpurGoogle Scholar
  5. Blatman G, Sudret B (2011) Adaptive sparse polynomial chaos expansion based on least angle regression. J Comput Phys 230:2345–2367MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumensath T, Davies ME (2009) Iterative hard thresholding for compressed sensing. Appl Comput Harmon Anal 27:265–274MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Chakraborty S, Chowdhury R (2015) A semi-analytical framework for structural reliability analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 289:475–497MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Chakraborty S, Bhattacharjya S, Haldar A (2012) Sensitivity importance-based robust optimization of structures with incomplete probabilistic information. Int J Numer Methods Eng 90:1261–1277CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Chakraborty S, Chatterjee T, Chowdhury R, Adhikari S (2016) Robust design optimization for crashworthiness of vehicle side impact. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part B Mech Eng 1–9.
  10. Chakraborty S, Chatterjee T, Chowdhury R, Adhikari S (2017) A surrogate based multi-fidelity approach for robust design optimization. Appl Math Model 47:726–744MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chastaing G, Gamboa F, Prieur C (2012) Generalized hoeffding-sobol decomposition for dependent variables-application to sensitivity analysis. Electronic Journal of Statistics 6:2420–2448Google Scholar
  12. Chatterjee T, Chowdhury R (2016) Adaptive bilevel approximation technique for multiobjective evolutionary optimization. J Comput Civ Eng 04016071(1–16).
  13. Chatterjee T, Chowdhury R (2017) An efficient sparse Bayesian learning framework for stochastic response analysis. Struct Saf 68:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chatterjee T, Chakraborty S, Chowdhury R (2016) A bi-level approximation tool for the computation of FRFs in stochastic dynamic systems. Mech Syst Signal Process 70-71:484–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chatterjee T, Chakraborty S, Chowdhury R (2017) A critical review of surrogate assisted robust design optimization. Arch Comput Methods Eng.
  16. Chen W, Allen J, Tsui K, Mistree F (1996) Procedure for robust design: minimizing variations caused by noise factors and control factors. J Mech Des Trans ASME 118:478–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen S, Donoho D, Saunders M (1998) Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. SIAM J Sci Comput 20:33–61MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen W, Wiecek M, Zhang J (1999) Quality utility—a compromise programming approach to robust design. J Mech Des ASME 121:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen W, Sahai A, Messac A, Sundararaj G (2000) Exploration of the effectiveness of physical programming in robust design. J Mech Des ASME 122:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheng J, Liu Z, Wu Z et al (2014) Robust optimization of structural dynamic characteristics based on adaptive Kriging model and CNSGA. Struct Multidiscip Optim 51:423–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Combettes P, Wajs V (2005) Signal recovery by proximal forward-backward splitting. Multiscale Model Simul 4:1168–1200MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Dai W, Milenkovic O (2009) Subspace pursuit for compressive sensing signal reconstruction. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 55:2230–2249MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Deb K, Agarwal A, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6:182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deng J (2006) Structural reliability analysis for implicit performance function using radial basis function network. Int J Solids Struct 43:3255–3291CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Diez M, Peri D (2010) Robust optimization for ship conceptual design. Ocean Eng 37:966–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Doostan A, Iaccarino G (2009) A least-squares approximation of partial differential equations with high-dimensional random inputs. J Comput Phys 228:4332–4345MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Doostan A, Owhadi H (2011) A non-adapted sparse approximation of PDEs with stochastic inputs. J Comput Phys 230:3015–3034MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Du X, Chen W (2000) Towards a better understanding of modeling feasibility robustness in engineering design. J Mech Des Trans ASME 122:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Du X, Sudjianto A, Chen W (2004) An integrated framework for optimization under uncertainty using inverse reliability strategy. J Mech Des 126:562–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dubourg V (2011) Adaptive surrogate models for reliability analysis and reliability-based design optimization. PhD thesis, Universite Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, FranceGoogle Scholar
  32. Dubourg V, Sudret B, Deheeger F (2013) Metamodel-based importance sampling for structural reliability analysis. Probabilistic Eng Mech 33:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Echard B, Gayton N, Lemaire M (2011) AK-MCS: an active learning reliability method combining Kriging and Monte Carlo simulation. Struct Saf 33:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1997) Improvements on cross-validation: the .632+ bootstrap method. J Am Stat Assoc 92:548–560MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Fang J, Gao Y, Sun G et al (2015) Multiobjective robust design optimization of fatigue life for a truck cab. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 135:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fonseca C, Fleming P (1995) Multiobjective genetic algorithms made easy: selection, sharing, and mating restriction. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Genetic Algorithms in Engineering Systems: Innovations and Applications. IET, pp 45–52Google Scholar
  37. Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 19:1–67MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Giunta A, Watson L, Koehler J (1998) A comparison of approximation modeling techniques: polynomial versus interpolating models. In: Proceedings of the seventh AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, AIAA-98-4758. pp 1–13Google Scholar
  39. Han JS, Kwak BM (2004) Robust optimization using a gradient index: MEMS applications. Struct Multidiscip Optim 27:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huang B, Du X (2007) Analytical robustness assessment for robust design. Struct Multidiscip Optim 34:123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jacquelin E, Adhikari S, Sinou J, Friswell MI (2014) Polynomial chaos expansion and steady-state response of a class of random dynamical systems. J Eng Mech 04014145(1–11)Google Scholar
  42. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson T (2001) Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jin R, Du X, Chen W (2003) The use of metamodeling techniques for optimization under uncertainty. Struct Multidiscip Optim 25:99–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kersaudy P, Sudret B, Varsier N et al (2015) A new surrogate modeling technique combining Kriging and polynomial chaos expansions—application to uncertainty analysis in computational dosimetry. J Comput Phys 286:103–117MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Lagaros ND, Plevris V, Papadrakakis M (2007) Reliability based robust design optimization of steel structures. Int J Simul Multidiscip Des Optim 1:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee K-H, Park G-J (2001) Robust optimization considering tolerances of design variables. Comput Struct 79:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Li G, Rosenthal C, Rabitz H (2001) High dimensional model representation. J Phys Chem A 105:7765–7777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lophaven S, Nielson H, Sondergaard J (2002) DACE A MATLAB Kriging Toolbox. IMM-TR-2002-12. Technical University of Denmark, LyngbyGoogle Scholar
  49. Marano GC, Greco R, Sgobba S (2010) A comparison between different robust optimum design approaches: application to tuned mass dampers. Probabilistic Eng Mech 25:108–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mareš T, Janouchová E, Kučerová A (2016) Artificial neural networks in the calibration of nonlinear mechanical models. Adv Eng Softw 95:68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 2:239–245MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Messac A (1996) Physical programming: effective optimization for computational design. AIAA J 34:149–158CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Mortazavi A, Azarm S, Gabriel SA (2013) Adaptive gradient-assisted robust design optimization under interval uncertainty. Eng Optim 45:1287–1307MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Needell D, Tropp JA (2009) CoSaMP: iterative signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate samples. Appl Comput Harmon Anal 26(3):301–321Google Scholar
  55. Osborne MR, Presnell B, B a T (2000) A new approach to variable selection in least squares problems. IMA J Numer Anal 20:389–403MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. Patelli E, Broggi M, Angelis M de, Beer M (2014) OpenCossan: an efficient open tool for dealing with epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. In: Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. pp 2564–2573Google Scholar
  57. Pati YC, Rezaiifar R, Krishnaprasad PS (1993) Orthogonal matching pursuit: recursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers. pp 40–44Google Scholar
  58. Ray T, Smith W (2006) A surrogate assisted parallel multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for robust engineering design. Eng Optim 38:997–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Regis RG (2014) Evolutionary programming for high-dimensional constrained expensive black-box optimization using radial basis functions. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18:326–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ren X, Rahman S (2013) Robust design optimization by polynomial dimensional decomposition. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48:127–148MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. Roy BK, Chakraborty S (2015) Robust optimum design of base isolation system in seismic vibration control of structures under random system parameters. Struct Saf 55:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sacks J, Welch W, Mitchell T, Wynn H (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4:409–423MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. Schuëller GI, Jensen H a (2008) Computational methods in optimization considering uncertainties—an overview. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198:2–13CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. Shah H, Hosder S, Koziel S et al (2015) Multi-fidelity robust aerodynamic design optimization under mixed uncertainty. Aerosp Sci Technol 45:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shimoyama K, Lim JN, Jeong S, et al (2009) Practical implementation of robust design assisted by response surface approximation and visual data-mining. J Mech Des 131(6):061007.
  66. Sierra MR, Coello CAC (2005) Improving PSO-based multi-objective optimization using crowding, mutation and ∈-dominance. In: Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization Volume 3410 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 505–519Google Scholar
  67. Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2:221–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sudret B (2012) Meta-models for structural reliability and uncertainty quantification. In: Proceedings of 5th Asian-Pacific Symposium on Structural Reliability and its Applications (APSSRA, 2012), Singapore. pp 53–76Google Scholar
  69. Taguchi G (1986) Quality engineering through design optimization. Krauss International Publications, White Plains, NYGoogle Scholar
  70. Thanedar P, Arora J, Tseng C et al (1986) Performance of some SQP algorithms on structural design problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 23:2187–2203CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  71. Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc B 58:267–288MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. Xiu D, Karniadakis GE (2002) The Wiener--Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations. SIAM J Sci Comput 24:619–644MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  73. Zang C, Friswell MI, Mottershead JE (2005) A review of robust optimal design and its application in dynamics. Comput Struct 83:315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11:712–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zhou H, Zhou Q, Liu C, Zhou T (2017) A kriging metamodel-assisted robust optimization method based on a reverse model. Eng Optim.
  76. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1998) Multiobjective optimization using evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study. In: Parallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN V, vol. 1498 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Belin/, Heidelberg, pp 292–301Google Scholar
  77. Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L (2001) SPEA2: improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm. Tech. Rep. 103, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), Department of Electrical Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) ZurichGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanmoy Chatterjee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rajib Chowdhury
    • 2
  • Palaniappan Ramu
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Aerospace Engineering StructuresZienkiewicz Centre for Computational Engineering Swansea UniversitySwanseaUK
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia
  3. 3.Department of Engineering DesignIndian Institute of Technology MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations