# Decoupling uncertainty quantification from robust design optimization

- 86 Downloads

## Abstract

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.

## Keywords

RDO Kriging HDMR PCE Compressive sampling Response statistics## Notes

### Acknowledgements

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

## References

- Berg E, Friedlander M (2007) SPGL1: a solver for large-scale sparse reconstruction. http://www.cs.ubc.ca/labs/scl/spgl1
- Berg E, Friedlander M (2008) Probing the Pareto frontier for basis pursuit solutions. SIAM J Sci Comput 31:890–912MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beyer H-G, Sendhoff B (2007) Robust optimization—a comprehensive survey. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196:3190–3218MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bhattacharjya S (2010) Robust optimization of structures under uncertainty. PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Bengal Engineering and Science University, ShibpurGoogle Scholar
- Blatman G, Sudret B (2011) Adaptive sparse polynomial chaos expansion based on least angle regression. J Comput Phys 230:2345–2367MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blumensath T, Davies ME (2009) Iterative hard thresholding for compressed sensing. Appl Comput Harmon Anal 27:265–274MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chakraborty S, Chowdhury R (2015) A semi-analytical framework for structural reliability analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 289:475–497MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chakraborty S, Bhattacharjya S, Haldar A (2012) Sensitivity importance-based robust optimization of structures with incomplete probabilistic information. Int J Numer Methods Eng 90:1261–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4035439
- 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
- 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
- Chatterjee T, Chowdhury R (2016) Adaptive bilevel approximation technique for multiobjective evolutionary optimization. J Comput Civ Eng 04016071(1–16). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000643
- Chatterjee T, Chowdhury R (2017) An efficient sparse Bayesian learning framework for stochastic response analysis. Struct Saf 68:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Chatterjee T, Chakraborty S, Chowdhury R (2017) A critical review of surrogate assisted robust design optimization. Arch Comput Methods Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-017-9240-5
- 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
- Chen S, Donoho D, Saunders M (1998) Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. SIAM J Sci Comput 20:33–61MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chen W, Wiecek M, Zhang J (1999) Quality utility—a compromise programming approach to robust design. J Mech Des ASME 121:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Combettes P, Wajs V (2005) Signal recovery by proximal forward-backward splitting. Multiscale Model Simul 4:1168–1200MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dai W, Milenkovic O (2009) Subspace pursuit for compressive sensing signal reconstruction. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 55:2230–2249MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Deb K, Agarwal A, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6:182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Deng J (2006) Structural reliability analysis for implicit performance function using radial basis function network. Int J Solids Struct 43:3255–3291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Diez M, Peri D (2010) Robust optimization for ship conceptual design. Ocean Eng 37:966–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Doostan A, Iaccarino G (2009) A least-squares approximation of partial differential equations with high-dimensional random inputs. J Comput Phys 228:4332–4345MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Doostan A, Owhadi H (2011) A non-adapted sparse approximation of PDEs with stochastic inputs. J Comput Phys 230:3015–3034MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Dubourg V (2011) Adaptive surrogate models for reliability analysis and reliability-based design optimization. PhD thesis, Universite Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, FranceGoogle Scholar
- Dubourg V, Sudret B, Deheeger F (2013) Metamodel-based importance sampling for structural reliability analysis. Probabilistic Eng Mech 33:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Efron B, Tibshirani R (1997) Improvements on cross-validation: the .632+ bootstrap method. J Am Stat Assoc 92:548–560MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 19:1–67MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Han JS, Kwak BM (2004) Robust optimization using a gradient index: MEMS applications. Struct Multidiscip Optim 27:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Huang B, Du X (2007) Analytical robustness assessment for robust design. Struct Multidiscip Optim 34:123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Jin R, Chen W, Simpson T (2001) Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jin R, Du X, Chen W (2003) The use of metamodeling techniques for optimization under uncertainty. Struct Multidiscip Optim 25:99–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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 286:103–117MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Lee K-H, Park G-J (2001) Robust optimization considering tolerances of design variables. Comput Struct 79:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Li G, Rosenthal C, Rabitz H (2001) High dimensional model representation. J Phys Chem A 105:7765–7777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lophaven S, Nielson H, Sondergaard J (2002) DACE A MATLAB Kriging Toolbox. IMM-TR-2002-12. Technical University of Denmark, LyngbyGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Mareš T, Janouchová E, Kučerová A (2016) Artificial neural networks in the calibration of nonlinear mechanical models. Adv Eng Softw 95:68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Messac A (1996) Physical programming: effective optimization for computational design. AIAA J 34:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mortazavi A, Azarm S, Gabriel SA (2013) Adaptive gradient-assisted robust design optimization under interval uncertainty. Eng Optim 45:1287–1307MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Needell D, Tropp JA (2009) CoSaMP: iterative signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate samples. Appl Comput Harmon Anal 26(3):301–321Google Scholar
- Osborne MR, Presnell B, B a T (2000) A new approach to variable selection in least squares problems. IMA J Numer Anal 20:389–403MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Ray T, Smith W (2006) A surrogate assisted parallel multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for robust engineering design. Eng Optim 38:997–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Ren X, Rahman S (2013) Robust design optimization by polynomial dimensional decomposition. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48:127–148MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Sacks J, Welch W, Mitchell T, Wynn H (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4:409–423MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schuëller GI, Jensen H a (2008) Computational methods in optimization considering uncertainties—an overview. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198:2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3125207
- 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
- Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2:221–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Taguchi G (1986) Quality engineering through design optimization. Krauss International Publications, White Plains, NYGoogle Scholar
- Thanedar P, Arora J, Tseng C et al (1986) Performance of some SQP algorithms on structural design problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 23:2187–2203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc B 58:267–288MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Xiu D, Karniadakis GE (2002) The Wiener--Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations. SIAM J Sci Comput 24:619–644MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zang C, Friswell MI, Mottershead JE (2005) A review of robust optimal design and its application in dynamics. Comput Struct 83:315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11:712–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhou H, Zhou Q, Liu C, Zhou T (2017) A kriging metamodel-assisted robust optimization method based on a reverse model. Eng Optim. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2017.1307355
- 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
- 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