A sampling-based optimization algorithm for solution spaces with pair-wise-coupled design variables

  • Helmut HarbrechtEmail author
  • Dennis Tröndle
  • Markus Zimmermann
Research Paper


Solution spaces are sets of good designs that satisfy all design goals. They serve as target regions for robust and independent component development in a distributed design process. So-called solution boxes provide best decoupling; however, they are often small and therefore impractical. This article proposes an algorithm that computes two-dimensional permissible regions for pairs of design variables that are substantially larger than solution boxes. This is accomplished by modifying the existing sampling-based optimization algorithm for boxes and extending it by box-rotation.


Sampling-based optimization algorithm Black-box optimization Solution spaces 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Audet C, Hare W (2017) Derivative-free and blackbox optimization. Springer International Publishing AG, ChamCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Tal A, Nemirovski A (2001) Lectures on modern convex optimization analysis, algorithms, and engineering applications. Mos-Siam Series on Optimization, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and Mathematical Programming Society PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyer H-G, Sendhoff B (2007) Robust optimization — a comprehensive survey. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 196(33–34):3190–3218MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Campolongo F, Ratto M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S (2004) Sensitivity analysis in practice: a guide to assessing scientific models. Wiley, ChichesterzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi KK, Youn BD, Yang R-J (2001) Moving least square method for reliability-based design optimization. Fourth World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. Dalian, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  6. Das PK, Faulkner D, Pu Y (1997) A strategy for reliability-based optimization. Eng Struct 19(3):276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duddeck F, Wehrle E (2015) Recent advances on surrogate modeling for robustness assessment of structures with respect to crashworthiness requirement. In: 10th European LS-DYNA conference. WürzburgGoogle Scholar
  8. Eichstetter M, Müller S, Zimmermann M (2015) Product family design with solution spaces. J Mech Des 137(12):121401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erschen S, Duddeck F, Gerdts M, Zimmermann M (2017) On the optimal decomposition of high-dimensional solution spaces of complex systems. ASME J Risk Uncertain Part B 4(2):021008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Graff L (2013) A stochastic algorithm for the identification of solution spaces in high-dimensional design spaces. PhD thesis, Faculty of Science University of BaselGoogle Scholar
  11. Graff L, Fender J, Harbrecht H, Zimmermann M (2014) Identifying key parameters for design improvement in high-dimensional systems with uncertainty. J Mech Des 136(4):041007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graff L, Harbrecht H, Zimmermann M (2016) On the computation of solution spaces in high dimensions. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(4):811–829MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graf W, Götz M, Kaliske M (2018) Computing permissible design spaces under consideration of functional responses. Adv Eng Softw 117:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jolliffe IT (1986) Principal component analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Malak RJ Jr, Aughenbaugh JM, Paredis Ch JJ (2009) Multi-attribute utility analysis in set-based conceptual design. Comput-Aided Des 41:214227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7(4):308–313MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Singer DJ, Doerry N, Buckley ME (2009) What is set-based design. Naval Eng J 121(4):31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sobek D, Ward AC, Liker J (1999) Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Manag Rev 40(2):67–83Google Scholar
  19. Nocedal J, Wright SJ (2006) Numerical optimization. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution — a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 11:341–359MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Tu J, Choi KK, Park YH (1999) A new study on reliability-based design optimization. J Mech Des 121(4):557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Youn BD, Choi KK, Yang R-J, Gu L (2004) Reliability-based design optimization for crashworthiness of vehicle side impact. Struct Multidisc Optim 26:272–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zimmermann M, von Hoessle JE (2013) Computing solution spaces for robust design. Int J Numer Meth Eng 94(3):290–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zimmermann M, Königs S, Niemeyer C, Fender J, Zeherbauer C, Vitale R, Wahle M (2017) On the design of large systems subject to uncertainty. J Eng Des 28(4):233–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departement Mathematik und InformatikUniversität BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl für Produktentwicklung und LeichtbauTechnische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations