A comparative study of uncertainty propagation methods for black-box-type problems

Review Article

Abstract

A wide variety of uncertainty propagation methods exist in literature; however, there is a lack of good understanding of their relative merits. In this paper, a comparative study on the performances of several representative uncertainty propagation methods, including a few newly developed methods that have received growing attention, is performed. The full factorial numerical integration, the univariate dimension reduction method, and the polynomial chaos expansion method are implemented and applied to several test problems. They are tested under different settings of the performance nonlinearity, distribution types of input random variables, and the magnitude of input uncertainty. The performances of those methods are compared in moment estimation, tail probability calculation, and the probability density function construction, corresponding to a wide variety of scenarios of design under uncertainty, such as robust design, and reliability-based design optimization. The insights gained are expected to direct designers for choosing the most applicable uncertainty propagation technique in design under uncertainty.

Keywords

Uncertainty propagation Full factorial numerical integration Dimension reduction method Polynomial chaos expansion Comparative study Design under uncertainty 

References

  1. Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (1972) Handbook of mathematical functions (10th edn.). Dover, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bucher CG (1988) Adaptive sampling—an iterative fast Monte Carlo procedure. Struct Saf 5:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choi SK, Grandhi RV, Canfield RA (2004) Structural reliability under non-Gaussian stochastic behavior. Comput Struct 82:1113–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christensen P, Baker MJ (1982) Structural reliability theory and its applications. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Creveling CM (1997) Tolerance design: a handbook for developing optimal specifications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. D’Errico JR, Zaino NA (1988) Statistical tolerancing using a modification of Taguchi’s method. Technometrics 30:397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Du X, Chen W (2000) Towards a better understanding of modeling feasibility robustness in engineering design. J Mech Des 122:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Engelund S, Rackwitz R (1993) A benchmark study on importance sampling techniques in structural reliability. Struct Saf 12:255–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans DH (1972) An application of numerical integration techniques to statistical tolerancing, III: general distributions. Technometrics 14:23–35MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiessler B, Rackwitz R, Neumann H (1979) Quadratic limit states in structural reliability. J Eng Mech 105:661–676Google Scholar
  12. Ghanem RG, Spanos PD (1991) Stochastic finite elements: a spectral approach. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Hasofer AM, Lind NC (1974) Exact and invariant second order code format. J Eng Mech 100(NEM1):111–121Google Scholar
  14. Hahn GJ, Shapiro SS (1967) Statistical models in engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Hazelrigg GA (1998) A framework for decision-based engineering design. J Mech Des 120:653–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1994) Continuous univariate distributions (vol 1). Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiureghian AD (1996) Structural reliability methods for seismic safety assessment: a review. Eng Struct 18:412–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kokkolaras M, Mourelatos ZP, Papalambros PY (2006) Design optimization of hierarchically decomposed multilevel system under uncertainty. J Mech Des 128:503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Law AM, Kelton WD (1982) Simulation modeling ands analysis. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee TW, Kwak BM (1987–88) A reliability-based optimal design using advanced first order second moment method. Mech Struct Mach 15:523–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee SH, Kwak BM (2006) Response surface augmented moment method for efficient reliability analysis. Struct Saf 28:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee I, Choi KK, Du L (2007) A new inverse reliability analysis method using MPP-based dimension reduction method (DRM). In: Proceedings of ASME 2007 international design engineering technical conference and computers and information in engineering conference (IDETC/CIE2007), Las Vegas, NV, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu W, Belytschko T, Mani A (1986) Random field finite elements. Int J Numer Methods Eng 23:1831–1845MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu H, Chen W, Kokkolaras M, Papalambros PY, Kim HM (2006) Probabilistic analytical target cascading: a moment matching formulation for multilevel optimization under uncertainty. J Mech Des 128:991–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Madsen HO, Krenk S, Lind NC (2006) Methods of structural safety. Dover, Mineola, NYGoogle Scholar
  26. McAllister CD, Simpson TW (2003) Multidisciplinary robust design optimization of an internal combustion engine. J Mech Des 125:124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melchers RE (1989) Importance sampling in structural systems. Struct Saf 6:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rackwitz R, Fiessler B (1978) Structural reliability under combined random load sequences. Comput Struct 9:489–494MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rahman S, Wei D (2006) A univariate approximation at most probable point for higher-order reliability analysis. Int J Solids Struct 43:2820–2839MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rahman S, Xu H (2004) A univariate dimension-reduction method for multi-dimensional integration in stochastic mechanics. Probab Eng Mech 19:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seo HS, Kwak BM (2002) Efficient statistical tolerance analysis for general distributions using three-point information. Int J Prod Res 40:931–944MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shoutens W (2000) Stochastic processes and orthogonal polynomials. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Taguchi G (1978) Performance analysis design. Int J Prod Res 16:521–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tatang MA (1995) Direct incorporation of uncertainty in chemical and environmental engineering systems. Ph.D. thesis, MITGoogle Scholar
  35. Wan X, Karniadakis GE (2006) Multi-element generalized polynomial chaos for arbitrary probability measure. SIAM J Sci Comput 28:901–928MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu YT (1994) Computational methods for efficient structural reliability and reliability sensitivity analysis. AIAA J 32:1717–1723MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xiu D (2007) Efficient collocatioal approach for parametric uncertainty analysis. Commun Comput Phys 2:293–309MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Xiu D, Karniadakis GE (2003) Modeling uncertainty in flow simulations via generalized polynomial chaos. J Comput Phis 187:137–167MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. Xu H, Rahman S (2004) A generalized dimension-reduction method for multi-dimensional integration in stochastic mechanics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 61:1992–2019MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Youn BD, Choi KK, Park YH (2003) Hybrid analysis method for reliability-based design optimization. J Mech Des 125:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Youn BD, Xi Z, Wells LJ, Wang P (2006) Enhanced dimension reduction (eDR) method for sensitivity-free uncertainty quantification. In: Proceedings of 11th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Portsmouth, VA, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations