Skip to main content

A variable-accuracy metamodel-based architecture for global MDO under uncertainty

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization volume 54, pages 573–593 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

A method for simulation-based multidisciplinary robust design optimization (MRDO) of problems affected by uncertainty is presented. The challenging aspects of simulation-based MRDO are both algorithmic and computational, since the solution of a MRDO problem typically requires simulation-based multidisciplinary analyses (MDA), uncertainty quantification (UQ) and optimization. Herein, the identification of the optimal design is achieved by a variable-accuracy, metamodel-based optimization, following a multidisciplinary feasible (MDF) architecture. The approach encompasses a variable (i) density of the design of experiments for the metamodel training, (ii) sample size for the UQ analysis by quasi Monte Carlo simulation and (iii) tolerance for the multidisciplinary consistency in MDA. The focus is on two-way steady fluid-structure interaction problem, assessed by partitioned solvers for the hydrodynamic and the structural analysis. Two analytical test problems are shown, along with the design of a racing-sailboat keel fin subject to the stochastic variation of the yaw angle. The method is validated versus a standard MDF approach to MRDO, taken as a benchmark and solved by fully coupled MDA, fully converged UQ, without metamodels. The method is evaluated in terms of optimal design performances and number of simulations required to achieve the optimal solution. For the current application, the optimal configuration shows performances very close to the benchmark solution. The convergence analysis to the optimum shows a promising reduction of the computational cost.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26

Abbreviations

\(\displaystyle \mathbf {a} \in \mathbb {R}^{n}\) :

multidisciplinary equilibrium solution (\(n\in \mathbb {N}^{+}\))

Δ i :

i-th discipline involved in multidisciplinary analysis

\(\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x}) \in \mathbb {R}\) :

deterministic objective function

\(\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x},\mathbf {a}) \in \mathbb {R}\) :

deterministic multidisciplinary objective function

\(\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x},\mathbf {y}) \in \mathbb {R}\) :

stochastic objective function

\(\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x},\mathbf {y},\mathbf {a}) \in \mathbb {R}\) :

stochastic multidisciplinary objective function

\(\displaystyle \mu (f) \in \mathbb {R}\) :

expected value of the deterministic objective function f

\(\displaystyle N_{{\Delta }} \in \mathbb {N}^{+}\) :

number of disciplinary analysis

\(\displaystyle N_{\text {DV}} \in \mathbb {N}^{+}\) :

number of design variables

\(\displaystyle N_{\text {MDA}} \in \mathbb {N}^{+}\) :

number of iterations for multidisciplinary analysis

\(\displaystyle N_{\text {OS}} \in \mathbb {N}^{+}\) :

number of optimization stages

\(\displaystyle N_{\text {PSO}} \in \mathbb {N}^{+}\) :

number of function evaluations in particle swarm optimization

\(\displaystyle N_{\text {TP}} \in \mathbb {N}^{+}\) :

number of training points for metamodel

\(\displaystyle N_{\text {S}} \in \mathbb {N}^{+}\) :

number of simulations

\(\displaystyle N_{\text {UQ}} \in \mathbb {N}^{+}\) :

number of items for uncertainty quantification

\(\displaystyle p(\mathbf {y}) \in \mathbb {R}\) :

probability density function

\(\displaystyle \tau _{0},\tau _{1} \in \mathbb {R^{+}}\) :

tolerance for the multidisciplinary consistency in MDA

\(\displaystyle \tau _{2} \in \mathbb {R^{+}}\) :

tolerance for the UQ analysis

\(\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in X \subseteq \mathbb {R}^{N_{\text {DV}}}\) :

deterministic design variables

\(\displaystyle \mathbf {y} \in Y \subseteq \mathbb {R}^{m}\) :

stochastic parameters (\(m\in \mathbb {N}^{+}\))

References

  • Alexandrov NM, Lewis RM (2002) Analytical and computational aspects of collaborative optimization for multidisciplinary design. AIAA J 40(2):301–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balling R J, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1996) Optimization of coupled systems-a critical overview of approaches. AIAA J 34(1):6–17

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer HG, Sendhoff B (2007) Robust optimization–a comprehensive survey. Comput Methods Appl Mechanics Eng 196(33):3190–3218

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bloebaum C (1995) Coupling strength-based system reduction for complex engineering design. Struct Optim 10(2):113–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brevault L, Balesdent M, Bérend N, Le Riche R (2015) Decoupled multidisciplinary design optimization formulation for interdisciplinary coupling satisfaction under uncertainty. AIAA Journal pp 1–20

  • Campana EF, Fasano G, Peri D (2006a) Issues on nonlinear programming for multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO), in ship design frameworks. In: III European Conference on computational mechanics solids, structures and coupled problems in engineering, Lisbon, Portugal

  • Campana EF, Peri D, Tahara Y, Stern F (2006b) Shape optimization in ship hydrodynamics using computational fluid dynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196(1):634–651

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Campana EF, Liuzzi G, Lucidi S, Peri D, Piccialli V, Pinto A (2009a) New global optimization methods for ship design problems. Optim Eng 10(4):533–555

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Campana EF, Peri D, Tahara Y, Kandasamy M, Stern F (2009b) Numerical optimization methods for ship hydrodynamic design. Trans Soc Naval Architects Mar Eng 117:30–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen X, Diez M, Kandasamy M, Zhang Z, Campana EF, Stern F (2015) High-fidelity global optimization of shape design by dimensionality reduction, metamodels and deterministic particle swarm. Eng Optim 47:473–494. doi:10.1080/0305215X.2014.895340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clerc M (2006) Stagnation analysis in particle swarm optimisation or what happens when nothing happens. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00122031 Technical Report

  • Cramer EJ, Dennis Jr. J, Frank PD, Lewis RM, Shubin GR (1994) Problem formulation for multidisciplinary optimization. SIAM J Optim 4(4):754–776

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Diez M, Iemma U (2012) Multidisciplinary conceptual design optimization of aircraft using a sound-matching-based objective function. Eng Optim 44(5):591–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diez M, Peri D (2010) Robust optimization for ship conceptual design. Ocean Eng 37(11):966–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diez M, Peri D, Fasano G, Campana EF (2010) Multidisciplinary robust optimization for ship design. In: Proceedings, 28th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, pp 12–17

  • Diez M, Peri D, Fasano G, Campana EF (2012) Hydroelastic optimization of a keel fin of a sailing boat: a multidisciplinary robust formulation for ship design. Struct Multidiscip Optim 46(4):613–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diez M, He W, Campana EF, Stern F (2014) Uncertainty quantification of Delft catamaran resistance, sinkage and trim for variable froude number and geometry using metamodels, quadrature and Karhunen–Loève expansion. J Mar Sci Technol 19:143–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diez M, Campana EF, Stern F (2015a) Design-space dimensionality reduction in shape optimization by Karhunen-Loève expansion. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 283(0):1525–1544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diez M, Volpi S, Serani A, Stern F, Campana EF (2015b) Simulation-based design optimization by sequential multi-criterion adaptive sampling and dynamic radial basis functions. In: EUROGEN 2015, International Conference on Evolutionary and Deterministic Methods for Design, Optimization and Control with Applications to Industrial and Societal Problems, Glasgow, UK

  • Du X, Chen W (2000a) Methodology for managing the effect of uncertainty in simulation-based design. AIAA J 38(8):1471–1478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du X, Chen W (2000b) Towards a better understanding of modeling feasibility robustness in engineering design. J Mech Des 122(4):385–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du X, Chen W (2002) Efficient uncertainty analysis methods for multidisciplinary robust design. AIAA J 40(3):545–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducoin A, Young YL (2013) Hydroelastic response and stability of a hydrofoil in viscous flow. J Fluids Struct 38:40–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducoin A, André Astolfi J, Sigrist JF (2012) An experimental analysis of fluid structure interaction on a flexible hydrofoil in various flow regimes including cavitating flow. Eur J Mech-B/Fluids 36:63–74

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Duddeck F (2008) Multidisciplinary optimization of car bodies. Struct Multidiscip Optim 35(4):375–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer P (2009) Component-oriented decomposition for multidisciplinary design optimization in building design. Adv Eng Inform 23(1):12–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giunta A, McFarland J, Swiler L, Eldred M (2006) The promise and peril of uncertainty quantification using response surface approximations. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2(3-4):175–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman B, Haftka RT, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Kao PJ, Polen D, Rais-Rohani M (1990) Integrated aerodynamic-structural design of a transport wing. J Aircr 27(12):1050–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu XS, Renaud JE, Penninger CL (2006) Implicit uncertainty propagation for robust collaborative optimization. J Mech Des 128(4):1001–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haftka RT, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Padula S (1992) On options for interdisciplinary analysis and design optimization. Struct Optim 4(2):65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy RL (1971) Multiquadric equations of topography and other irregular surfaces. J Geophys Res 76 (8):1905–1915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He W, Diez M, Campana EF, Stern F, Zou Z (2013) A one-dimensional polynomial chaos method in CFD-Based uncertainty quantification for ship hydrodynamic performance. J Hydrodyn Ser B 25(5):655–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2001) Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin R, Du X, Chen W (2003) The use of metamodeling techniques for optimization under uncertainty. Struct Multidiscip Optim 25(2):99–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodiyalam S, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2001) Multidisciplinary design optimisation-some formal methods, framework requirements, and application to vehicle design. Int J Veh Des 25(1):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroo I (1997) MDO for large-scale design, multidisciplinary design optimization: State of the art. SIAM pp 22–44

  • Landrini M, Campana EF (1996) Steady waves and forces about a yawing flat plate. J Ship Res 40 (3):179–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Leotardi C, Diez M, Serani A, Iemma U, Campana EF (2014) A framework for efficient simulation-based multidisciplinary robust design optimization with application to a keel fin of a racing sailboat. In: OPT-i 2014 - 1st International Conference on Engineering and Applied Sciences Optimization. Proceedings, pp 1177–1193

  • Leotardi C, Campana EF, Diez M (2015) Resistance reduction of a military ship by variable-accuracy metamodel-based multidisciplinary robust design optimization. In: COUPLED PROBLEMS 2015 - Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Coupled Problems in Science and Engineering, pp 952–963

  • Loeven G, Witteveen J, Bijl H (2007) A probabilistic radial basis function approach for uncertainty quantification. In: Proceedings of the NATO RTO-MP-AVT-147 Computational Uncertainty in Military Vehicle design symposium

  • Martins JR, Lambe AB (2013) Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures. AIAA J 51(9):2049–2075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matheron G (1963) Principles of geostatistics. Econ Geol 58(8):1246–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura T, Haftka RT, Kim NH (2014) Accurate predictions from noisy data: replication versus exploration with applications to structural failure. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 10.1007/s00158-014-1115-x

  • Mousaviraad SM, He W, Diez M, Stern F (2013) Framework for convergence and validation of stochastic uncertainty quantification and relationship to deterministic verification and validation. Int J Uncertain Quantif 3 (5):371–395

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadrakakis M, Tsompanakis Y, Lagaros ND (1999) Structural shape optimization using evolution strategies. Eng Optim 31(4):515–540

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Papanikolaou A (2010) Holistic ship design optimization. Comput-Aided Des 42(11):1028–1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queipo NV, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Goel T, Vaidyanathan R, Kevin Tucker P (2005) Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Progress Aerosp Sci 41(1):1–28

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Regis RG (2011) Stochastic radial basis function algorithms for large-scale optimization involving expensive black-box objective and constraint functions. Comput Oper Res 38(5):837–853

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez A (2013) A deterministic sampling approach to robot motion planning. In: ENC’03, Fourth Mexican International Conference on Computer Science. IEEE

  • Sellar RS, Batill SM, Renaud JE (1996) Response surface based, concurrent subspace optimization for multidisciplinary system design. In: 34th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, pp 96–0714

  • Serani A, Diez M, Leotardi C, Peri D, Fasano G, Iemma U, Campana EF (2014) On the use of synchronous and asynchronous single-objective deterministic particle swarm optimization in ship design problems. In: International Conference on Engineering and Applied Sciences Optimization, OPT-i 2014, Kos Island, Greece

  • Simpson TW, Poplinski J, Koch PN, Allen JK (2001) Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Eng Comput 17(2):129–150

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka RT (1997) Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments. Struct optim 14(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedford N, Martins J (2010) Benchmarking multidisciplinary design optimization algorithms. Optim Eng 11(1):159–183

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Volpi S, Diez M, Gaul NJ, Song H, Iemma U, Choi K, Campana EF, Stern F (2015) Development and validation of a dynamic metamodel based on stochastic radial basis functions and uncertainty quantification. Struct Multidisc Optim 51:347–368 doi:10.1007/s00158-014-1128-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong TT, Luk WS, Heng PA (1997) Sampling with Hammersley and Halton points. J Graph Tools 2 (2):9–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S, Zhu P, Chen W, Arendt P (2013) Concurrent treatment of parametric uncertainty and metamodeling uncertainty in robust design. Struct Multidiscip Optim 47(1):63–76

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao L, Choi K, Lee I (2011) Metamodeling method using dynamic kriging for design optimization. AIAA J 49(9):2034–2046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL (2005) The finite element method for solid and structural mechanics. Butterworth-Heinemann

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present research is supported by the Italian Flagship Project RITMARE, coordinated by the Italian National Research Council and funded by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research, within the National Research Program 2011-2013. The authors are grateful to Dr Woei-Min Lin and Dr Ki-Han Kim of the US Navy Office of Naval Research, for their support through NICOP grant N62909-15-1-2016.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNR-INSEAN, National Research Council-Marine Technology Research Institute, Rome, Italy

    Cecilia Leotardi, Andrea Serani, Emilio F. Campana & Matteo Diez

  2. Department of Engineering, Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy

    Andrea Serani & Umberto Iemma

Authors
  1. Cecilia Leotardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Serani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Umberto Iemma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emilio F. Campana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matteo Diez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Diez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leotardi, C., Serani, A., Iemma, U. et al. A variable-accuracy metamodel-based architecture for global MDO under uncertainty. Struct Multidisc Optim 54, 573–593 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1423-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1423-4

Keywords

  • Simulation-based design
  • Multidisciplinary robust design optimization (MRDO)
  • Uncertainty quantification (UQ)
  • Metamodel-based optimization
  • Global optimization