Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robust Design Optimization to Account for Uncertainty in the Structural Design Process

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Topics on the Dynamics of Civil Structures, Volume 1

  • 1926 Accesses

Abstract

Structural systems are subject to inherent uncertainties due to the variability in many hard-to-control ‘noise factors’ including but not limited to external loads, material properties, and construction workmanship. Two design methodologies were developed to quantify the variability associated with the design process: Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). These traditional approaches explicitly recognize the presence of uncertainty, however they do not take robustness against this uncertainty into consideration. Overlooking robustness against uncertainty in the structural design process has two main problems. First, the design may not satisfy the safety requirements if the actual uncertainties in the noise factors are underestimated. Thus, the safety requirements can easily be violated because of the high variation of the system response due to noise factors. Second, to guarantee safety in the presence of this high variability of the system response, the structural designer may be forced to choose an overly conservative, inefficient and thus costly design. When the robustness against uncertainty is not treated as one of the design objectives, this trade-off between the over-design for safety and the under-design for cost-savings is exacerbated. This paper demonstrates that safe and cost-effective designs are achievable by implementing Robust Design concepts originally developed in manufacturing engineering to proactively consider the robustness against uncertainty as one of the design objectives. Robust Design concepts can be used to formulate structural designs which are insensitive to inherent variability in the design process, thus save cost, and exceed the main objectives of user safety and serviceability. This paper presents two methodologies for the application of Robust Design principles to structural design utilizing two optimization schemes: one-at-a-time optimization method and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bulleit WM (2008) Uncertainty in structural engineering. Pract Period Struct Des Construct 13(1):24–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mohsine A, Kharmanda G, El-Hami A (2006) Improved hybrid method as a robust tool for reliability-based design optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 32(3):203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. WangW,Wu J (Y-T), Lust RV. Deterministic design, reliability based design and robust design. Project Report, Southwest Research Institute and General Motors Research and Development Center. This paper was presented at the MSC 1997 Aerospace Users Conference, printed in their proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chen W, Wiecek M, Zhang J (1999) Quality utility: a compromise programming approach to robust design. ASME J Mech Des 121(2):179–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen W, Allen JK, Tsui K-L, Mistree F (1996) A procedure for robust design. ASME J Mech Des 118(4):478–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shoemaker AC, Tsui K-L, Wu CFJ (1991) Economical experimentation methods for robust design. Technometrics 33(4):415–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Taguchi G (1986) Introduction to quality engineering: designing quality into products and processes. Qual Resour, White Plains

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nair VN, Abraham B, MacKay J, Nelder JA, Box G, Phadke MS et al (1992) Taguchi’s parameter design: a panel discussion. Technometrics 34(2):127–161

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Vanik MW, Beck JL, Au SK (2000) Bayesian probabilistic approach to structural health monitoring. J Eng Mech 126(7):738–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beyer H, Sendhoff B (2007) Robust optimization – a comprehensive survey. Comput Method Appl Mech Eng 196:3190–3218

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Park G-J, Lee T-H, Lee KH, Hwang K-H (2006) Robust design: an overview. AIAA J 44(1):181–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Phadke MS (1989) Quality engineering using robust design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  13. Taguchi G (1987) Systems of experimental design. vols 1 and 2. Krauss International, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cunha MDC, Sousa JJDO (2010) Robust design of water distribution networks for a proactive risk management. J Water Res Plan Manag March/April:227–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marano GC, Sgobba S, Greco R, Mezzina M (2008) Robust optimum design of tuned mass dampers devices in random vibrations mitigation. J Sound Vib 313(3–5):472–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Unal R, Wu KC, Stanley DO (1997) Structural design optimization for a space truss platform using response surface methods. Qual Eng 9(3):441–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee MCW, Mikulik Z, Kelly DW, Thomson RS, Degenhardt R (2010) Robust design – a concept for imperfection insensitive composite structures. Compos Struct 92:1469–1477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schoen MP, Hoover RC, Chinvorarat S, Schoen GM (2009) System identification and robust controller design using genetic algorithms for flexible space structures. J Dynam Syst Measure Control 131:31003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim JH, Lee JE, Chang SH (2008) Robust design of microfactory elements with high stiffness and high damping characteristics using foam-composite sandwich structures. Compos Struct 86:220–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ku KJ, Rao SS, Chen L (1998) Taguchi-aided search method for design optimization of engineering systems. Eng Optim 30(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Park G-J, Lee T-H, Lee KH, Hwang K-H (2006) Robust design: an overview. AIAA J 44(1):181–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Box GEP, Bisgaard S, Fung CA (1988) An explanation and critique of Taguchi’s contributions to quality engineering. Qual Reliab Eng Int 4(2):123–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Montgomery DC (1991) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, Singapore, pp 417–433

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee KH, Park GJ (1996) Robust design for unconstrained optimization problems using the Taguchi method. AIAA J 34(5):1059–1063

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Welch WJ, Yu TK, Kang SM, Sacks J (1990) Computer experiments for quality control by parameter design. J Qual Tech 22(1):15–22

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vining GG, Myers RH (1990) Combining Taguchi and response surface philosophies: a dual response approach. J Qual Tech 22(1):38–45

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shoemaker AC, Tsui KL (1993) Response model analysis for robust design experiments. Commun Stat B 22(4):1037–1064

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Shiau GH (1990) A study on the sintering properties of iron ores using the Taguchi’s parameter design. J Chinese Stat Assoc 28:253–275

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tai CY, Chen TS, Wu MC (1992) An enhanced Taguchi method for optimizing SMT processes. J Electron Manuf 2(3):91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tsui K-L (1999) Robust design optimization for multiple characteristic problems. Int J Prod Res 37(2):433–445

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Beyer H-G, Sendhoff B (2007) Robust optimization – a comprehensive survey. Comput Method Appl Mech Eng 196:3190–3218

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Rackwitz R, Christensen PT (1992) Reliability and optimization of structural systems. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Rao SS (1996) Engineering optimization. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Siddall JH (1984) A new approach to probability in engineering design and optimization. J Mech Transm Automat Des 106(1):5–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chen X, Sim M, Sun P (2007) A robust optimization perspective on stochastic programming. Oper Res 55(66):1058–1071

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Eggert RJ, Mayne RW (1993) Probabilistic optimal design using successive surrogate probability function. J Mech Des 115(3):385–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Oishi Y (2007) Robust control and robust optimization: a method for problems with nonlinear uncertainty. J Jpn Soc Sim Tech 26(2):95–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kumar A, Nair PB, Keane AJ, Shahpar S (2008) Robust design using Bayesian Monte Carlo. Int J Numer Method Eng 73:1497–1517

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Neal RM (1996) Bayesian learning for neural networks. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. O’Hagan A, Kennedy M, Oakley J (1999) Uncertainty analysis and other inference tools for complex compute codes (with discussion). Bayesian Stat 6:503–524

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Construction Publishers and Consultants (2005) RS means and Masonry cost data, 23rd edn. Reed Construction Data, Kingston

    Google Scholar 

  43. ANSYS (2004) Theory reference for ANSYS and ANSYS workbench

    Google Scholar 

  44. William KJ, Warnke ED (1975) Constitutive model for the triaxial behaviour of concrete. In: Proceedings of the international association for bridge and structural engineering, vol 19. ISMES, Bergamo, p 174

    Google Scholar 

  45. Luo ZQ, Tseng P (1992) On the convergence of the coordinate descent method for convex differentiable minimization. J Optim Theor Appl 72(1):7–35, View record in Scopus | | Full text via CrossRef | Cited by in Scopus (63)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Nocedal J, Wright Stephen J (2006) Numerical optimization, 2nd edn. Springer Science/Business Media, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Li Y, Osher S (2009) Coordinate descent optimization for l1 minimization with application to compressed sensing: a greedy algorithm. Inverse Probl Imag 3(3):487–503

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Moore R, Weldon L (2003) Interval analysis and fuzzy set theory. Fuzzy Set Syst 135(1):5–9

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Eberhart RC, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science. IEEE, Nagoya, pp 39–43

    Google Scholar 

  50. Parsopoulos KE, Vrahatis MN (2007) Parameter selection and adaptation in unified particle swarm optimization. Math Comput Model 46(1–2):198–213

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Tsoulos IG, Stavrakoudis A (2010) Enhancing PSO methods for global optimization. Appl Math Comput 216(10):2988–3001

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Plervis V, Papadrakakis M (2011) A hybrid particle swarm–gradient algorithm for global structural optimization. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 26(1):48–68

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1011478.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA

    Sarah K. Dalton, Ismail Farajpour, C. Hsein Juang & Sez Atamturktur

Authors
  1. Sarah K. Dalton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ismail Farajpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Hsein Juang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sez Atamturktur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sez Atamturktur .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Carolina, Columbia, 29208, USA

    J.M. Caicedo

  2. University of Central Florida, Orlando, 32816, USA

    F.N. Catbas

  3. Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal

    A. Cunha

  4. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    V. Racic

  5. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    P. Reynolds

  6. Bucknell University, Lewisburg, 17837, USA

    K. Salyards

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2012

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dalton, S.K., Farajpour, I., Juang, C.H., Atamturktur, S. (2012). Robust Design Optimization to Account for Uncertainty in the Structural Design Process. In: Caicedo, J., Catbas, F., Cunha, A., Racic, V., Reynolds, P., Salyards, K. (eds) Topics on the Dynamics of Civil Structures, Volume 1. Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2413-0_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2413-0_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-2412-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-2413-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation