Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of metamodeling techniques for optimization under uncertainty

  • Research paper
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Metamodeling techniques have been widely used in engineering design to improve efficiency in the simulation and optimization of design systems that involve computationally expensive simulation programs. Many existing applications are restricted to deterministic optimization. Very few studies have been conducted on studying the accuracy of using metamodels for optimization under uncertainty. In this paper, using a two-bar structure system design as an example, various metamodeling techniques are tested for different formulations of optimization under uncertainty. Observations are made on the applicability and accuracy of these techniques, the impact of sample size, and the optimization performance when different formulations are used to incorporate uncertainty. Some important issues for applying metamodels to optimization under uncertainty are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Box, G.E.P.; Hunter, W.G.; Hunter, J.S. 1978: Statistics for experimenters. New York: John Wiley & Sons

  2. Chen, W.; Allen, J.K.; Tsui, K.L.; Mistree, F. 1996: A procedure for robust design. ASME J. Mech. Design 118, 478–485

    Google Scholar 

  3. Du, X.; Chen, W. 2000: Towards a better understanding of modeling feasibility robustness in engineering design. ASME J. Mech. Design 122, 385–394

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dyn, N.; Levin, D.; Rippa, S. 1986: Numerical procedures for surface fitting of scattered data by radial basis functions. SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comp. 7, 639–659

  5. Geilen, J. 1986: Sensitivity analysis at optimal point. Studienarbeit, UNJGH Siegen, Institut für Mechanik und Regelungstechnik

  6. Hazelrigg, G.A. 1998: A framework for decision-based engineering design. ASME J. Mech. Design 120, 653–658

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hardy, R.L. 1971: Multiquadratic equations of topography and other irregular surfaces. J. Geophys. Res. 76, 1905–1915

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jin, R.; Chen, W.; Simpson, T. 2001: Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 23, 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kleijnen, J.P.C. 1987: Statistical tools for simulation practitioners. New York: Marcel Dekker

  10. McKay, M.D.; Beckman, R.J. Conover, W.J. 1979: A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21, 239–245

    Google Scholar 

  11. Myers, R.H.; Montgomery, D.C. 1995: Response surface methodology: Process and product optimization using designed experiments. New York: Wiley & Sons

  12. Parkinson, A.; Sorensen, C.; Pourhassan, N. 1993: A general approach for robust optimal design. Trans. ASME 115, 74–80

    Google Scholar 

  13. Padmanabhan, D.; Batill, S.M. 2000: An iterative concurrent subspace robust design framework. In: Proc. 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symp. Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization (held in Long Beach 2000), AIAA-2000-4841

  14. Phadke, M.S. 1989: Quality engineering using robust design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall

  15. Powell, M.J.D. 1987: Radial basis functions for multivariable interpolation: A review. In: Mason, J.C.; Cox, M.G. (eds.): Algorithms for approximation. London: Oxford University Press

  16. Rao, S.S. 1992: Reliability-based design. New York: McGraw–Hill

  17. Sacks, J.; Welch, W.J.; Mitchell, T.J.; Wynn, H.P. 1989: Design and analysis of computer experiments. Statist. Sci. 4, 409–435

  18. Simpson, T.W.; Peplinski, J.; Koch, P.N.; Allen, J.K. 1997: On the use of statistics in design and the implications for deterministic computer experiments. In: Proc. Design Theory and Methodology (DTM ’97) (held in Sacramento 1997), ASME-DETC97/DTM-3881

  19. Su, J.; Renaud, J.E. 1997: Automatic differentiation in robust optimization. AIAA J. 35, 1072–1079

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sundaresan, S.; Ishii, K.; Houser, D.R. 1993: A robust optimization procedure with variations on design variables and constraints. Adv. Design Autom. 69, 379–386

    Google Scholar 

  21. Taguchi, G. 1993: Taguchi on robust technology development: Bringing quality engineering upstream. New York: ASME Press

  22. Von Neumann, J.; Morgenstern, O. 1953: Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Integrated Design Automation Laboratory (IDEAL), Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, 842 W. Taylor St., 60607-7022, Chicago, IL, USA

    R. Jin  & W. Chen

  2. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Missouri, USA

    X. Du

Authors
  1. R. Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. X. Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Chen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jin , R., Du , X. & Chen , W. The use of metamodeling techniques for optimization under uncertainty. Struct Multidisc Optim 25, 99–116 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-002-0277-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-002-0277-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation