Abstract
The objective of this paper is a tradeoff between changing design and controlling sampling uncertainty in reliability-based design optimization (RBDO). The former is referred to as ‘living with uncertainty’, while the latter is called ‘shaping uncertainty’. In RBDO, a conservative estimate of the failure probability is defined using the mean and the upper confidence limit, which are obtained from samples and from the normality assumption. Then, the sensitivity of the conservative probability of failure is derived with respect to design variables as well as the number of samples. It is shown that the proposed sensitivity is much more accurate than that of the finite difference method and close to the analytical sensitivity. A simple RBDO example showed that once the design variables reach near the optimum point, the number of samples is adjusted to satisfy the conservative reliability constraints. This example showed that not only shifting design but also shaping uncertainty plays a critical role in the optimization process.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- d :
-
design point
- G(·):
-
limit state function
- z 1 − α :
-
1 − αlevel z-score
- σ(·):
-
standard deviation
- V(·):
-
variance
- P T :
-
target probability of failure
- y th :
-
threshold value of y
- P F :
-
probability of failure
- f x (·):
-
probability density function
- s(·):
-
score function
- I F :
-
indicator function
- Ω F :
-
failure domain
References
Agarwal H, Renaud JE, Preston EL, Padmanabhan D (2004) Uncertainty quantification using evidence theory in multidisciplinary design optimization. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 85(1-3):281–294
Bae S, Kim NH, Park C (2017) Confidence interval of Bayesian network and global sensitivity analysis. AIAA J 55(11):3916–3924. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J055888
Bichon BJ, McFarland JM, Mahadevan S (2011) Efficient surrogate models for reliability analysis of systems with multiple failure modes. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96(10):1386–1395
Cadini F, Gioletta A (2016) A Bayesian Monte Carlo-based algorithm for the estimation of small failure probabilities of systems affected by uncertainties. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 153:15–27
Choi KK, Kim NH (2004) Structural Sensitivity Analysis and Optimization I: Linear Systems. Springer, New York
Choi KK, Youn BD, Du L (2005) Integration of Reliability- and Possibility-Based Design Optimizations Using Performance Measure Approach. SAE World Congress, Detroit 2005-01-0342
Fraser DAS (1958) Statistics: an introduction. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken Chaps 2
Haldar A, Mahadevan S (2000) Reliability and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York
Helton JC, Oberkampf WL (2004) Alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 85(1-3):1–10
Hofer E, Kloos M, Krzykacz-Hausmann B, Peschke J, Woltereck M (2002) An approximate epistemic uncertainty analysis approach in the presence of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 77(3):229–238
Howard RA (1988) Uncertainty about probability: A decision analysis perspective. Risk Anal 8(1):91–98
Jiang Z, Chen S, Apley DW, Chen W (2016) Reduction of Epistemic Model Uncertainty in Simulation-Based Multidisciplinary Design. ASME J Mech Des 138(8):081403-1–081403-13. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033918
Lee I, Choi KK, Zhao L (2011) Sampling-based RBDO using the stochastic sensitivity analysis and dynamic kriging method. Struct Multidiscip Optim 44(3):299–317
Li Y, Chen J, Feng L (2013) Dealing with Uncertainty: A Survey of Theories and Practices. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 25(11):2463–2482
Liang B, Mahadevan S (2011) Error and uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis in mechanics computational models. Int J Uncertain Quantif 1(2):147–161
Martinez FA, Sallak M, Schon W (2015) An efficient method for reliability analysis of systems under epistemic uncertainty using belief function theory. IEEE Trans Reliab 64(3):893–909
Mosleh A, Bier VM (1996) Uncertainty about probability: a reconciliation with the subjectivist viewpoint. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst Hum 26(3):303–310
Nannapaneni S, Mahadevan S (2016) Reliability analysis under epistemic uncertainty. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 155:9–20
Park CY, Kim NH, Haftka RT (2014) How coupon and element tests reduce conservativeness in element failure prediction. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 123:123–136
Park CY, Kim NH, Haftka RT (2015) The effect of ignoring dependence between failure modes on evaluating system reliability. Struct Multidiscip Optim 52(2):251–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-015-1239-7
Picheny V, Kim NH, Haftka RT (2010) Application of bootstrap method in conservative estimation of reliability with limited samples. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41(2):205–217
Tu J, Choi KK (1999) A New Study on Reliability-Based Design Optimization. ASME J Mech Des 121(4):557–564
Youn BD, Choi KK, Du L, Gorsich D (2006) Integration of Possibility-Based Optimization and Robust Design for Epistemic Uncertainty. ASME J Mech Des 129(8):876–882. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2717232
Zhuang X, Pan R (2012) Epistemic uncertainty in reliability-based design optimization. In: 2012 Proc. Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Reno, pp. 1-6, https://doi.org/10.1109/RAMS.2012.6175496
Acknowledgments
This research was also supported by the research grant of Agency for Defense Development and Defense Acquisition Program Administration of the Korean government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bae, S., Kim, N.H. & Jang, Sg. Reliability-based design optimization under sampling uncertainty: shifting design versus shaping uncertainty. Struct Multidisc Optim 57, 1845–1855 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-018-1936-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-018-1936-0