×

Cutting the double loop: theory and algorithms for reliability-based design optimization with parametric uncertainty. (English) Zbl 07865194

Summary: Parametric uncertainties complicate engineering design – confounding regulated design approaches and degrading the performance of reliability efforts. The simplest means to tackle this uncertainty is double-loop simulation, a nested Monte Carlo method that, for practical problems, is intractable. In this work, we introduce a flexible, general approximation technique that obviates the double loop. This approximation is constructed in the context of a novel theory of reliability design under parametric uncertainty: we introduce metrics for measuring the efficacy of reliability-based design optimization strategies (epistemic design gap and effective reliability), minimal conditions for controlling uncertain reliability (precision margin), and stricter conditions that guarantee the desired reliability at a designed confidence level. We provide a number of examples with open-source code to demonstrate our approaches in a reproducible fashion.
{© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.}

MSC:

65Cxx Probabilistic methods, stochastic differential equations
74Pxx Optimization problems in solid mechanics
60Kxx Special processes

Software:

pyOpt; DAKOTA

References:

[1] ParkCY, KimNH, HaftkaRT. How coupon and element tests reduce conservativeness in element failure prediction. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2014;123:123‐136.
[2] GelmanA, CarlinJB, SternHS, DunsonDB, VehtariA, RubinDB. Bayesian Data Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2013.
[3] ItoM, KimNH, KogisoN. Conservative reliability index for epistemic uncertainty in reliability‐based design optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim. 2018;57(5):1919‐1935.
[4] WangL, LiuD, YangY, WangX, QiuZ. A novel method of non‐probabilistic reliability‐based topology optimization corresponding to continuum structures with unknown but bounded uncertainties. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2017;326:573‐595. · Zbl 1439.74299
[5] WangL, XiongC, WangX, XuM, LiY. A dimension‐wise method and its improvement for multidisciplinary interval uncertainty analysis. Appl Math Model. 2018;59:680‐695. · Zbl 1480.62250
[6] Der KiureghianA. Analysis of structural reliability under parameter uncertainties. Probabilistic Eng Mech. 2008;23(4):351‐358.
[7] NohY, ChoiKK, LeeI, GorsichD, LambD. Reliability‐based design optimization with confidence level under input model uncertainty. Paper presented at: ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference; 2009; San Diego, CA.
[8] KenettR, ZacksS. Modern Industrial Statistics: Design and Control of Quality and Reliability. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press; 1998.
[9] U.S. Department of Defense. Department of Defense Handbook: Composites Materials Handbook: Volume 3. Polymer Matrix Composites Materials Usage, Design, and Analysis. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense; 1997.
[10] FonsecaJR, FriswellMI, LeesAW. Efficient robust design via Monte Carlo sample reweighting. Int J Numer Methods Eng. 2007;69(11):2279‐2301. · Zbl 1194.74244
[11] L’EcuyerP. A unified view of the IPA, SF, and LR gradient estimation techniques. Manag Sci. 1990;36(11):1364‐1383. · Zbl 0731.65130
[12] LiJ, MoslehA, KangR. Likelihood ratio gradient estimation for dynamic reliability applications. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2011;96(12):1667‐1679.
[13] NguyenTH, SongJ, PaulinoGH. Single‐loop system reliability based design optimization (SRBDO) using matrix‐based system reliability (MSR) method. In: Safety, Reliability and Risk of Structures, Infrastructures and Engineering Systems. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group; 2010.
[14] TomblinJS, NgYC, RajuKS. Material Qualification and Equivalency for Polymer Matrix Composite Material Systems: Updated Procedure. Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration; 2003.
[15] DitlevsenO, MadsenHO. Structural Reliability Methods. Vol. 178. New York, NY: Wiley; 1996.
[16] MeekerWQ, HahnGJ, EscobarLA. Statistical Intervals: A Guide for Practitioners and Researchers. Vol. 541. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2017. · Zbl 1395.62002
[17] BoydS, VandenbergheL. Convex Optimization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004. · Zbl 1058.90049
[18] van der VaartAW. Asymptotic Statistics. Vol. 3. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998. · Zbl 0910.62001
[19] MoréJJ, WildSM. Estimating derivatives of noisy simulations. ACM Trans Math Softw (TOMS). 2012;38(3). Article No 19. · Zbl 1365.65056
[20] EldredM, BichonB. Second‐order reliability formulations in DAKOTA/UQ. Paper presented at: 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference; 2006; Newport, RI.
[21] AgarwalH, RenaudJ, LeeJ, WatsonL. A unilevel method for reliability based design optimization. Paper presented at: 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference; 2004; Palm Springs, CA.
[22] EldredMS, AgarwalH, PerezVM, WojtkiewiczJrSF, RenaudJE. Investigation of reliability method formulations in DAKOTA/UQ. Struct Infrastruct Eng. 2007;3(3):199‐213.
[23] TuJ, ChoiKK, ParkYH. A new study on reliability‐based design optimization. J Mech Design. 1999;121(4):557‐564.
[24] PerezRE, JansenPW, MartinsJRRA. pyOpt: a Python‐based object‐oriented framework for nonlinear constrained optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim. 2012;45(1):101‐118. · Zbl 1274.90008
[25] BarberoEJ, GutierrezJM. Determination of basis values from experimental data for fabrics and composites. Paper presented at: SAMPE 2012 Conference and Exhibition; 2012; Baltimore, MD.
[26] McDonaldM, ZamanK, MahadevanS. Probabilistic analysis with sparse data. AIAA J. 2013;51(2):281‐290.
[27] KapteynMG, WillcoxKE, PhilpottA. A distributionally robust approach to black‐box optimization. Paper presented at: 2018 AIAA Non‐Deterministic Approaches Conference; 2018; Kissimmee, FL.
[28] CookLW, JarrettJP. Using stochastic dominance in multi‐objective optimizers for aerospace design under uncertainty. Paper presented at: 2018 AIAA Non‐Deterministic Approaches Conference; 2018; Kissimmee, FL.
[29] EfronB, MorrisC. Stein’s paradox in statistics. Sci Am. 1977;236(5):119‐127.
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.