Computationally Efficient Imprecise Uncertainty Propagation

[+] Author and Article Information
Dipanjan D. Ghosh

Graduate Research Assistant
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
University at Buffalo-SUNY,
5 Norton Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260

Andrew Olewnik

Research Associate
New York State Center for Engineering Design, and Industrial Innovation,
University at Buffalo-SUNY,
5 Norton Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
e-mail: olewnik@buffalo.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received January 13, 2012; final manuscript received February 15, 2013; published online April 23, 2013. Assoc. Editor: David Gorsich.

J. Mech. Des 135(5), 051002 (Apr 23, 2013) (12 pages) Paper No: MD-12-1027; doi: 10.1115/1.4023921 History: Received January 13, 2012; Revised February 15, 2013

Modeling uncertainty through probabilistic representation in engineering design is common and important to decision making that considers risk. However, representations of uncertainty often ignore elements of “imprecision” that may limit the robustness of decisions. Furthermore, current approaches that incorporate imprecision suffer from computational expense and relatively high solution error. This work presents a method that allows imprecision to be incorporated into design scenarios while providing computational efficiency and low solution error for uncertainty propagation. The work draws on an existing method for representing imprecision and integrates methods for sparse grid numerical integration, resulting in the computationally efficient imprecise uncertainty propagation (CEIUP) method. This paper presents details of the method and demonstrates the effectiveness on both numerical case studies, and a thermocouple performance problem found in the literature. Results for the numerical case studies, in most cases, demonstrate improvements in both computational efficiency and solution accuracy for varying problem dimension and variable interaction when compared to optimized parameter sampling (OPS). For the thermocouple problem, similar behavior is observed when compared to OPS. The paper concludes with an overview of design problem scenarios in which CEIUP is the preferred method and offers opportunities for extending the method.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Difference in aleatory and epistemic uncertainty representation [3]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison of nonparameterized p-box (left) and parameterized p-box (right) [6]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Classification of methods for propagating uncertainty

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Development of CEIUP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

P-box representation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Effect of dimension on accuracy and efficiency for OPS (gray) and CEIUP (black)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Effect of interaction on accuracy and efficiency for OPS (gray) and CEIUP (black)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of dimension and interaction on accuracy and efficiency at level 6 for OPS (gray) and CEIUP (black)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Accuracy versus function evaluations comparison plot




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In