Research Papers

Robust Design Optimization Under Mixed Uncertainties With Stochastic Expansions

[+] Author and Article Information
Yi Zhang

Graduate Research Assistant
e-mail: zhayi@mst.edu

Serhat Hosder

Assistant Professor
e-mail: hosders@mst.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Missouri University of Science and Technology,
Rolla, MO 65409

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received June 18, 2012; final manuscript received March 21, 2013; published online June 10, 2013. Assoc. Editor: David Gorsich.

J. Mech. Des 135(8), 081005 (Jun 10, 2013) (11 pages) Paper No: MD-12-1317; doi: 10.1115/1.4024230 History: Received June 18, 2012; Revised March 21, 2013

The objective of this paper is to introduce a computationally efficient and accurate approach for robust optimization under mixed (aleatory and epistemic) uncertainties using stochastic expansions that are based on nonintrusive polynomial chaos (NIPC) method. This approach utilizes stochastic response surfaces obtained with NIPC methods to approximate the objective function and the constraints in the optimization formulation. The objective function includes a weighted sum of the stochastic measures, which are minimized simultaneously to ensure the robustness of the final design to both inherent and epistemic uncertainties. The optimization approach is demonstrated on two model problems with mixed uncertainties: (1) the robust design optimization of a slider-crank mechanism and (2) robust design optimization of a beam. The stochastic expansions are created with two different NIPC methods, Point-Collocation and Quadrature-Based NIPC. The optimization results are compared to the results of another robust optimization technique that utilizes double-loop Monte Carlo sampling (MCS) for the propagation of mixed uncertainties. The optimum designs obtained with two different optimization approaches agree well in both model problems; however, the number of function evaluations required for the stochastic expansion based approach is much less than the number required by the Monte Carlo based approach, indicating the computational efficiency of the optimization technique introduced.

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


Taguchi, G., Chowdhury, S., and Taguchi, S., 2000, Robust Engineering, McGraw Hill, New York.
Taguchi, G., 1993, Taguchi on Robust Technology Development: Bringing Quality Engineering Upstream, ASME Press, New York.
Oberkampf, W. L., Helton, J. C., and Sentz, K., April, 2001, “Mathematical Representation of Uncertainty,” 3rd Non-Deterministic Approaches Forum, AIAA-Paper No. 2001-1645.
Swiler, L., Paez, T., Mayes, R., and Eldred, M., 2009, “Epistemic Uncertainty in the Calculation of Margins,” 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, May 4–7, AIAA-Paper No. 2009-2249.
Helton, J. C., Johnson, J. D., and Oberkampf, W. L., 2004, “An Exploration of Alternative Approaches to the Representation of Uncertainty in Model Predictions,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 85(1–3), pp. 39–71. [CrossRef]
Du, X., Venigella, P. K., and Liu, D., 2009, “Robust Mechanism Synthesis With Random and Interval Variables,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 44(7), pp. 1321–1337. [CrossRef]
Eldred, M. S., Swiler, L. P., and Tang, G., 2011, “Mixed Aleatory-Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification With Stochastic Expansions and Optimization-Based Interval Estimation,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 96(9), pp. 1092–1113. [CrossRef]
Hosder, S., and Bettis, B., 2012, “Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis for Reentry Flows With Inherent and Model-Form Uncertainties,” J. Spacecr. Rockets, 49(2), pp. 193–206. [CrossRef]
Beyer, H.-G., and Sendhoff, B., 2007, “Robust Optimization—A Comprehensive Survey,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 196(33–34), pp. 3190–3218. [CrossRef]
Eldred, M. S., 2011, “Design Under Uncertainty Employing Stochastic Expansion Methods,” Int. J. Uncertainty Quantification, 1(2), pp. 119–146. [CrossRef]
Dodson, M., and Parks, G. T., 2009, “Robust Aerodynamic Design Optimization Using Polynomial Chaos,” J. Aircr., 46(2), pp. 635–646. [CrossRef]
Hosder, S., Walters, R. W., and Balch, M., 2010, “Point-Collocation Nonintrusive Polynomial Chaos Method for Stochastic Computational Fluid Dynamics,” AIAA J., 48(12), pp. 2721–2730. [CrossRef]
Wiener, N., 1938, “The Homogeneous Chaos,” Am. J. Math., 60(4), pp. 897–936. [CrossRef]
Xiu, D., and Karniadakis, G. E., 2003, “Modeling Uncertainty in Flow Simulations Via Generalized Polynomial Chaos,” J. Comput. Phys., 187(1), pp. 137–167. Available at http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=795469 [CrossRef]
Eldred, M. S., Webster, C. G., and Constantine, P. G., April, 2008, “Evaluation of Non-Intrusive Approaches for Wiener-Askey Generalized Polynomial Chaos,” 10th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Forum, AIAA-Paper No. 2008-1892.
Walters, R. W., and Huyse, L., 2002, “Uncertainty Analysis for Fluid Mechanics With Applications,” Technical Report No. ICASE 2002-1, NASA/CR-2002-211449, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
Najm, H. N., 2009, “Uncertainty Quantification and Polynomial Chaos Techniques in Computational Fluid Dynamics,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 41, pp. 35–52. [CrossRef]
Hosder, S., and Walters, R. W., 2010, “Non-Intrusive Polynomial Chaos Methods for Uncertainty Quantification in Fluid Dynamics,” 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Jan. 4–7, AIAA-Paper No. 2010-0129.
Hosder, S., Walters, R. W., and Balch, M., 2007, “Efficient Sampling for Non-Intrusive Polynomial Chaos Applications With Multiple Input Uncertain Variables,” 9th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference, AIAA-Paper No. 2007-1939.
West, T. K., IV, Hosder, S., and Johnston, C. O., 2013, “A Multi-Step Uncertainty Quantification Approach Applied to Hypersonic Reentry Flows,” 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan. 7–10, AIAA-Paper No.2013-0257.
Vanderplaats, G. N., 1999, Numerical Optimization Techniques For Engineering Design, 3rd ed., Vanderplaats Research and Development, Colorado Springs, CO.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Robustness estimation of response in the presence of mixed uncertainties

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Robustness estimation of response in the presence of epistemic uncertainties only

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Robustness assessment of mixed uncertainty design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Flow chart of the robust optimization process under mixed uncertainties with combined stochastic expansions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Slider-crank mechanism used in model problem 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Robustness estimation of response in the presence of aleatory uncertainties only

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Convergence of NIPC results as a function of expansion order for model problem 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Error convergence of NIPC results as a function of expansion order for model problem 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Convergence of NIPC results for σ¯(10 deg) as a function of expansion order for model problem 1, case 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Convergence of NIPC results for δσ (10  deg) as a function of expansion order for model problem 1, case 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The convergence history of average mean, average standard deviation, and the standard deviation difference of the beam volume for the optimization process with stochastic expansions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Schematic of the beam design problem (model problem 2)



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