0
Research Papers: Design Automation

Risk-Adaptive Set-Based Design and Applications to Shaping a Hydrofoil

[+] Author and Article Information
J. O. Royset

Professor
Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, CA 93943
e-mail: joroyset@nps.edu

L. Bonfiglio, G. Vernengo

Mechanical Engineering,
MIT,
Cambridge, MA 95616

S. Brizzolara

Aerospace and Ocean Engineering,
Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24061

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received November 29, 2016; final manuscript received August 2, 2017; published online August 30, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Irem Tumer. This work is in part a work of the U.S. Government. ASME disclaims all interest in the U.S. Government's contributions.

J. Mech. Des 139(10), 101403 (Aug 30, 2017) (8 pages) Paper No: MD-16-1799; doi: 10.1115/1.4037623 History: Received November 29, 2016; Revised August 02, 2017

The paper presents a framework for set-based design under uncertainty and demonstrates its viability through designing a super-cavitating hydrofoil of an ultrahigh speed vessel. The framework achieves designs that safely meet the requirements as quantified precisely by superquantile measures of risk (s-risk) and reduces the complexity of design under uncertainty. S-risk ensures comprehensive and decision-theoretically sound assessment of risk and permits a decoupling of parametric uncertainty and surrogate (model) uncertainty. The framework is compatible with any surrogate building technique, but we illustrate it by developing for the first time risk-adaptive surrogates that are especially tailored to s-risk. The numerical results demonstrate the framework in a complex design case requiring multifidelity simulation.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Singer, D. J. , Doerry, N. , and Buckley, M. E. , 2009, “ What is Set-Based Design?,” Nav. Eng. J., 4(121), pp. 31–43. http://www.doerry.org/norbert/papers/SBDFinal.pdf
Canbaz, B. , Yannou, B. , and Yvars, P.-A. , 2014, “ Improving Process Performance of Distributed Set-Based Design Systems by Controlling Wellbeing Indicators of Design Actors,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(2), p. 021005. [CrossRef]
Inoue, M. , Nahm, Y.-E. , Tanaka, K. , and Ishikawa, H. , 2013, “ Collaborative Engineering Among Designers With Different Preferences: Application of the Preference Set-Based Design to the Design Problem of an Automotive Front-Side Frame,” Concurrent Eng. Res. A., 21(4), pp. 252–267. [CrossRef]
Hannapel, S. , and Vlahopoulos, N. , 2014, “ Implementation of Set-Based Design in Multidisciplinary Design Optimization,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 50(1), pp. 101–112. [CrossRef]
Rockafellar, R. T. , and Royset, J. O. , 2010, “ On Buffered Failure Probability in Design and Optimization of Structures,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 95(5), pp. 499–510. [CrossRef]
Rockafellar, R. T. , and Uryasev, S. , 2000, “ Optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk,” J. Risk, 2, pp. 493–517. https://sites.math.washington.edu/~rtr/papers/rtr179-CVaR1.pdf
Rockafellar, R. T. , and Royset, J. O. , 2015, “ Engineering Decisions Under Risk-Averseness,” ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. A, 1(2), p. 04015003. [CrossRef]
Forrester, A. , Sobester, A. , and Keane, A. , 2008, Engineering Design Via Surrogate Modelling: A Practical Guide, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Freitag, S. , Cao, B. T. , Ninic, J. , and Meschke, G. , 2014, “ Surrogate Modeling for Mechanized Tunneling Simulations With Uncertain Data,” Sixth International Workshop on Reliable Engineering Computing (REC), Chicago, IL, May 25–28, pp. 44–63. http://rec2014.iit.edu/papers/Paper_Freitag.pdf
Perdikaris, P. , Venturi, D. , Royset, J. , and Karniadakis, G. , 2015, “ Multi-Fidelity Modeling Via Recursive Co-Kriging and Gaussian Markov Random Fields,” Proc. R. Soc. A, 2179(471), p. 20150018. [CrossRef]
Malak, R. J., Jr. , Aughenbaugh, J. M. , and Paredis, C. J. J. , 2009, “ Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis in Set-Based Conceptual Design,” Comput. Aided Des., 41(3), pp. 214–227. [CrossRef]
Friedman, D. , Isaac, R. , James, D. , and Sunder, S. , 2014, Risky Curves. On the Empirical Failure of Expected Utility, Routledge, New York.
Wang, S. , and Qing, X. , 2016, “ A Mixed Interval Arithmetic/Affine Arithmetic Approach for Robust Design Optimization With Interval Uncertainty,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 138(4), p. 041403. [CrossRef]
Ayyub, B. , Akpan, U. , Koko, T. , and Dunbar, T. , 2015, “ Reliability-Based Optimal Design of Steel Box Structures—I: Theory,” ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. A, 1(3), p. 04015009. [CrossRef]
Akpan, U. , Ayyub, B. , Koko, T. , and Rushton, P. , 2015, “ Development of Reliability-Based Damage-Tolerant Optimal Design of Ship Structures,” ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. A, 1(4), p. 04015013. [CrossRef]
Meng, D. , Li, Y.-F. , Huang, H.-Z. , Wang, Z. , and Liu, Y. , 2015, “ Reliability-Based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Using Subset Simulation Analysis and Its Application in the Hydraulic Transmission Mechanism Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 137(5), p. 051402. [CrossRef]
Dutta, S. , Ghosh, S. , and Inamdar, M. , 2016, “ Reliability-Based Design Optimization of Frame-Supported Tensile Membrane Structures,” ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. A, 3(2), p. G4016001. [CrossRef]
Papalambros, P. Y. , 2012, “ Special Issue: Design Under Uncertainty,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 134(10), p. 100201. [CrossRef]
Li, M. , Mahadevan, S. , Missoum, S. , and Mourelatos, Z. P. , 2016, “ Special Issue: Simulation-Based Design Under Uncertainty,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 138(11), p. 110301. [CrossRef]
Antonsson, E. K. , and Otto, K. N. , 1995, “ Imprecision in Engineering Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 117(B), pp. 25–32. [CrossRef]
Royset, J. O. , Der Kiureghian, A. , and Polak, E. , 2001, “ Reliability-Based Optimal Structural Design by the Decoupling Approach,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 73(3), pp. 213–221. [CrossRef]
Royset, J. O. , Der Kiureghian, A. , and Polak, E. , 2006, “ Optimal Design With Probabilistic Objective and Constraints,” J. Eng. Mech., 132(1), pp. 107–118. [CrossRef]
Brizzolara, S. , and Bonfiglio, L. , 2015, “ Comparative CFD Investigation on the Performance of a New Family of Super-Cavitating Hydrofoils,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 656(1), pp. 12147–12150. [CrossRef]
Brizzolara, S. , 2014, “ Watercraft Device,” U.S. Patent No. 8763546. https://www.google.com/patents/US8763546
Royset, J. O. , 2016, “ Approximations and Solution Estimates in Optimization,” Mathematical Programming, in review.
Haldar, A. , and Mahadevan, S. , 2000, Probability, Reliability, and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design, Wiley, New York.
Goel, T. , Haftka, R. T. , and Shyy, W. , 2009, “ Comparing Error Estimation Measures for Polynomial and Kriging Approximation of Noise-Free Functions,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 38(5), pp. 429–442. [CrossRef]
An, D. , and Choi, J. H. , 2012, “ Efficient Reliability Analysis Based on Bayesian Framework Under Input Variable and Metamodel Uncertainties,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 46(4), pp. 533–547. [CrossRef]
Meckesheimer, M. , Booker, A. J. , Barton, R. R. , and Simpson, T. W. , 2002, “ Computationally Inexpensive Metamodel Assessment Strategies,” AIAA J., 40(10), pp. 2053–2060. [CrossRef]
Viana, F. A. C. , Haftka, R. T. , and Steffen, V. , 2009, “ Multiple Surrogates: How Cross-Validation Errors Can Help us to Obtain the Best Predictor,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 39(4), pp. 439–457. [CrossRef]
Zhang, J. , Chowdhury, S. , Mehmani, A. , and Messac, A. , 2014, “ Characterizing Uncertainty Attributable to Surrogate Models,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(3), p. 031004. [CrossRef]
Mehmani, A. , Chowdhury, S. , and Messac, A. , 2015, “ Predictive Quantification of Surrogate Model Fidelity Based on Modal Variations With Sample Density,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 52(2), pp. 353–373. [CrossRef]
Picheny, V. , Ginsbourger, D. , Richet, Y. , and Caplin, G. , 2013, “ Quantile-Based Optimization of Noisy Computer Experiments With Tunable Precision,” Technometrics, 55(1), pp. 2–13. [CrossRef]
Drezner, Z. , and Erkut, E. , 1995, “ Solving the Continuous p-Dispersion Problem Using Nonlinear Programming,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., 46(4), pp. 516–520. [CrossRef]
Rockafellar, R. T. , and Royset, J. O. , 2015, “ Measures of Residual Risk With Connections to Regression, Risk Tracking, Surrogate Models, and Ambiguity,” SIAM J. Optimiz., 25(2), pp. 1179–1208. [CrossRef]
Rockafellar, R. T. , Uryasev, S. , and Zabarankin, M. , 2008, “ Risk Tuning With Generalized Linear Regression,” Math. Oper. Res., 33(3), pp. 712–729. [CrossRef]
Brizzolara, S. , 2015, “ A New Family of Dual-Mode Super-Cavitating Hydrofoils,” Fourth International Symposium on Marine Propulsors (SMP), Austin, TX, May 31–June 4, pp. 1–9. http://www.marinepropulsors.com/proceedings/2015/MB2-3.pdf
Vernengo, G. , Bonfiglio, L. , Gaggero, S. , and Brizzolara, S. , 2016, “ Physics-Based Design by Optimization of Unconventional Supercavitating Hydrofoils,” J. Ship Res., 60(4), pp. 187–202. [CrossRef]
Hirt, C. W. , and Nichols, B. D. , 1981, “ Volume of Fluid (VOF) Method for the Dynamics of Free Boundaries,” J. Comput. Phys., 39(1), pp. 201–225. [CrossRef]
Kunz, R. F. , Boger, D. A. , Stinebring, D. R. , Chyczewski, T. S. , Lindau, J. W. , Gibeling, H. J. , Venkateswaran, S. , and Govindan, T. , 2000, “ A Preconditioned Navier–Stokes Method for Two-Phase Flows With Application to Cavitation Prediction,” Comput. Fluids, 29(8), pp. 849–875. [CrossRef]
Bonfiglio, L. , and Brizzolara, S. , 2016, “ A Multiphase RANSE-Based Computational Tool for the Analysis of Super-Cavitating Hydrofoils,” Nav. Eng. J., 128(1), pp. 47–64. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/asne/nej/2016/00000128/00000001/art00013?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

S-risk Rα(gk(x, V)) is the average of the worst (1−α)100% outcomes (shaded)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Time-averaged vapor content contours for the benchmark design; flow is left to right

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Design variables x=(x1,...,x15). Arrows indicate allowed movement of control points; some are fixed and illustrated by squares. Three control points move together with x15.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Low- and high-fidelity estimates of drag-over-lift (meter)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Histogram of errors in low-fidelity estimates of drag-over-lift (meter)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

D2 (triangles for control points) and benchmark (inverted triangles for control points); axis scale in meter

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

D4 (circles for control points) and benchmark (inverted triangles for control points); axis scale in meter

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Time-averaged vapor content (left column) and pressure coefficients (right column) contours. From top to bottom: benchmark design, D2, and D4. Flow conditions as in Fig. 2.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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