Abstract
The failure possibility (FP) can reasonably measure the safety degree of the structure under fuzzy uncertainty, and the estimation of FP can be transformed into searching the point with the maximum joint membership function (MF) of fuzzy input vector in the failure domain (also known as fuzzy design point). In the current fuzzy simulation (FS) method, the fuzzy design point is searched in the maximum value region of the fuzzy input vector corresponding to the lowest membership level which is equal to 0 and the computational efficiency is low. In this paper, an efficient hierarchical fuzzy simulation (HFS) method is proposed for estimating FP. In the proposed method, by the nature that the fuzzy design point is a failure point with the maximum joint MF, the fuzzy design point is first searched in the smaller value region of input vector corresponding to the larger membership level, and the membership level is automatically reduced layer by layer to expand the search region until the failure points appear. Compared with the traditional FS method, the proposed HFS method not only guarantees the search accuracy of the fuzzy design point, but also reduces the total search region; thus the computational efficiency is improved. In addition, an adaptive Kriging model is also embedded in the search process of HFS. Since the adaptively updated Kriging model is used to replace the real performance function for recognizing the state of the simulated sample points during the search process, the strategy of combining the Kriging model with HFS method can further improve the search efficiency of the fuzzy design point. The results of examples show that the proposed HFS method is reasonable and efficient.









Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- FP:
-
Failure possibility
- FS:
-
Fuzzy simulation
- HFS:
-
Hierarchical fuzzy simulation
- MF:
-
Membership function
- AK:
-
Adaptive Kriging
- RE:
-
Relative error
- \({\varvec{X}}\) :
-
Fuzzy input vector, and \({\varvec{X}} = {x_{1} ,x_{2} ,...,x_{n} }^{{\text{T}}}\)
- \({\varvec{x}}\) :
-
Realization of \({\varvec{X}}\), and \({\varvec{x}} = {x_{1} ,x_{2} ,...,x_{n} }^{{\text{T}}}\)
- \(F\) :
-
Failure domain, and \(F = \{ g({\varvec{x}}) \le 0\}\)
- \(g({\varvec{x}})\) :
-
Performance function
- \(\pi_{f}\) :
-
Failure possibility
- \(N_{\alpha }\) :
-
The number of layers
- \(\rho_{{\varvec{X}}} ( \cdot )\) :
-
Joint MF of \({\varvec{X}}\)
- \(\rho_{{X_{i} }} ( \cdot )\) :
-
MF of \(X_{i}\)
- \(\rho_{{X_{i} }}^{ - 1} ( \cdot )\) :
-
Inverse function of MF \(\rho_{{X_{i} }} ( \cdot )\)
- \({\text{Poss}}\{ \cdot \}\) :
-
Possibility operator
- \(N_{{{\text{call}}}}\) :
-
The number of calls to performance function
- \(\alpha\) :
-
Membership level
- \({\text{Sup}}\{ \cdot \}\) :
-
Supremum operator
- \({\varvec{x}}\user2{(}\alpha \user2{)}\) :
-
Membership interval vector
- \({\varvec{x}}^{L} \user2{(}\alpha \user2{)}\) :
-
Lower bound of membership interval
- \({\varvec{x}}^{U} \user2{(}\alpha \user2{)}\) :
-
Upper bound of membership interval
- \(\gamma\) :
-
Scale factor and \(\gamma < 1\)
- \(g_{K} {(}{\varvec{x}}{)}\) :
-
Kriging surrogate model of performance function
- \(S_{{\varvec{x}}}^{(k)} \,\) :
-
Candidate sample pool of fuzzy input corresponding to \(\alpha_{k}\) membership level
- \(I_{{\text{F}}} ( \cdot )\) :
-
Indicator function of failure domain
- \({\varvec{x}}^{ * }\) :
-
Fuzzy design point
- \(U\user2{(} \cdot \user2{)}\) :
-
U-learning function
- \(\mu_{{g_{K} }} ({\varvec{x}})\) :
-
Predicted mean of \(g_{K} {(}{\varvec{x}}{)}\)
- \(\sigma_{{g_{K} }} ({\varvec{x}})\) :
-
Prediction standard deviation of \(g_{K} {(}{\varvec{x}}{)}\)
- \(T\) :
-
The training sample set
- \({\varvec{x}}_{{{\text{new}}}}\) :
-
New training sample point
- \(N_{{\text{T}}}\) :
-
The number of training sample points
- \(S_{{\varvec{x}}}\) :
-
Candidate sample pool of fuzzy input corresponding to 0 membership level
- \(i\) :
-
\(i = 1,2,...,N_{k}\); \(N_{k}\) Is the number of samples in the \(k\)-th layer
- \(k\) :
-
\(k = 1,2,...,N_{\alpha }\); \(N_{\alpha }\) Is the number of layers
References
Wang L, Zhang XB, Li GJ, Lu ZZ (2022) Credibility distribution function based global and regional sensitivity analysis under fuzzy uncertainty. Eng Comput 38(3):1349–1362
Cheng MY, Prayogo D (2017) A novel fuzzy adaptive teaching learning-based optimization (FATLBO) for solving structural optimization problems. Eng Comput 33:55–69
Wang C, Qiu ZP, Xu MH, Li YL (2017) Novel reliability-based optimization method for thermal structure with hybrid random, interval and fuzzy parameters. Appl Math Model 47:573–586
Nahmias S (1978) Fuzzy variables. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:79–110
Wang C, Matthies HG (2019) Epistemic uncertainty-based reliability analysis for engineering system with hybrid evidence and fuzzy variables. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 355:438–455
Yu SW (2010) Construction of a fuzzy membership function based on interval number. J Shandong Univ 40:32–35
Cremona C, Gao Y (1997) The possibilistic reliability theory: theoretical aspects and applications. Struct Saf 19(2):173–201
Zadeh LA (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:2–28
Tzvieli A (1990) Possibility theory: An approach to computerized processing of uncertainty. J Am Soc Inf Sci 41(2):153–154
Dubois D, Prade H (1992) When upper probabilities are possibility measures. Fuzzy Sets Syst 49(1):65–74
Hurtado JE, Alvarez DA, Ramirez J (2012) Fuzzy structural analysis based on fundamental reliability concepts. Comput Struct 112–113:183–192
Wang C, Qiu ZP, Xu MH, Qiu HC (2017) Novel fuzzy reliability analysis for heat transfer system based on interval ranking method. Int J Therm Sci 116:234–241
Guo SX, Lu ZZ (2003) Procedure for computing the possibility and fuzzy probability of failure of structures. Appl Math Mech 24:338–343
Mourelatos ZP, Zhou J (2005) Reliability estimation and design with insufficient data based on possibility theory. AIAA J 43(8):1696–1705
Du L, Choi KK, Youn BD (2006) Inverse possibility analysis method for possibility-based design optimization. AIAA J 44(11):2682–2690
Jia BX, Lu ZZ (2018) Root finding method of failure credibility for fuzzy safety analysis. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58(5):1917–1934
Möller B, Graf W, Beer M (2000) Fuzzy structural analysis using α-level optimization. Comput Mech 26(6):547–565
Feng KX, Lu ZZ, Chao P (2019) Safety life analysis under required failure credibility constraint for unsteady thermal structure with fuzzy input parameters. Struct Multidiscip Optim 59(1):43–59
Liu B (2006) A survey of credibility theory. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 5(4):387–408
Bououden S, Chadli M, Karimi HR (2015) An ant colony optimization-based fuzzy predictive control approach for nonlinear processes. Inf Sci 299:143–158
Bououden S, Chadli M, Allouani F, Filali S (2013) A new approach for fuzzy predictive adaptive controller design using particle swarm optimization algorithm. Int J Innov Comput Inf Control 9:3741–3758
Yang IT, Hsieh YH (2013) Reliability-based design optimization with cooperation between support vector machine and particle swarm optimization. Eng Comput 29(2):151–163
Burke JV, Han SP (1989) A robust sequential quadratic programming method. Math Program 43(1–3):277–303
Weile DS, Michielssen E (1997) Genetic algorithm optimization applied to electromagnetics: a review. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 45(3):343–353
Liu B (2007) Uncertainty theory, 2nd edn. Springer Publishing Company Incorporated, New York
Echard B, Gayton N, Lemaire M (2011) AK-MCS: an active learning reliability method combining Kriging and Monte Carlo Simulation. Struct Saf 33(2):145–154
Yang XF, Liu ZQ, Cheng X (2021) An enhanced active learning Kriging model for evidence theory-based reliability analysis. Struct Multidiscip Optim 64(4):2165–2181
Yang XF, Cheng X, Liu ZQ, Wang T (2021) An adaptive method fusing the kriging model and multimodal importance sampling for profust reliability analysis. Eng Optim, pp 1–17
Ling CY, Lu ZZ, Feng KX (2019) An efficient method combining adaptive Kriging and fuzzy simulation for estimating failure credibility. Aerosp Sci Technol 92:620–634
Zhai Z, Li H, Wang X (2022) An adaptive sampling method for Kriging surrogate model with multiple outputs. Eng Comput 38(1) :277–295
Yang XF, Cheng X, Liu ZQ, et al (2021) A novel active learning method for profust reliability analysis based on the Kriging model. Eng Comput, pp 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01447-y
Toal D (2015) A study into the potential of GPUs for the efficient construction and evaluation of Kriging models. Eng Comput 32(3):1–28
Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB, Søndergaard J (2002) Aspects of the matlab toolbox DACE. Technical Report, Informatics and Mathematical Modeling, Technical University of Denmark, DTU
Yang XF, Wang T, Li JC, Zhang C (2019) Bounds approximation of limit state surface based on active learning Kriging model with truncated candidate region for random-interval hybrid reliability analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 121(7):1345–1366
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. NSFC 52075442), National Science and Technology Major Project (2017-IV-0009-0046) and Innovation Foundation for Doctor Dissertation of Northwestern Polytechnical University (CX2022018).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Jiang, X., Lu, Z. & Feng, K. An efficient hierarchical fuzzy simulation method for estimating failure possibility. Engineering with Computers 39, 3085–3097 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-022-01692-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-022-01692-9