Skip to main content
Log in

An Inverse Reliability-based Approach for Designing under Uncertainty with Application to Robust Piston Design

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Global Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this work, we propose an optimization framework for designing under uncertainty that considers both robustness and reliability issues. This approach is generic enough to be applicable to engineering design problems involving nonconvex objective and constraint functions defined in terms of random variables that follow any distribution. The problem formulation employs an Inverse Reliability Strategy that uses percentile performance to address both robustness objectives and reliability constraints. Robustness is achieved through a design objective that evaluates performance variation as a percentile difference between the right and left trails of the specified goals. Reliability requirements are formulated as Inverse Reliability constraints that are based on equivalent percentile performance levels. The general proposed approach first approximates the formulated problem via a Gaussian Kriging model. This is then used to evaluate the percentile performance characteristics of the different measures inherent in the problem formulation for various design variable settings via a Most Probable Point of Inverse Reliability search algorithm. By using these percentile evaluations in concert with the response surface methodology, a polynomial programming approximation is generated. The resulting problem formulation is finally solved to global optimality using the Reformulation–Linearization Technique (RLT) approach. We demonstrate this overall proposed approach by applying it to solve the problem of reducing piston slap, an undesirable engine noise due to the secondary motion of a piston within a cylinder.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barton, R.R.: Metamodels for simulation input-output relations. In: Swain, J.J., Goldsman, D., Crain, R.C., Wilson, J.R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1992 Winter Simulation Conference. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, pp. 289–299. Arlington, VA (1992)

  • Bazaraa M.S., Sherali H.D., Shetty C.M. (1993). Nonlinear Programming: Theory and Algorithms, Second edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Booker, A.J.: Design and analysis of computer experiments. Proceedings of the 7th AIAA/ USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, vol. 1, pp. 118–128 AIAA, Reston VA (1998)

  • Brown S.A., Sepulveda A.E. (1997). Approximation of system reliability using a shooting Monte Carlo approach. AIAA J. 35(6):1064–1071

    Google Scholar 

  • Cressie N.A.C. (1993). Statistics for Spatial Data. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditlevsen O., Madsen H.O. (1996). Structural Reliability Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Baffins, Lane England

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditlevsen O., Olsen R., Mohr G. (1987). Solution of a class of load combination problems by directional simulation. Struct. Safety 4:95–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du X., Chen W. (2000). Towards a better understanding of modeling feasibility robustness in engineering. ASME J. Mech. Design 122(4):357–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du X., Chen W. (2002). Efficient uncertainty analysis methods for multidisciplinary robust design. AIAA J. 4(3):545–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Du X., Chen W. (2001). A most probable point based method for uncertainty analysis. J. Design Manufact. Automat. 4:47–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Du X., Sudjianto A., Chen W. (2004). An integrated framework for optimization under uncertainty using inverse reliability strategy. ASME J. Mech. Design 126(4):561–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggert R.J. (1991). Quantifying design feasibility using probabilistic feasibility analysis. ASME Adv. Design Autom. 32(1):235–240

    Google Scholar 

  • General Algebraic Modeling System: http://www.gams.com, GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC

  • Hicks C.R. (1973). Fundamental Concepts in the Design of Experiments. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines W.W., Montgomery D. (1972). Probability and Statistics in Engineering and Management Science. The Ronald Press Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch P.N., Simpson T.W., Allen J.K., Mistree F. (1999). Statistical approximations for multidisciplinary optimization: The problem ofsize. J. Aircraft (Special Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Issue). 36(1):275–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocis G.R., Grossmann I.E. (1989). Computational experience with DICOPT: Solving MINLP problems in process systems engineering. Comput. Chem. Enging. 13:307–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melchers R.E. (1999). Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Montes P. (1994). Smoothing noisy data by kriging with nugget effects. In: Laurent P.J. et al (eds) Wavelets, Images, and Surface Fitting. A.K. Peters, Wellesley, MA, pp. 371–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers R.H. (1995). Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Osio I.G., Amon C.H. (1996). An engineering design methodology with multistage bayesian surrogates and optimal sampling. Res. Engg. Design 8(4):189–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson A., Sorensen C., Pourhassan N. (1993). A general approach for robust optimal design. Trans. ASME 155:74–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahinidis N.V. (1996). BARON: A general purpose global optimization software package. J. Global Optimiz. 8(2):201–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherali H.D., Ganesan V. (2003). A pseudo-global optimization approach with application to the design of containerships. J. Global Optimiz. 26(4):335–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherali H.D., Tuncbilek C.H. (1992). A Global Optimization Algorithm for polynomial programming problems using a reformulation–linearization technique. J. Global Optimiz. 2:101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson T.W., Mauery T.M., Krote J.J., Mistree F. (2001). Kriging models for global optimization in simulation-based multidisciplinary design optimization. AIAA J 39(12):2233–2241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan J., Grossmann I.E. (1990). A combined penalty function and outer approximation method for MINLP optimization. Comput. Chemi. Engng. 14:769–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youn B.D., Choi K.K., Park Y.H. (2003). Hybrid analysis method for reliability-based design optimization. ASME J. Mech. Design. 125(2):221–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J.R.: Practical application of variance reduction techniques in probabilistic assessments. In: The Second International Conference on Radioactive Waste Management. pp. 517–521, Winnipeg, Manitoba (1996)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanif D. Sherali.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sherali, H.D., Ganesan, V. An Inverse Reliability-based Approach for Designing under Uncertainty with Application to Robust Piston Design. J Glob Optim 37, 47–62 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-006-9035-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-006-9035-y

Keywords

Navigation