UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION BASED MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION FOR ENGINEERING SYSTEMS

Authors

  • Kaushik Sinha DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology, Bangalore –560001, India

Keywords:

Uncertainty Quantification, Energy Absorption, reliagDOT, Pareto Optimal Solutions

Abstract

This paper presents a methodology for uncertainty quantification based multi-objective optimization of automotive body components under impact scenario. Conflicting design requirements arise as one tries, for example, to minimize structural mass while maximizing energy absorption of an automotive rail section under structural and occupant safety related performance measure constraints. Uncertainty quantification is performed in broadly using two methods: reliability based approach and robustness based approach. Deterministic, reliability-based and robustness based multi-objective optimization solutions are compared. A genetic algorithm based multi-objective optimization software reliaGDOT, developed in-house, is used to come-up with an optimal pareto-front in all cases. The technique employed here treats multiple objective functions separately without combining them in any form. A decision-making criterion is subsequently invoked to select the “best” subset of solutions from the obtained non-dominated Pareto optimal solutions. The pareto optimal set obtained in case are compared and contrasted and observations made comparing reliability based approach vis-à-vis robustness based approach. Looking at a broader picture, this methodology can potentially fill the gap between numerically optimized system development and simulation-driven digital product development. This, in turn, help realize numerical simulation-driven product development process by aiming to achieve designs that are “first time right”. In addition, this approach can be used as a part of a target cascading technique, integrating organization wide product development process using appropriate methods (e.g., design structure matrix).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Yang, R.J.; Tseng, L.; Nagy, L.; Cheng, J. 1994, “Feasibility study of crash optimization”. ASME 69(2), 549–556.

Yang, R.J.; Gu, L.; Liaw, L.; Gearhart, C; Tho, C.H.2000, “Approximations for safety optimization of large Systems”. 26th ASME Design Automation Conference, DETC2000/DAC- 14245, Baltimore, MD

Gu, L.; Yang, R.J.; Cho, C.H.; Makowski, M.; Faruque, M.; Li, Y. 2001, “Optimization and robustness for crashworthiness”. Int. J. Vehicle Des. 26(4)

Currin, C.; Mitchell, T.; Morris, M.; Ylvisaker, D. 1991, “Bayesian prediction of deterministic function with applications to the design and analysis of computer experiments”. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 86, 953–963.

Liu, P.L, and Kiureghian, A. D., 1991, “OptimizationAlgorithms for Structural Reliability”, Struct. Safety, 9, pp. 161-177.

Youn, B.D., Choi, K.K, 2004, “Selecting Probabilistic Approaches for Reliability-based design optimization”, AIAA, Vol. 42, No. 1.

Darin Evans, “Consistency of Thermoplastic Bumperbeam Impact Performance”, SAE Paper No. 980113.

Kreyszig, Erwin 1989: “Introductory functional analysis with applications”, Wiley Classics Library.

Miettinen, K. 1999, ‘Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization’, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

K, Deb 2001, “ Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms”. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

K. Deb; S. Agrawal; A. Pratap; and T. Meyarivan, “A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGAII”.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2): 182–197, 2002.

Downloads

Published

2007-06-01

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

[1]
“UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION BASED MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION FOR ENGINEERING SYSTEMS”, JME, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 92–101, Jun. 2007, Accessed: Oct. 16, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://smenec.org/index.php/1/article/view/664

Similar Articles

21-30 of 108

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.