43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Con AIAA 2002-1755

22-25 April 2002, Denver, Colorado

AIAA-2002-1755

RELIABILITY BASED DESIGN OPTIMIZATION FOR

MULTIDISCIPLINARY SYSTEMS USING RESPONSE SURFACES

Harish Agarwal ∗ John E. Renaud †

Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN - 46556

Abstract Nomenclature

x Design Variables
This paper investigates reliability based design op- z Random Variables
timization (RBDO) using response surface approxima- u Independent Standard Normal Random
tions (RSA) 1,2 for multidisciplinary design optimization Variables
(MDO). In RBDO the constraints are variational (reli-
yd Deterministic State Variables
ability based) since the design variables and the system
yr Random State Variables
parameters can have variation and can be subjected to un-
px Traditional Optimization Parameters
certainties 18 . For these problems the objective is to min-
gR Reliability Based Constraints
imize a cost function while satisfying reliability based
pz Reliability Based Constraint Parameters
constraints. This class of problems is referred to as relia-
gD Deterministic Constraints
bility based multidisciplinary design optimization (RB-
xl , xu Lower and Upper bounds on design space
MDO) problems 5 . The reliability constraints, which
fZ (z) Joint Probability Density Function of the
can be formulated in terms of the reliability indices or
random variables
in terms of the probability of failure, themselves repre-
Φ(u) Standard Normal Cumulative Distribution
sent an optimization problem and can be very expensive
Function (CDF)
to evaluate for large scale multidisciplinary problems.
g(z) Actual Limit State Function;
Response surface approximations of the constraints are
Safe : g(z) > 0, Fail : g(z) < 0
used in estimating the reliability indices or probability of
βreqd Required Value of Reliability Index
failure when solving an approximate optimization prob-
g̃(u) Approximation of the Limit State in
lem using FORM. In this research RSAs are integrated
Standard Normal Space
within RBDO to significantly reduce the computational
cost of traditional RBDO. The proposed methodology is
compared to traditional RBDO in application to multidis- Introduction
ciplinary test problems, and the computational savings
and benefits are discussed.
In deterministic multidisciplinary design optimiza-
tion, the designs are often driven to the limit of the design
constraints (active constraints at the optimum). These
designs may be subject to failure due to inherent uncer-
tainties that exist both in the mathematical modeling and
∗ Graduate Research Assistant, Student Member AIAA simulation tools and the variability in physical quanti-
† Associate Professor, Associate Fellow AIAA ties of the actual artifact. Optimized designs determined
Copyright 2001 by John E. Renaud. Published by the American In-
without due consideration of variability can be unreliable
stitute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission. leading to catastrophic failure. However, the existence of
physical uncertainty and model uncertainty requires a re-

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2002 by the author(s). Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
liability based design optimization (RBDO) to be taken
into account. The uncertainties include variational un-
certainty and simulation based uncertainty. Variational
uncertainty is mainly associated with the randomness of
physical quantities and can be easily modeled mathe-
matically by statistical means i.e., by using probability
and cumulative density functions. Model and simulation
uncertainties are difficult to characterize and have to be
modeled using other means such as possibility theory or
fuzzy sets etc 18 because of a lack of knowledge. In this
paper only variational uncertainty is treated within the
RBDO framework. In future we plan to incorporate the
effects of other types of uncertainty in RBDO.
Literature Survey
sub ject to : gi (x, px , yd ) ≥ 0, i = 1..m (1)
x ≤x≤x
l u
In today’s competitive marketplace, it is very important
that the resulting designs are reliable. Optimized designs
without considering the variability of design variables
and parameters can be subjected to failure in service.
In RBDO, the constraints are reliability based and the
objective function is performance based. The reliability
based multidisciplinary optimization problem in terms of
RIA can be formulated as follows.
minimize : f (x, px , yd )
sub ject to : gRi = βi (z, pz , yr ) − βrequired ≥ 0, i = 1..l (2)
i (x, px , y )
gD ≥ 0, i = l + 1, .., m
d

Recently greater emphasis has been given to the de-

velopment of procedures that combine multidisciplinary Here the constraints which are formulated in terms of
design optimization techniques with probabilistic analy- reliability indices βi are obtained as follows.
sis/design methods. Many new methods have been sug-
gested by researchers for RBDO, such as the perfor-
mance measure approach (PMA) and the reliability in- minimize : βi = kuk
dex approach (RIA). In the context of PMA and RIA, sub ject to : gi (z, pz , yr ) = 0, i = 1..l (3)
several tools for probabilistic constraint evaluation have
been developed such as the advanced mean value (AMV)
The transformation of the random variables space z to
method, the conjugate mean value (CMV) method, the
the independent standard normal random variables space
moving least square (MLS) method and the hybrid mean
u can be obtained in general using the Rosenblatt trans-
value (HMV) method 3,4 . A framework for reliability
formation 14 . The probability of failure of the system
based MDO has been suggested by Sues et. al. and
(Pf )system can be estimated from the unimodal upper
kodiyalam et. al5,6,12 . Pettit and Grandhi have im-
bound i.e., ∑li=1 Φ(−βi )), where l is the number of limit
plemented a multidisciplinary optimization approach for
states (reliability based constraints). For a better estimate
the design of aerospace structures for high reliability 7 .
of the probability of failure, bimodal upper bound can be
Haftka et. al. have used response surface approxima-
used 10,14 .
tions for the reliability-based optimization of composite
laminates 8 .
Proposed Methodology
Background
An overview of the proposed methodology for solv-
ing RBMDO problems is summarized in Figure 1. In
Most engineering design problems require that de-
traditional RBDO, the constraint values are obtained by
signers satisfy constraints imposed on the systems per-
solving an optimization problem (Equation 3). This
formance. A design problem that consists of just one dis-
sub-level optimization has to be solved many times in
cipline is called a single discipline problem. When many
RBDO. This requires many system analysis calls, which
disciplines (structures, controls, aerodynamics, etc) in-
can be very expensive especially for large scale multi-
teract with each other, the problem becomes a multidis-
disciplinary problems. To reduce this, we approximate
ciplinary problem. In general, a deterministic multidis-
the reliability based constraints by fitting a second or-
ciplinary optimization problem can be formulated as fol-
der response surface approximation for each constraint.
lows.
The second order response surface approximation is con-
structed in the standard normal space u only. Sampling
minimize : f (x, px , yd ) is done around the mean values of the random variables

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Starting Point based on
Engineering Knowledge Modified Barnes Problem

Deterministic Optimization
Use Deterministic Optima
for RBDO
Identify deterministic and
random variables and
define reliability based
constraints
This is a purely analytical two-dimensional problem
and it was originally formulated by G.K. Barnes as part
of his Master’s Thesis 22 . We have chosen this as a
test problem to illustrate the usefulness of the proposed
methodology. This is a highly nonlinear problem even
though it is just a two-dimensional problem. The prob-
Do RBDO with
exact constraints lem is stated as follows.
using the present
design point

No
Minimize :
converged yes
f (x, y) = a1 + a2 x1 + a3y4 x1 + a5 y24 + a6x2 +
Actual reliability FINAL
RBDO constraints satisfied DESIGN

a7 y1 + a8 x1 y1 + a9y1 y4 + a10y2 y4 + a11y3 +

Constraints Objective Function a14
a12 x2 y3 + a13y23 + + a15y3 y4 + a16y1 y4 x2 +
x2 + 1
Deterministic Reliability Based
a17 y1 y3 y4 + a18x1 y3 + a19y1 y3 + a20 ea21 y1
Build second order response surface
approximation for reliability based
constraints about the mean values
of the random variables Subject to :
gRi = βi − βreqd ≥ 0, i = 1, 2
Find reliability index for each Lower Level
x1
3 = (y5 − 1) − (
gD − 0.11) ≥ 0
reliability based constraint optimization 2
Evaluate reliability 500
based constrants
xl ≤ x ≤ xu
Figure 1. Reliability Based Design Optimization
Flowchart The coefficients a in the objective function are constants
and their values is listed in Appendix. The reliability
indices to evaluate the reliability based constraints gRi , i =
1, 2 are found as follows.

z in order to fit the approximation. Thus an approximate

minimize : βi = kuk, i = 1, 2
problem is solved for each constraint evaluation as fol- y1
lows. Sub ject to : gR1 = − z2 = 0
z1
x2 y4
g2 = − 2 = 0
R
minimize : βi = kuk z3 z4
sub ject to : g̃i (u) = 0, i = 1..l (4)
The states are calculated as follows.

To solve the optimization problems (Equations 3 or 4),

is a challenge in itself. Various algorithms have been re- CA1 : y1 = x1 x2
ported in the literature for solving the above mentioned y3 = x22
problem. Kiureghian et. al has reported a list of algo- CA2 : y2 = y1 x1
rithms to solve this problem 21 . We have used a MAT- y4 = x21
LAB SQP optimizer to solve this problem. x2
y5 =
50

Test Problems and Results Note the mapping that the variables and parameters have
to undergo as we move from the design space to the
The proposed methodology is implemented in appli- random variable space. In the design space the terms
cation to test problems. A small analytic problem and a zi , i = 1, .., 4 are the constant parameters. They are repre-
multidisciplinary structural design test problem are used. sented as px in the nomenclature. In the random variable

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
space the terms xi , i = 1, 2 are the constant parameters. 49
28

26
They are represented as pz in the nomenclature. In this 48

x2
24
problem all the states are deterministic (yd ). In general

x
47
22
the states can be random (yr ) too. The set of basic ran- 46
20
dom variables and their assumed distribution are shown 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

−20 0
in Table 1. All random variables have been assumed to

f = merit function
be statistically independent. −25
−0.5

gr1
−1

−30 −1.5
Z Distribution Mean Standard Deviation
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

z1 Normal 700 1
0 0.35
z2 Normal 1 0.3 −1 0.3

g2

gd
3
r
z3 Normal 5 1 −2 0.25

z4 Normal 25 0.3 −3
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Table 1. Random Variables (Modified Barnes Problem) Figure 2. Convergence Plots for Modified Barnes Problem Us-
ing Actual Constraints

Results for Modified Barnes Problem

30
48

46
The deterministic optimum is chosen as the start-
1

x2
25
x

44
ing point for the RBDO. A performance comparison of 42
using RBDO with the actual constraints and using re- 1 2 3 4 5 6
20
1 2 3 4 5 6
sponse surface approximations of the constraints in stan- 0

dard normal space is carried out. The required value of

f = merit function

−20 −0.5
the reliability index for each of the reliability based con-

gr1
−25 −1
straints is chosen as 3.0. The results are outlined below.
−30 −1.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

10
0.35
Deterministic RBDO with RBDO with
5 0.3
2

gd
3
gr

Optima (actual constraints) (RSA) 0.25

0
0.2
x1 49.5 46.91 45.95
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
x2 19.5 28.36 28.94
Figure 3. Convergence Plots for Modified Barnes Problem Us-
f -31.71 -20.08 -18.94 ing RSA
gR1 -1.74 3.06e-14 1e-4
gR2 -3.0 -7.86e-14 0.49
gD
3 0.383 0.203 0.195
geval 421 342 which is more reliable. We observe that the reliable op-
tima obtained using actual constraints and using the RSA
feval 16 19
of constraints are different. Also note that in this two
TIME 3.97 sec 5.45 sec dimensional small problem there is no savings in time.
Table 2. Results (Modified Barnes Problem)
This is because the amount of time spend in solving for
the coefficients of the response surface (i.e, for building
the approximation), is more than that for evaluaion of the
Optimization is carried out using MATLAB’s se- constraint itself. But there is a savings in the number of
quential quadratic programming (SQP) optimizer. The evaluations of the constraints. Figures 2, 3 are the con-
objective function at the reliable optima is higher than vergence plots for the modified barnes problem using the
the deterministic optima. This is expected for a design actual constraints and the approximate constraints. The

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
reliable design that is obtained from RBDO using the
RSA of constraints does not violate the actual reliabil-
ity based constraints. In the case where they are violated
due to approximation error, an RBDO using the actual
constraints, could be initiated at the reliable RSA optima
xrsa .
HPLC Structure
A high performance low cost (HPLC) structural de-
sign problem that was first introduced as a multidisci-
plinary design optimization (MDO) test problem in Wu-
jek et al15 is used for additional testing of the RBDO
method. The system is illustrated in figure 4 (Tenbar
Truss). The deterministic optimum design point is ob-
such large dimensionality is chosen to test the effective-
ness of the suggested approach, to investigate the com-
putational savings and to see whether the reliable optima
obtained using RSA is practical.
The objective is to find the size and shape of the truss
such that the weight (Wtot ) of the structure is a mini-
mum (low cost) and the loads (Pi ) it is capable of sus-
taining and the payload (Mi ) it carries are a maximum
(high performance). This multi-objective problem can
be formulated in a single objective problem by defining
a cost-performance index (CPI) which includes each of
the objectives. The design is subject to minimum pay-
load and load requirements as well as yield stress and
first natural frequency constraints. A total of 13 inequal-
ity constraints are defined for this problem. In standard
form the deterministic system optimization problem is:

Minimize :
P1 P2 w2 w3
f (x) = CPI = w1Wtot + + (5)
∑ i ∑ Mi
P
L1 L2
M1 M2 Subject to :
A4 A9 (Mtot )min
g1 = 1.0 − ≥ 0.0 (6)
A3 ∑ Mi
A8 (Ptot )min
A5 A10 g2 = 1.0 − ≥ 0.0 (7)
A7 ∑ Pi
A2 ω1,min
g3 = 1.0 − ≥ 0.0 (8)
A6 ω1
A1
|σ1−10 |
M3 M4 g4−13 = 1.0 − ≥ 0.0 (9)
σyield
L3 (l) (u)
xi ≤ xi ≤ xi (10)
P3 P4
Figure 4. Schematic of HPLC Structure
where : w1 = .003, w2 = 106 , w3 = 3.5X106
(Mtot )min = 5000 lbs, (Ptot )min = 100, 000 lbs
ω1,min = 2.0 Hz, σyield = 14, 000 psi
tained first. It is then used as the starting point for RBDO
in order to obtain the reliable design point.
The design variables in this problem come from three The coefficients wi in the objective function are intro-
different disciplines. The configuration of the structure is duced to scale the separate components so that no one
varied in order to explore different topologies. Thus, the component dominates the others in driving the optimiza-
length of the rectangular first bay (L1 ) and the top and tion. The yield stress of 14,000 psi is based on the choice
bottom lengths of the outer bay (L2 , L3 ) are selected as of aluminum as the material for the structure. The loads
geometric design variables. The masses placed on all of (Pi ) applied to the structure are defined to be a function
the unconstrained nodes (M1 − M4 ) are structural design of the lengths of the bays (Li ) and the payload masses
variables representing the system payload. The areas of (Mi ) placed on the structure as shown in Equation 11.
the truss members (A1 − A10 ) make up the final category
of design variables since sizing is one of the main de-  bk i 4   i
3
Lk Mj dj
∑ ak + ∑ cj
sign considerations (see figure 4). In all seventeen design
Pi = i i
(11)
variables are defined for this problem. A problem with k=1 Lre f j=1 Mre f

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
This is similar to an aeroelastic structure in which the
loads incurred are dependent on the size and shape of the
structure. The coefficients (a, b, c and d) in equation 11
are chosen so as to apply greater emphasis to the effect
that certain lengths or masses have on the given loads.
They are listed in the Appendix.
Deterministic Design Optimization
The deterministic optimization was run with the ini-
tial design of Li = 360 in., Mi = 1500 lbs and Ai = 12
in2 (for all i). The results are tabulated in Table 3. Note
that the constraints g3 , g4 , g5 and g6 are active at the solu-
tion. To carry out the RBDO, the deterministic optimum
design point is chosen as the starting point.
Reliability Based Design Optimization
In reliability based design optimization, it is imprac-
tical to carry out the sub level optimization (Equation 3)
for all the constraints. This is illustrated in the two cases
that follow. We actually need to consider only the con-
straints that are active or nearly active and evaluate the
reliability index for only those constraints. In addition
significant time is saved if the deterministic optimum de-
sign is used as starting point for RBDO.
Test Case : 1
Material properties such as density, young’s modulus
and yield stress (parameters in actual design space Px )
are chosen to have randomness. The set of basic random
variables and their mean and coefficient of variation are
shown in Table 4. The coefficient of variation have been
chosen arbitrarily for this test case. All random variables
have been assumed to be lognormally distributed and are
statistically independent. The second order response sur-
face is constructed in the standard normal random vari-
able space at each step of the upper level optimization
iteration. In the reliability space the design variables x1
to x17 are constant parameters pz .
It is observed in the deterministic optimization that
the constraints 3,4,5 and 6 are critical (active). So in this
test case they are treated as the failure driven constraints.
The reliability indices are calculated using Equation (3)
for the active constraints (see Table 3). The active con-
straints in this case are the first frequency constraint and
the first 3 stress constraints. Once the reliability indices
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
RV Description Mean Coeff. of Var.
ρ Density 0.1 0.01
7
E Young’s Modulus 10 0.05
σyield Yield Stress 14000 0.05
Table 4. Random Variables (HPLC Structure)
are found, the reliability constraints are evaluated using
Equation (2). The results are listed in Table 5
MATLAB’s optimizer is used for both upper and
lower level optimization. The reliable optima is higher
than the deterministic optima. It is observed that the
value of the payloads have gone down and that of the
areas have gone up. This is expected for a more reliable
structure in which the areas of elements are larger and the
payloads are reduced so that the structure is subjected to
less stress and hence is more reliable. The reliable op-
tima obtained using RSA is better than the one obtained
using actual RBDO. This design is used to evaluate the
actual RBDO constraints. They are listed in the last col-
umn of Table 5. We observe that the actual constraints
are satisfied. Note the significant savings is computa-
tional time. The time taken in RBDO using RSA of con-
straints is one-eighth of the time required for the actual
RBDO.
Test Case : 2
The random variables are same as in Case 1. Now all
the constraints that actually depend on the random pa-
rameters are chosen as reliability based constraints. So
there are 11 reliability based constraints in this test case
i.e., the first frequency constraint and all the stress con-
straints. The results are listed in Table 6.
We observe that the reliable optima obtained using
actual RBDO and using RSA in RBDO has a higher
merit function value than that in case 1. This is expected
since there are more reliability based constraints in case
2. The time taken in case 2 for actual RBDO is about
3.3 times more than that in case 1. We do not observe
significant difference in time for RSA in RBDO in two
cases because the system analysis gives the value for all
the constraints at any given sampling point. The reliable
design that is obtained from RBDO using RSA doesn’t
violate the actual reliability based constraints.
 Initial Design Optimal Design Constraints Optimal Design

f 39.93 11.5934

Design Variables

x1 = L1 360.0 160.0 g1 5.1399

x2 = L2 360.0 60.0 g2 1.887
x3 = L3 360.0 60.0 g3 -3.33e-9
x4 = M1 1500.0 7712.8 g4 -1.93e-10
x5 = M2 1500.0 7636.1 g5 -3.79e-10
x6 = M3 1500.0 7714.4 g6 -2.05e-10
x7 = M4 1500.0 7636.1 g7 0.3155
x8 = A1 12.0 8.65 g8 0.9377
x9 = A2 12.0 4.97 g9 0.7272
x10 = A3 12.0 20 g10 0.3445
x11 = A4 12.0 3.72 g11 0.338
x12 = A5 12.0 1.0 g12 0.7863
x13 = A6 12.0 1.0 g13 0.946
x14 = A7 12.0 2.36
x15 = A8 12.0 2.51
x16 = A9 12.0 1.19
x17 = A10 12.0 1

No of Iterations 99
Function Calls 1883

Table 3. Deterministic Optimization Results

Summary and Conclusions
In this study a new methodology for the reliability
based design optimization (RBDO) of multidisciplinary
systems is proposed. The methodology makes use of
response surface approximations (RSA) to significantly
reduce the computational cost of RBDO. The evalua-
tion of reliability based constraints requires solution of
a sublevel optimization for each constraint which makes
implementation of RBDO impractical for multidisci-
plinary systems. The use of response surface approxi-
mations within the sublevel optimization of RBDO can
significantly reduce the computational cost of perform-
ing RBDO. The proposed methodology (Figure 1) of
building response surface approximations of constraints
in standard normal space has been implemented in ap-
plication to two test problems and the results are pre-
sented. Significant savings in computational time is ob-
served in application to a multidisciplinary problem such
as the HPLC structure where the design variables and
the states are part of three different disciplines (config-
uration, structures, dynamics). The results provided for
the test problems give reliable optimas that do not vio-
late the actual reliability based constraints. Future stud-
ies will address other types of uncertainty such as the
epistemic uncertainty in the reliability based design op-
timization framework. Mathematical theories available
for representation of uncertainty are, for example, evi-
dence(Dempster/Shafer) theory, possibility theory, fuzzy
set theory and imprecise probability theory.
Acknowledgements
This multidisciplinary research effort is supported in
part by the following grants; NSF grants DMI98-12857
and DM101-14975 and NASA grant NAG1-2240.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Starting with Reliable optima Reliable optima Constraints RBDO with RBDO with
Optimal Design (Actual) (RSA) Actual constraints (RSA)

f 11.5934 13.3526 12.4783

Design Variables

x1 = L1 160.0 160.0 160 gD

1 5.1379 4.9071
x2 = L2 60.0 60.03 60 gD
2 1.884 1.4963
x3 = L3 60.0 60.0 60 gR3 -1.39e-9 2.301
x4 = M1 7712.8 7709.4 7465.7 gR4 0.478 -6.8e-4
x5 = M2 7636.1 7630.7 7354.3 gR5 2.56 0.1465
x6 = M3 7714.4 7706.8 7347.4 gR6 -7.54e-12 -6.8e-4
x7 = M4 7636.1 7636.0 7368.2 gD
7 0.3914 0.4618
x8 = A1 8.65 9.98 8.69 gD
8 0.6344 0.914
x9 = A2 4.97 13.725 5.5 gD
9 0.6209 0.74
x10 = A3 20 20 20 gD
10 0.37 0.48
x11 = A4 3.72 4.62 4.4 gD
11 0.3172 0.48
x12 = A5 1.0 6.14 1.0 gD
12 0.835 0.83
x13 = A6 1.0 1.38 1.0 gD
13 0.6956 0.92
x14 = A7 2.36 1.47 2.69
x15 = A8 2.51 3.55 3.02
x16 = A9 1.19 2.63 1.35
x17 = A10 1.0 1.02 1.0

geval 170742 16635

feval 1102 1109
TIME 8625 sec 1037 sec

Table 5. RBDO Results for the HPLC Structure, Case 1

References and Multidisciplinary Optimization (WCSMO-4),

1. Myers, R. H., and Montgomery, D. C. , Response
Surface Methodology, Wiley Series in Probability
and Statistics, 1995.
2. Khuri, A. I., and Cornell, J. A., Response Surfaces
- Designs and Analyses, Dekker Inc., Second Edi-
tion, 1996.
3. Choi, K. K., Youn, B. D., “Hybrid Analysis Method
for Reliability-Based Design Optimization”, Pro-
ceedings of 2001 ASME Design Engineering Tech-
nical Conferences, 27th Design Automation Confer-
ence, 2001.
4. Choi, K. K., Youn, B. D., Yang, R.,“Moving Least
Square Method for Reliability-Based Design Opti-
mization”, The Fourth World Congress of Structural
2001.
5. Sues, R. H., Aminpour, M. A., Shin, Y.,
“Reliability-Based Multidisciplinary Optimization
for Aerospace Systems”, Proceedings of the 42nd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Struc-
tural Dynamics, and Materials Conference & Ex-
hibit, 2001.
6. Sues, R. H., Cesare, M. A., “An Innovative Frame-
work For Reliability-Based MDO”,Proceedings of
the 41st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference &
Exhibit, 2000.
7. Pettit, C. L., Grandhi, R. V, “Multidisciplinary
Optimization Of Aerospace Structures With High
Reliability”,8th ASCE Speciality Conference on

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Starting with Reliable optima Reliable optima Constraints RBDO with RBDO with
Optimal Design (Actual) (RSA) Actual constraints (RSA)

f 11.5934 13.8331 12.4817

Design Variables

x1 = L1 160.0 160.0 160 gD

1 5.0692 4.9144
x2 = L2 60.0 65.52 60 gD
2 1.7629 1.5076
x3 = L3 60.0 60 60 gR3 -1.33e-7 -2.56e-4
x4 = M1 7712.8 7628.2 7464.6 gR4 -3.7e-9 -6.8e-4
x5 = M2 7636.1 7547.4 7371.8 gR5 0.025 0.3958
x6 = M3 7714.4 7592.3 7354.8 gR6 -3.98e-9 -6.8e-4
x7 = M4 7636.1 7578.2 7380.9 gR7 6.322 3.16
x8 = A1 8.65 8.75 8.69 gR8 13.846 12.943
x9 = A2 4.97 7.91 5.82 gR9 6.074 7.86
x10 = A3 20 20 20 gR10 0.947 3.19
x11 = A4 3.72 9.87 4.49 gR11 3.247 3.16
x12 = A5 1.0 12.96 1.0 gR12 9.696 10.69
x13 = A6 1.0 1.0 1.0 gR13 6.37 13.21
x14 = A7 2.36 1.45 2.57
x15 = A8 2.51 3.9 3.01
x16 = A9 1.19 1.0 1.3
x17 = A10 1.0 1.46 1.0

geval 460962 11370

feval 1750 758
TIME 24007 sec 1071 sec

Table 6. RBDO Results for the HPLC Structure, Case 2

Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability,
PMC2000.
8. Qu, X. S., Venkataraman, S., Haftka, R. T.,
“Response Surface Options For Reliability-Based
Optimization Of Composite Laminate”, Proceed-
ings of the 8th ASCE Speciality Conference on
Probabilistic Mechanice and Structural Reliability,
PMC2000.
9. Battaini, M., Breitung, K., Casciati, F., Faravelli, L.,
“Active Control And Reliability Of a Structure Un-
der Wind Excitation”, Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1998.
10. Haldar, A., Mahadevan, S., Probability, Reliability
and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design, J.
Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000.
11. Kodiyalam, S., Yang, R. J., Gu, L., Tho, C.
H., “Large Scale Multidisciplinary Optimization
of a Vehicle System in a Scalable, High Per-
formance Computing Environment”,Proceedings of
DETC’01, ASME Design Engineering Technical
Conference and Computers and Information in En-
gineering Conference, 2001.
12. Koch, P. N., Kodiyalam, S., “Variable Complexity
Structural Reliability Analysis For Efficient Relia-
bility Based Design Optimization”, Proceedings of
the 40th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference &
Exhibit, 1999.
13. Ang, A. H. S., and Tang, W. H., Probability Con-
cepts in Engineering Planning and Design, Vol.1
and 2, J. Wiley & Sons, New York, 1984
14. Rackwitz, R., “Reliability Analysis-Past, Present

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 and Future”, Proceedings of the 8th ASCE Spe- a3 3 = 20.0 b3 3 = 3.7 c3 3 = 50.0 d3 3 = 4.0
ciality Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and c4 4 = 37.0 d4 4 = 2.9
Structural Reliability, PMC2000. Coefficients for P4
15. Wujek, B. A., Renaud, J. E., Batill, S. M., “A a1 4 = 17.0 b1 4 = 3.5 c1 4 = 25.0 d1 4 = 2.7
Concurrent Engineering Approach for Multidisci- a2 4 = 15.0 b2 4 = 3.0 c2 4 = 27.0 d2 4 = 2.7
plinary Design in a Distributed Computing Environ- a3 4 = 19.0 b3 4 = 3.8 c3 4 = 25.0 d3 4 = 2.7
ment”,Proceedings of the ICASE/LaRC Workhop c4 4 = 27.0 d4 4 = 2.7
on Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, 1995.
16. Wujek, B. A., Renaud, J. E., Batill, S. M., Brock-
man, J. B., “Concurrent Subspace Optimization us-
a1 75.196 a2 -3.8112 a3 0.12694
ing design variable sharing in a distributed com-
puting environment”, Design Engineering Techni- a4 -2.0567e-3 a5 1.0345e-5 a6 -6.8306
cal Conference, ASME 1995. a7 0.030234 a8 -1.28134e-3 a9 3.5256e-5
17. Du, X., Chen, W., “A most probable point based
a10 -2.266e-7 a11 0.25645 a12 -3.4604e-3
method for uncertainty analysis”, Design Engineer-
ing Technical Conferences, ASME 2000. a13 1.3514e-5 a14 -28.106 a15 -5.2375e-6
18. Oberkampf, W. L., Helton, J. C., “Mathemati- a16 -6.3e-8 a17 7.0e-10 a18 3.4054e-4
cal Representation of Uncertainty”, Proceedings of a19 -1.6638e-6 a20 -2.8673 a21 0.0005
the 42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference & Table 7. Coefficients for the Modified Barnes problem
Exhibit, 2001.
19. Sundaresan, S., Ishii, K., Houser, D. R., “A Robust
Optimization Procedure with Variations on Design
Variables and Constraints”, Advances in Design Au-
tomation - Volume 1, ASME 1993.
20. Haftka, R., Gurdal, Z., and Kamat, M. P., Elements
of Structural Optimization, Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, Second Edition,
1990.
21. Kiureghian, A. D., Liu, P. L., “Optimization Algo-
rithms For Structural Reliability”, Journal of Struc-
tural Safety, Vol. 9, pp. 161-177.
22. Barnes, G. K.,1967 M.S. Thesis, The University of
Texas, Austin, Texas.

Appendix
Load Coefficients
Coefficients for P1
a11 = 25.0 b1 1 = 4.0 c1 1 = 50.0 d1 1 = 4.0
a2 1 = 20.0 b2 1 = 3.7 c2 1 = 37.0 d2 1 = 2.9
a3 1 = 20.0 b3 1 = 3.7 c3 1 = 35.0 d3 1 = 2.9
c4 1 = 37.0 d4 1 = 2.9
Coefficients for P2
a1 2 = 17.0 b1 2 = 3.5 c1 2 = 25.0 d1 2 = 2.7
a2 2 = 19.0 b2 2 = 3.8 c2 2 = 27.0 d2 2 = 2.7
a3 2 = 15.0 b3 2 = 3.0 c3 2 = 25.0 d3 2 = 2.7
c4 2 = 27.0 d4 2 = 2.7
Coefficients for P3
a1 3 = 25.0 b1 3 = 4.0 c1 3 = 35.0 d1 3 = 2.9
a2 3 = 20.0 b2 3 = 3.7 c2 3 = 37.0 d2 3 = 2.9

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics