Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2016, Vol. 8(2) 1–15
Ó The Author(s) 2016
Multi-objective optimization of an DOI: 10.1177/1687814016632985
aime.sagepub.com
on-road bicycle frame by uniform
design and compromise programming

Yung-Chang Cheng1, Cheng-Kang Lee2 and Ming-Tsang Tsai1

Abstract
With the rapid changes in manufacturing technology of bicycle, the safety and performance of a bicycle are important
and remarkable research subjects. In this study, an innovative and integrated optimization procedure for multi-objective
optimization of an on-road bicycle frame is presented. The multiple objectives are to reduce the bicycle frame’s perma-
nent deformations and to decrease the bicycle frame’s mass. First, uniform design of experiments is applied to create a
set of sampling points in the design space of control factors. Second, three-dimensional solid models of bicycle frames
are constructed and permanent deformations of bicycle frames under dropping-mass and dropping-frame impact test
simulations are measured by ANSYS and ANSYS/LS-DYNA. Third, Kriging interpolation is used to transform the dis-
crete relations between input control factors and output measures to continuous surrogate models. Fourth, compro-
mise programming and mixture uniform design of experiments are used to integrate the multiple-objective functions
into one compromise objective function. Finally, generalized reduced gradient algorithm is employed to solve the optimi-
zation problem. After executing the innovative optimization procedure, an optimized on-road bicycle frame is obtained.
Comparing with the original design, the frame’s permanent deformations and mass are reduced. Therefore, both consoli-
dation and lightweight of on-road bicycle frame are achieved.

Keywords
On-road bicycle frame, uniform design, Kriging interpolation, mixture uniform design, compromise programming, gener-
alized reduced gradient algorithm

Date received: 3 September 2015; accepted: 21 December 2015

Academic Editor: Filippo Berto

Introduction the dynamic stability analysis for various types of

In both 20th and 21st centuries, biking has become a
fresh relaxation activity. Many advantage designs about
the bicycle frame system are investigated to upgrade
both ride safety and performance. However, in order to
decrease production cost, many testing procedures for a
bicycle safety are ignored. For that reason, it is very
important and helpful for the bicycle manufacturing
companies to develop the valuable analysis procedures
for some safety tests.
Several studies have investigated the dynamics and
stability analysis of bicycle model.1–3 Jones1 presented
bicycle such as normal bicycle, URB III type of bicycle
in which the front fork has a negative front projection,
1
Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering, National
Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
2
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Cheng Shiu
University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Corresponding author:
Yung-Chang Cheng, Department of Mechanical and Automation
Engineering, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and
Technology, Kaohsiung 811, Taiwan.
Email: yccheng@nkfust.edu.tw

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
and URB IV type of bicycle in which the front fork has
an extended front projection. Nakagawa et al.2 studied
the stabilization of the bicycle using driving forces and
designed a controller using linear-quadratic control the-
ory. Schwab et al.3 introduced the dynamics of the
bicycle model which consists of four rigid bodies. The
linearized equations of motion of the 3 degrees of free-
dom bicycle model, considering the roll angle of the
rear frame, the steering angle, and the rotation angle of
rear wheel with respect to the rear frame, are derived,
and the dynamic stability analysis of the bicycle model
is also investigated.
Some topics focused on the finite element analysis
and the simulation for a bicycle frame model had been
presented in the literatures.4–6 The deformations and
stresses of a bicycle model have also been studied by
the more complete bicycle frame model.7–11 Using two
monologue frame designs and tubular metal frames,
Larry et al.7 investigated and compared the stiffness of
in-plane and out-of-plane frames by both the experi-
ments and finite element analysis. Alex and Thomas8
introduced bicycle stress level as a tool for providing
the full range of criteria needed to determine the bicycle
compatibility of roadways. According to fracture
mechanics, and using an estimate of the bending stress
from a 1-m drop, Shelton et al.9 presented an analysis
of a mountain bike front shock failure. Redfield10
developed baseline predictions for the performance of
mountain bikes during extreme maneuvers using the
bond graph model. The static analysis results by
ANSYS Workbench software for a sport bicycle are
investigated by Wang et al.11 By means of the genetic
algorithm, Huang and Wang12 studied the optimal
designs of the two-dimensional model of the bicycle
frame under the lightest weight considerations.
Although the optimization designs for the bicycle
frame have been illustrated from Huang and Wang,12
the optimal design for the three-dimensional (3D) mod-
els of the bicycle frame has never been investigated. In
addition, the drop-frame impact testing simulation
about the on-road bicycle frame is never presented by
the explicit dynamics finite element method. The opti-
mization design for testing a bicycle frame model by
uniform design and Kriging interpolation has never
been presented.
In this study, an innovative and integrated optimiza-
tion procedure is presented to reduce the weight of
bicycle frame as well as the permanent deformations of
frame. The procedure has five steps. First, a set of
experiments are created in the design space based on
the uniform design method. Second, explicit dynamic
finite element analysis packages, ANSYS and ANSYS/
LS-DYNA, are applied to analyze permanent deforma-
tions of the bicycle frames in all experiments under two
dropping impact test simulations. Masses of bicycle
frames in all experiments are measured by SolidWorks
system. Third, Kriging interpolation method is used to
create surrogate models of permanent deformations
and mass. Fourth, compromise programming and mix-
ture uniform design of experiments are applied to inte-
grate multiple-objective functions into one compromise
objective function. Fifth, generalized reduced gradient
(GRG) algorithm is employed to optimize the dimen-
sions of bicycle frame. From the results shown in this
article, the innovative and integrated optimization pro-
cedure is very useful for simultaneously reducing the
permanent deformations and the mass of on-road
bicycle frame.
Dynamic finite element analysis
Components of bicycle frame model and two
dropping impact tests
The on-road bicycle frame system, including the head
tube, top tube, down tube, seat tube, seat stays, chain
stays, and front fork, is given as shown in Figure 1.
Some basic dimensions of the bicycle frame model are
given in Figure 2. Considering the riding safety of a
bicycle, the qualified bicycle frames have to pass the
drop-mass and drop-frame impact tests under EN
14781 bicycle testing standard.13 The drop-mass impact
test method is shown in Figure 3. A solid-steel bar
fitted in place of a fork is assembled into the head tube.
A striker is put vertically above the solid-steel bar with
the distance of 212 mm. This heavy striker freely falls
downhill and then impacts the solid-steel bar. The per-
manent deformation of the fork along the longitudinal
direction of the frame can be measured and obtained as
the striker comes to rest on the solid-steel bar.
Figure 4 shows schematically the drop-frame impact
test. A mass of 70 kg is placed and fixed on the top of
seat tube. Then, the bicycle frame system and mass are
placed vertically above the rear axle. Next, the bicycle
frame system is rotated about the rear axle, freely drop-
ping downhill and impacts the steel anvil. Finally, the
Figure 1. Structures of bicycle frame.
Cheng et al.
Figure 2. Basic dimensions of on-road bicycle frame model.
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of drop-mass impact test of
bicycle frame model.13
permanent deformation along the longitudinal direction
of the frame can be measured and obtained as the front
fork comes to rest on the steel anvil.
In this study, the solid-steel bar is selected to fit
instead of a fork. On the basis of the EN 14781 bicycle
testing standard,13 it is necessary for an eligible and
safety bicycle frame to decrease a permanent deforma-
tion lesser than 15 mm under the drop-mass and drop-
frame impact tests.
3
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of drop-frame impact test of
bicycle frame model.13
Explicit dynamics finite element analysis for the
dropping impact test simulation
Because of the short time impact behavior between the
striker and the roller, or bicycle frame and steel anvil,
the explicit dynamic finite element software can be
applied to simulate the drop-mass and drop-frame
impact test simulations. First, in the preprocessing,
suitable element size, material properties, and contact
surface settings are finished using ANSYS software.
The material of the bicycle frame for each tube is set to
be aluminum alloy T6066 while the materials of the
front fork, striker, the mass, and the steel anvil are set
to be stainless steel.
For the drop-mass impact test simulation, the stri-
ker and the bicycle frame are meshed with qualified
finite elements as shown in Figure 5(a). To reduce
unnecessary waste of simulation time, the striker is
placed in front of the end of front fork with an initial
speed. According
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi to the kinematics formula,
V = 2gh, the initial impact speed of 2.04 m/s for the
striker is obtained. Meanwhile, the boundary condi-
tions at the rear dropouts are regarded to be fixed in
the x-, y-, and z-directions. In the final solving stage,
the dynamic history of the maximum deformation of a
front fork is evaluated using ANSYS/LS-DYNA soft-
ware. According to the dynamic history of maximum
deformation along the longitudinal direction of the
frame, the final permanent deformation is obtained by
taking the maximum value of the repeatedly oscillated
deformations from 0.05 to 0.3 s. To increase analysis
accuracy, mesh convergence analysis is also per-
formed. The value of permanent deformation will con-
verge as the element size is smaller than 0.004 mm as
shown in Figure 6(a). Hence, the element size is
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 5. Finite element models of bicycle frame and striker
and setting of boundary conditions for (a) drop-mass impact test
and (b) drop-frame impact test.
located to be 0.0042 mm. Figure 7(a) shows the distri-
bution of permanent deformation of bicycle frame
along the longitudinal direction of the frame. The
maximum permanent deformation of the bicycle
frame is 6.61 mm.
For the drop-frame impact test simulation, the
bicycle frame, mass, and the steel anvil are meshed
with qualified finite elements as shown in Figure 5(b).
The boundary conditions at the rear dropouts are set
to be free to rotate about the rear axle in a vertical
plane. The final permanent deformation is found by
taking the maximum value of deformations from 0.0
to 1.0 s. Besides that, the mesh convergence analysis
for the permanent deformation is also given as shown
in Figure 6(b). Because of the convergence of perma-
nent deformation with the smaller element size of
0.004 mm, the qualified and suitable element size can
be set and located to be 0.004 mm. Therefore, the dis-
tribution of permanent deformation along the longitu-
dinal direction is presented and given as shown in
Figure 7(b) by ANSYS/LS-DYNA software. The
maximum permanent deformation of the bicycle frame
is 12.47 mm.
Figure 6. Mesh convergence analysis of deformation with
various element sizes for (a) drop-mass impact test and (b)
drop-frame impact test simulations.
Factor analysis for two drop impact tests
Prior to optimization, factor characteristic analysis can
present the effects of control factors on the objective
function, permanent deformation of the front fork.
Before the factor characteristic analysis, eight design
parameters of the bicycle model are assumed. The
design parameters, including the length of the first sec-
tion of top tube (TT-1L), thickness of the first section
of top tube (TT-1t), length of the fifth section of top
tube (TT-5L), thickness of the fifth section of top tube
(TT-5t), length of the first section of down tube (DT-
1L), thickness of the first section of down tube (DT-1t),
length of the fifth section of down tube (DT-5L), and
thickness of the fifth section of down tube (DT-5t), are
presented as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 9 shows the effects of the length (TT-1L) and
thickness (TT-1t) of the first section of top tube on
deformations of the front fork for the drop-mass and
drop-frame impact tests. The deformations of front
fork evaluated via the drop-mass impact test are always
higher than those obtained from the drop-frame impact
test. In Figure 9(a), for drop-mass impact test simula-
tion, the deformation of the front fork increases with
increasing the length of the first section of top tube. In
Figure 9(b), the deformation of the front fork under the
drop-frame impact test slightly increases as the thick-
ness of the first section of top tube increases. However,
Cheng et al.
Figure 7. Distribution of deformation of bicycle frame along the longitudinal direction of frame for (a) drop-mass and (b) drop-
frame impact test simulations.
for the drop-frame impact test, the deformation of the
front fork tardily increases with increasing the thickness
of the first section of top tube.
Figure 10 shows the effects of the length (TT-5L)
and thickness (TT-5t) of the fifth section of top tube on
the deformation of the front fork for the drop-mass
and drop-frame impact tests. As can be seen, the defor-
mation of the front fork evaluated using the drop-mass
impact test always exceeds those obtained from the
drop-frame impact test simulation. In Figure 10(a), the
deformation of the front fork under the drop-mass
impact test simulation increases as TT-5L increases.
For the drop-frame impact test simulation, the
5
deformations of the front fork increase first and then
decrease as TT-5t increases in Figure 10(b). However,
the deformations of the front fork under the drop-mass
impact test decrease with increasing the thickness of the
fifth section of top tube.
Figure 11 shows the effects of the length (DT-1L)
and thickness (DT-1t) of the first section of down tube
on deformation of the front fork for the drop-mass and
drop-frame impact tests. In Figure 11(a) and (b), the
deformations of front fork under two drop impact tests
decrease as the length and thickness of the first section
of down tube increase. Furthermore, in Figure 11(b),
the effect of the thickness of the first section of down
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 8. Control factors of design of experiments.
Figure 9. Effects of (a) length and (b) thickness of first section
of top tube on deformation of front fork for drop-mass and
drop-frame impact tests.
DY1: deformation of front fork for drop-mass impact test; DY2:
deformation of front fork for drop-frame impact test.
Figure 10. Effects of (a) length and (b) thickness of fifth section
of top tube on deformation of front fork for drop-mass and
drop-frame impact tests.
DY1: deformation of front fork for drop-mass impact test; DY2:
deformation of front fork for drop-frame impact test.
tube on the deformations of front fork under the two
impact test is very significant. The deformations of
front fork under the drop-frame impact test obviously
decrease as the thickness of the first section of down
tube increases.
Figure 12 shows the effects of the length (DT-5L)
and thickness (DT-5t) of the fifth section of down tube
on deformation of the front fork for the drop-mass and
drop-frame impact tests. In Figure 12(a), the deforma-
tions of the front fork under the drop-mass impact test
increase as DT-5L increases. However, for the drop-
frame impact test, the deformations of the front fork
decrease with increasing the length of the fifth section
of down tube. Therefore, the effects of the length of the
fifth section of down tube on the deformations of front
fork under two drop impact tests are very obvious.
From Figure 12(b), the effect of the thickness of the
fifth section of down tube on the deformations of the
front fork under two drop impact tests seems not
significant.
Cheng et al.
Figure 11. Effects of (a) length and (b) thickness of first
section of down tube on deformation of front fork for drop-
mass and drop-frame impact tests.
DY1: deformation of front fork for drop-mass impact test; DY2:
deformation of front fork for drop-frame impact test.
According to the discussions in the above, the per-
manent deformations of the front fork effectively
decrease as the thickness of the fifth section of the top
tube and the length and thickness of the first section of
the down tube increase. However, it makes the mass of
the bicycle frame increased. Therefore, the small per-
manent deformations and lightly bicycle frame are
investigated by the integrated optimization procedure
in the next section.
Improvement of permanent deformation
and lightweight design
Uniform design of experiments
In Figure 8, eight-dimensional control factors are con-
sidered as follows: length of first section of top tube
(TT-1L), thickness of first section of top tube (TT-1t),
length of fifth section of top tube (TT-5L), thickness of
fifth section of top tube (TT-5t), length of first section
7
Figure 12. Effects of (a) length and (b) thickness of fifth section
of down tube on deformation of front fork for drop-mass and
drop-frame impact tests.
DY1: deformation of front fork for drop-mass impact test; DY2:
deformation of front fork for drop-frame impact test.
of down tube (DT-1L), thickness of first section of
down tube (DT-1t), length of fifth section of down tube
(DT-5L), and thickness of fifth section of down tube
(DT-5t). The design ranges of the eight control factors
are given as shown in Table 1. Because of the continu-
ality of all factors, the design space is also a continuous
space. Consequently, in this study, uniform design of
experiments, advised by Fang and Wang,14 is applied
to create a set of experimental points uniformly in the
design space.
Uniform design has been widely used in the optimi-
zation processes for many engineering applications.15–20
In this study, each control factor is given 18 levels in its
design range and the uniform table U18 (1811 ) as shown
in Table 2 is applied to create 18 uniform experiments.14
Because the bicycle frame has eight control factors, col-
umns 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 should be selected and
employed according to the use table of U18 (1811 ).14 By
replacing the level numbers in Table 2 by the level
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 1. Design ranges of control factors.

Control factor Notation Lower bound (mm) Basic value (mm) Upper bound (mm)

Length of first section of top tube TT-1L 20.00 40.00 80.00

Thickness of first section of top tube TT-1t 0.80 1.20 1.60
Length of fifth section of top tube TT-5L 21.26 61.26 81.26
Thickness of fifth section of top tube TT-5t 0.70 1.10 1.50
Length of first section of down tube DT-1L 80.00 140.00 180.00
Thickness of first section of down tube DT-1t 1.40 1.80 2.20
Length of fifth section of down tube DT-5L 20.00 60.00 80.00
Thickness of fifth section of down tube DT-5t 0.95 1.35 1.75

Table 2. Uniform table U18 (1811 ).

Experiment no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 15 16
2 2 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 3 11 13
3 3 9 12 15 18 2 5 8 14 7 10
4 4 12 16 1 5 9 13 17 6 3 7
5 5 15 1 6 11 16 2 7 17 18 4
6 6 18 5 11 17 4 10 16 9 14 1
7 7 2 9 16 4 11 18 6 1 10 17
8 8 5 13 2 10 18 7 15 12 6 14
9 9 8 17 7 16 6 15 5 4 2 11
10 10 11 2 12 3 13 4 14 15 17 8
11 11 14 6 17 9 1 12 4 7 13 5
12 12 17 10 3 15 8 1 13 18 9 2
13 13 1 14 8 2 15 9 3 10 5 18
14 14 4 18 13 8 3 17 12 2 1 15
15 15 7 3 18 14 10 6 2 13 16 12
16 16 10 7 4 1 17 14 11 5 12 9
17 17 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 16 8 6
18 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 8 4 3

values of factors, the uniform experiments are con-
structed as shown in Table 3. In each experiment, the
geometric modeling tool SolidWorks is used to create
the 3D solid model of the specific design of bicycle
frame and then the dynamic deformations of the bicycle
frame undergoing drop-mass and drop-frame impact
test simulations are calculated using ANSYS and
ANSYS/LS-DYNA software. Based on the dynamic
finite element procedures given in section ‘‘Explicit
dynamics finite element analysis for the dropping
impact test simulation,’’ the permanent deformations
for all experiments can be obtained as shown in
Table 4.
In drop-mass impact test simulation, the permanent
deformation of the original designed bicycle frame is
6.61 mm. In drop-frame impact test simulation, the per-
manent deformation of the original designed bicycle
frame is 12.47 mm. The mass of the original designed
bicycle frame is 1146.49 g. By examining the improved
rates in all experiments, only experiments 2, 8, and 16
have all positive improved rates. Moreover, the 16th
experiment has the most improved rates. Therefore, the
3D model of the on-road bicycle frame in the 16th
experiment can be regarded as the improved version of
original design. After completing the uniform experi-
ments, the permanent deformation in drop-mass impact
test has an improved rate of 4.39%, the permanent
deformation in drop-frame impact test has an improved
rate of 4.65%, and the mass of bicycle frame has an
improved rate of 1.58%. As the main objective of the
design is to reduce the weight, the improved rate of
mass should be increased further.
Kriging interpolation surrogate modeling method
A surrogate model is an engineering method employed
as an outcome of interest cannot be easily and directly
measured. It is created by some statistic methods, such
as regression method, artificial neural networks, or
Kriging interpolation. Compared with neural network
method, Kriging interpolation does not involve train-
ing time, but the neural network model needs training
time to determine weights between neurons. Moreover,
Kriging interpolation has been applied to study the
Cheng et al. 9

Table 3. Constructed uniform experiments.

Experiment TT-1L (mm) TT-1t (mm) TT-5L (mm) TT-5t (mm) DT-1L (mm) DT-1t (mm) DT-5L (mm) DT-5t (mm)
no.

1 20.00 0.99 38.91 0.98 121.18 1.78 55.29 1.66

2 23.53 1.22 60.08 1.31 168.24 2.20 27.06 1.51
3 27.06 1.46 81.26 0.75 103.53 1.73 65.88 1.37
4 30.59 0.80 35.38 1.08 150.59 2.15 37.65 1.23
5 34.12 1.04 56.55 1.41 85.88 1.68 76.47 1.09
6 37.65 1.27 77.73 0.84 132.94 2.11 48.24 0.95
7 41.18 1.51 31.85 1.17 180.00 1.64 20.00 1.70
8 44.71 0.85 53.02 1.50 115.29 2.06 58.82 1.56
9 48.24 1.08 74.20 0.94 162.35 1.59 30.59 1.42
10 51.76 1.32 28.32 1.26 97.65 2.01 69.41 1.28
11 55.29 1.55 49.50 0.70 144.71 1.54 41.18 1.14
12 58.82 0.89 70.67 1.03 80.00 1.96 80.00 1.00
13 62.35 1.13 24.79 1.36 127.06 1.49 51.76 1.75
14 65.88 1.36 45.97 0.79 174.12 1.92 23.53 1.61
15 69.41 1.60 67.14 1.12 109.41 1.45 62.35 1.47
16 72.94 0.94 21.26 1.45 156.47 1.87 34.12 1.33
17 76.47 1.18 42.44 0.89 91.76 1.40 72.94 1.19
18 80.00 1.41 63.61 1.22 138.82 1.82 44.71 1.04
Mean value 50.00 1.20 51.26 1.10 130.00 1.80 50.00 1.35
Standard 18.84 0.25 18.84 0.25 31.40 0.25 18.84 0.25
deviation

Table 4. Results of the uniform experiments.

Experiment no. DY1 (mm) DY2 (mm) BM (g) Improved rate Improved rate Improved rate
of DY1 (%) of DY2 (%) of BM (%)

1 6.96 12.63 1126.71 25.30 21.28 1.73

2 6.33 12.00 1136.81 4.24 3.77 0.84
3 7.60 11.92 1116.55 214.98 4.41 2.61
4 6.17 14.04 1122.03 6.66 212.59 2.13
5 7.38 14.39 1119.60 211.65 215.40 2.35
6 6.82 11.58 1122.08 23.18 7.14 2.13
7 6.03 17.78 1125.88 8.77 242.58 1.80
8 6.59 12.15 1142.30 0.30 2.57 0.37
9 6.63 14.20 1117.04 20.30 213.87 2.57
10 7.10 13.41 1131.00 27.41 27.54 1.35
11 6.83 11.91 1118.20 23.33 4.49 2.47
12 6.84 11.29 1124.74 23.48 9.46 1.90
13 7.02 14.49 1128.45 26.20 216.20 1.57
14 6.67 12.75 1135.28 20.91 22.25 0.98
15 7.99 13.57 1130.78 220.88 28.82 1.37
16 6.32 11.89 1128.33 4.39 4.65 1.58
17 8.23 14.99 1113.27 224.51 220.21 2.90
18 7.06 14.94 1133.31 26.81 219.81 1.15
Mean value 6.92 13.33 1126.24 – – –
Standard deviation 0.59 1.65 7.85 – – –

optimization problems in engineering.21–25 Therefore,
in this study, Kriging interpolation is applied to create
a continuous surrogate model from the discrete experi-
mental points. Kriging surrogate models combine a
global model and localized departures, given as24
^yðxÞ ¼ f ðxÞ þ ZðxÞ
where ^y(x) is the Kriging surrogate model of the
unknown function of interest, f (x) is the known
approximation (usually polynomial) function, and Z(x)
is the realization of a stochastic process with mean
zero, variance s2 , and nonzero covariance. f (x) is
regarded as a polynomial regression function, provid-
ð1Þ ing a ‘‘global’’ model of the design space. As f (x)
10
approximates globally the design space, Z(x) creates
‘‘localized’’ deviations so that the Kriging model inter-
polates the sampled data points.
Considering a zero-order regression and Gaussian
correlation function in the Kriging surrogate model, the
surrogate model ^y(x) of the unknown response function
y(x) can be re-built from the equation as21
_ _
^y(x) = b + rT (x)R1 (Y  Fb)
x = fx1 , x2 , . . . , xp g is a vector formed by unknown
input variables and p is the number of unknown input
variables. r(x) is a vector of length n and is the function
of unknown input variables. r(x) is determined by
r(x) = fRc (x, x1 ), Rc (x, x2 ), . . . , Rc (x, xn )g
where
Y
p
 
Rc (x, xi ) = Exp um (xm  xim )2 , i = 1, 2, . . . , n
m=1
xi = fxi1 , xi2 , . . . , xip g, i = 1, 2, . . . , n
x = fx1 , x2 , . . . , xp g
Y = fy1 , y2 , . . . , yn gT is a known response vector of
unknown function and n is the number of experimental
points. F is a known column vector of length n that is
filled with ones. R = ½Rij n 3 n is a known square matrix
and is determined by
Y
p
 
Rij = Exp um (xim  xjm )2 ,
m=1
i = 1, 2, . . . , n; j = 1, 2, . . . , n
_ into one compromise objective function. The combina-
b is a known constant and is determined by
_
b = (FT R1 F)1 FT R1 Y
According to the numerical relations between con-
trol factors and permanent deformations, Kriging sur-
rogate model representing permanent deformations can
be constructed using the MATLAB toolbox, DACE
software.21 The Kriging model applied herein is ordi-
nary Kriging and the correlation function applied
herein is Gaussian function. In equations (1)–(6), ^y
denotes the Kriging surrogate model of the permanent
deformation, x is the input vector formed by the control
factors of bicycle frame, and xi (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) are the
experimental points. Therefore, the predicted input–
output relation function ^y is an explicit function.
Optimization of control factors
With the input data shown in Table 3, the output data
shown in Table 4, and Kriging surrogate modeling
method, the surrogate models of permanent
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
deformations and mass can be obtained. These surro-
gate models are regarded as the objective functions.
The objective function of mass of bicycle frame is
denoted by ^yBM . The permanent deformation of bicycle
frame in drop-mass impact test simulation is denoted
by ^yDY 1 . The permanent deformation of bicycle frame
in drop-frame impact test simulation is denoted by
^yDY 2 . Three single-objective optimization problems can
ð2Þ be represented as follows
^ + rT (x)R1 (Y  Fb),
min ^yk (x) = b ^
x ð7Þ
x = fx1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 , x6 , x7 , x8 g
where k = BM, DY 1, DY 2, x1 = ((TT  1L)  mTT 1L )=
T
ð3Þ sTT1L , x2 = ((TT  1t)  mTT1t )=sTT1t , x3 =
((TT  5L)  mTT 5L )=sTT5L , x4 =((TT  5t)  mTT 5t )=
sTT5t , x5 =((DT  1L)  mDT1L )=sDT1L , x6 =
((DT 1t)mDT1L )=sDT1L , x7 =(ðDT 5LÞmDT5L )=
sDT5L , and x8 =((DT 5t)mDT5t )=sDT5t .
^ and R1 (Y  Fb)^ for ^yBM , ^yDY 1 ,
The coefficients b
and ^yDY 2 are given as shown in Table 5. According to
the procedure of Kriging interpolation given as equa-
ð4Þ tions (1)–(6), the Kriging surrogate model of the per-
manent deformation is obtained using the DACE
toolbox.21 Since the Kriging surrogate models, ^yBM ,
^yDY 1 , and ^yDY 2 , have been represented by numerical
data and are highly nonlinear functions, this article
applies numerical method rather than analytical
method to solve the optimization problem.
As the bicycle frame possesses three single optimiza-
tion problems, multi-objective optimization method
ð5Þ should be applied. Here, compromise programming
method is used to transform three objective functions
tions of weights of objective functions are generated by
mixture uniform design of experiments. Each experi-
ð6Þ ment denotes a combination of weights of objective
functions. By utilizing GRG algorithm to optimize the
compromise objective function in each experiment, the
improved rates of permanent deformations and mass of
bicycle frame are determined. The procedure for multi-
objective optimization is presented as follows.
Solve single-objective optimization problem. When applying
compromise programming method, it is necessary to
solve single-objective problems before solving multi-
objective problem. In this study, GRG algorithm26 is
applied to solve the optimal values and solutions. GRG
algorithm has been wieldy used in the engineering opti-
mization problems.27–30 As shown in Table 6, ^yminBM is the
minimum value of ^yBM in solving the single-objective
problem min ^yBM ; ^ymin
DY 1 is the minimum value of ^
yDY 1 in
solving the single-objective problem min ^yDY 1 ; ^ymin
DY 2 is
the minimum value of ^yDY 2 in solving the single-
objective problem min ^yDY 2 ; ^ymax
BM is the maximum value
Cheng et al. 11

Table 5. Coefficients of Kriging surrogate models for various objective functions.

Coefficients of surrogate model Objective functions

^yDY1 ^yDY2 ^yBM
^
b 20.0337 0.0385 20.0147
R1 (Y  F b)
^ 3.0716 20.1660 20.3358
20.5763 20.8700 0.3653
0.9478 21.0520 20.2682
22.2674 1.7369 21.4551
20.6716 1.4934 20.7647
0.3422 20.8155 20.1831
23.1433 3.8653 20.3810
0.5965 20.2984 1.9249
0.0371 0.2041 22.1597
20.8673 0.4903 1.6880
22.0353 20.5766 0.0718
23.1646 21.9229 20.8377
22.3479 20.1900 0.5418
5.2307 0.1660 0.2521
1.9074 21.5336 1.9262
20.6335 21.1682 20.4377
5.1440 1.0519 21.7656
21.5704 20.4147 1.8185

of ^yBM in solving the single-objective problems min ^yDY 1 Table 6. Corresponding values of objective functions.
and min ^yDY 2 ; ^ymax
DY 1 is the maximum value of ^
yDY 1 in sol- Single-objective Objective functions
ving the single-objective problems min ^yBM and optimization problem
min ^yDY 2 ; ^ymax ^yDY1 (mm) ^yDY2 (mm) ^yBM (g)
DY 2 is the maximum value of ^ yDY 2 in
solving the single-objective problems min ^yBM and min ^yDY1 5.81 15.27 1125.81
min ^yDY 1 . min ^yDY2 6.98 11.07 1123.60
min ^yBM 6.70 12.98 1113.04
Integrate multiple-objective functions into a compromise objec-
tive function. Compromise programming method31–34 is
a useful and powerful tool to integrate multiple-
objective functions into a compromise objective func- Table 7. Mixture uniform design of weights for weighting
tion. According to compromise programming method, factors.
the compromise objective function F is determined by
^yDY 1 , ^ymax ymin
DY 1 , ^ yDY 2 , ^ymax
DY 1 , ^ ymin
DY 2 , ^ yBM , ^ymax
DY 2 , ^ ymin
BM , and ^BM as
Experiment no. W1 W2 W3
follows
1 0.787 0.087 0.126
2 0.631 0.285 0.084
^y 1  ^ymin ^y 2  ^ymin 3 0.523 0.065 0.412
F = W1 DY DY 1
+ W2 DY DY 2
4 0.436 0.282 0.282
^ymax
DY 1  ^
y min
DY 1 ^ymax
DY 2  ^
y min
DY 2
5 0.360 0.552 0.088
^yBM  ^ymin
BM 6 0.293 0.161 0.546
+ W3 max 7 0.232 0.454 0.314
^yBM  ^ymin
BM 8 0.174 0.788 0.038
^yDY 1  5:81 ^y  11:07 9 0.121 0.280 0.599
= W1 + W2 DY 2
6:98  5:81 15:27  11:07 10 0.071 0.634 0.295
^yBM  1113:04 11 0.013 0.024 0.963
+ W3 ð8Þ
1125:81  1113:04
Here, W1 , W2 , and W3 are the weights of ^yDY 1 , ^yDY 2 , mixture uniform design of experiment method.35–37
and ^yBM , respectively. In application of compromise The mixture uniform design of weights for weighting
programming method, it is difficult to determine the factors is given as shown in Table 7. Since each row in
weight for each single-objective function. In this study, Table 7 represents a set of definite weights, each row in
the weights of single-objective functions are considered Table 7 determines a definite compromise objective
to be variable weighting factors. The values of weight- function. In other words, there are 11 single-objective
ing factors are determined by the application of optimization problems in Table 7. By application of
12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 8. Corresponding values and improved rates of DY1, DY2, and BM.

Experiment DY1 (mm) DY2 (mm) BM (g) Improved Improved rate Improved rate
no. rate of DY1 (%) of DY2 (%) of BM (%)

1 5.91 12.47 1125.54 10.53 0.00 1.83

2 5.92 12.43 1125.62 10.50 0.30 1.82
3 6.39 12.47 1114.71 3.32 0.00 2.77
4 6.37 12.37 1115.13 3.57 0.81 2.74
5 6.06 11.80 1125.99 8.33 5.35 1.79
6 6.46 12.25 1114.64 2.27 1.78 2.78
7 6.46 12.27 1114.54 2.27 1.63 2.79
8 6.13 11.67 1127.36 7.20 6.39 1.67
9 6.46 12.41 1114.21 2.27 0.46 2.82
10 6.46 12.24 1114.66 2.27 1.81 2.78
11 6.46 12.47 1114.13 2.27 0.00 2.82

Table 9. Optimal solutions for control factors.

Solution TT-1L (mm) TT-1t (mm) TT-5L (mm) TT-5t (mm) DT-1L (mm) DT-1t (mm) DT-5L (mm) DT-5t (mm)
no.

1 25.43 1.53 75.09 0.70 180.00 1.61 20.00 0.95

2 20.00 1.52 63.93 0.71 145.55 1.62 20.00 1.00

GRG algorithm to solve the 11 optimization problems,
the corresponding values of DY1, DY2, and BM are
obtained as shown in Table 8.
Select an appropriate combination of weights for weighting
factors. Since it is impossible to test all possible combi-
nations of weights for weighting factors due to the lim-
itation of time, the concession strategy applied here is
to select an appropriate combination of weights from
Table 7. The original designed bicycle frame has a DY1
of 6.61 mm, a DY2 of 12.47 mm, and a BM of
1146.49 g. The improved rates of DY1, DY2, and BM
are determined and given as shown in Table 8.
Experiments 1, 3, and 11 are deleted since the improved
rate of DY2 is zero. Experiments 2, 5, and 8 are also
deleted since the improved rate of BM is less than 2%.
From experiments 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10, we select the com-
bination of weights in the fourth experiment since the
improved rate of DY1 is required to be higher than
that of DY2 by the bicycle frame manufacturing com-
pany. After selecting the appropriate combination of
weights for weight factors W1 , W2 , and W3 , the optimi-
zation problem with a compromise objective function
can be represented as follows
_ ^yDY 1  5:81 ^y  11:07
min F = 0:436 + 0:282 DY 2
6:98  5:81 15:27  11:07 ð9Þ
^yBM  1113:04
+ 0:282
1125:81  1113:04
Check prediction errors between surrogate models and analysis
models. By solving the optimization problem in equa-
tion (9) with GRG algorithm, the optimal solutions of
control factors are obtained as solution 1 shown in
Table 9. Since the optimal solutions of control factors
are determined by surrogate models rather than analy-
sis models, the prediction errors of DY1, DY2, and BM
at the optimal solutions of control factors must be
checked. Here, the value predicted by surrogate model
is called the predicted value and the value analyzed by
analysis model is called the analyzed value. The bicycle
frame whose control factors use the optimal solutions
of control factors is called the optimized bicycle frame.
To obtain the analyzed values of DY1, DY2, and BM,
the analysis procedure is executed one more time. The
3D model of the optimized bicycle frame is created in
SolidWorks. The mass of the optimized bicycle frame is
measured using SolidWorks. The permanent deforma-
tions of the optimized bicycle frame are analyzed by
ANSYS/LS-DYNA. At optimal solution 1, the pre-
dicted and analyzed values of DY1, DY2, and BM are
shown in Table 10. The predicted error of DY1 is high
up to 3.78%. The predicted error of DY2 is high up to
4.92%. Because the predicted errors of DY1 and DY2
are higher than 2%, the surrogate models must be
updated. The optimal solutions of control factors are
added into the 18 experimental points shown in Table
3; the corresponding analyzed values of DY1, DY2,
and BM are added into Table 4, and the surrogate
Cheng et al. 13

Table 10. Comparison of predicted and analyzed values of measures.

Solution No. Measure Predicted value Analyzed value Predicted error (%)

1 DY1 (mm) 6.37 6.62 3.78

DY2 (mm) 12.37 11.79 4.92
BM (g) 1115.13 1115.67 0.05
2 DY1 (mm) 6.35 6.23 1.93
DY2 (mm) 12.10 12.13 0.25
BM (g) 1114.92 1111.35 0.32

models of DY1, DY2, and BM are updated. The Table 11. Values and improved rates of measures in various
updated surrogate models of DY1, DY2, and BM are phases.
represented by ~yDY 1 , ~yDY 2 , and ~yBM , respectively.
Phase Measure Value Improved
Similarly, by solving three single optimization problems rate (%)
min ~yDY 1 , min ~yDY 1 , and min ~yBM , the minimum values
of ~yDY 1 , ~yDY 2 , and ~yBM are obtained as 6.26, 11.21, and Original design DY1 (mm) 6.61 –
1113.7, respectively. The maximum values of ~yDY 1 , ~yDY 2 , DY2 (mm) 12.47 –
BM (g) 1146.49 –
and ~yBM are obtained as 6.37, 13.33, and 1142, respec- After uniform DY1 (mm) 6.32 4.39
tively. The optimization problem consists of an updated experiments DY2 (mm) 11.89 4.65
compromise objective function can obtained as follows BM (g) 1128.33 1.58
After multi-objective DY1 (mm) 6.23 5.75
~ = 0:436 ~yDY 1  6:26 + 0:282 ~yDY 2  11:21
optimization DY2 (mm) 12.13 2.73
min F BM (g) 1111.35 3.07
6:37  6:26 13:33  11:21
~yBM  1113:7
+ 0:282 ð10Þ
1142  1113:7
increased to 12.13 mm. The mass BM is reduced to
The optimization problem in equation (10) is also 1111.35 g. The improved rate of mass BM can be
solved by GRG algorithm. The final optimal solution increased up to 3.07%. From the point view of light-
for the control factors for this optimization problem in weight, the design of bicycle frame after multi-objective
equation (10) are as the solution 2 shown in Table 9. optimization is superior to the design of bicycle frame
To obtain the analyzed values of DY1, DY2, and BM after uniform experiments.
for this optimized bicycle frame, the analysis procedure
is executed one more time. The 3D model of the opti-
mized bicycle frame is created in SolidWorks. The mass
Conclusion
of the optimized bicycle frame is measured using The explicit dynamics finite element simulation analysis
SolidWorks. The permanent deformations of the opti- of the on-road bicycle frame model subjected to drop-
mized bicycle frame are analyzed by ANSYS/LS- mass and drop-frame impact tests is presented in this
DYNA. At optimal solution 2, the predicted and ana- study. The factor characteristic analysis is performed
lyzed values of DY1, DY2, and BM are also shown in for the bicycle frame model of basic dimensions. The
Table 10. The predicted errors of DY1, DY2, and BM analysis result shows that the permanent deformations
are 1.93%, 0.25%, and 0.32%, respectively. Since all of the on-road bicycle frame model under the drop-
the predicted errors are smaller than 2%, the optimiza- frame impact test simulation are always smaller than
tion procedure is completed. those under the drop-mass impact test simulation. In
Table 11 shows the values and the improved rates of the optimization strategy, the uniform design of experi-
permanent deformations and mass under various ments and Kriging interpolation are used to create the
phases. In the original design phase, the permanent experimental data and three surrogate models, includ-
deformation DY1 is 6.61 mm, the permanent deforma- ing the mass and permanent deformations of the on-
tion DY2 is 12.47 mm, and the mass BM is 1146.49 g. road bicycle frame model, respectively. Minimizing the
In the phase after executing uniform experiments, the mass and permanent deformation of bicycle frame is
permanent deformation DY1 is reduced to 6.32 mm, achieved using mixture uniform design of experiment,
the permanent deformation DY2 is reduced to compromise programming method, and GRG algo-
11.89 mm, and the mass BM is reduced to 1128.33 g. In rithm. After applying the innovative optimization pro-
the phase after executing multi-objective optimization, cedure presented in this article, the total improved rates
the permanent deformation DY1 is reduced further to of the permanent deformations are 5.75% and 2.73%
6.23 mm. The permanent deformation DY2 is slightly for the drop-mass and drop-frame impact test
14
simulations, respectively. Furthermore, the improved
rate of the mass of bicycle frame model is 3.07%.
Therefore, the lightweight design of the bicycle frame is
attended. This article has shown that the integration of
uniform design of experiments, Kriging interpolation,
compromise programming, mixture uniform design of
experiments, and GRG algorithm is an innovative and
useful optimization strategy for solving multi-objective
optimization problems.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial sup-
port provided to this study by the Ministry of Science and
Technology of Taiwan under grant numbers 103-2221-E-327-
018 and 104-2622-E-327-019.
References
1. Jones DEH. The stability of the bicycle. Physics Today,
April 1970, pp.34–40.
2. Nakagawa C, Suda Y, Nakano K, et al. Stabilization of
a bicycle with two-wheel steering and two-wheel driving
by driving forces at low speed. J Mech Sci Technol 2009;
23: 980–986.
3. Schwab AL, Meijaard JP and Papadopoulos JM. Bench-
mark results on linearized equations of motion of an
uncontrolled bicycle. J Mech Sci Technol 2005; 19:
292–304.
4. Hull ML and Bolourchi F. Contributions of rider
induced loads to bicycle frame stress. American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, Design Engineering Division
1987; 11: 61–72.
5. Wong MG and Hull ML. Analysis of road induced loads
in bicycle frames. J Mech Transm: T ASME 1983; 105:
138–145.
6. Bolourchi F. Bicycle frame stresses by means of finite ele-
ment analysis. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Design Engineering Division 1986; 1: 25–28.
7. Larry BL, James AN and Patrick LL. Utilization of
FEA in the design of composite bicycle frames. Compo-
site 1995; 26: 72–74.
8. Alex S and Thomas W. Bicycle stress level as a tool to
evaluate urban and suburban bicycle compatibility.
Transp Res Rec 1994; 1438: 17–24.
9. Shelton H, Sullivan JO and Gall K. Analysis of the fati-
gue failure of a mountain bike front shock. Eng Fail Anal
2004; 11: 375–386.
10. Redfield R. Extreme mountain biking dynamics: develop-
ment of a bond graph model. In: Proceedings of the
IASTED international conference on modelling and simu-
lation (MS 2003), Palm Springs, CA, 24–26 February
2003, pp.450–455.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
11. Wang JH, Zhao JN, Zhao YS, et al. Simulation about
sports bicycle frame based on the experiments. Appl Mech
Mater 2010; 37–38: 1142–1147.
12. Huang YM and Wang KJ. Optimization of bicycle
frames using genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the
ASME international design engineering technical conferences
and computers and information in engineering conference, Las
Vegas, NV, 4–7 September 2007, vol. 6, pp.325–334.
13. European Standard EN 14781:2005. Racing bicycles—
safety requirements and test methods.
14. Fang KT and Wang Y. Number-theoretic methods in sta-
tistics. London: Chapman & Hall, 1994.
15. Li JF, Liao H, Normand B, et al. Uniform design method
for optimization of process parameters of plasma sprayed
TiN coatings. Surf Coat Tech 2003; 176: 1–13.
16. Cheng YC and Wu PH. Optimisation for suspension sys-
tem of a railway vehicle with a new non-linear creep
model developed by uniform design. Int J Heavy Veh
Syst 2015; 22: 157–191.
17. Meng J, Li QM and Liu J. The application of uniform
design on minesweeping effectiveness forecasting model
based on neural network. In: Proceedings of the 2010 inter-
national conference on computing, control and industrial
engineering, Wuhan, China, 5–6 June 2010, pp.214–217.
Washington, DC: IEEE.
18. Shu X, Gu C, Xiao J, et al. Centrifugal compressor
blade optimization based on uniform design and genetic
algorithms. Front Energ Power Eng China 2008; 2: 455–456.
19. Peng L, Wang YZ, Dai GM, et al. A novel differential
evolution with uniform design for continuous global opti-
mization. J Comput 2012; 7: 3–10.
20. Yang YZ, Jiang M, Xu J, et al. Uniform design of opti-
mizing formulation of friction materials with composite
mineral fiber (CMF) and their friction and wear behavior.
Appl Compos Mater 2012; 19: 161–170.
21. Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB and Søndergaard J. DACE—a
MATLAB Kriging toolbox–Version 2.0. Technical report
of Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical
University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark, August 2002.
22. Gu YT, Wang QX and Lam KY. A meshless local Kri-
ging method for large deformation analyses. Comput
Method Appl M 2007; 196: 1673–1684.
23. McLeana P, Leger P and Tinawi R. Post-processing of
finite element stress fields using dual Kriging based meth-
ods for structural analysis of concrete dams. Finite Elem
Anal Des 2006; 42: 532–546.
24. Simpson TW and Mistree F. Kriging models for global
approximation in simulation-based multidisciplinary
design optimization. AIAA J 2001; 39: 2233–2241.
25. Yin J, Ng SH and Ng KM. A study on the effects of para-
meter estimation on Kriging model’s prediction error in
stochastic simulations. In: Proceedings of the 2009 winter
simulation conference, Austin, TX, 13–16 December 2009,
pp.674–685.
26. Hwang CL, Williams JL and Fan LT. Introduction to the
generalized reduced gradient method. Manhattan, KS:
Institute for Systems Design and Optimization, Kansas
State University, 1972.
27. Sharma R and Glemmestad B. On generalized reduced
gradient method with multi-start and self-optimizing
Cheng et al. 15

control structure for gas lift allocation optimization. J Rc correlation function for Kriging
Process Contr 2013; 23: 1129–1140. interpolation
28. Kalaiselvan K and Murugan N. Optimizations of friction Rc (x, xi ) correlation value of x and xi ,
stir welding process parameters for the welding of Al- i = 1, 2, . . . , n
B4C composite plates using generalized reduced gradient U18 (1811 ) uniform table
method. Proced Eng 2012; 38: 49–55. Vf initial falling speed of bicycle frame
29. Gabriele GA and Beltracchi TJ. Resolving degeneracy in Vs initial speed of striker
the generalized reduced gradient method. J Mech x vector formed by unknown input
Transm: T ASME 1987; 109: 263–267.
variables
30. Ulas A and Cengiz F. Calculation of detonation proper-
ties of gaseous explosives using generalized reduced gra-
xi experimental points, i = 1, 2, . . . , n
dient nonlinear optimization. Propell Explos Pyrot 2011; y(x) unknown response function to be
36: 314–319. interpolated
31. Kanellopoulos A, Gerdessen JC and Claassen GDH. ^y(x) Kriging surrogate model of y(x)
Compromise programming: non-interactive calibration of ^yBM Kriging surrogate model of mass of
utility-based metrics. Eur J Oper Res 2015; 244: 519–524. bicycle frame
32. Shiau JT and Wu FC. Compromise programming metho- ~yBM updated Kriging surrogate model of mass
dology for determining instream flow under multiobjec- of bicycle frame
tive water allocation criteria. J Am Water Resour As ^yDY 1 Kriging surrogate model of permanent
2006; 1179–1191. deformation of bicycle frame in drop-
33. Razmil B, Aryanezhad MB, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R,
mass impact test simulation
et al. Using compromise programming to solve a new
~yDY 1 updated Kriging surrogate model of
multi-objective model for industrial clusters. JBASR
2012; 2: 8085–8090. permanent deformation of bicycle frame
34. Carpinelli G, Caramia P, Mottola F, et al. Exponential in drop-mass impact test simulation
weighted method and a compromise programming ^yDY 2 Kriging surrogate model of permanent
method for multi-objective operation of plug-in vehicle deformation of bicycle frame in drop-
aggregators in microgrids. Int J Elec Power 2014; 56: frame impact test simulation
374–384. ~yDY 2 updated Kriging surrogate model of
35. Ning JH, Fang KT and Zhou YD. Uniform design for permanent deformation of bicycle frame
experiments with mixtures. Commun Stat: Theor M 2011; in drop-frame impact test simulation
40: 1734–1742. ^ymax ymin
BM , ^ BM maximum and minimum values of ^yBM
36. Ning JH, Zhou YD and Fang KT. Discrepancy for uni- max min
~yBM , ~yBM maximum and minimum values of ~yBM
form design of experiments with mixtures. J Stat Plan
^ymax
DY 1 , maximum and minimum values of ^yDY 1
Infer 2011; 141: 1487–1496.
37. Prescott P. Nearly uniform designs for mixture experi- ^ymin
DY 1
ments. Commun Stat: Theor M 2008; 37: 2095–2115. ~ymax
DY 1 , ~ymin
DY 1 maximum and minimum values of ~yDY 1
^yDY 2 , ^ymin
max
DY 2 maximum and minimum values of ^yDY 2
~ymax
DY 2 , ~ymin
DY 2 maximum and minimum values of ~yDY 2
Appendix 1 Y known response vector for Kriging
Notation interpolation
Z(x) realization of a stochastic process with
BM mass of bicycle frame mean zero, variance s2 , and nonzero
DY1 permanent deformation of bicycle frame covariance.
in drop-mass impact test simulation _
DY2 permanent deformation of bicycle frame b generalized least squares estimate
in drop-frame impact test simulation um unknown coefficient of correlation
f (x) known regression function function for Kriging interpolation,
F known column vector of length n that is m = 1, 2, . . . , p
_
filled with ones mi mean of values in all experiments for
F compromise objective function factor i, i = TT  1L, TT  1t,
~
F updated compromise objective function TT  5L, TT  5t, DT  1L,
h drop height of striker DT  1t, DT  5L, DT  5t
n number of experimental points si standard deviation of values in all
p number of input variables experiments for factor i,
r correlation vector for Kriging i = TT  1L, TT  1t,
interpolation TT  5L, TT  5t, DT
R correlation matrix for Kriging 1L, DT  1t, DT  5L, DT  5t
interpolation