Skip to main content
Log in

Polynomial genetic programming for response surface modeling Part 2: adaptive approximate models with probabilistic optimization problems

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is the second in a series of papers. The first deals with polynomial genetic programming (PGP) adopting the directional derivative-based smoothing (DDBS) method, while in this paper, an adaptive approximate model (AAM) based on PGP is presented with the partial interpolation strategy (PIS). The AAM is sequentially modified in such a way that the quality of fitting in the region of interest where an optimum point may exist can be gradually enhanced, and accordingly the size of the learning set is gradually enlarged. If the AAM uses a smooth high-order polynomial with an interpolative capability, it becomes more and more difficult for PGP to obtain smooth polynomials, whose size should be larger than or equal to the number of the samples, because the order of the polynomial becomes unnecessarily high according to the increase in its size. The PIS can avoid this problem by selecting samples belonging to the region of interest and interpolating only those samples. Other samples are treated as elements of the extended data set (EDS). Also, the PGP system adopts a multiple-population approach in order to simultaneously handle several constraints. The PGP system with the variable-fidelity response surface method is applied to reliability-based optimization (RBO) problems in order to significantly cut the high computational cost of RBO. The AAMs based on PGP are responsible for fitting probabilistic constraints and the cost function while the variable-fidelity response surface method is responsible for fitting limit state equations. Three numerical examples are presented to show the performance of the AAM based on PGP.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ababou, R.; Bagtzoglou, A.C.; Wood, E.F. 1994: On the condition number of covariance matrices in kriging, estimation, and simulation of random fields. Math Geol26(1), 99–133

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aminpour, M.A.; Shin, Y.G.; Sues, R.H; Wu, Y-T. 2002: A framework for reliability-based MDO of aerospace systems. In: Proc. the 43rd SDM Conf., AIAA-2002-1476

  3. Bucher, C.G. 1990: A fast and efficient response surface approach for structural reliability problems. Struct Saf7(1), 57–66

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dennis, J.E.; Torczon Jr, V. 1997: Managing approximation models in optimization. In: Alexandrov, N.; Hussaini, M.Y. (eds.), Proc. Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: State-of-the-Art, 330–347

  5. Ditlevsen, O.; Madsen, H.O. 1996: Structural reliabilitymethod, New York: Wiley

  6. Haftka, R.T.; Gurdal, Z. 1992: Element of structural optimization (3rd ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

  7. Irfan, K.; Chris, A.M. 1999: An approach to reliability analysis using the response surface method and Monte Carlo simulation. In: Proc. of DETC’99, the 4th Biennial Reliability, Stress Analysis, and Failure Prevention Conf. (held in Las Vegas), ASME, DET99/RSAFP-8846

  8. Koehler, J.R.; Owen, A.B. 1996: Computer experiments. In: Ghosh, S.; Rao, C.R., (eds.), Handbook of statistics, New York: Elservier Science, p.261–308

  9. Koza, J.R. 1992: Genetic programming: On the programming of computers by means of natural selection, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

  10. Lee, J.O.; Yang, Y.S.; Ruy, W.S. 2001: A comparative study on reliability-index and target-performance-based probabilistic structural design optimization. Comput Struct80(3–4), 257–269

    Google Scholar 

  11. McKay, M.D.; Beckman, R.J.; Conover, W.J. 1979: A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics21(2), 239–245

    Google Scholar 

  12. Myers, R.H.; Montgomery, D.C. 1995: Response surface methodology: Process and product optimization using designed experiments, New York: Wiley

  13. Nair, P.B.; Keane, A.J.; Shimpi, R.P. 1998: Combining approximation concepts with genetic algorithm-based structural optimization procedures. In: Proc. the 39th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conf. (held in Long Beach), 1741–1751, AIAA-98-1912

  14. Osyczka, A. 1985: Multicriteria optimization for engineering design. In: Gero, J.S., (ed.), Design optimization, Academic Press, p.193–227

  15. Padmanabhan, D.; Batill, S. 2002: Reliability based optimization using approximations with applications to multi-disciplinary system design. In: Proc. the 40th AIAA Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA-2002-0449

  16. Patrick, N.K.; Srinivas, K. 1999: Variable complexity structural reliability analysis for efficient reliability-based design optimization. In: Proc. the 40th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conf. (held in St. Louis), AIAA-99-1210

  17. Qu, X.; Venkataraman, S.; Haftka, R.T.; Johnson, T.F. 2000a: Response surface options for reliability-based optimization of composite laminate. In: Proc. the 8th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability (held in Notre Dame), PMC-2000-131

  18. Qu, X.; Venkataraman, S.; Haftka, R.T.; Johnson, T.F. 2000b: Deterministic and reliability-based optimization of composite laminates for cryogenic environments. In: Proc. the 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization (held in Long Beach), AIAA-2000-4760

  19. Rajashekhar, M.R.; Ellingwood, B.R. 1993: A new look at the response surface approach for reliability analysis. Struct Saf12(3), 205–220

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rodriguez, J.; Renaud, J.E.; Watson, L.T. 1998: Trust region augmented lagrangian methods for sequential response surface approximation and optimization. ASME J Mech Des120(1), 58–66

    Google Scholar 

  21. Roux, W.J.; Stander, N.; Haftka, R.T. 1998: Response surface approximations for structural optimization. Int J Numer Methods Eng42(3), 517–534

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sacks, J.; Welch, W.J.; Mitchell, T.J.; Wynn, H.P. 1989: Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci4(4), 409–435

    Google Scholar 

  23. Seeger, M. 2004: Gaussian processes for machine learning. Int J Neural Syst14(2), 1–38

    Google Scholar 

  24. Simpson, T.W.; Mauery, T.M.; Korte, J.J.; Mistree, F. 2001: Kriging metamodels for global approximation in simulation-based multidisciplinary optimization. AIAA J39(12), 2233–2241

    Google Scholar 

  25. Thanedar, P.B.; Kodiyalam, S. 1991: Structural optimization using probabilistic constraints. In: Proc. AIAA/ASME/ACE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conf., 205–212, AIAA-91-0922-CP

  26. Tu, J.; Choi, K.K.; Park, Y.H. 1999: A new study on reliability-based design optimization. ASME J Mech Des121(4), 557–564

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yang, R.J.; Gu, L.; Liaw, L.; Gearhart, C.; Tho, C.H.; Liu, X.; Wang, B.P. 2000: Approximations for safety optimization of large systems. In: Proc. DETC’2000 (held in Baltimore), ASME, DETC2000/DAC-14245

  28. Yang, R.J.; Wang, N.; Tho, C.H.; Bobineau, J.P. 2001: Metamodeling development for vehicle frontal impact simulation. In: Proc. DETC’2001 (held in Pittsburgh), ASME, DETC2001/DAC-21012

  29. Yang, R.J.; Gu, L.; Tho, C.H; Choi, K.K.; Youn, B.D. 2002: Reliability-based multidisciplinary design optimization of a full vehicle system. In: Proc. AIAA/ASME/ ASCE/AHS/ASC 43rd Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conf., AIAA-2002-1758

  30. Yang, Y.S.; Lee, J.O.; Kim, B.J. 1996: Structural reliability analysis using commercial FEM package, In: Proc. the 6th Int. Offshore and Polar Eng. Conf., Vol. 4, 387–394

  31. Yang, Y.S.; Suh, Y.S.; Lee, J.O. 1999: Structural reliability engineering, Seoul National University Press (in Korean)

  32. Yang, Y.S.; Jang, B.S.; Yeun, Y.S.; Jung, H.S. 2000: A framework for managing approximation models in place of expensive simulations in optimization. In: Proc. the 2nd ASMO UK/ISSMO Conf. on Engineering Design Optimization, 249–256

  33. Yang, Y.S.; Jang, B.S.; Yeun, Y.S.; Ruy, W.S. 2002: Managing approximation models in multi-objective optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim24(2), 141–156

    Google Scholar 

  34. Yeun, Y.S.; Lee, K.H.; Yang, Y.S. 1999: Function approximations by coupling neural networks and genetic programming trees with oblique decision trees. Artif Intell Eng13(3), 223–239

    Google Scholar 

  35. Yeun, Y.S.; Yang, Y.S.; Ruy, W.S.; Kim, B.J. 2004: Polynomial genetic programming for response surface modeling – Part 1: A methodology. Struct Multidisc Optim, accepted

  36. Youn, B.D.; Choi, K.K.; Park, Y.H. 2003: Hybrid analysis method for reliability-based design optimization. ASME J Mech Des125(2), 221–232

    Google Scholar 

  37. Youn, B.D.; Choi, K.K. 2004: A new response surface methodology for reliability-based design optimization. Comput Struct82(2–3), 241–256

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wang, G.; Dong, Z.; Aitchison, P. 2001: Adaptive response surface method – A global optimization scheme for computation-intensive design problems. J Eng Optim33(6), 707–734

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y.S. Yeun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yeun, Y., Kim, B., Yang, Y. et al. Polynomial genetic programming for response surface modeling Part 2: adaptive approximate models with probabilistic optimization problems. Struct Multidisc Optim 29, 35–49 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0461-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0461-5

Keywords

Navigation