Skip to main content
Log in

ESLA: a new surrogate-assisted single-loop reliability-based design optimization technique

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

Abstract

In this paper, we address the formulation of a novel scheme for reliability-based design optimization, in which the design optimization problem is characterized by constraints that must be met with a certain probability. Assessment of the aforementioned is typically referred to as reliability analysis. Conventional methods rely on sampling approaches or by reformulating the problem as a two-level optimization that requires gradient or Hessian information of the constraints to obtain a trustworthy solution. However, the computational cost of such methods makes them often impractical. To overcome the aforementioned, a surrogate-assisted asymptotic reliability analysis (SARA) is presented that makes use of surrogate-derived gradient and Hessian information. The sub-optimization problem is reformulated as a set of constraints using the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions and fitted in an efficient global optimization-like setting through the formulation of the reliability-based expected improvement (RBEI), obtaining the novel efficient single-loop approach (ESLA). The method is tested on a series of test cases which prove the effectiveness of the novel scheme.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the field of Economics, this is sometimes called a Black Swan in reference to the work of Nassim Nicholas Taleb (2007). However, paradoxically Taleb states that we are unable to recognize the black swans and should therefore incorporate a level of robustness to account for unpredictable events.

  2. An imprecise probabilistic approach to reliability analysis using p-boxes (Liu et al. 2020) and a non-probabilistic approach to reliability analysis using for example fuzzy logic (Ling et al. 2019), evidence theory (Cao et al. 2018; Huang et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2018), possibility theory, interval analysis (Xie et al. 2017), and convex modeling (Zheng et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2018) can alternatively be used when insufficient information is available to make a trustworthy estimate of the pdf of the input.

  3. In this work time-invariant, component-level reliability analysis is examined. For the sake of compactness, RA will be used for the remainder of the paper. Recent studies toward time-variant RA are among the others found in Hawchar et al. (2018), Li et al. (2018), Shi et al. (2020), Wei et al. (2017), and Wang et al. (2020) and toward system-level RA in Yun et al. (2019) and Bichon et al. (2011).

  4. Not all existing methods, such as Haldar and Mahadevan’s mean value first-order second-moment (MVFOSM) method (Haldar and Mahadevan 2000), can be straightforwardly be categorized. Alternatively, one could categorize the methods more broadly as single-point approaches.

  5. If a cost can be attributed to the failure of the system, the RBDO problem can be reformulated as a multi-objective optimization problem without constraints. This is typically referred to as risk optimization (RO) (Beck et al. 2015; Torii et al. 2019).

  6. In the absence of an inequality constraint, the number of KKT conditions reduces to two.

  7. Quantities with non-zero mean and a variance that differs from one can be easily rescaled and translated.

  8. At this point, this must be hard coded in the optimization framework that \(\boldsymbol {\mathfrak {u}}^{(1)}\) may not decrease below zero. The manner by which this is done might also lead to discontinuities in the constraint space and might lead to overfitting.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jolan Wauters.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Xu Guo

Replication of results

The technique was implemented in Matlab by modifying the ooDACE toolbox (Couckuyt et al. 2014). Replication of the results can be readily obtained by implementing the SARA and RBEI, and applying them to the test problems.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Conducted as part of the SBO research project 140068 EUFORIA (Efficient Uncertainty quantification For Optimization in Robust design of Industrial Applications) under the financial support of the IWT, the Flemish agency of Innovation through Science and Technology.

Appendix: : Derivation of the first and second derivatives of the BLUP and MSPE

Appendix: : Derivation of the first and second derivatives of the BLUP and MSPE

The derivation of the best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) and the corresponding mean square predictive error (MSPE) are considered well-known and well-documented and will not be examined here.

For the derivation of the first and second derivatives of the BLUP and their respective MSPEs, we make use of a multi-variable formulation of the difference quotient (sometimes also referred to as Newton’s quotient or Fermat’s quotient) following McHutchon’s approach (McHutchon 2013). Consider the evaluation of the surrogate model at two test point locations:

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \mathcal{Y}(\textbf{x}_{*})&=&\text{Y}(\textbf{x}_{*})+z_{*} \\ \mathcal{Y}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})&=&\text{Y}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})+z_{\delta} \end{array} $$

such that (z,zδ) takes on the form of a multi-variate Gaussian distribution P(z,zδ) of which the covariance function is given by:

$$ \left[\begin{array}{cc} \mathbb{V}[z_{*}] & \mathbb{C}[z_{\delta},z_{*}] \\ \mathbb{C}[z_{*},z_{\delta}] & \mathbb{V}[z_{\delta}] \end{array}\right] $$
(60)

and of which the components (with \(\mathbb {C}[z_{*},z_{\delta }]\) the covariance) are given by:

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \mathbb{C}[z_{*},z_{\delta}]&=& \sigma^{2}\left\{1-\boldsymbol{\psi}(\boldsymbol{x}_{*})\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})^{T}\right.\\ &&{}+\left[\mathbf{F}^{T}\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x}_{*})-\boldsymbol{f}(\textbf{x}_{*})\right]^{T}\cdot\left[\mathbf{F}^{T}\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}\mathbf{F}\right]^{-1}\\ &&\left.\cdot\left[\mathbf{F}^{T}\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})-\boldsymbol{f}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})\right]\right\} \end{array} $$
(61)

such that

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \frac{\partial \mathcal{Y}_{*}}{\partial \textbf{x}_{*}} &=&\lim\limits_{\boldsymbol{\delta}\to\boldsymbol{0}} \frac{\mathcal{Y}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})-\mathcal{Y}(\textbf{x}_{*})}{\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta}-\textbf{x}_{*}} \\ &=&\lim\limits_{\boldsymbol{\delta}\to\boldsymbol{0}} \frac{\text{Y}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})+z_{\delta}-\text{Y}(\textbf{x}_{*}-z_{*})}{\boldsymbol{\delta}} \\ &=&\lim\limits_{\boldsymbol{\delta}\to\boldsymbol{0}} \frac{\text{Y}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})-\text{Y}(\textbf{x}_{*})}{\boldsymbol{\delta}}+\lim\limits_{\boldsymbol{\delta}\to\boldsymbol{0}} \frac{z_{\delta}-z_{*}}{\boldsymbol{\delta}} \\ &=&\frac{\partial \text{Y}_{*}}{\partial \textbf{x}_{*}}+\lim\limits_{\boldsymbol{\delta}\to\boldsymbol{0}} \frac{z_{\delta}-z_{*}}{\boldsymbol{\delta}} \end{array} $$

From these results, the derivative of the BLUP can be determined.

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \frac{\partial \text{Y}(\textbf{x})}{\partial \text{x}_{i}}=& \frac{\partial\boldsymbol{f}(\textbf{x})}{\partial \text{x}_{i}}^{T}\boldsymbol{\beta}+\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x})}{\partial \text{x}_{i}}^{T}\boldsymbol{\Uppsi}^{-1}(\textbf{y}-\mathbf{F}\boldsymbol{\beta}) \end{array} $$
(62)

In a similar manner, the MSPE of the derivative is derived.

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \mathbb{V}\left[\underset{\boldsymbol{\delta}\to\boldsymbol{0}}{\lim}\frac{w_{\delta}-w_{*}}{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\right]{}&=&{} \lim\limits_{\boldsymbol{\delta}\to\boldsymbol{0}}\frac{1}{\boldsymbol{\delta}^{2}}{}\left\{\mathbb{V}[w_{\delta}]+{}\mathbb{V}[w_{*}]-\mathbb{C}[w_{\delta},w_{*}]\right.\\ &&{}\left.-\mathbb{C}[w_{*},w_{\delta}]\right\}= \lim\limits_{\boldsymbol{\delta}\to\boldsymbol{0}}\frac{\sigma^{2}}{\boldsymbol{\delta}^{2}}\left\{(\boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})-\boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x}_{*}))^{T}\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}\right. \\ &&{}+((\boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})-\boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x}_{*})))\left[\mathbf{F}^{T}\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})-\boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x}_{*}))\right.\\ &&{}\left.-\left( \boldsymbol{f}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta})-\boldsymbol{f}(\textbf{x}_{*})\right)\right]^{T}\left[\mathbf{F}^{T}\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}\mathbf{F}\right]^{-1}\\ &&{}\cdot{}\left.\left[{}\mathbf{F}^{T}\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}{}\cdot{}(\boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x}_{*}+\boldsymbol{\delta}){}-{}\boldsymbol{\psi}(\textbf{x}_{*})){}-{}(\boldsymbol{f}(\textbf{x}_{*}{}+{}\boldsymbol{\delta}){}-{}\boldsymbol{f}(\textbf{x}_{*}))\right]\right\} \\ &&{}= \sigma^{2}\left\{\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \textbf{x}_{*}}^{T}\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \textbf{x}_{*}}+\left[\mathbf{F}^{T}\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \textbf{x}_{*}}^{T}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial \textbf{x}_{*}}\right]^{T}\right. \\ &&{}\left.\cdot\left[\mathbf{F}^{T}\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}\mathbf{F}\right]^{-1}\cdot\left[\mathbf{F}^{T}\boldsymbol{{\varPsi}}^{-1}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \textbf{x}_{*}}^{T}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial \textbf{x}_{*}}\right]\right\} \end{array} $$
(63)

The same approach can be repeated to obtain the second derivatives of the BLUP and their respective MSPE.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wauters, J., Couckuyt, I. & Degroote, J. ESLA: a new surrogate-assisted single-loop reliability-based design optimization technique. Struct Multidisc Optim 63, 2653–2671 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-020-02808-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-020-02808-9

Keywords

Navigation