Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 351–372 | Cite as

Multi-objective optimization for design under uncertainty problems through surrogate modeling in augmented input space

  • J. Zhang
  • A. A. TaflanidisEmail author
Research Paper


Multi-objective design under uncertainty problems that adopt probabilistic quantities as performance objectives and consider their estimation through stochastic simulation are examined in this paper, focusing on development of a surrogate modeling framework to reduce computational burden for the numerical optimization. The surrogate model is formulated to approximate the system response with respect to both the design variables and the uncertain model parameters, so that it can simultaneously support both the uncertainty propagation and the identification of the Pareto optimal solutions. Kriging is chosen as the metamodel, and its probabilistic nature (its ability to offer a local estimate of the prediction error) is leveraged within different aspects of the framework. To reduce the number of simulations for the expensive system model, an iterative approach is established with adaptive characteristics for controlling the metamodel accuracy. At each iteration, a new metamodel is developed utilizing all available training points. A new Pareto front is then identified utilizing this surrogate model and is compared, for assessing stopping criteria, to the front that was identified in the previous iteration. This comparison utilizes explicitly the potential error associated with the metamodel predictions. If stopping criteria are not achieved, a set of refinement experiments (new training points) is identified and process proceeds to the next iteration. A hybrid design of experiments is considered for this refinement, with a dual goal of global coverage and local exploitation of regions of interest, separately identified for the design variables and the uncertain model parameters.


Design under uncertainty Multi-objective design Augmented input space Adaptive metamodels Kriging Iterative optimization 



  1. Beck AT, Santana Gomes WJ (2012) A comparison of deterministic, reliability-based and risk-based structural optimization under uncertainty. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 12:18–29Google Scholar
  2. Beck JL, Taflanidis A (2013) Prior and posterior robust stochastic predictions for dynamical systems using probability logic. Journal of Uncertainty Quantification 3(4):271–288MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Bichon BJ, Eldred MS, Mahadevan S, McFarland JM (2013) Efficient global surrogate modeling for reliability-based design optimization. J Mech Design 135(1):011009Google Scholar
  4. Coelho RF, Lebon J, Bouillard P (2011) Hierarchical stochastic metamodels based on moving least squares and polynomial chaos expansion. Struct Multidiscip Optim 43(5):707–729MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahlberg T (1978) Ride comfort and road holding of a 2-DOF vehicle travelling on a randomly profiled road. J Sound Vib 58(2):179–187Google Scholar
  6. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms, vol 16. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  7. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197Google Scholar
  8. Dubourg V, Sudret B, Bourinet J-M (2011) Reliability-based design optimization using kriging surrogates and subset simulation. Struct Multidiscip Optim 44(5):673–690Google Scholar
  9. Dubreuil S, Bartoli N, Gogu C, Lefebvre T, Colomer JM (2018) Extreme value oriented random field discretization based on an hybrid polynomial chaos expansion-Kriging approach. Comput Methods Appl Mech EngGoogle Scholar
  10. Eldred MS, Giunta AA, Wojtkiewicz SF, Trucano T (2002) Formulations for surrogate-based optimization under uncertainty. Paper presented at the 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Atlanta, GA,Google Scholar
  11. Gidaris I, Taflanidis AA, Lopez-Garcia D, Mavroeidis GP (2016) Multi-objective risk-informed design of floor isolation systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 45(8):1293–1313Google Scholar
  12. Goh CK, Tan KC (2006) Noise handling in evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Evolutionary Computation, 2006. CEC 2006. IEEE Congress on. IEEE, pp 1354–1361Google Scholar
  13. Haimes YY, Ladson L, Wismer DA (1971) Bicriterion formulation of problems of integrated system identification and system optimization. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics (3):296-&Google Scholar
  14. Hartigan JA, Wong MA (1979) Algorithm AS 136: a K-means clustering algorithm. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat 28(1):100–108zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Helton JC, Johnson JD, Oberkampf WL (2004) An exploration of alternative approaches to the representation of uncertainty in model predictions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 85(1):39–71Google Scholar
  16. Janusevskis J, Le Riche R (2013) Simultaneous kriging-based estimation and optimization of mean response. J Glob Optim 55:313–336MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Jia G, Taflanidis AA (2013) Kriging metamodeling for approximation of high-dimensional wave and surge responses in real-time storm/hurricane risk assessment. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 261-262:24–38MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Jin R, Du X, Chen W (2003) The use of metamodeling techniques for optimization under uncertainty. Struct Multidiscip Optim 25(2):99–116Google Scholar
  19. Jones D, Schonlau M, Welch W (1998) Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Glob Optim 13:455–492MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones DR (2001) A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J Glob Optim 21(4):345–383MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim IY, De Weck O (2006) Adaptive weighted sum method for multiobjective optimization: a new method for Pareto front generation. Struct Multidiscip Optim 31(2):105–116MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Kleijnen JPC (2009) Kriging metamodeling in simulation: a review. Eur J Oper Res 192(3):707–716MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Kouri DP, Heinkenschloss M, Ridzal D, van Bloemen Waanders BG (2014) Inexact objective function evaluations in a trust-region algorithm for PDE-constrained optimization under uncertainty. SIAM J Sci Comput 36(6):A3011–A3029MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M (2007) Robust seismic design optimization of steel structures. Struct Multidiscip Optim 33(6):457–469Google Scholar
  25. Leotardi C, Serani A, Iemma U, Campana EF, Diez M (2016) A variable-accuracy metamodel-based architecture for global MDO under uncertainty. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(3):573–593MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Liang C, Mahadevan S (2017) Pareto surface construction for multi-objective optimization under uncertainty. Struct Multidiscip Optim 55(5):1865–1882MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB, Sondergaard J (2002) DACE-A MATLAB Kriging Toolbox. Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  28. Marler RT, Arora JS (2004) Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct Multidiscip Optim 26:369–395MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Mavrotas G (2009) Effective implementation of the ε-constraint method in multi-objective mathematical programming problems. Appl Math Comput 213(2):455–465MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Medina JC, Taflanidis A (2014) Adaptive importance sampling for optimization under uncertainty problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 279:133–162. MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Medina JC, Taflanidis A (2015) Probabilistic measures for assessing appropriateness of robust design optimization solutions. Struct Multidiscip Optim 51(4):813–834MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Medina JC, Taflanidis AA (2013) Adaptive Importance Sampling for Optimization under Uncertainty Using Stochastic Simulation. In: 54th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference AIAA Conference, Boston, MA, April 8-11Google Scholar
  33. Moustapha M, Sudret B, Bourinet J-M, Guillaume B (2016) Quantile-based optimization under uncertainties using adaptive Kriging surrogate models. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(6):1403–1421MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Müller J (2017) SOCEMO: surrogate optimization of computationally expensive multiobjective problems. INFORMS J Comput 29(4):581–596MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. Papadimitriou D, Papadimitriou C (2016) Robust and reliability-based structural topology optimization using a continuous adjoint method. J Risk Uncerainty Eng Part A: Civil Eng.
  36. Poles S, Lovison A (2009) A polynomial chaos approach to robust multiobjective optimization. In: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik,Google Scholar
  37. Ren X, Rahman S (2013) Robust design optimization by polynomial dimensional decomposition. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48(1):127–148MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Robert CP, Casella G (2004) Monte Carlo statistical methods, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, NYzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruiz R, Taflanidis AA, Lopez-Garcia VC (2016) Life-cycle based design of mass dampers for the Chilean region and its application for the evaluation of the effectiveness of tuned liquid dampers with floating roof. Bull Earthq Eng 14(3):943–970Google Scholar
  40. Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4(4):409–423MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Scott DW (1992) Multivariate density estimation: theory, Practise and Visualization. Wiley-Interscience, New York, N.YGoogle Scholar
  42. Spall JC (2003) Introduction to stochastic search and optimization. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Teich J (2001) Pareto-front exploration with uncertain objectives. In: International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization. Springer, pp 314–328Google Scholar
  44. Verros C, Natsiavas S, Papadimitriou C (2005) Design optimization of quarter-car models with passive and semi-active suspensions under random road excitation. J Vib Control 11(5):581–606zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang Q, Stengel RF (2000) Robust nonlinear control of a hypersonic aircraft. J Guid Control Dyn 23(4):577–585Google Scholar
  46. Yang B, Yeun Y-S, Ruy W-S (2002) Managing approximation models in multiobjective optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 24(2):141–156Google Scholar
  47. Zhang J, Taflanidis AA, Medina JC (2016) Sequential approximate optimization for design under uncertainty problems utilizing Kriging metamodeling in augmented input space. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 315(369–395)Google Scholar
  48. Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8(2):173–195Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth SciencesUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations