Relaxing high-dimensional constraints in the direct solution space method for early phase development

  • Volker A. Lange
  • Johannes Fender
  • Fabian Duddeck
Article
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

Early phase distributed system design can be accomplished using solution spaces that provide an interval of permissible values for each functional parameter. The feasibility property guarantees fulfillment of all design requirements for all possible realizations. Flexibility denotes the size measure of the intervals, with higher flexibility benefiting the design process. Two methods are available for solution space identification. The direct method solves a computationally cheap optimization problem. The indirect method employs a sampling approach that requires a relaxation of the feasibility property through re-formulation as a chance constraint. Even for high probabilities of fulfillment, \(P>0.99\), this results in substantial increases in flexibility, which offsets the risk of infeasibility. This work implements the chance constraint formulation into the direct method for linear constraints by showing that its problem statement can be understood as a linear robust optimization problem. Approximations of chance constraints from the literature are transferred into the context of solution spaces. From this, we derive a theoretical value for the safety parameter \(\varOmega\). A further modification is presented for use cases, where some intervals are already predetermined. A problem from vehicle safety is used to compare the modified direct and indirect methods and discuss suitable choices of \(\varOmega\). We find that the modified direct method is able to identify solution spaces with similar flexibility, while maintaining its cost advantage.

Keywords

Solution spaces Chance constraints Robust optimization High-dimensional geometry Vehicle design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the three anonymous referees for valuable comments and express their sincere appreciation to Dr. Thomas G. Amler for the many fruitful discussions on Solution Spaces.

References

  1. Asadi A, Roos C (2016) Infeasible interior-point methods for linear optimization based on large neighborhood. J Optim Theory Appl 170(2):562–590MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball KM (1997) An elementary introduction to modern convex geometry. In: Levy S (ed) Flavors of geometry. MSRI book series, Cambridge, pp 1–58Google Scholar
  3. Ben-Tal A, El Ghaoui L, Nemirovski A (2009) Robust optimization. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertsimas D, Nohadani O, Teo KM (2009) Nonconvex robust optimization for problems with constraints. INFORMS J Comput 22(1):44–58MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertsimas D, Brown DB, Caramanis C (2011) Theory and applications of robust optimization. SIAM Rev 53(3):464–501MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Symonds GH (1958) Cost horizons and certainty equivalents: an approach to stochastic programming of heating oil. Manag Sci 4(3):235–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Constales D (1997) Problems and solutions. SIAM Rev 39(4):783–786Google Scholar
  8. El Ghami M, Guennoun ZA, Bouali S, Steihaug T (2012) Interior point methods for linear optimization based on a kernel function with a trigonometric barrier term. J Comput Appl Math 236(15):3613–3623MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Fender J (2014) Solution spaces for vehicle crash design. Dissertation, Technical University of Munich, Shaker Verlag, Aachen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  10. Fender J, Graff L, Zimmermann M, Harbrecht H (2014) Identifying key parameters for design improvement in high-dimensional systems with uncertainty. J Mech Des 136(4):041007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fender J, Duddeck F, Zimmermann M (2017) Direct computation of solution spaces. Struct Multidiscip Optim 55(5):1787–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorissen BL, Yanıkoğlu I, den Hertog D (2015) A practical guide to robust optimization. Omega 53:124–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graff L, Harbrecht H, Zimmermann M (2016) On the computation of solution spaces in high dimensions. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(4):811–829MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grossmann IE, Calfa BA, Garcia-Herreros P (2014) Evolution of concepts and models for quantifying resiliency and flexibility of chemical processes. Comput Chem Eng 70(5):22–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hecht-Nielsen R (1990) Neurocomputing. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  16. Ierapetritou MG (2009) Bilevel optimization: feasibility test and flexibility index. In: Floudas CA, Pardalos PM (eds) Encyclopedia of optimization, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 228–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lehar M, Zimmermann M (2012) An inexpensive estimate of failure probability for high-dimensional systems with uncertainty. Struct Saf 36–37:32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nemirovski A, Shapiro A (2006) Convex approximations of chance constrained programs. SIAM J Optim 17(4):969–996MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Nocedal J, Wright SJ (2006) Numerical optimization, 2nd edn. Springer series in operations research. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Prékopa A (1995) Stochastic programming. Prékopa, DordrechtCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Roos C (2006) A full-Newton step O(n) infeasible interior-point algorithm for linear optimization. SIAM J Optim 16(4):1110–1136MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Swaney RE, Grossmann IE (1985a) An index for operational flexibility in chemical process design. Part I: formulation and theory. AIChE J 31(4):621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Swaney RE, Grossmann IE (1985b) An index for operational flexibility in chemical process design. Part II: computational algorithms. AIChE J 31(4):631–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tibken B (1997) Problems and solutions. SIAM Rev 39(4):779–783Google Scholar
  25. Xu L (1996) The volume of the intersection of a cube and a ball in n-space. SIAM Rev 38(4):669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zimmermann M, Hoessle JEv (2013) Computing solution spaces for robust design. Int J Numer Methods Eng 94:290–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zyngier D (2017) An uncertainty management framework for industrial applications. Optim Eng 18(1):179–202MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BMW Group, Research and Innovation CenterMunichGermany
  2. 2.Technical University of MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Queen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations