# An ANOVA approach for accounting for life-cycle uncertainty reduction measures in RBDO: the FSAE brake pedal case study

- 110 Downloads

## Abstract

Accounting for uncertainty reduction measures (URMs) is critical to maximize the potential benefits of probabilistic design methods such as reliability-based design optimization (RBDO) and tackle the challenges in the design and construction of lightweight, high quality and reliable products. This work formulates and solves the RBDO of a Formula SAE (FSAE) brake pedal model with two failure modes (stress-S_{max} and buckling-f_{buck}) accounting for uncertainty reduction measures (URMs) throughout the product lifecycle while establishing the URMs global relative contributions to weight savings (expected value and variability) and computational expense. Given a set of URMs such as number of coupon tests, mesh refinement and manufacturing control, the solution approach includes: i) modeling structural analysis errors, ii) construction of surrogate models for the functions of interest, e.g., mass-M, S_{max}, f_{buck} and the corresponding error functions, iii) modeling pre-design and post-design URMs, such as material property density functions from coupon tests, and manufacturing tolerances (quality control), iv) solving the RBDO problems associated with each of the entries in a DOE with replication, and v) using ANOVA to compute main effects of most significant URMs on selected performance measures, i.e., mean and standard deviation of brake pedal mass, and computational expense. Results show that in the context of the brake pedal case study: the adoption of URMs led to reductions of up to 15 and 85% of mass mean and standard deviation, respectively, design and post-design URMs were responsible for 77 and 19% of the maximum mass reduction, respectively, and it was possible to set preliminary guidelines for URMs allocation and meet a particular performance objective under alternative URMs.

## Keywords

Brake pedal FSAE Design under uncertainty Reliability-based design optimization Uncertainty reduction measures Surrogate models ANOVA## Nomenclature

- c
_{i} Design parameter i

- Cov(.)
Covariance function

- CT
Computational time

**d**Vector of random design variables

- d
_{i} Random design variable i

- E
Young’s modulus

- f(.)
Regression function in Kriging model

- f
_{buck}(.) Buckling load factor function

- G
_{j}(.) Limit state function for failure mode j

- G
_{1}(.) Limit state function of stress condition

- G
_{2}(.) Limit state function of buckling condition

- I(.)
Indicator function

**p**Vector of random design parameters

- M(.)
Brake pedal mass function

- \( \hat{\mathrm{M}}(.) \)
Random brake pedal mass function

- n
Number of sample points

- n
_{rv} Number of random variables

- P(.)
Probability of the statement within the braces to be true

- P
_{fsys} Probability of system failure

- P
_{fT} Target probability of system failure

- R(.)
Correlation function

- S
_{y} Material yield strength

- S
_{max}(.) Maximum von Mises stress function

- tol
_{i} Manufacturing tolerance probability distribution of d

_{i}**x**Vector of random variables,

*x*= [d, p] or input variables vector**x**_{i}Random variables or vector of the input variable at the i

*th*sample point- x
_{A} Lower [−1] or higher [1] level correponding to number of coupon tests

- x
_{B} Lower [−1] or higher [1] level correponding to the mesh refinement

- x
_{C} Lower [−1] or higher [1] level correponding to the DOE size for the construction of surrogate model

- x
_{D} Lower [−1] or higher [1] level correponding to the degree of accuracy of the selected surrogate model

- x
_{E} Lower [−1] or higher [1] level correponding to the manufacturing quality control

**x**_{URM}Set of uncertainty reduction measures level combination

**x**_{ URM }= {x_{A}, x_{B}, x_{C}, x_{D}, x_{E}}*y*_{CT}Response surface model of computational expense – total run time of RBDO

*y*_{μM}Response surface model of the mean of the brake pedal mass

*y*_{σM}Response surface model of the standard deviation of the brake pedal mass

- \( \hat{\mathrm{y}}(.) \)
Surrogate prediction function

- Z(
**.**) Random function with mean zero, and nonzero covariance

- β
_{0}, β_{i}, β_{ii},β_{ij} Polynomial regression coefficients

- ε
_{mb} Buckling load factor surrogate model error

- ε
_{mM} Mass surrogate model error

- ε
_{mS} Maximum von Mises stress surrogate model error

- ε
_{rb} Buckling prediction error due to the mesh refinement level

- ε
_{rS} Maximum von Mises stress prediction error due to the mesh refinement level

**μ**_{d}Vector of mean values of random design variables

- μ
_{M} Mass mean value

**μ**_{p}Vector of mean values of random design parameters

- ν
Poisson’s ratio

- σ
^{2} Process variance in Kriging model

- σ
_{M} Mass standard deviation value

## Notes

## References

- Acar E (2011) Reliability-based structural design of a representative wing and tail system together with structural tests. 52ndAIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, USA, AIAA 2011–1761Google Scholar
- Acar E, Haftka RT (2007) Reliability–based aircraft structural design pays, even with limited statistical data. J Aircr 44(3):812–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Acar E, Solanki K (2009) System reliability based vehicle design for crashworthiness and effects of various uncertainty reduction measures. Struct Multidisc Optim 39(3):311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Acar E, Haftka RT, Sankar B, Qiu X (2006) Increasing allowable flight loads by improved structural modeling. AIAA J 44(2):376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Acar E, Haftka RT, Johnson T (2007) Tradeoff of uncertainty reduction mechanisms for reducing weight of composite laminates. J Mech Des 129(3):266–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Acar E, Haftka RT, Kim NH (2010) Effects of structural tests on aircraft safety. AIAA J 48(10):2235–2248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ASTM (2007) B557M-07 - standard test methods for tension testing wrought and cast aluminum- and magnesium-alloy products (Metric). ASTMGoogle Scholar
- Barroso L (2015) Propuesta de un modelo estocástico para la determinación de las propiedades dinámicas del aluminio 6063-T5. Master dissertation, Universidad del ZuliaGoogle Scholar
- D'Agostino RB (1986) Goodness-of-fit-techniques, vol 68. CRC press, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Draper N, Smith H (1969) Applied regression analysis. Biom J 11(6):427–427Google Scholar
- Evans M, Hastings N, Peacock B (1993) Statistical distributions. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Goh YM, McMahon CA, Booker JD (2009) Improved utility and application of probabilistic methods for reliable mechanical design. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability 223(3):199–214Google Scholar
- Haldar A, Mahadevan S (2000) probability, reliability and statistical methods in engineering design. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- ISO (1989) ISO 2768-1 - general tolerances - part 1: tolerances for linear and angular dimensions without individual tolerance indications, International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
- Jones D, Schonlau M, Welch W (1998) Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Glob Optim 13(4):455–492MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Kale A, Haftka RT, Sankar B (2008) Tradeoff of weight and inspection cost in reliability-based structural optimization. J Aircr 45(1):77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB, Søndergaard J (2002) Aspects of the DACE MATLAB toolbox. IMM, Technical University of Denmark, KongensLyngbyGoogle Scholar
- McKay M, Bechman R, Conover W (1979) Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Montgomery DC (2013) Design and analysis of experiments, 8th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Papadrakakis M, Lagaros ND (2002) Reliability-based structural optimization using neural networks and Monte Carlo simulation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191(32):3491–3507CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Park CY, Kim NH, Haftka RT (2014) How coupon and element tests reduce conservativeness in element failure prediction. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 123:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Powell MJD (1978) A fast algorithm for nonlinear constrained optimization calculations. Mathematics 630:144–157Google Scholar
- Qu X, Haftka RT, Venkataraman S, Johnson TF (2003) Deterministic and reliability-based optimization of composite laminates for cryogenic environments. AIAA J 41(10):2029–2036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Romero J, Queipo N (2017) Reliability-based and deterministic design optimization of a FSAE brake pedal: a risk allocation analysis. Struct Multidisc Optim 56(3):681–695MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rubinstein RY (1981) Simulation and the Monte Carlo method. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4(4):409–423MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- SAE International (2016) Formula SAE rules. http://students.sae.org/cds/formulaseries/rules
- Suzuki Y, Haftka RT (2014) Analytical benchmark example for risk allocation in structural optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 50(1):1–7MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Venter G, Scotti SJ (2012) Accounting for proof test data in a reliability-based design optimization framework. AIAA J 50(10):2159–2167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Villanueva D, Sharma A, Haftka RT, Sankar BV (2009) Risk allocation by optimization of an integrated thermal protection system. In: 8th World Congress for Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Lisbon, Portugal, JuneGoogle Scholar
- Villanueva D, Haftka RT, Sankar BV (2014) Accounting for future redesign to balance performance and development costs. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 124:56–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar