Robust Solutions in Engineering Design: stochastic simulation versus DACE
This paper compares two different methods for robust design improvement. The first method, called stochastic simulation, combines traditional ComputerAided Engineering (CAE) simulation tools with variation in the simulation model parameters in order to estimate the resulting uncertainty in system behaviour for design improvement. The second method, called DACE, employs traditional Design of Experiments (DOE) methodologies to build statistical models of CAE simulation tools, called emulators because they emulate the behaviour of the simulator. The emulators are much faster to compute than the corresponding simulation model and can therefore be used to search the design space for robust solutions in an efficient way.
The two methods can therefore be characterized by their computational cost, flexibility and accuracy. Two example problems are used to highlight the methods and their advantages. The use of measures of variation in responses is carried forward to be included in multi-objective optimization, so that robustness is naturally considered as a design objective.
KeywordsRoot Mean Square Error Design Factor Noise Factor Robust Solution Design Improvement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- N F O Evbuomwan, S Sivaloganathan, and A Jebb. A survey of design philosophies, models, methods and systems. Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs. Part B, 210, 1996.Google Scholar
- Raymond H Myers, Douglas C Montgomery, G Geoffrey Vining, Connie M Borror, and Scott M Kowalski. Response surface methodology: A retrospective and literature survey. Journal of Quality Technology, 36(1):53–77, Jan 2004.Google Scholar
- D Romano, M Varetto, and G Vicario. Multiresponse robust design: A general framework based on combined array. Journal of Quality Technology, 36(1):27–37, Jan 2004.Google Scholar
- R A Bates and H P Wynn. Advanced polynomial emulation for robus engineering design, pages 29–34. MCB University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
- R S Kenett and S Zacks. Modern Industrial Statistics. Duxbury Press, 1998.Google Scholar