On polynomial response surfaces and Kriging for use in structural optimization of crashworthiness

The accuracy of different approximating response surfaces is investigated. In the classical response surface methodology (CRSM) the true response function is usually replaced with a low-order polynomial. In Kriging the true response function is replaced with a low-order polynomial and an error correcting function. In this paper the error part of the approximating response surface is obtained from “simple point Kriging” theory. The combined polynomial and error correcting function will be addressed as a Kriging surface approximation.To be able to use Kriging the spatial correlation or covariance must be known. In this paper the error is assumed to have a normal distribution and the covariance to depend only on one parameter. The maximum-likelihood method is used to find the latter parameter. A weighted least-square procedure is used to determine the trend before simple point Kriging is used for the error function. In CRSM the surface approximation is determined through an ordinary least-square fit. In both cases the D-optimality criterion has been used to distribute the design points.From this investigation we have found that a low-ordered polynomial assumption should be made with the Kriging approach. We have also concluded that Kriging better than CRSM resolves abrupt changes in the response, e.g. due to buckling, contact or plastic deformation.

[1]  R. S. Koshal Application of the Method of Maximum Likelihood to the Improvement of Curves Fitted by the Method of Moments , 1933 .

[2]  N. Draper,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis , 1966 .

[3]  P. Chedmail,et al.  Experimental Validation of a Plane Flexible Robot Modelling , 1986 .

[4]  R. H. Myers,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments , 1995 .

[5]  A. J. G. Schoofs,et al.  Crash worthiness design optimization using multipoint sequential linear programming , 1996 .

[6]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Minimum-Bias Based Experimental Design for Constructing Response Surfaces in Structural Optimization , 1997 .

[7]  R. Haftka,et al.  Response surface approximations for structural optimization , 1996 .

[8]  Koetsu Yamazaki,et al.  Maximization of the crushing energy absorption of tubes , 1998 .

[9]  Uwe Schramm,et al.  CRASHWORTHINESS DESIGN USING STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION , 1998 .

[10]  Timothy M. Mauery,et al.  COMPARISON OF RESPONSE SURFACE AND KRIGING MODELS FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN OPTIMIZATION , 1998 .

[11]  Ren-Jye Yang,et al.  Optimization of car body under constraints of noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH), and crash , 2000 .

[12]  Ricardo A. Olea,et al.  Geostatistics for Engineers and Earth Scientists , 1999, Technometrics.

[13]  Roger Woodard,et al.  Interpolation of Spatial Data: Some Theory for Kriging , 1999, Technometrics.

[14]  Ren-Jye Yang,et al.  Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of A Full Vehicle With High Performance Computing , 2001 .

[15]  Larsgunnar Nilsson,et al.  Optimization of a car body component subjected to side impact , 2001 .

[16]  Uwe Schramm Multi-disciplinary optimization for NVH and crashworthiness , 2001 .

[17]  T. Simpson,et al.  Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria , 2001 .

[18]  Tomas Jansson,et al.  Using surrogate models and response surfaces in structural optimization – with application to crashworthiness design and sheet metal forming , 2003 .