Adaptive Response Surface Method Using Inherited Latin Hypercube Design Points

This paper addresses the difficulty of the previously developed Adaptive Response Surface Method (ARSM) for high-dimensional design problems. ARSM was developed to search for the global design optimum for computation-intensive design problems. This method utilizes Central Composite Design (CCD), which results in an exponentially increasing number of required design experiments. In addition, ARSM generates a complete new set of CCD points in a gradually reduced design space. These two factors greatly undermine the effciency of ARSM. In this work, Latin Hypercube Design (LHD) is utilized to generate saturated design experiments. Because of the use of LHD, historical design experiments can be inherited in later iterations. As a result, ARSM only requires a limited number of design experiments even for high-dimensional design problems. The improved ARSM is tested using a group of standard test problems and then applied to an engineering design problem. In both testing and design application, significant improvement in the efficiency of ARSM is realized. The improved ARSM demonstrates strong potential to be a practical global optimization tool for computation-intensive design problems. Inheriting LHD points, as a general sampling strategy, can be integrated into other approximation-based design optimization methodologies.

[1]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Evolutionary Operation: A Statistical Method for Process Improvement , 1969 .

[2]  Klaus Schittkowski,et al.  Test examples for nonlinear programming codes , 1980 .

[3]  Ronald L. Iman,et al.  Risk methodology for geologic disposal of radioactive waste: small sample sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models, with an application to risk assessment , 1980 .

[4]  Klaus Schittkowski,et al.  More test examples for nonlinear programming codes , 1981 .

[5]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[6]  Panos M. Pardalos,et al.  Constrained Global Optimization: Algorithms and Applications , 1987, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[7]  Jerome Sacks,et al.  Designs for Computer Experiments , 1989 .

[8]  Aimo A. Törn,et al.  Global Optimization , 1999, Science.

[9]  Henry P. Wynn,et al.  [Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments]: Rejoinder , 1989 .

[10]  Thermoplastic polymer formulations: An approach through experimental design , 1992 .

[11]  J. Renaud,et al.  Improved coordination in non-hierarchic system optimization , 1992 .

[12]  Jerome Sacks,et al.  Integrated circuit design optimization using a sequential strategy , 1992, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst..

[13]  G. A. Gabriele,et al.  Improved coordination in nonhierarchic system optimization , 1993 .

[14]  Genichi Taguchi,et al.  Taguchi methods : design of experiments , 1993 .

[15]  Boxin Tang Orthogonal Array-Based Latin Hypercubes , 1993 .

[16]  C. D. Perttunen,et al.  Lipschitzian optimization without the Lipschitz constant , 1993 .

[17]  Jeong‐Soo Park Optimal Latin-hypercube designs for computer experiments , 1994 .

[18]  J. Renaud,et al.  Approximation in nonhierarchic system optimization , 1994 .

[19]  G. A. Gabriele,et al.  Multidisciplinary analysis and optimization of discrete problems using response surface methods , 1995, DAC 1995.

[20]  Wei Chen,et al.  A robust concept exploration method for configuring complex systems , 1995 .

[21]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments , 1995 .

[22]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Optimization and experiments , 1995 .

[23]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  A procedure for robust design: Minimizing variations caused by noise factors and control factors , 1996 .

[24]  J. Dennis,et al.  Approximation model management for optimization , 1996 .

[25]  Douglas O. Stanley,et al.  Approximation model building and multidisciplinary design optimization using response surface methods , 1996 .

[26]  Natalia Alexandrov,et al.  Multidisciplinary design optimization : state of the art , 1997 .

[27]  S. Krishnamurty,et al.  Trade-Offs in Robust Engineering Design , 1997, DAC 1997.

[28]  T Watson Layne,et al.  Multidisciplinary Optimization of a Supersonic Transport Using Design of Experiments Theory and Response Surface Modeling , 1997 .

[29]  Roger A. Lepsch,et al.  Response Surface Model Building and Multidisciplinary Optimization Using D-Optimal Designs , 1998 .

[30]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Optimization and Experiments: A Survey , 1998 .

[31]  J. Renaud,et al.  New Adaptive Move-Limit Management Strategy for Approximate Optimization, Part 2 , 1998 .

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

[33]  T. W. Layne,et al.  A Comparison of Approximation Modeling Techniques: Polynomial Versus Interpolating Models , 1998 .

[34]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Statistical Approximations for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: The Problem of Size , 1999 .

[35]  Kenny Q. Ye,et al.  Algorithmic construction of optimal symmetric Latin hypercube designs , 2000 .

[36]  Wei Chen,et al.  ROBUST CONCEPT EXPLORATION OF PROPULSION SYSTEMS WITH ENHANCED MODEL APPROXIMATION CAPABILITIES , 2000 .

[37]  T. Simpson,et al.  Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria , 2000 .

[38]  Toby J. Mitchell,et al.  An Algorithm for the Construction of “D-Optimal” Experimental Designs , 2000, Technometrics.

[39]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  ROBUST CONCEPT EXPLORATION IN ENGINEERING DESIGN: METAMODELING TECHNIQUES AND GOAL FORMULATIONS , 2000 .

[40]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

[41]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Metamodels for Computer-based Engineering Design: Survey and recommendations , 2001, Engineering with Computers.

[42]  G. Gary Wang,et al.  ADAPTIVE RESPONSE SURFACE METHOD - A GLOBAL OPTIMIZATION SCHEME FOR APPROXIMATION-BASED DESIGN PROBLEMS , 2001 .

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

[44]  Bernard Grossman,et al.  Variable Complexity Response Surface Design of an HSCT Con guration , 2003 .

[45]  Thomas J. Santner,et al.  Design and analysis of computer experiments , 1998 .