Optimization Under Uncertainty Versus Algebraic Heuristics: A Research Method for Comparing Computational Design Methods

In this paper, we introduce a research method for comparing computational design methods. This research method addresses the challenge of measuring the difference in performance of different design methods in a way that is fair and unbiased with respect to differences in modeling abstraction, accuracy and uncertainty representation. The method can be used to identify the conditions under which each design method is most beneficial. To illustrate the research method, we compare two design methods for the design of a pressure vessel: 1) an algebraic approach, based on the ASME pressure vessel code, which accounts for uncertainty implicitly through safety factors, and 2) an optimization-based, expected-utility maximization approach which accounts for uncertainty explicitly. The computational experiments initially show that under some conditions the algebraic heuristic surprisingly outperforms the optimization-based approach. Further analysis reveals that an optimization-based approach does perform best as long as the designer applies good judgment during uncertainty elicitation. An ignorant or overly confident designer is better off using safety factors.

[1]  R. Durrett Probability: Theory and Examples , 1993 .

[2]  J. Hammersley SIMULATION AND THE MONTE CARLO METHOD , 1982 .

[3]  R. Rubinstein,et al.  On the optimality and e ciency of common random numbers , 1984 .

[4]  Phil E. Irving,et al.  Safety Factors in Civil Aircraft Design Requirements , 2007 .

[5]  Richard Bellman,et al.  Decision-making in fuzzy environment , 2012 .

[6]  R. E. Shrieves,et al.  FREE CASH FLOW (FCF), ECONOMIC VALUE ADDED (EVA™), AND NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV):. A RECONCILIATION OF VARIATIONS OF DISCOUNTED-CASH-FLOW (DCF) VALUATION , 2001 .

[7]  Bilal M. Ayyub,et al.  Uncertainties in Material and Geometric Strength and Load Variables , 2002 .

[8]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  An Investigation Into the Decision Analysis of Design Process Decisions , 2010 .

[9]  J. Spall,et al.  Simulation-Based Optimization with Stochastic Approximation Using Common Random Numbers , 1999 .

[10]  Scott Ferson,et al.  Probability bounds analysis , 1998 .

[11]  Ronald A. Howard,et al.  Information Value Theory , 1966, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern..

[12]  Ronald A. Howard,et al.  Decision analysis: practice and promise , 1988 .

[13]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  Decision-Based Conceptual Design: Modeling and Navigating Heterogeneous Design Spaces , 2005 .

[14]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[15]  Yakov Ben-Haim Common Knowledge , Coherent Uncertainties and Consensus , 2006 .

[16]  Ronald L. Wasserstein,et al.  Monte Carlo: Concepts, Algorithms, and Applications , 1997 .

[17]  Robert C. Nickerson,et al.  The Use and Value of Models in Decision Analysis , 1980, Oper. Res..

[18]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[19]  A. Kiureghian,et al.  Second-Order Reliability Approximations , 1987 .

[20]  M. Coller,et al.  Eliciting Individual Discount Rates , 1999 .

[21]  C. Paredis,et al.  The Value of Using Imprecise Probabilities in Engineering Design , 2006 .

[22]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  A Conceptual Framework for Value-Driven Design and Systems Engineering , 2014 .

[23]  Baoding Liu,et al.  Uncertainty Theory - A Branch of Mathematics for Modeling Human Uncertainty , 2011, Studies in Computational Intelligence.

[24]  Efstratios Nikolaidis,et al.  First- and Second-Order Reliability Methods , 2004 .