JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Self-adaptive sampling for sequential surrogate modeling of time-consuming finite element analysis
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Smart Structures and Systems
  • Volume 17, Issue 4,  2016, pp.611-629
  • Publisher : Techno-Press
  • DOI : 10.12989/sss.2016.17.4.611
 Title & Authors
Self-adaptive sampling for sequential surrogate modeling of time-consuming finite element analysis
Jin, Seung-Seop; Jung, Hyung-Jo;
 Abstract
This study presents a new approach of surrogate modeling for time-consuming finite element analysis. A surrogate model is widely used to reduce the computational cost under an iterative computational analysis. Although a variety of the methods have been widely investigated, there are still difficulties in surrogate modeling from a practical point of view: (1) How to derive optimal design of experiments (i.e., the number of training samples and their locations); and (2) diagnostics of the surrogate model. To overcome these difficulties, we propose a sequential surrogate modeling based on Gaussian process model (GPM) with self-adaptive sampling. The proposed approach not only enables further sampling to make GPM more accurate, but also evaluates the model adequacy within a sequential framework. The applicability of the proposed approach is first demonstrated by using mathematical test functions. Then, it is applied as a substitute of the iterative finite element analysis to Monte Carlo simulation for a response uncertainty analysis under correlated input uncertainties. In all numerical studies, it is successful to build GPM automatically with the minimal user intervention. The proposed approach can be customized for the various response surfaces and help a less experienced user save his/her efforts.
 Keywords
surrogate modeling;Gaussian process model;self-adaptive sampling;sequential Bayesian framework;time-consuming FE analysis;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Bastos, L.S. and O'Hagan, A. (2009), "Diagnostics for Gaussian process emulators", Technometrics, 51(4), 425-438. crossref(new window)

2.
Bellman, R. (2003), Dynamic Programming, Dover Publications, Mineola, N.Y.

3.
Box, G.E.P. and Behnken, D.W. (1960), "Some new three level designs for the study of quantitative variables", Technometrics, 2(4), 455-475. crossref(new window)

4.
Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.G. and Hunter, J.S. (1978), Statistics for Experimenters : An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building, Wiley, New York.

5.
Bucher, C. and Most, T. (2008), "A comparison of approximate response functions in structural reliability analysis", Probabilist. Eng. Mech., 23(2-3), 154-163. crossref(new window)

6.
Bucher, C.G. and Bourgund, U. (1990), "A fast and efficient response-surface approach for structural reliability problems", Struct. Safety, 7(1), 57-66. crossref(new window)

7.
Dette, H. and Pepelyshev, A. (2010), "Generalized latin hypercube design for computer experiments", Technometrics, 52(4), 421-429. crossref(new window)

8.
DiazDelaO, F.A. and Adhikari, S. (2011), "Gaussian process emulators for the stochastic finite element method", Int. J. Numerical Meth. Eng., 87(6), 521-540. crossref(new window)

9.
Dubourg, V., Sudret, B. and Deheeger, F. (2013), "Metamodel-based importance sampling for structural reliability analysis", Probabilist. Eng. Mech., 33, 47-57. crossref(new window)

10.
Fang, K.T., Lin, D.K.J., Winker, P. and Zhang, Y. (2000), "Uniform design: Theory and application", Technometrics, 42(3), 237-248. crossref(new window)

11.
Forrester, A.I.J. and Keane, A.J. (2009), "Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization", Prog. Aerospace Sci., 45(1-3), 50-79. crossref(new window)

12.
Forrester, A.I.J., Sobester, A.S. and Keane, A.J. (2008), Engineering Design Via Surrogate Modelling : A Practical Guide, J. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, England ; Hoboken, NJ.

13.
Friedman, J. H. (1991), "Multivariate adaptive regression splines", Annals of Statistics, 19(1), 1-67. crossref(new window)

14.
Goel, T., Haftka, R.T., Shyy, W. and Watson, L.T. (2008), "Pitfalls of using a single criterion for selecting experimental designs", Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 75(2), 127-155. crossref(new window)

15.
Gramacy, R.B. and Lee, H.K.H. (2012), "Cases for the nugget in modeling computer experiments", Statist. Comput., 22(3), 713-722. crossref(new window)

16.
Hyndman, R.J. and Koehler, A.B. (2006), "Another look at measures of forecast Accuracy", Int. J. Forecast., 22(4), 679-688. crossref(new window)

17.
Jones, D.R. (2001), "A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces", J. Global Optim., 21(4), 345-383. crossref(new window)

18.
Jones, D.R., Schonlau, M. and Welch, W.J. (1998), "Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions", J. Global Optim., 13(4), 455-492. crossref(new window)

19.
Kennedy, M. C. and O'Hagan, A. (2001), "Bayesian calibration of computer models", J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Series B-Statistical Methodology, 63, 425-450. crossref(new window)

20.
Kiefer, J. and Wolfowitz, J. (1959), "Optimum designs in regression problems", Annals Mathematical Statist., 30(2), 271-294. crossref(new window)

21.
Kleijnen, J.P.C. and van Beers, W.C.M. (2004), "Application-driven sequential designs for simulation experiments: Kriging metamodelling", J. Operational Res. Soc., 55(8), 876-883. crossref(new window)

22.
Krige, D.G. (1994), "A Statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems on the witwatersrand", J. South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 94(3), 95-111.

23.
Mckay, M.D., Beckman, R.J. and Conover, W.J. (1979), "A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code", Technometrics, 21(2), 239-245.

24.
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D. and Veith, T.L. (2007), "Model evaluation guidelines for systematic auantification of accuracy in watershed simulations", Transactions of the Asabe, 50(3), 885-900. crossref(new window)

25.
Queipo, N.V., Haftka, R.T., Shyy, W., Goel, T., Vaidyanathan, R. and Tucker, P.K. (2005), "Surrogate-based analysis and optimization", Prog. Aerospace Sci., 41(1), 1-28. crossref(new window)

26.
Rougier, J., Sexton, D.M.H., Murphy, J.M. and Stainforth, D. (2009), "Analyzing the climate sensitivity of the Hadsm3 climate model using ensembles from different but related experiments", J. Climate, 22(13), 3540-3557. crossref(new window)

27.
Sacks, J., Welch, W.J., Mitchell, T.J. and Wynn, H.P. (1983), "Design and analysis of computer experiments", Statist. Sci., 4(4), 409-423.

28.
Xiong, Y., Chen, W., Apley, D. and Ding, X.R. (2007), "A non-stationary covariance-based kriging method for metamodelling in engineering design", Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 71(6), 733-756. crossref(new window)

29.
Ye, K.Q. (1998), "Orthogonal column latin hypercubes and their application in computer experiments", J. American Statistical Association, 93(444), 1430-1439. crossref(new window)

30.
Zhang, Z., Jiang, C., Han, X., Hu, D. and Yu, S. (2014), "A response surface approach for structural reliability analysis using evidence theory", Adv. Eng. Software, 69, 37-45. crossref(new window)