年間 6 号発行
ISSN 印刷: 2152-5080
ISSN オンライン: 2152-5099
Indexed in
ON THE ROBUSTNESS OF STRUCTURAL RISK OPTIMIZATION WITH RESPECT TO EPISTEMIC UNCERTAINTIES
要約
In the context of structural design, risk optimization allows one to find a proper point of balance between the concurrent goals of economy and safety. Risk optimization involves the minimization of total expected costs, which include expected costs of failure. Expected costs of failure are evaluated from nominal failure probabilities, which reflect the analyst′s degree of belief in the structure′s performance. Such failure probabilities are said to be nominal because they are evaluated from imperfect and/or incomplete mechanical, mathematical and probabilistic models. Hence, model uncertainty and other types of epistemic uncertainties are likely to compromise the results of risk optimization. In this paper, the concept of robustness is employed in order to find risk optimization solutions which are less sensitive to epistemic uncertainties. The investigation is based on a simple but illustrative problem, which is built from an elementary but fundamental structural (load-resistance) reliability problem. Intrinsic or aleatoric uncertainties, which can be quantified probabilistically and modeled as random variables or stochastic processes, are incorporated in the underlying structural reliability problem. Epistemic uncertainties that can only be quantified possibilistically are modeled as fuzzy variables, based on subjective judgment. These include uncertainties in random load and resistance variables, in the nominal (calculated) failure probabilities and in the nominal costs of failure. The risk optimization problem is made robust with respect to the whole fuzzy portfolio of epistemic uncertainties. An application example, involving optimization of partial safety factors for the codified design of steel beams under bending, is also presented. In general, results obtained herein show that the robust formulation leads to optimal structural configurations which are more conservative, present higher nominal costs but which are less sensitive to epistemic uncertainties, in comparison to the non-robust optimum structures. This is especially true for larger levels of intrinsic uncertainties (in the underlying reliability problem) and for greater costs of failure. The essential result of robust optimization is also shown to be insensitive to reasonable variations of expert confidence: the robust solution is more conservative and more expensive, but also less sensitive to epistemic uncertainties. The more pessimistic the expert, the more conservative is the robust solution he gets, in comparison to the nominal, non-robust solution.
-
Gomes Wellison José de Santana, Beck André Teófilo, Global structural optimization considering expected consequences of failure and using ANN surrogates, Computers & Structures, 126, 2013. Crossref
-
Villanueva D., Haftka R.T., Sankar B.V., Accounting for future redesign to balance performance and development costs, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 124, 2014. Crossref
-
Gomes Wellison J.S., Beck André T., Haukaas Terje, Optimal inspection planning for onshore pipelines subject to external corrosion, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 118, 2013. Crossref
-
Gomes Wellison J.S., Beck André T., Optimal inspection and design of onshore pipelines under external corrosion process, Structural Safety, 47, 2014. Crossref
-
Beck André T., Kougioumtzoglou Ioannis A., dos Santos Ketson R.M., Optimal performance-based design of non-linear stochastic dynamical RC structures subject to stationary wind excitation, Engineering Structures, 78, 2014. Crossref
-
Gomes Wellison J.S., Beck André T., Optimal inspection planning and repair under random crack propagation, Engineering Structures, 69, 2014. Crossref
-
Beck André T., Gomes Wellison J. S., Lopez Rafael H., Miguel Leandro F. F., A comparison between robust and risk-based optimization under uncertainty, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 52, 3, 2015. Crossref
-
Beck André T., Tessari Rodolfo K., Kroetz Henrique M., System reliability-based design optimization and risk-based optimization: a benchmark example considering progressive collapse, Engineering Optimization, 51, 6, 2019. Crossref
-
Mäck Markus, Caylak Ismail, Edler Philipp, Freitag Steffen, Hanss Michael, Mahnken Rolf, Meschke Günther, Penner Eduard, Optimization with constraints considering polymorphic uncertainties, GAMM-Mitteilungen, 42, 1, 2019. Crossref
-
Lopez Rafael H., Beck André T., Optimization Under Uncertainties, in Optimization of Structures and Components, 43, 2013. Crossref
-
Tombari Alessandro, Stefanini Luciano, Hybrid fuzzy – stochastic 1D site response analysis accounting for soil uncertainties, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 132, 2019. Crossref
-
Hose Dominik, Mäck Markus, Hanss Michael, Robust Optimization in Possibility Theory, ASCE-ASME J Risk and Uncert in Engrg Sys Part B Mech Engrg, 5, 4, 2019. Crossref
-
Adelmann Andreas, On Nonintrusive Uncertainty Quantification and Surrogate Model Construction in Particle Accelerator Modeling, SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 7, 2, 2019. Crossref
-
Beck André T., Optimal design of redundant structural systems: fundamentals, Engineering Structures, 219, 2020. Crossref
-
Valdebenito Marcos A., Jensen Héctor A., Wei Pengfei, Beer Michael, Beck André T., Application of a Reduced Order Model for Fuzzy Analysis of Linear Static Systems, ASCE-ASME J Risk and Uncert in Engrg Sys Part B Mech Engrg, 7, 2, 2021. Crossref
-
Megahed Mustafa, Integrated Modeling Tools: Overview, in Encyclopedia of Materials: Metals and Alloys, 2022. Crossref
-
Martins Paulo H., Trindade Marcelo A., Varoto Paulo S., Simplified robust and multiobjective optimization of piezoelectric energy harvesters with uncertain parameters, International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design, 18, 1, 2022. Crossref
-
Lehký D., Slowik O., Novák D., Reliability-based design: Artificial neural networks and double-loop reliability-based optimization approaches, Advances in Engineering Software, 117, 2018. Crossref