journal article·2019-11

Buckling surrogate-based optimization framework for hierarchical stiffened composite shells by enhanced variance reduction method

Kuo Tian, Jiaxin Zhang, Xiangtao Ma, Yuwei Li, Yu Sun, Peng Hao

Publisher page

Abstract

The surrogate-based optimization of hierarchical stiffened composite shells against buckling is a typical multimodal and multivariables optimization problem. To improve the computational efficiency and global optimizing ability of the surrogate-based optimization of hierarchical stiffened composite shells, an enhanced variance reduction method based on Latinized partially stratified sampling and multifidelity analysis methods is proposed in this paper and then integrated into the surrogate-based optimization framework. In the offline step of the optimization framework, candidate pairing strategies of design variables are generated by Latinized partially stratified sampling and compared by performing priori optimizations based on the low-fidelity analysis method, and the optimal pairing strategy is therefore determined. On the basis of the optimal pairing strategy, the surrogate-based optimization is carried out using the high-fidelity analysis method in the online step. With less computational cost in the offline step, the proposed enhanced variance reduction method overcomes the limitation of Latinized partially stratified sampling that the optimal pairing strategy is not obvious in complex problems. Then, extensive optimization examples are carried out to verify the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed optimization framework. Given an approximate computational cost, the optimal buckling result of the proposed framework using enhanced variance reduction method increases by 18.2% than that of the traditional framework based on Latin hypercube sampling. In particular, the advantage of enhanced variance reduction method in the space-filling ability is highlighted in comparison to Latin hypercube sampling. When achieving an approximate global optimal solution, the proposed framework reduces the total computational cost by 76.3% than the traditional framework. Finally, the numerical implementation of asymptotic homogenization method is used herein for the accurate prediction of effective stiffness coefficients of the initial design and optimal results. Through comparison, it is concluded that the high axial stiffness and bending stiffness are the main mechanism for the high load-carrying capacity of optimal results.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Composite Structure Analysis and Optimization · Topology Optimization in Engineering · Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Engineering Mechanics, State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China

Department of Civil Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Funding

LiaoNing Revitalization Talents Program · National Natural Science Foundation of China · China Postdoctoral Science Foundation

References (66)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.tws.2018.01.04110.1016/j.tws.2018.01.041 ↗
2. 10.1080/15397734.2014.94281610.1080/15397734.2014.942816 ↗
3. 10.1177/073168440935520210.1177/0731684409355202 ↗
4. 10.1177/073168441876020310.1177/0731684418760203 ↗
5. 10.1016/S1359-8368(02)00074-410.1016/S1359-8368(02)00074-4 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.07.04410.1016/j.compositesb.2012.07.044 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.07.00410.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.07.004 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2009.10.00410.1016/j.compositesb.2009.10.004 ↗
9. Zhang H · Struct Multidiscip Optim · 2017 · 57
10. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.07710.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.077 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.tws.2013.03.00210.1016/j.tws.2013.03.002 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.04510.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.045 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2013.10.00810.1016/j.compositesa.2013.10.008 ↗
14. Wang D, Abdalla MM, Wang ZP, et al. Streamline stiffener path optimization (SSPO) for embedded stiffener layout design of non-uniform curved grid-stiffened composite (NCGC) structures. Comput Method Appl Mech Eng 2018.10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.077 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.09.04110.1016/j.compstruct.2015.09.041 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.02.08810.1016/j.compstruct.2017.02.088 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ast.2015.12.02910.1016/j.ast.2015.12.029 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.ast.2017.08.03510.1016/j.ast.2017.08.035 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.06910.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.069 ↗
20. 10.1016/S0010-4825(98)00018-310.1016/S0010-4825(98)00018-3 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.ast.2016.12.00210.1016/j.ast.2016.12.002 ↗
22. 10.1007/s10409-014-0003-310.1007/s10409-014-0003-3 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.tws.2014.04.00410.1016/j.tws.2014.04.004 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.tws.2017.06.01910.1016/j.tws.2017.06.019 ↗
25. 10.1007/s10443-016-9527-y10.1007/s10443-016-9527-y ↗
26. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.05.02110.1016/j.compscitech.2018.05.021 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.01.04010.1016/j.compscitech.2018.01.040 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.01.06410.1016/j.actaastro.2018.01.064 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.03.00710.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.03.007 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.tws.2009.07.00410.1016/j.tws.2009.07.004 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.tws.2010.01.01010.1016/j.tws.2010.01.010 ↗
32. 10.1142/S021945541250060510.1142/S0219455412500605 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.tws.2017.03.00610.1016/j.tws.2017.03.006 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.ast.2018.08.02510.1016/j.ast.2018.08.025 ↗
35. 10.1007/s42405-018-0069-410.1007/s42405-018-0069-4 ↗
36. 10.1617/s11527-016-0830-810.1617/s11527-016-0830-8 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.10.03410.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.10.034 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.tws.2016.09.00810.1016/j.tws.2016.09.008 ↗
39. Wang B · Compos Part B: Eng · 2018 · 165 · 314
40. 10.1016/j.tws.2004.06.00110.1016/j.tws.2004.06.001 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.tws.2016.01.02710.1016/j.tws.2016.01.027 ↗
42. 10.1007/s00158-016-1590-310.1007/s00158-016-1590-3 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.09.02910.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.09.029 ↗
44. 10.2514/1.J05692010.2514/1.J056920 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.ast.2017.08.03610.1016/j.ast.2017.08.036 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.ast.2016.05.01810.1016/j.ast.2016.05.018 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.11.02010.1016/j.compositesb.2015.11.020 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.tws.2018.03.02910.1016/j.tws.2018.03.029 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.05.01410.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.05.014 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.04.00110.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.04.001 ↗
51. 10.1016/0378-3758(94)90115-510.1016/0378-3758(94)90115-5 ↗
52. 10.1002/978111863198010.1002/9781118631980 ↗
53. Zhang JX, Shields MD. Probability measure changes in Monte Carlo simulation. Probab Eng Mech 2018.
54. 10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00058-910.1016/S0951-8320(03)00058-9 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.04.04210.1016/j.ymssp.2017.04.042 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.cma.2018.01.04510.1016/j.cma.2018.01.045 ↗
57. 10.1080/00401706.1987.1048820510.1080/00401706.1987.10488205 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.ress.2015.05.02310.1016/j.ress.2015.05.023 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.ress.2015.12.00210.1016/j.ress.2015.12.002 ↗
60. Whitley D · J Comput Inform Technol · 1999 · 7 · 33
61. 10.1016/S1000-9361(08)60177-610.1016/S1000-9361(08)60177-6 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.10.06710.1016/j.compositesb.2016.10.067 ↗
63. 10.1007/s40544-016-0116-810.1007/s40544-016-0116-8 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.11.04610.1016/j.compstruct.2005.11.046 ↗
65. Myers RH · 1995
66. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.10.00310.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.10.003 ↗