journal article·2025-08-30Open access

URBaM: A Novel Surrogate Modelling Method to Determine Design Scaling Rules for Product Families

Xuban Telleria, Jon Ander Esnaola, Done Ugarte, Mikel Ezkurra, Ibai Ulacia

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 17

Abstract

The use of regression-based surrogate models to determine design scaling rules for mechanical product families has proven to be a powerful approach for dimensioning complex geometries. However, there is a broad range of surrogate models in the literature, and each model can be configured in multiple ways. The optimal model election is highly conditioned by the case study nature (e.g., non-linearity level), and consequently, it is mandatory to evaluate different surrogate models. This process can be cumbersome and time consuming, but the election of an inaccurate model may lead to several design–analysis iterations that increase the product cost and development time. Therefore, in this paper, a novel surrogate modelling technique to determine representative design scaling rules for product families—named Univariate Regression-Based Multivariate (URBaM)—is presented. The proposed method seeks to minimize design–analysis iterations while suppressing the process involved in evaluating different surrogate models, independent of the non-linearity level nature of the design problem. The URBaM model is evaluated through six oil and gas valve family design case studies, addressing critical mechanical component design problems across different non-linearity levels (two low, two medium, and two high). The results obtained with the URBaM model in these six cases are compared against 14 configurations of eight widely used techniques in the literature. The obtained results demonstrate that the URBaM model is capable of accurately adapting to different non-linearity levels with a single configuration and presents high stability regarding MAPE, NRMSE, and RMAE metrics from case to case. Consequently, the potential of the URBaM surrogate modelling technique to assist the design process of scalable mechanical product families is proven.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Product Development and Customization · Design Education and Practice · Manufacturing Process and Optimization

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

Affiliations

Structural Mechanics and Design, Engineering Faculty, Mondragon Unibertsitatea, 20500 Arrasate, Spain

References (68)

Show source-provided references
1. Product family design and platform-based product development: A state-of-the-art review10.1007/s10845-007-0003-2 ↗
2. Simpson, T.W., Jiao, J., Siddique, Z., and Hölttä-Otto, K. (2014). Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6 ↗
3. Product platform design and customization: Status and promise
4. Module-scale-based product platform planning10.1007/s00163-008-0061-2 ↗
5. Product family architecture design with predictive, data-driven product family design method10.1007/s00163-015-0201-4 ↗
6. Defining simulation intent10.1016/j.cad.2014.08.030 ↗
7. Capturing simulation intent in an ontology: CAD and CAE integration application10.1080/09544828.2019.1630806 ↗
8. Understanding competencies in platform-based product development: Antecedents and outcomes10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00917.x ↗
9. Craig, R.R., and Taleff, E.M. (2020). Mechanics of Materials, John Wiley & Sons.
10. Wang, G.G., and Shan, S. (2006, January 10–13). Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. Proceedings of the International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Philadelphia, PA, USA.10.1115/DETC2006-99412 ↗
11. Forrester, A., Sobester, A., and Keane, A. (2008). Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling: A Practical Guide, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470770801 ↗
12. Banyay, G.A., Smith, S.D., and Young, J.S. (2018, January 16–18). Sensitivity Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor System Finite Element Model. Proceedings of the ASME 2018 Verification and Validation Symposium, Minneapolis, MN, USA.10.1115/VVS2018-9306 ↗
13. Kleijnen, J.P. (2015, January 21–23). Design and analysis of simulation experiments. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Simulation, Bergeggi, Italy.
14. Optimizing structural topology design through consideration of fatigue crack propagation10.1016/j.cma.2023.116629 ↗
15. Efficient space-filling and non-collapsing sequential design strategies for simulation-based modeling10.1016/j.ejor.2011.05.032 ↗
16. Design of computer experiments: A review10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.05.010 ↗
17. Managing computational complexity using surrogate models: A critical review10.1007/s00163-020-00336-7 ↗
18. Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: Survey and recommendations10.1007/PL00007198 ↗
19. Novel adaptive surrogate model based on LRPIM for probabilistic analysis of turbine disc10.1016/j.ast.2017.07.044 ↗
20. Global response approximation with radial basis functions10.1080/03052150500422294 ↗
21. A radial basis function-based multi-fidelity surrogate model: Exploring correlation between high-fidelity and low-fidelity models10.1007/s00158-019-02248-0 ↗
22. Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization10.1016/j.paerosci.2008.11.001 ↗
23. Design and analysis of computer experiments
24. A critical assessment of Kriging model variants for high-fidelity uncertainty quantification in dynamics of composite shells10.1007/s11831-016-9178-z ↗
25. A sequential constraints updating approach for Kriging surrogate model-assisted engineering optimization design problem10.1007/s00366-019-00745-w ↗
26. Machine learning predictive models for mineral prospectivity: An evaluation of neural networks, random forest, regression trees and support vector machines10.1016/j.oregeorev.2015.01.001 ↗
27. Applicability and comparison of surrogate techniques for modeling of selected heating problems10.1016/j.camwa.2019.02.013 ↗
28. Awad, M., and Khanna, R. (2015). Support vector regression. Efficient Learning Machines, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4302-5990-9 ↗
29. Schlkopf, B., Smola, A.J., and Bach, F. (2018). Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond, MIT Press.
30. Drucker, H., Burges, C.J., Kaufman, L., Smola, A.J., and Vapnik, V. (1997, January 1–6). Support vector regression machines. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Denver, CO, USA.
31. Multivariate adaptive regression splines
32. Global optimization with multivariate adaptive regression splines10.1109/TSMCB.2006.883430 ↗
33. Cutler, A., Cutler, D.R., and Stevens, J.R. (2012). Random forests. Ensemble Machine Learning, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4419-9326-7_5 ↗
34. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
35. Dasari, S.K., Cheddad, A., and Andersson, P. (2019, January 24–26). Random forest surrogate models to support design space exploration in aerospace use-case. Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations, Hersonissos, Greece.10.1007/978-3-030-19823-7_45 ↗
36. Influence of ensemble surrogate models and sampling strategy on the solution quality of algorithms for computationally expensive black-box global optimization problems10.1007/s10898-014-0184-0 ↗
37. Ensemble of surrogates10.1007/s00158-006-0051-9 ↗
38. Automatic selection for general surrogate models10.1007/s00158-018-1925-3 ↗
39. Various approaches for constructing an ensemble of metamodels using local measures10.1007/s00158-010-0520-z ↗
40. Gorissen, D., De Tommasi, L., Croon, J., and Dhaene, D. (2008, January 1–6). Automatic model type selection with heterogeneous evolution: An application to rf circuit block modeling. Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence), Hong Kong, China.10.1109/CEC.2008.4630917 ↗
41. Ensemble of metamodels with optimized weight factors10.1007/s00158-008-0230-y ↗
42. Multiple surrogates: How cross-validation errors can help us to obtain the best predictor10.1007/s00158-008-0338-0 ↗
43. Blind kriging: A new method for developing metamodels10.1115/1.2829873 ↗
44. Comparative studies of metamodeling and AI-Based techniques in damage detection of structures10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.02.006 ↗
45. Banyay, G. (2019). Surrogate Modeling and Global Sensitivity Analysis Towards Efficient Simulation of Nuclear Reactor Stochastic Dynamics. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh].
46. An adaptive region segmentation combining surrogate model applied to correlate design variables and performance parameters in a transonic axial compressor10.1007/s00366-019-00823-z ↗
47. Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria10.1007/s00158-001-0160-4 ↗
48. A review on design, modeling and applications of computer experiments10.1080/07408170500232495 ↗
49. A rule-based method for automated surrogate model selection10.1016/j.aei.2020.101123 ↗
50. Selection of surrogate modeling techniques for surface approximation and surrogate-based optimization10.1016/j.cherd.2021.03.028 ↗
51. A comparison of eight metamodeling techniques for the simulation of N2O fluxes and N leaching from corn crops10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.05.003 ↗
52. Analysis methods for computer experiments: How to assess and what counts?10.1214/15-STS531 ↗
53. Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C., and Anderson-Cook, C.M. (2016). Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, John Wiley & Sons.
54. Comparison of regression techiques for surrogate models of building energy performance
55. RBF surrogate model and EN1317 collision safety-based optimization of two guardrails10.1007/s00158-019-02203-z ↗
56. A comparative study of metamodeling methods for multiobjective crashworthiness optimization10.1016/j.compstruc.2005.02.025 ↗
57. Colaço, M.J., Dulikravich, G.S., and Sahoo, D. (2007, January 16–18). A comparison of two methods for fitting high dimensional response surfaces. Proceedings of the Inverse Problems, Design and Optimization Symposium, Miami, FL, USA.10.21236/ADA475106 ↗
58. Computer experiments: A review10.1007/s10182-010-0147-9 ↗
59. Jekabsons, G. (2025, August 25). ARESLab: Adaptive Regression Splines Toolbox for Matlab/Octave. Available online: http://www.cs.rtu.lv/jekabsons/regression.html.
60. Milborrow, S., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Miller, A., and Lumley, T. (2025, August 25). Earth: Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/earth/index.html.
61. Jekabsons, G. (2025, August 25). M5PrimeLab: M5 Regression Tree, Model Tree, and Tree Ensemble Toolbox for Matlab/Octave. Available online: http://www.cs.rtu.lv/jekabsons/regression.html.
62. Wang, Y., and Witten, I.H. (1996). Induction of Model Trees for Predicting Continuous Classes, University of Waikato.
63. Jekabsons, G. (2025, August 25). Radial Basis Function Interpolation Toolbox for Matlab/Octave. Available online: http://www.cs.rtu.lv/jekabsons/regression.html.
64. Surrogate modeling: Tricks that endured the test of time and some recent developments10.1007/s00158-021-03001-2 ↗
65. Nonlinear variable selection algorithms for surrogate modeling10.1002/aic.16601 ↗
66. Comparing computer experiments for fitting high-order polynomial metamodels10.1080/00224065.2010.11917808 ↗
67. Hyndman, R.J., and Athanasopoulos, G. (2018). Forecasting: Principles and Practice, OTexts.
68. Parallel MARS algorithm based on B-splines10.1007/PL00022715 ↗