菜单
  

    This paper will present and discuss some of the fundamental aspects in building  a S-SBDO framework designed  specifically for ships,  reporting  results  collected  from  author’s recent publications supported by a series of national and international projects. 2. INCLUDING UNCERTAINTY IN THE SIMULATION-BASED HYDRODYNAMIC DESIGN OPTIMIZATION Nowadays, the process of designing complex engineering systems  -  such as ships and off-shore platforms - has been substantially modified with the advent of simulation tools, driven by two major elements: (i) an increased robustness and accuracy of the numerical algorithms on which the simulations are based and (ii) an exponential development of the hardware, including the fast development of parallel architectures. Below the surface of this design revolution, there is the constant search for improvements  -  even marginal  -  imposed by  the  global market competition: forced by the need of finding better designs one is prone to accept larger design spaces, more design variables, and more alternatives have to be explored and compared. Despite the increased computational power and robustness of numerical algorithms, high-fidelity SBDO for shape optimization still remains a challenging process, from theoretical, algorithmic and technological viewpoints: searching  high-dimensional, large design spaces when using  high-fidelity  computationally-expensive black-box functions trying to solve a stiff optimization problem in which the computation of an objective function has been transformed into the evaluation of an integral, whose kernel is the product of the objective function with some probability density function to include uncertainty.   2.1 Mathematical Formulation of the Optimization Problem under Uncertainty The general formulation of a robust optimization problem starts from a deterministic one: ˆ Minimize ( , ),            for a given ˆ Subject to ( , ) 0,     1,...,xAnf x y y y Bg x y n N        (1) where  x  is the design variables vector (intended as the designer choice) and  y  is the design parameters vector collecting those quantities that are independent of the designer choice (e.g., environmental  and operational  conditions). It is then possible to introduce several sources of uncertainty: (a) x is affected by a stochastic error (e.g. tolerance of the design variables); (b) y is an intrinsic  stochastic random process (i.e.  the environmental and operational  conditions are given in terms of probability density); (c) the evaluation of objective  f  and constraints  g  is affected by an  error due to inaccuracy in modeling or  computing. To formulate a stochastic optimization problem, the probability density function (PDF) of  y,  p(y), has to be evaluated or given somehow. The UQ consist in evaluating the PDFs and the related moments of the functions f and g. The first two moments of f (and, similarly, of g) are: 2 2( ) : ( , ) ( )( ) : ( , ) ( )BBf f f x y p y dyf f x y f p y dy           
    (2) The task of computing the integrals in (2) is usually computational highly expensive due to the computational cost of the high-fidelity solvers used. The RDO problem If the objectives are defined in terms of the first two moments of the original objective function  f and the constraints are still given in terms of deterministic  inequalities constraints (y  is a user specified deterministic design condition), the RDO problem can be simply stated as:    2nMinimize ( , ) and ( , )ˆ Subject to g ( , ) 0,   1,...,xAf x y f x yx y n N         (3) The RBDO problem The task  here is  handling  the constraints,  which are now  defined in terms of  probabilistic inequalities . The RBDO problem can be formulated as (P0 is a target probability or reliability):   0x AMinimize ( , )subject to ( , ) 0 ,     1,...,nf x yP g x y P n N        (4) The RBRDO problem Finally, both the constraints and the objective function are defined in terms of stochastic variables. The RBRDO problem can be formulated as a combination of eqs. 3 and 4 as: 3. MAKING HIGH-FIDELITY, STOCHASTIC SBD OPTIMIZATION AFFORDABLE The  solution  of S-SBDO  involves  the integration of expensive simulation outputs, for the evaluation of mean, variance, and distribution. To enhance the computational efficiency some methods have been developed by the authors and are illustrated in the following (geometry and grid modification methods will not be illustrated here, see [1] for these techniques). 3.1 Reducing the Design Space Dimensionality with KLE (Karhunen–Lòeve Expansion).  When the number of design variables is large (because of the complexity of the design, or because one is searching for large final improvements), the solution of the optimization problem becomes quickly extremely expensive. In a nutshell, what KLE provides  is a  tool for reducing this complexity by selecting a reduced number of design variables, and at the same time, giving the guarantee that a desired maximum geometrical variance is maintained.  Even more important is to understand that results  is provided by KLE  without computing the objective function(s). The entire procedure is an “a priori” analysis of the geometries  populating  the original design space. The design space is populated by random geometries, and an eigenvalue problem is defined to analyze  the statistical properties of these random designs, with focus on their geometrical variance. 
  1. 上一篇:现金池英文文献和中文翻译
  2. 下一篇:感应电动机直接转矩控制算法英文文献和中文翻译
  1. 汽车乘员舱的声振耦合英文文献和中文翻译

  2. 立体光照成型的注塑模具...

  3. 低频振动的铁路车轴的状...

  4. 接头的形状对沥青塞接头...

  5. 电-气动驱动的垂直计算机...

  6. 开口端纺纱系统中的锥形...

  7. 木质填料聚丙烯复合材料...

  8. 十二层带中心支撑钢结构...

  9. 当代大学生慈善意识研究+文献综述

  10. 乳业同业并购式全产业链...

  11. 杂拟谷盗体内共生菌沃尔...

  12. 酸性水汽提装置总汽提塔设计+CAD图纸

  13. 大众媒体对公共政策制定的影响

  14. 电站锅炉暖风器设计任务书

  15. 中考体育项目与体育教学合理结合的研究

  16. 河岸冲刷和泥沙淤积的监测国内外研究现状

  17. java+mysql车辆管理系统的设计+源代码

  

About

751论文网手机版...

主页:http://www.751com.cn

关闭返回