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. 
上一篇:现金池英文文献和中文翻译
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

数控机床制造过程的碳排...

新的数控车床加工机制英文文献和中文翻译

抗震性能的无粘结后张法...

锈蚀钢筋的力学性能英文文献和中文翻译

未加筋的低屈服点钢板剪...

汽车内燃机连杆载荷和应...

审计的优化管理英文文献和中文翻译

我国风险投资的发展现状问题及对策分析

LiMn1-xFexPO4正极材料合成及充放电性能研究

ASP.net+sqlserver企业设备管理系统设计与开发

安康汉江网讯

麦秸秆还田和沼液灌溉对...

新課改下小學语文洧效阅...

张洁小说《无字》中的女性意识

互联网教育”变革路径研究进展【7972字】

网络语言“XX体”研究

老年2型糖尿病患者运动疗...