On polynomial response surfaces and Kriging for use in structural optimization of crashworthiness

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 232-243

  Forsberg, J ^a   Nilsson, L ^a  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Crashworthiness; FEM; Kriging RSM

Indexed keywords

AUTOMOBILES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CRASHWORTHINESS; ERROR CORRECTION; FINITE ELEMENT METHOD; LEAST SQUARES APPROXIMATIONS; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; POLYNOMIAL APPROXIMATION;

CLASSICAL RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY (CRSM); KRIGING RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY (RSM); LOW-ORDER POLYNOMIALS; SURFACE APPROXIMATION;

STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION;

EID: 16244414924     PISSN: 1615147X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00158-004-0487-8     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Benson DJ, Hallquist JO (1986) The application of DYNA3D in large scale crashworthiness calculations. 1986 ASME International computers in engineering conference, Chicago
2. Belytschko T, Welch RE, Bruce RW (1975) Finite element analysis of automotive structures under crash loadings. Report DOT-HS-105-3-697, IIT Research Institute, Chicago, pp37-46
3. du Bois P, Chedmail JF, Dagba B, Haug E, Picket AK, Winkel-muller G (1986) Numerical techniques, experimental validation and industrial applications of structural impact and crashworthiness analysis with supercomputers for the automotive industries. In: Supercomputer applications and automotive research and engineering development. Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton
4. Draper NR, Smith H (1966) Applied regression analysis. Wiley, New York
5. Etman LFP, Adriaens JMTA, van Slagmaat MTP, Schoofs AJG (1996) Crashworthiness design optimization using multipoint sequential linear programming. Struct Optim 12:222-228
6. Etman LFP (1997) Optimization of multibody systems using approximations concepts. Technical University Eindhoven, Eindhoven
7. Giunta AA, Watson LT, Koehler J (1998) A comparison of approximating modelling techniques: polynomial versus interpolating models. Proc. 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symp. on multi-disciplinary analysis & optimization, St Louis, pp392-404
8. Gu L (2001) A comparison of polynomial based regression models in vehicle safety analysis. In: Proceedings of ASME design engineering technical conferences, Pittsburgh, PA, September 2001
9. Hallquist JO (1998a) LS-INGRID user's manual. Livermore Software Technology Company, Livermore
10. Hallquist JO (1998b) LS-DYNA theoretical manual. Livermore Software Technology Company, Livermore
11. Hallquist JO (1999) LS-DYNA user's manual v. 950. Livermore Software Technology Company, Livermore
12. Jansson T, Redhe M, Nilsson L (2003) Using surrogate models and response surfaces in structural optimization - with application to crashworthiness design and sheet metal forming. Struct Multidisc Optim 25:129-140
13. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2001) Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multidisc Optim 23
14. Koshal RS (1993) Application of the method of maximum likelihood to the improvement of curve fitting by the method of moments. J Roy Stat Soc A 96:303-313
15. Marklund PO, Nilsson L (2001) Optimization of a car body component subjected to impact. Struct Multidisc Optim 21:383-392
16. Myers RH, Montgomery DC (1995) Response surface methodology. Wiley, New York
17. Olea RA (1999) Geostatistics for engineers and earth scientists. Luwer, London
18. Rijpkema JJM, Etman LFP, Schoofs AJG (2000) Metamodel based design optimization, including design sensitivities. Proceedings SMSMEO workshop, Denmark University of Technology, Lyngby, November 16-18, 2000
19. Roux WJ, Stander N, Haftka RT (1998) Response surface approximations for structural optimization. Int J Numer Methods Eng 42:517-534
20. Schramm U, Thomas H (1998) Crashworthiness design using structural optimization. AIAA Paper, 98-4729
21. Schramm U (2001) Multi-disciplinary optimization for NHV and crashworthiness. In: Bathe KJ (ed) The first MIT conference on computational fluid and solid mechanics (Boston, June 12-15, 2001). Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp721-724
22. Simpson TW, Maurey TM, Korte JJ, Mistree F (1998) Comparison of response surface and kriging models for multidisciplinary design optimization. Proc. 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symp. on multidisciplinary analysis & optimization, St Louis, pp381-391
23. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Kodiyalam S, Yang R-J (2000) Optimization of car body under constraints of noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH), and crash. AIAA Paper 2000-1521
24. Stander N (1999) LS-OPT user's manual v. 1. Livermore Software Technology Company, Livermore
25. Stein ML (1999) Interpolation of spatial data - some theory for kriging, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
26. Venter G, Haftka RT (1997) Minimum-bias based experimental design for constructing response surfaces in structural optimization. In: 38th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference, Kissimmee, pp 1225-1238
27. Yamazaki K, Han J (1998) Maximization of the crushing energy absorption of tubes, Struct Optim 16:37-46
28. Yang R-J, Gu L, Tho CH, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2001) Multidisciplinary design optimization of a full vehicle with high performance computing, AIAA Paper, 2001-1273
29. Yang R-J, Wang N, Tho CH, Bobineau JP (2001) Metamodelling development for vehicle frontal impact simulation. In: Proceedings of ASME design engineering technical conferences, Pittsburgh, PA, September 2001