Reliability-based design optimization (RBDO) involves evaluation of probabilistic constraints, which can be done in two different ways, the reliability index approach (RIA) and the performance measure approach (PMA). It has been reported in the literature that RIA yields instability for some problems but PMA is robust and efficient in identifying a probabilistic failure mode in the optimization process. However, several examples of numerical tests of PMA have also shown instability and inefficiency in the RBDO process if the advanced mean value (AMV) method, which is a numerical tool for probabilistic constraint evaluation in PMA, is used, since it behaves poorly for a concave performance function, even though it is effective for a convex performance function. To overcome difficulties of the AMV method, the conjugate mean value (CMV) method is proposed in this paper for the concave performance function in PMA. However, since the CMV method exhibits the slow rate of convergence for the convex function, it is selectively used for concave-type constraints. That is, once the type of the performance function is identified, either the AMV method or the CMV method can be adaptively used for PMA during the RBDO iteration to evaluate probabilistic constraints effectively. This is referred to as the hybrid mean value (HMV) method. The enhanced PMA with the HMV method is compared to RIA for effective evaluation of probabilistic constraints in the RBDO process. It is shown that PMA with a spherical equality constraint is easier to solve than RIA with a complicated equality constraint in estimating the probabilistic constraint in the RBDO process.

1.
Madsen, H.O., Krenk, S., and Lind, N.C., 1986, Methods of Structural Safety, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
2.
Palle, T.C., and Michael J. B., 1982, Structural Reliability Theory and Its Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
3.
Tu
,
J.
, and
Choi
,
K.K.
,
1999
, “
A New Study on Reliability-Based Design Optimization
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
121
(
4
), pp.
557
564
.
4.
Tu, J., Choi, K.K., and Park, Y.H., 2001, “Design Potential Method for Robust System Parameter Design,” in AIAA J.
5.
Wu
,
Y.T.
,
Millwater
,
H.R.
, and
Cruse
,
T.A.
,
1990
, “
Advanced Probabilistic Structural Analysis Method for Implicit Performance Functions
,”
AIAA J.
,
28
(
9
), pp.
1663
1669
.
6.
W
,
Y.T.
,
1994
, “
Computational Methods for Efficient Structural Reliability and Reliability Sensitivity Analysis
,”
AIAA J.
,
32
(
8
), pp.
1717
1723
.
7.
Hasofer
,
A.M.
, and
Lind
,
N.C.
,
1974
, “
Exact and Invariant Second-Moment Code Format
,”
J. Eng. Mech. Div.
,
100
(
EMI
), pp.
111
121
.
8.
Liu
,
P.L.
, and
Kiureghian
,
A.D.
,
1991
, “
Optimization Algorithms For Structural Reliability
,”
Struct. Safety
,
9
, pp.
161
177
.
9.
Wang
,
L.P.
, and
Grandhi
,
R.V.
,
1994
, “
Efficient Safety Index Calculation For Structural Reliability Analysis
,”
Comput. Struct.
,
52
(
1
), pp.
103
111
.
10.
Wang
,
L.P.
, and
Grandhi
,
R.V.
,
1996
, “
Safety Index Calculation Using Intervening Variables For Structural Reliability
,”
Comput. Struct.
,
59
(
6
), pp.
1139
1148
.
11.
Enevoldsen
,
I.
, and
Sorensen
,
J.D.
,
1994
, “
Reliability-Based Optimization In Structural Engineering
,”
Struct. Safety
,
15
, pp.
169
196
.
12.
Wu, Y.-T., and Wang, W., 1996, “A New Method for Efficient Reliability-Based Design Optimization,” Probabilistic Mechanics & Structural Reliability: Proceedings of the 7th Special Conference, pp. 274–277.
13.
Yu
,
X.
,
Choi
,
K.K.
, and
Chang
,
K.H.
,
1997
, “
A Mixed Design Approach for Probabilistic Structural Durability
,”
Journal of Structural Optimization
,
14
(
2–3
), pp.
81
90
.
14.
Grandhi
,
R.V.
, and
Wang
,
L.P.
,
1998
, “
Reliability-Based Structural Optimization Using Improved Two-Point Adaptive Nonlinear Approximations
,”
Finite Elem. Anal. Design
,
29
, pp.
35
48
.
15.
Rackwitz
,
R.
, and
Fiessler
,
B.
,
1978
, “
Structural Reliability Under Combined Random Load Sequences
,”
Comput. Struct.
,
9
, pp.
489
494
.
16.
Hohenbichler
,
M.
, and
Rackwitz
,
R.
,
1981
, “
Nonnormal Dependent Vectors in Structural Reliability
,”
J. Eng. Mech. Div.
,
107
(
6
),
1227
1238
.
17.
Arora, J.S., 1989, Introduction to Optimum Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
18.
Yu
,
X.
,
Chang
,
K.H.
, and
Choi
,
K.K.
,
1998
, “
Probabilistic Structural Durability Prediction
,”
AIAA J.
,
36
(
4
), pp.
628
637
.
19.
CADSI Inc., 1994, DADS User’s Manual, Rev. 7.5, Oakdale, IA.
20.
DRAW, 1994, Durability and Reliability Analysis Workspace, Center for Computer-Aided Design, College of Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
21.
Choi, K.K., and Youn, B.D., 2002, “An Investigation of Nonlinearity of Reliability-Based Design Optimization Approaches,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Montreal, Canada, September.
22.
Satoshi
,
K.
, and
Dan
,
M.F.
,
1994
, “
Hyperspace Division Method For Structural Reliability
,”
J. Eng. Mech.
,
120
(
11
), pp.
2405
2427
.
23.
Lin, H., and Khalessi, M., 1993, “Identification of The Most Probable Point In Original Space Applications to Structural Reliability,” 34th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Conference, La Jolla, CA, Part 2, pp. 2791–2800.
24.
Khalessi, M.R., Wu, Y.T., and Torng, T.Y., 1991, “A New Most-Probable-Point Search Procedure For Efficient Structural Reliability Analysis,” Proceedings of the 32nd Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC, Part 2, pp. 1295–1304.
25.
Ayyub, B.M., and McCuen, R.H., 1997, Probability, Statistics, & Reliability for Engineers, CRC Press, New York, NY.
26.
Dai, S.H. and Wang, M.O., 1992, Reliability Analysis in Engineering Applications, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
27.
Chen
,
W.
, and
Yuan
,
C.
,
1999
, “
Probabilistic-based Design Model for Achieving Flexibility in Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
121
, pp.
77
83
.
You do not currently have access to this content.