Technical Papers
Jun 13, 2014

Selection Criterion Based on an Exploration-Exploitation Approach for Optimal Design of Experiments

Publication: Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Volume 141, Issue 1

Abstract

Modeling and simulation are being relied upon in many fields of science and engineering as computational surrogates for experimental testing. To justify the use of these simulations for decision making, however, it is critical to determine, and when necessary mitigate, the biases and uncertainties in model predictions, a task that invariably requires validation experiments. To use experimental resources efficiently, validation experiments must be designed to achieve the maximum possible increases in model predictive ability through the calibration of the model against experiments. This need for efficiency is addressed by the concept of optimally designing validation experiments, which constitutes optimizing a predefined criterion while selecting the settings of experiments. This paper presents an improved optimization criterion that incorporates two important factors for the optimal design of validation experiments: (1) how well the model reproduces the validation experiments, and (2) how well the validation experiments cover the domain of applicability. The criterion presented herein selects the appropriate settings for future experiments with the goal of achieving a desired level of predictive ability in the computer model through the use of a minimal number of validation experiments. The criterion explores the entirety of the application domain by including the effect of coverage, and exploits areas of the domain with high variability by including the effect of empirically defined discrepancy bias. The effectiveness of this new criterion is compared with two well-established criteria through a simulated case study involving the stress-strain response and textural evolution of polycrystalline materials. The proposed criterion is demonstrated as efficient at improving the predictive capabilities of the numerical model, particularly when the amount of experimental data available for validation is low.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Nuclear Energy University Programs (NEUP) of the U.S. Department of Energy for funding this research.

References

Atamturktur, S., Egeberg, M., Stevens, G., and Hemez, F. (2014a). “Defining coverage of an operational domain using a modified nearest-neighbor metric.” Mech. Syst. Sig. Process., in press.
Atamturktur, S., Hegenderfer, J., Williams, B., Egeberg, M., Lebensohn, R., and Unal, C. (2014b). “A resource allocation framework for experiment-based validation of numerical models.” Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct., in press.
Atamturktur, S., Hemez, F., Williams, B., Tomé, C., and Unal, C. (2011). “A forecasting metric for predictive modeling.” Comput. Struct., 89(23–24), 2377–2387.
Atamturktur, S., Williams, B., Egeberg, M., and Unal, C. (2013). “Batch sequential design of optimal experiments for improved predictive maturity in physics-based modeling.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 48(3), 549–569.
Blot, W. J., and Meeter, D. A. (1973). “Sequential experimental design procedures.” J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 68(343), 586–593.
Chernoff, H. (1959). “Sequential design of experiments.” Ann. Math. Stat., 30(3), 755–770.
Chevalier, C., Bect, J., Ginsbourger, D., Vazquez, E., Picheny, V., and Richet, Y. (2013). “Fast parallel kriging-based stepwise uncertainty reduction with application to the identification of an excursion set.” Technometrics,.
Cook, R. D., and Nachtsheim, C. J. (1980). “A comparison of algorithms for constructing exact D-optimal designs.” Technometrics, 22(3), 315–324.
Crombecq, K., De Tommasi, L., Gorissen, D., and Dhaene, T. (2009). “A novel sequential design strategy for global surrogate modeling.” Proc., 2009 Winter Simulation Conf. (WSC), IEEE, Austin, TX, 731–742.
Draper, D. (1995). “Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty.” J. R. Stat. Soc. B, 57(1), 45–97.
Dror, H. A., and Steinberg, D. M. (2008). “Sequential experimental designs for generalized linear models.” J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 103(481), 288–298.
Farajpour, I., and Atamturktur, S. (2013). “Error and uncertainty analysis of inexact and imprecise computer models.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 407–418.
Fedorov, V. V. (1972). Theory of optimal design, Academic Press, New York.
Harmon, S. Y., and Youngblood, S. M. (2005). “A proposed model for simulation validation process maturity.” J. Defense Model. Simul., 2(4), 179–190.
Hemez, F., Atamturktur, S. H., and Unal, C. (2010). “Defining predictive maturity for validated numerical simulations.” Comput. Struct., 88(7–8), 497–505.
Higdon, D., Gattiker, J., Williams, B., and Rightley, M. (2008). “Computer model calibration using high-dimensional output.” J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 103(482), 570–583.
Jiang, X., and Mahadevan, S. (2006). “Bayesian cross-entropy methodology for optimal design of validation experiments.” Meas. Sci. Technol., 17(7), 1895–1908.
Kennedy, M. C., and O’Hagan, A. (2001). “Bayesian calibration of computer models.” J. R. Stat. Soc. B, 63(3), 425–464.
Lebensohn, R. A., Hartley, C. S., Tomé, C. N., and Castelnau, O. (2010). “Modeling the mechanical response of polycrystals deforming by climb and glide.” Philos. Mag., 90(5), 567–583.
Lebensohn, R. A., and Tomé, C. N. (1993). “A self-consistent anisotropic approach for the simulation of plastic deformation and texture development of polycrystals: Application to zirconium alloys.” Acta Metall. Mater., 41(9), 2611–2624.
Müller, W. G., and Pötscher, B. M. (1989). “Batch sequential design for a nonlinear estimation problem.” Forschungsbericht, Research Memorandum No. 259.
Myers, R. H., Khuri, A. I., and Carter, W. H. (1989). “Response surface methodology: 1966–1988.” Technometrics, 31(2), 137–157.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2007). “Standard for models and simulation.” NASA-STD-7009, Washington, DC.
Oberkampf, W. L., Pilch, M., and Trucano, T. G. (2007). “Predictive capability maturity model for computational modeling and simulation.” Technical Rep. SAND-2007-5948, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
Sornette, D., Davis, A. B., Ide, K., and Kamm, J. M. (2007). “Theory and example of a new approach to constructive model validation.” Technical Rep. LA-UR-07-7013, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.
Sornette, D., Davis, A. B., Kamm, J. R., and Ide, K. (2006). “A general strategy for physics-based model validation illustrated with earthquake phenomenology, atmospheric radiative transfer and computational fluid dynamics.” Proc., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Workshop on Computational Methods in Radiation and Particle Transport, Springer, New York.
Stull, C. J., Hemez, F., Williams, B. J., Unal, C., and Rogers, M. L. (2011). “An improved description of predictive maturity for verification and validation activities.” Technical Rep. LA-UR-11-05659, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.
Unal, C., Williams, B., Hemez, F., Atamturktur, S. H., and McClure, P. (2011). “Improved best estimate plus uncertainty methodology, including advanced validation concepts, to license evolving nuclear reactors.” Nucl. Eng. Des., 241(5), 1813–1833.
Williams, B. J., Loeppky, J. L., Moore, L. M., and Macklem, M. S. (2011). “Batch sequential design to achieve predictive maturity with calibrated computer models.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 96(9), 1208–1219.
Williams, B. J., Santner, T. J., and Notz, W. I. (2000). “Sequential design of computer experiments to minimize integrated response functions.” Stat. Sin., 10(2000), 1133–1152.
Zang, T. A. (2008). “Perspectives on uncertainties (and margins) in NASA engineering decisions.” Proc., 10th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conf., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), Reston, VA.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Volume 141Issue 1January 2015

History

Received: Aug 28, 2012
Accepted: May 12, 2014
Published online: Jun 13, 2014
Published in print: Jan 1, 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Sez Atamturktur, A.M.ASCE [email protected]
Associate Professor, Glenn Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson Univ., Clemson SC 29634 (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]
Joshua Hegenderfer
Structural Engineer, URS Energy and Construction, 6135 Park South Dr. #300, Charlotte, NC 28210.
Brian Williams
Technical Staff Member, Computer, Computational, and Statistical Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545.
Cetin Unal
Technical Staff Member, Nuclear Engineering and Nonproliferation Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share