| Fig. 1. Concept of robust optimization | |
| The objective function of the robust design optimization is conventionally formulated as the weighted sum of the mean value and the standard deviation of the objective function, as follows: | |
| $$ | |
| \text{Minimize} \quad f_r(x) = E[f(x,z)] + \alpha \sqrt{\mathrm{Var}[f(x,z)]} \quad (1) | |
| $$ | |
| where x and z are the design and random variables, respective- | |
| ly, and α is a weighting coefficient. As the linear approxima- | |
| tion, the mean value and variance of the objective function f | |
| can be evaluated according to the following equation [8]: | |
| $$ | |
| E[f(\mathbf{x},z)] \approx f(E[\mathbf{x}]) E[z] \quad (2) | |
| $$ | |
| $$ | |
| \operatorname{Var}[f(\mathbf{x}, z)] \approx \sum_{i=1}^{n_x} \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}\right)^2 \operatorname{Var}[x_i] + \sum_{i=1}^{n_z} \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_i}\right)^2 \operatorname{Var}[z_i] \quad (3) | |
| $$ | |
| where $n_x$ and $n_z$ are the numbers of the design and random variables, respectively. | |
| The single-objective optimization using Eq. (1) sometimes fails to obtain the desired solution, especially when the Pareto set has a non-convex shape, as shown in Fig. 2. In this study, the robust design optimization is formulated as the following multiobjective optimization problem: | |
| $$ | |
| \begin{align} | |
| \text{Minimize: } & f(x,z) = (f_1, f_2) \tag{4} \\ | |
| & f_1 = E[f(x,z)] \nonumber \\ | |
| & f_2 = \sqrt{\text{Var}[f(x,z)]} \nonumber \\ | |
| \text{subject to: } & g_j(x,z) \le 0 \quad (j=1,\dots,m) \nonumber \\ | |
| & x_i^L \le x_i \le x_i^U \quad (i=1,\dots,n_x) \nonumber | |
| \end{align} | |
| $$ | |
| where $g_j(x, z)$ and $(j = 1, ..., m)$ are constraint conditions, and $x_i^U$ and $x_i^L$ are the upper and lower limits of the design variables, respectively. | |
| **3. Satisficing Trade-off Method (STOM)** | |
| STOM is known to be an interactive optimization method and converts a multiobjective optimization problem into the equivalent single-objective optimization problem by introducing an aspiration level that corresponds to the user's preference for each objective function value. The flow of the STOM is | |
| Fig. 2. Case of non-convex Pareto set | |
| Fig. 3. Computational flow of STOM | |
| summarized in Fig. 3 and briefly described as follows. | |
| Step 1: Set the ideal point $f_i^I$, ($i$ = 1, ..., $k$) of each objective function. The ideal point is usually determined by solving a single-objective optimization problem considering only the corresponding objective function, $f_i(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z})$. The ideal point for the mean performance is obtained by solving the deterministic design problem. | |
| Step 2: Set the aspiration level $f_i^A$, ($i$ = 1, ..., $k$) of each objec- | |
| tive function and evaluate the weight coefficient as fol- | |
| lows: | |
| $$ | |
| w_i = \frac{1}{f_i^A - f_i^I}, \quad (i = 1, \dots, k) \tag{5} | |
| $$ | |
| Step 3: Formulate the multiobjective optimization problem in Eq. (4) into the weighted Tchebyshev norm problem as follows: | |
| $$ | |
| \begin{align*} | |
| \text{Minimize:} \quad & \max_{i=1,\cdots,k} w_i (f_i(\mathbf{x}) - f_i^I) && (6) \\ | |
| \text{subject to:} \quad & g_j(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z}) < 0, && (j=1,\cdots,m) \\ | |
| & x_i^L \le x_i \le x_i^U && (i=1,\cdots,n_x) | |
| \end{align*} | |
| $$ | |
| Step 4: The min-max problem in Eq. (6) is transformed into | |
| the equivalent single-objective problem by introducing a |