Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.

192 (2003) 923–939

www.elsevier.com/locate/cma

Structural optimization using Kriging approximation

a,*
S. Sakata , F. Ashida a, M. Zako b

a
Department of Electronic Control Systems Engineering, Interdisciplinary Faculty of Science and Engineering,
Shimane University, 1060, Nishikawatsu-cho, Matsue City 690-8504, Japan
b
Department of Manufacturing Science, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1, Yamada-Oka,
Suita City 565-0871, Japan
Received 15 March 2002; received in revised form 31 October 2002

Abstract

An optimization method using Kriging approximation is applied to a structural optimization problem. The method
involves two main processes. The first is a space estimation process that uses the Kriging method, and the second is an
optimization process. The use of the Kriging method makes it easier to perform the approximation optimization. As an
example of the estimation performed as part of structural optimization, a response surface for layout optimization of
beam reinforcement is estimated. To evaluate the applicability of the Kriging method, Kriging estimation is compared
with neural network approximation.
As a numerical example, the optimization of a stiffened cylinder for an eigenfrequency problem is illustrated. The
obtained results clearly show the applicability of the method.
Ó 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Structural optimization; Response surface; Space estimation; Kriging method; Numerical analysis

1. Introduction

Lower computational cost, generality, robustness, and accuracy are all required for structural optimi-
zation processes. Given these concerns, it would seem that large-scale problems, eigenfrequency problems,
impact problems, and nonlinear problems with noisy functions or the like would be expensive and difficult
to optimize practically. While optimization using experimental data or the results of CAE analyses with
manual operation is required in industry or education, structural optimization using experimental results or
discrete sample data that includes some errors is also difficult to solve.
For such problems, approximation optimization methods for structural optimization have recently been
gaining attention. The response surface method (RSM), which is an approximation method, is a very ef-
fective approach. Barthelemy et al. and Haftka et al. reported on their survey of optimization using RSM
[1,2]. Box et al. discussed the contribution of polynomial approximation to optimum design using exper-
imental data [3]. Kashiwamura et al. applied RSM to the optimization of an automotive seat frame [4].

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +81-852-32-6840; fax: +81-852-32-6840.
E-mail address: sakata@ecs.shimane-u.ac.jp (S. Sakata).

0045-7825/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 8 2 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 6 1 7 - 5
924 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939

Sobieski et al. applied response surface estimation to collaborative optimization for large-scale multidis-
ciplinary design [5]. Hosder et al. reported on the application of polynomial response surface approxi-
mation to the multidisciplinary optimization of high-speed civil transport [6].
An optimization method using a neural network (NN) is another means of solving these difficult op-
timization problems. Hagiwara et al. applied holographic NN approximation to crash optimization [7,8].
Shi et al. applied NN approximation to the crash-worthiness of a vehicle frame with the most probable
optimal design method [9]. Nikolaidis et al. reported on NN and response surface polynomials for vehicle
joints design [10]. Berke et al. also reported on the application of NN to structural mechanics [11]. Papilia
et al. compared radial-basis NN with the polynomial-based technique [12].
Such approximation optimization methods can be readily applied to practical industrial applications,
although there are some problems with the approximation process. RSM, which is based on experimental
programming, normally requires the assumption of the order of the approximated base function because
the approximation process is performed using the least square method for the coefficients of the function.
Therefore, the designer must evaluate the schematic shape of the objective function over an entire solution
space. This will sometimes be difficult because it requires an understanding of the qualitative tendency of
the entire design space.
For a noisy known objective function, for example, it is acceptable to provide a subjectively assumed
base function. For general structural optimizations, however, which use a deterministic and accurate
evaluation for an unknown objective function, the observed value at a sample point should be more de-
pendable for the approximation. This is because it would be difficult to determine the order of the base
function to minimize the approximation error without any knowledge of the solution space. Another
problem, pointed by Shi et al. is the difficulty of applying RSM based on experimental programming to a
design problem having many design variables [9].
A NN approximation generally minimizes the sum of the approximation errors at the sample points, so
that the accuracy of the approximated value at a sample point is relatively high. Carpenter et al. reported
that a neural net approximation offers more flexibility to allow fitting than RSM [13]. A NN, however,
presents some practical difficulties. One is the computational cost incurred for learning, while the other is,
for example, the need for the operator to be skilled or experienced in using NN [13].
Against this background, there has been a demand for the development of an approximation optimization
method that is more accurate, flexible, and easy to use. One good approximation method is Kriging ap-
proximation, which is a spatial estimation method. Sacks et al. applied Kriging approximation to the design
for a computational experiment on circuit simulation [14], and Simpson et al. reported the optimization of
an aerospike nozzle problem using Kriging approximation [15]. Giunta et al. compared Kriging models and
polynomial regression models [16], while Jin et al. compared some metamodeling techniques for mathe-
matical test problems and one engineering problem [17]. In this paper, to evaluate the applicability of the
Kriging estimation method to engineering optimization, optimization using Kriging estimation and a gra-
dient method is applied to structural optimization problems. Some examples of estimation and structural
optimizations, as well as a comparison between the Kriging and NN results, are attempted using the
proposed method, and the applicability of the method to a structural optimization problem is investigated.

2. Kriging method

The Kriging method [18,19] is a method of spatial prediction that is based on minimizing the mean error
of the weighting sum of the sampling values. The main features of the method are as follows:

(1) An assumption of the order of the base function for approximation is unnecessary.
(2) Sampling results are comparatively reflected for estimation.
 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939 925

(3) An iterative calculation for generating a spatial estimation model, which involves only parameter op-
timization for three variables to determine a semivariogram model, results in lower computational costs
being incurred to generate the model.

It is generally believed that the Kriging method is superior in characteristic (1) to general RSMs that are
based on an experimental programming method. It is also superior in characteristic (3) to NN approxi-
mation, which incurs a high computational cost for learning.
Spatial estimation using the Kriging method involves several procedures such as the determination of a
semivariogram model, an estimation of the parameters for a semivariogram and a calculation of the
weighting coefficients for a spatial predictor. These procedures are described in detail in the following
sections.

2.1. Spatial estimation using the Kriging method

When observed values Zðs1 Þ; Zðs2 Þ; . . . ; Zðsn Þ are obtained at the nth known locations s1 ; s2 ; . . . ; sn in
continuous region D of the Euclid space Rd , Z b ðs0 Þ, which shows an estimated value of Zðs0 Þ at s0 2 S, which
is the point where we want to estimate the value of the function, is obtained as follows.
b ðs0 Þ can be obtained from Eq. (1) using a weighting coefficient w ¼ fw1 ; w2 ; . . . ; wn gT ,
A linear predictor of Z
X
n
b ðs0 Þ ¼
Z wi Zðsi Þ: ð1Þ
i¼1
b ðs0 Þ will be determined to minimize the mean-squared predictor error as
Then, Z
b ðs0 Þ  Zðs0 Þj2 g ¼ wT Cw þ 2wT c

;
r2 ðs0 Þ ¼ Efj Z ð2Þ

where C and c are a coefficient function matrix and vector, which are expressed as
C ¼ fcðsi  sj Þgij ; ð3Þ

¼ fcðs1  s0 Þ; . . . ; cðsn  s0 Þg; ð4Þ

where c is a correlation function that is described as a semivariogram model in Section 2.2. A conditioned
extreme value problem for Eq. (2) with an unbiased condition for Z b ðs0 Þ is solved using the Lagrange
multiplier method. A Lagrange function can be expressed by
/ðw; kÞ ¼ wT Cw þ 2wT c

 2kðwT 1  1Þ; ð5Þ

where k is the Lagrange multiplier. By applying stationary condition d/ ¼ 0, the following standard
equation is obtained:
   


C 1 w c
¼ : ð6Þ
1T 0 k 1
By solving Eq. (6), a weighting coefficient wi of linear predictor Eq. (1) can be determined. Here, w is given as
 
1  1T C1 c

w ¼ C1 c

þ C1 1: ð7Þ
1T C1 1

An estimated value can be calculated using Eqs. (1) and (7) for each s0 .

2.2. Semivariogram model

A semivariogram is a variance function in a probabilistic field, which is used to express the dispersion of
the data. As the Kriging method attempts to minimize the estimation error by using the variance of the
926 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939

estimated values, the Kriging method requires the assumption of the type of semivariogram model to
generate an estimated surface.
Several types of semivariogram have been introduced [19], including a linear model, exponential model,
and so on. For this study, the Gaussian-type semivariogram model was adopted. An estimated surface
using the Gaussian-type semivariogram model semivariogram will be smooth and continuous, making it
suitable for use in an optimizing design. The Gaussian-type semivariogram model is expressed by the
following form:
8 "  2 ! #
>
> jhj
>
< h0 þ h1 1  exp  : jhj 6¼ 0
cðh; hÞ ¼ h2 ð8Þ
>
> 0 : jhj ¼ 0
>
:

where h0 , h1 P 0, h2 > 0 are the model parameters. Typically, the parameter h ¼ fh0 ; h1 ; h2 g in Eq. (8) is
determined using the least square method. Cressie proposed a more robust efficient estimator to a change in
the scale of data [20]. In this paper, therefore, the weighted least squares procedure, which uses Eq. (9), is
applied to determine the parameter h.
X
K
jN k j
WRSSðhÞ ¼ 2
ðbc
ðjhk jÞ  c
ðjhk j; hÞÞ2 ; ð9Þ
k¼1 c
ðjh k j; hÞ

where N k is a group, which is expressed as

N k ¼ fði; jÞjði; jÞ for 8rij 2 I k ; rij ¼ jsi  sj jg; ð10Þ
where I k shows a semiopened interval as I1 ¼ ð0; q1 ; I2 ¼ ðq1 ; q2 ; . . . ; Im ¼ ðqm1 ; qm for an ordered group
0 < q1 <    < qm , qi 2 R1 . jN k j is the total number of elements of N k . jhk j is the average of rij , which is
expressed as follows:

1 X
jhk j ¼ rij ; ð11Þ
jN k j Nk

bc
ðjhk jÞ in Eq. (9) is expressed by the following equation:
1 X 2
bc
ðjhk jÞ ¼ ðZðsi Þ  Zðsj ÞÞ : ð12Þ
2jN k j N k

To optimize h to minimize Eq. (9), BrunellÕs algorithm [21] is used in this paper.

3. Optimization using Kriging estimation

The proposed method solves an optimizing problem through the application of nonlinear mathematical
programming to an estimated solution space using the Kriging method. A flowchart of the design process is
shown in Fig. 1. The proposed method actually consists of two main processes. The first involves the
forming of an estimated solution space, while the second is an optimization process. Optimization is carried
out using a gradient method.
When using a gradient method such as the steepest descendant method or quasi-Newton method, the
gradient component of the estimated objective function must be calculated as part of the optimizing
process. The computational cost for numerical optimization is therefore affected by that incurred for
calculating the gradient component. The efficiency and accuracy of an optimizing process are also affected
 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939 927

START

Calculate function value

for each sampling point

Space estimation
Determine parameters
process
for semivariogram

Calculate coefficients
for Kriging estimation

Initialize design variables

Optimization
Optimize design variables
process
in an estimated solution space

No
converge ?

Yes
END

Fig. 1. Flowchart of optimization using Kriging method.

by the accuracy of the gradient approximation. With the proposed method, this can be obtained analyti-
cally as follows.
It is assumed that a linear estimation using the Kriging method can be expressed by Eq. (1). The gradient
component of an estimated function Z b ðsÞ at s ¼ s0 can be expressed as
 
oZb ðsÞ  X n
owi 
 ¼  Zðsi Þ; ð13Þ
os  i¼1
os 
s¼s0 s¼s0

where wi is the solution for standard equation (6). C in Eq. (6) is a constant matrix, which is expressed
by known data. c

is a vector that is expressed by s, si and a semivariogram function, which is written

as
c

¼ frðs1  sÞ; rðs2  sÞ; . . . ; rðsn  sÞg: ð14Þ

Therefore, the gradient component for a weighting coefficient wi can be written as
 1

  
owi oC ci o 1  1T C1 c

i 1
¼ þ C 1 : ð15Þ
os os os 1T C1 1
Here, the Gaussian-type semivariogram model is assumed to be expressed by Eq. (16),
"  0 2 !#
r 
c ðri Þ ¼ h0 þ h1 1  exp   i 

0
; ri0 ¼ jsi  sj: ð16Þ
h2

Each term of Eq. (15) can be expressed as

928 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939

 0 2 !
oc

or0 2h1 r 
i
¼ i 2 exp   i  ; ð17Þ
os os h2 h2

  oc

o 1 T
 1 C1 c

1T C1
i

T 1
i
¼ T 1os : ð18Þ
os 1 C 1 1 C 1

By applying these equations, it is evident that the gradient component of Eq. (13) can be calculated
explicitly for design variable s. This is one advantage in optimization using a gradient method.

4. Example of Kriging estimation

4.1. Estimation of a simple continuous convex function

First, as the simplest example of the application of the Kriging method, the response surface for Eq. (19),
below, is estimated.
2
f ¼ 8ðx1  4Þ þ x22 ; 0:0 6 x1 ; x2 6 10:0: ð19Þ

The original surface of the function is illustrated in Fig. 2. A Kriging estimation process was applied to this
function field. The values of an objective function at 36 sample points, which are located at sixth regular
intervals for each variable axis, were calculated. Using BurinellÕs algorithm, the parameters of the
Gaussian-type semivariogram model for Kriging estimation were obtained as

fh0 ; h1 ; h2 g ¼ f6:95  106 ; 7:91  102 ; 4:00  100 g: ð20Þ

Fig. 2. Original surface.

 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939 929

By solving Eq. (6) using Eq. (20), weighting coefficient w in Eq. (1) was obtained. Using this w and the
observed values for 36 sample points, an estimated surface was generated. Fig. 3 shows the estimated
surface. Then, for each axis, 81 points at regular intervals were predicted using the estimated function.
Comparing Fig. 2 with Fig. 3 indicates that a good estimation has been obtained for the entire space.
Additionally, a comparison between the function values of Eq. (19) and the estimated values is illustrated in
Fig. 4, which shows each result for x2 ¼ 0:0; 7:0; 10:0. The solid lines in Fig. 4 indicate the original function.
There is no sample point for x2 ¼ 7:0; all values are estimated. The averaging error between the original and
estimated value for 6561 points, as expressed by Eq. (21), is 0.086.

1 Xm
jf ðsi Þ  f ðsi Þj 0 : f ðsi Þ 6¼ 0;
err ¼ ; e¼ ð21Þ
m i¼1 jf ðsi Þ þ ej 0:01 : f ðsi Þ ¼ 0;

where m is the number of evaluated points, f ðsi Þ is the original function value, and f ðsi Þ is the estimated
value. e is a constant to avoid a zero-division error.
These results indicate that the surface can be estimated well by using the Kriging method.

4.2. Comparison between Kriging estimation and NN approximation for layout optimization of reinforcement
in beam structure

As an example of estimating the design space for a structural optimization problem, the response surface
for the reinforcing effect of inserting additional elements was estimated. The scheme of the design problem
is illustrated in Fig. 5. A reinforcement was inserted to reduce the maximum displacement of the parallel
cantilevers. To evaluate the improvement in the rigidity of the beam structure, Eq. (22) was used as an
objective function [22],
org org
ðdmax  dmax Þ=dmax
fr ¼  ; ð22Þ
ðDV þ V org Þ=V org

where dmax is the maximum displacement, DV is increase in the volume brought on by the insertion of a
reinforcement, and V is the volume of existing structure. The upper suffix org indicates an initial value.
Using this function, the optimization problem was formulated as shown by Eq. (23)

find l
; ð23Þ
to minimize fr ðlÞ

where l is the parameter vector used to express the location of the edges of an inserted reinforcement.
A response surface for the objective function is shown in Fig. 6. Here, l takes a normalized value to
indicate an existing structure. In this case, where two members are existing elements, the range of the design
variables becomes 0 6 l < 2:0. A parameter 0 6 l < 1:0 shows the location of an edge of an additional
element on the lower cantilever in Fig. 6. Parameter 1:0 6 l < 2:0 shows an upper cantilever. Parameter l1 in
Fig. 6 shows the location of one edge of an inserted reinforcement, while l2 shows that of the other edge.
In Fig. 6, a function value can be obtained discretely at the nodes of a finite element mesh. It is difficult
to apply an optimization procedure such as NLP to the design problem, although the solution space would
be smooth and locally convex. Therefore, an approximation optimization method is effective for solving the
problem. From Fig. 6, it can be found that the objective function has both comparatively flat and steep
regions. It is thus thought difficult to approximate the function using a conventional simple polynomials
approach.
930 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939

Fig. 3. Estimated surface.

400.0 x2=0.0
350.0 x2=7.0
x2=10.0 x2=10.0
300.0
250.0 x2=7.0
200.0 x2=0.0
f

150.0
100.0
50.0 Sample point

0.0
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0

Fig. 4. Comparison between original and estimated value.

0.4
0.05

0.005
P
Reinforcement

Fig. 5. Scheme of reinforcement for cantilever (unit m).

 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939 931

Fig. 6. Entire original design space.

Fig. 7 shows a surface that was estimated using the Kriging method with 11 sample points for each axis.
Using BrunellÕs algorithm, semivariogram parameters are determined as

fh0 ; h1 ; h2 g ¼ f2:01  104 ; 3:18  101 ; 2:63  100 g: ð24Þ

The calculation time for this estimation was about 1 min using a 1-GHz Athlon-based Windows PC, in-
cluding the output of 6561 points as estimated results.
In Fig. 7, l1 and l2 show the locations of the edge points of additional elements. From Fig. 7, it can be
seen that a good estimation can be made qualitatively over the entire design space. However, the estimation
surface has some fluctuations in those areas corresponding to the flat or steep areas of the original function.
It is thought that the use of a Gaussian-type semivariogram model causes this problem. Using a Gaussian-
type semivariogram, an estimated surface is generated that is more smooth and flexible for the sample
points. To apply a nonlinear mathematical programming method to an estimated surface, a Gaussian-type
semivariogram can be used, although an excessively smooth or wavy surface is sometimes formed.
Therefore, if the fluctuation must be reduced, it would be better to use another type of semivariogram.
To qualify the performance of the Kriging estimation, the estimated surface was compared with the
response surface, which was generated using NN approximation. Fig. 8 shows an approximated surface
obtained by NN. The following parameters are used for NN. The number of hidden layers is 2, the number
of neurons on each layer is 9, and the total number of teacher data is 121. The NN learning process is
terminated once the improvement in the approximation error is less than 1:0  109 . The steepest de-
scendant method is used to update the connection weight. The total number of iterations had reached about
250,000 (about 1.8 h) when the learning process was terminated. From Fig. 8, it can be seen that a good
approximation is also obtained by using NN.
Fig. 9 shows a comparison between Kriging estimation and NN approximation with location parameter
l2 ¼ 0:7936. It appears that the NN results are more exact than the Kriging results at the sample points. On
932 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939

Fig. 7. Estimated design space with Gaussian-type semivariogram model.

Fig. 8. Approximated design space using NN.

the other hand, it is thought that qualitative estimation is more accurate when using the Kriging method
than when using NN.
 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939 933

0.16
Original
0.14 Kriging
0.12 NN
Sample point
0.10
0.08
0.06

-fr
0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.02
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Fig. 9. Comparison between estimated response surfaces obtained by Kriging method and NN.

0.16 NN Org Kriging

Original
Kriging
0.14 NN
Sample point
0.12
0.10
-fr

0.08
0.06
0.04
1.500 1.625 1.750 1.875 2.000

Fig. 10. Comparison between estimated surfaces for 1:45 < l1 < 2:0.

Fig. 10 shows an enlargement of the area around l1 ¼ 1:8. This figure shows the approximation state
around a global optimum solution. From Fig. 10, it can be seen that the optimum solution of the estimated
function using the Kriging method is closer to the original than that obtained by using NN approximation.
In this case, the estimated optimum solution using the Kriging method will be superior to that of NN
approximation. It is thought that this result is caused by the fact that the approximated function using NN
is generated to minimize the sum of the approximation errors at the sample points. An estimated function
using the Kriging method was generated to minimize the average square error at each region, such that the
qualitative estimation error will be less than the NN approximation at each point. In this case, the root-
mean-squared error of the values estimated with the Kriging method and NN approximation for all exact
values (6561 points) of the original functions was 4:48  103 and 5:76  103 .
Although, in this case, a better estimation was obtained using the Kriging method than that was ob-
tained using NN, it is difficult to determine whether the Kriging method or NN approximation will produce
the better precision. For structural optimization problems, the Kriging method is thought to be at least as
applicable as NN.
934 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939

5. Numerical example for structural optimization

The solving of an eigenfrequency problem using the finite element method (FEM) incurs a comparatively
high computational cost, because it usually involves using an iterating calculation, such as the subspace
method. It is therefore thought that the application of the proposed Kriging estimation and an optimization
procedure would be effective in solving the problem, and thus improve the eigenfrequency properties. In
this paper, a sizing optimization problem for a stiffened cylinder is solved using the proposed method. Fig.
11 shows the structure that is considered. Fig. 11(a) shows a scheme of a supported stiffened straight
cylinder, Fig. 11(b) shows a support condition and the dimensions in the x–z plane. Fig. 11(c) shows the
cross-sectional shape and dimensions of the stiffened cylinder. A support condition at the edges in the y–z
plane is also illustrated. Only half of the circle is supported. At first, as the simplest example, the height of
the stiffener is optimized to maximize the normalized first eigenfrequency fe of the supported cylinder with
weight constraints. The optimization problem can be formulated as follows:
9
find hs =
to maximize fe ðhs Þ ; ð25Þ
;
subject to W ¼ qV ¼ ql  ð8bhs þ ptðd  tÞÞ ¼ const

where hs is the height, b is the width of the stiffener, t is the thickness, d is the cross-sectional diameter, and l
is the length of the cylinder. q is the density of the material, which is homogeneous throughout the
structure. b, d, and l are not changed in this case.

Support
(a) (b)

z
hs

y Support
(c)

Fig. 11. Scheme of stiffened cylinder.

 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939 935

Offset beam element

y
Fig. 12. FE model of stiffened pipe.

An FE model of the cylinder is illustrated in Fig. 12. A 4-node shell element and 2-node beam element
are used. There are 960 elements and 992 nodes for the shell cylinder. The stiffeners are modeled using an
offset beam element, with the stiffeners located inside the cylinder. An eigenfrequency problem is solved
using the subspace method. The cylinder and stiffener are both mild steel.
Fig. 13 shows the first eigenmode deformation for an unstiffened cylinder. Fig. 13(a) shows a birdÕs-eye
view of the deformation, and Fig. 13(b) shows the deformation in the x–z plane. It was found that a bending
deformation is generated as first eigenmode.
For this design problem, Kriging estimation was performed. An estimated solution space is shown in
Fig. 14. Fig. 14 expresses the relation between the height of the stiffeners hs and the normalized eigenfre-
quency. The eigenfrequency is evaluated at hs ¼ 0:01  0:08 m for each 0.01 m as sample values using FEM
calculation. From Fig. 14, it can be seen that a good estimation is achieved. Semivariogram parameters of
the estimation were determined as

fh0 ; h1 ; h2 g ¼ f2:95  104 ; 1:42  102 ; 2:41  101 g: ð26Þ

The estimated optimum solution x ¼ 0:0619 m was obtained with the DFP method by applying to the
estimated function. From Fig. 14, it can be seen that this solution is fairly close to the optimum solution in
the original solution space. The first-order eigenfrequency for the estimated optimum is 185.6 Hz, while the
936 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939

z
x

(a) x (b)

Fig. 13. First eigenmode of unstiffened cylinder.

1.00
Normalized eigenfrequency

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80 Estimated
FEM
Sample point
0.75
0.70
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
hs(m)
Fig. 14. Estimated solution space for normalized eigenfrequency.

maximum first-order eigenfrequency for the data points used for constructing the estimation function is
184.9 Hz. From this result, we can see that a better solution can be obtained by using the proposed method.
This optimization involves a total of eight FEM calculations. The average calculation time for solving
the eigenfrequency problem was about 1 min when using a 1-GHz Athlon-based PC. The estimation
process and optimization process required about 10 s. Thus, the total time required for the optimization,
including manual operation, was about 10 min.
Next, as a more difficult problem, a two-dimensional optimization problem was solved using the pro-
posed method. The height of the stiffeners and the thickness of the cylinder were optimized to maximize the
normalized difference of the first and second eigenfrequency fd of the stiffened cylinder, which is shown in
Fig. 12. The optimization problem is formulated as
9
find hs ; t =
to maximize fd ðhs ; tÞ ; ð27Þ
;
subject to 0:01 6 hs 6 0:08; 0:000 < t 6 0:002
 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939 937

Fig. 15. Solution space for two-variable problem.

where hs is the height of the stiffeners, and t is the thickness of the cylinder. Fig. 15 shows the original
response surface obtained using the FEM calculations. The observed points are generated at 0.01 m in-
tervals for hs and at 0.0002 m intervals for t. The response surface shown in Fig. 15 is illustrated using FEM
results at 80 points in the solution space.
For this problem, Kriging approximation is applied. The total numbers of sample points used for the
Kriging approximation is 20. The sample points are generated at 0.02 m intervals for hs and at 0.0004 m
intervals for t. The estimated solution space is shown in Fig. 16. The semivariogram parameters were
determined as

fh0 ; h1 ; h2 g ¼ f5:39  103 ; 1:89  102 ; 2:89  101 g: ð28Þ

By comparing Figs. 15 and 16, we can see that a good estimation can also be obtained. By applying the
optimizing procedure to the estimated solution space, the optimum solution,

ffdmax ; hs ; tg ¼ f1:01  100 ; 3:28  103 ; 0:116  103 g ð29Þ

is obtained. Fig. 17 shows the location of the obtained solution in the original solution space as obtained by
FEM analysis. We can see that the estimated optimum solution is fairly close to the original. The difference
between the first- and second-order eigenfrequency for the estimated optimum was 105.6 Hz, while the
maximum difference in the eigenfrequencies for the data points used for constructing the estimation
function was 104.3 Hz. From this result, we can see that a better solution can also be obtained by using the
proposed method. It took about 15 s to obtain a solution, excluding the FEM calculation of sampling data,
when using a 1-GHz Athlon-based PC. These results point to the excellent efficiency and applicability of the
proposed method.
938 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939

Fig. 16. Estimated solution space for two-variable problem.

0.08
0.07
0.900
0.06 0.900

0.05
hs (m)

0.04 Estimated optimum solution

0.03 0.300 0.700

0.02 0.500
0.700
0.01
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
-3
t (10 m)

Fig. 17. Location of estimated optimum solution in original solution space.

6. Conclusions

This paper has described a structural optimization method that combines Kriging estimation and a
gradient optimization. At first, a simple estimation was illustrated. Next, an example of the estimation for
the layout optimization for beam structure was shown. By comparing the results of NN approximation, the
applicability, calculation cost, and quantitative and qualitative characteristics were discussed. Through the
presentation of these examples and discussion, we can conclude that the Kriging method is suitable for use
in structural optimization.
 S. Sakata et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 923–939 939

As an example of structural optimization, a stiffened cylinder was optimized for an eigenfrequency

problem. For this problem, a good estimated solution space and a reasonable solution were also obtained.
Additionally, as the computational cost for an eigenfrequency optimization was evaluated, it was shown
that the computational cost for the optimization was less.
From these numerical results, it is considered that the proposed method is suitable for industrial ap-
plications.

References

[1] J.F.M. Barthelemy, R.T. Haftka, Approximation concepts for optimum structural design––a review, Struct. Optim. 5 (1993) 129–
144.
[2] R.T. Haftka, E.P. Scott, Optimization and Experiments––A Survey, Theor. Appl. Mech. (1996) 303–321.
[3] G.E.P. Box, K.B. Wilson, On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions, J. Royal Stat. Soc. B 13 (1951) 1–45.
[4] T. Kashiwamura, M. Shiratori, Q. Yu, Statistical optimization method, Comput. Aided Optimum Des. Struct. V (1997) 213–227.
[5] I.P. Sobieski, V.M. Manning, I.M. Kroo, Response surface estimation and refinement in collaborative optimization, AIAA-98-
4753-370, 1998.
[6] S. Hosder, L.T. Watson, B. Grossman, W.H. Mason, H. Kim, R.T. Haftka, S.E. Cox, Polynomial response surface
approximations for the multidisciplinary design optimization of a high speed civil transport, Technical Reports of NCSTRL at
Virginia Tech CS(TR-01-03), 2001.
[7] I. Hagiwara, Q. Shi, W. Kozukue, Development of non-linear dynamic optimization method by using the holographic neural-
network (1st Report: Basic Examination with a Mass-Spring Model), Transactions of JSME (Series A) 63 616 (1997) 2510–2517
(in Japanese).
[8] I. Hagiwara, Q. Shi, F. Takashima, Function approximation method for crash optimization using neural network (2nd Report:
Application to Vehicle Component), Transactions of JSME (Series A) 64 626 (1998) 7–13 (in Japanese).
[9] Q. Shi, I. Hagiwara, F. Takashima, The most probable optimal design method for global optimization, in: Proceedings of the 1999
ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences DETC/DAC-8635 (Las Vegas, Nevada, September, 1999), pp. 12–15.
[10] E. Nikolaidis, L. Long, Q. Ling, Neural Networks and Response surface polynomials for Design of Vehicle Joints, AIAA-98-1777
(1998) 653–662.
[11] L. Berke, P. Hajela, Application of artificial neural nets in structural mechanics, Struct. Optim. 4 (1992) 90–98.
[12] N. Papila, W. Shyy, N. Fitz-Coy, R.T. Haftka, Assessment of neural net and polynomial-based techniques for aerodynamic
applications, AIAA 17th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA- 99-3167, 1999.
[13] W.C. Carpenter, J.F.M. Barthelemy, A comparison of polynomial approximations and artificial neural nets as response surfaces,
A collection of technical papers: the 33rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference (AIAA, Dallas, TX, April 13–15, 1992) 2474–2482.
[14] J. Sacks, W.J. Welch, T.J. Mitchell, H.P. Wynn, Design and analysis of computer experiments, Stat. Sci. 4 (4) (1989) 409–435.
[15] T.W. Simpson, T.M. Mauery, J.J. Korte, F. Mistree, 1998, September 2–4, Comparison of response surface and Kriging models
for multidisciplinary design optimization, 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis &
Optimization, St. Louis, MI, AIAA-98-4755.
[16] A. Giunta, L.T. Watson, J. Koehler, 1998. September 2–4, A comparison of approximation modeling techniques: polynomial
versus interpolating models, 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis & Optimization, St.
Louis, MI, AIAA-98-4758-CP.
[17] R. Jin, W. Chen, T.W. Simpson, Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria, 8th AIAA/
NASA/USAF/ISSMO Symposium on Multi-disciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Long Beach, CA, AIAA, 2000, AIAA-2000-
4801.
[18] N. Cressie, The origins of Kriging, Math. Geol. 22 (3) (1990) 239–252.
[19] S. Mase, J. Takeda, Spatial Data Modeling, Kyoritsu Shuppan Co. Ltd., 2001, in Japanese.
[20] N. Cressie, Fitting variogram models by weighted least squares, Math. Geol. 17 (5) (1985) 563–586.
[21] R.M. Brunell, B.M. Squibb, An automatic variogram fitting procedure using cressieÕs criterion, ASA Proceedings of the Section on
Statistics and Environment, 1993, 135–137.
[22] M. Zako, S. Sakata, Layout and cross-sectional shape design method with insertion of beam-like reinforcement (application to
vibration-proof design), Transactions of JSME (series C) 65 636 (1999) 117–122 (in Japanese).