Journal of Marine Science and Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-021-00804-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Reliability‑based multidisciplinary design optimization

of an underwater vehicle including cost analysis
Hadi Gholinezhad1 · Seyed Hosein Torabi2

Received: 1 March 2019 / Accepted: 5 February 2021

© The Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers (JASNAOE) 2021

Abstract
Today, due to the complexity of systems and interactions among their subsystems, the design optimization of a system is
highly difficult and costly. Multidisciplinary optimization is an approach, in which interactions among different disciplines
are taken into account, and it attempts to optimize all disciplines, simultaneously. In the design process of a system, there
is usually some uncertainty in parameters. This uncertainty creates some challenges in the design process and affects the
systems performance. To cope with the uncertainty, robust design and reliability-based design approaches are developed. In
this paper, a reliability-based multidisciplinary design optimization is presented, in which some of the problem parameters
are uncertain. In this regard, it is assumed that some of the problem parameters are in the form of fuzzy numbers. Moreover,
in this problem cost is considered as one of the design disciplines, due to its importance in engineering problems. To solve
the proposed model, a solution method named the sequential optimization and reliability assessment is presented in which
Genetic Algorithm and Particle Swarm Optimization are used to solve the deterministic problem in each iteration. Finally,
the design of an autonomous underwater vehicle including cost analysis is investigated and two solution methods are applied.
The obtained results from two methods are compared and some conclusion are made. The results show that improving the
reliability between 0.5 and 0.85 is more cost-effective. However, some other factors besides the cost play a role in choosing
the reliability level that must be considered.

Keywords Reliability based multidisciplinary design optimization · Fuzzy numbers · Cost · Sequential optimization and
reliability assessment · Genetic algorithm · Particle swarm optimization

1 Introduction decisions made by other teams. Hence, it is necessary to

Complex systems consist of different subsystems that affect
each other and the performance of each subsystem is affected
by others. Thus, it is necessary to consider the interactions
between different subsystems of a system. Traditionally, the
design of different subsystems of a system is usually car-
ried out by some teams that have a high degree of expertise
in a particular discipline. Each team uses the experience
of its members to develop a practical design. However, the
goals of teams are in contradiction with each other, and the
decision taken by a team is usually in contradiction with
* Hadi Gholinezhad
gholinezhad.hadi@gonabad.ac.ir
1
Department of Industrial Engineering, University
of Gonabad, Gonabad, Iran
2
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Khaje Nasir Toosi
University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
be the decision-making process sequentially repeated by
various teams so that a design accepted by all teams can
be achieved. This design process is time consuming and
costly and thus is not favorable. Multidisciplinary design
optimization is a multivariate optimization approach that is
often used to optimize the whole system. In this approach,
variables from different disciplines and interactions between
them are simultaneously considered and attempt is made
to move to the optimal solution or near it in all disciplines.
Uncertainty is a phenomenon that there is in many real-
world problems. There are different categories for uncer-
tainty. Uncertainty is usually divided into two main catego-
ries: parametric uncertainty and nonparametric uncertainty.
Parametric uncertainty relates to the lack of proper recogni-
tion of parameters, that is, whether values considered for
the parameters of the problem are the same as their actual
values. Nonparametric uncertainty relates to the correctness
of the model, that is, whether the proposed mathematical

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

model fully addresses the problem [1]. Parametric uncertain-
ties are usually expressed in terms of the probability density
function, membership function, or an interval, depending on
the type of application. The interval display for nondeter-
ministic parameters is used when the available information
is very raw and primary and only upper and lower limits are
known. The probability density function is the most com-
plete representation for a nondeterministic parameter. The
membership function that is used in the fuzzy logic method
lies between the interval display and probability density
function, in terms of details [2]. In a traditional design, one
way to deal with uncertainty is to use a safety factor to take
all potential uncertainties into account simultaneously [3].
A safety factor is often determined according to the past
experiences and prior knowledge about a system, and so
far, there is no straightforward unitary method for its proper
definition. Considering large values for a safety factor leads
to obtain highly conservative solutions, which worsens the
cost or other objective functions. While considering small
values for a safety factor reduces the reliability of the sys-
tem. In addition, the use of past experience to determine
the value of a safety factor for the design of new systems
may be inappropriate or impossible. Therefore, it is neces-
sary to develop more advanced and efficient methods to deal
with uncertainty. These methods are known as "uncertainty
based design" [4] or "non-deterministic approaches" [5],
which help to solve the following two issues: (1) improve
robustness and reduce design sensitivity to uncertainty; (2)
enhance the system reliability and reduce its failure proba-
bility. Regarding these two issues, there are two main uncer-
tainty based methods namely "robust design optimization"
and "reliability based design optimization". The application
of these methods, as shown in Fig. 1, is determined by the
degree of uncertainty and impact of uncertain events.
Robust optimization is a field of optimization theory,
in which outputs are not sensitive to changes in uncertain
parameters. However, in reliability-based optimization,
Performance loss Catastrophe
No engineering Reliability based
Impact of event
applications design optimization
Robust design Reliability is
optimization not an issue
Small perturbation Extreme event
Uncertain event
Fig. 1  Uncertainty based design domains
13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology
attempts are made to reduce the probability of constraints
violation so that they are lower than a desirable amount [6].
In robust optimization, the problem formulation is such that
it minimizes the variance of the objective function. How-
ever, in reliability-based optimization, the solution space is
divided into two areas: feasible area and infeasible area, and
the goal of optimization is that the final solution sufficiently
approaches the feasible area so that the probability of con-
straints violation is less than a desired value [7]. Uncertainty
based design optimization was taken into account a long
time ago [8, 9], and there has been numerous researches
in this field [10, 11]. Ahn and Kwon proposed an efficient
reliability-based multidisciplinary design optimization
(RBMDO) strategy to enhance computational efficiency.
The proposed strategy utilized a single level reliability-based
design optimization approach, in which reliability analysis
and optimization are conducted in a sequential manner by
approximating limit state functions [12]. Youn et al. pre-
sented an application of the performance measure approach
and hybrid mean value method for reliability-based design
optimization in the crashworthiness of a large-scale vehicle
side impact. They showed that the proposed reliability-based
design optimization approach was very effective in obtaining
a reliability-based optimum design [13]. Zhang and Huang
proposed formulations of mixed variables MDO (MVMDO),
in which random and fuzzy variables were simultaneously
used. The MVMDO overcame difficulties caused by insuf-
ficient information for uncertainty. They also proposed a
method of MVMDO within the framework of the sequen-
tial optimization and reliability assessment (SORA). The
proposed method enables designers to solve MDO problems
in the presence of both Aleatory uncertainty and epistemic
uncertainty. Moreover, the proposed method can efficiently
reduce the computational demand [14]. Aleatory uncertainty
arises because of the natural and unpredictable variety of the
system performance. Experts’ knowledge is not expected to
reduce aleatory uncertainty, although it may be useful in
quantifying the uncertainty. Thus, this type of uncertainty
is sometimes referred to as irreducible uncertainty. On the
contrary, epistemic uncertainty is due to a lack of knowledge
about the system’s behavior, which is conceptually resolv-
able. Epistemic uncertainty can, in principle, be eliminated
by sufficient study and therefore, expert judgments may be
helpful in its reduction [15]. Aleatory uncertainty in per-
meability arises from local spatial diversity due to hetero-
geneity in the formation. The epistemic uncertainty arises
from uncertainty about the spatially integrated permeability
[15]. Aleatory uncertainty is also referred to in the literature
as variability, stochastic uncertainty, inherent uncertainty,
and irreducible uncertainty. Epistemic uncertainty is also
referred to in the literature as subjective uncertainty, reduc-
ible uncertainty, and model form uncertainty [16]. Alea-
tory uncertainty is used to describe the inherent variation
Journal of Marine Science and Technology
associated with a physical system or an environment under
consideration [17]. Yuan hang Hou et al. presented a mixed
aleatory/epistemic uncertainty analysis for ship hull form
optimization design and the influences of these two types of
uncertainty were considered. The proposed model was con-
ducted to find a minimum energy efficiency design indicator
(EEDI). EEDI, a mandatory regulation, is closely related to
many design parameters of ships’ hulls, which were con-
ventionally set to be constant. However, it is often the case
that considerable parameter fluctuations occur during actual
navigation, so it is more reasonable to state the important
parameters as uncertainty variables. In this paper, transfor-
mation methods of uncertainty targets and constraints to
certainty targets were employed to conduct a mixed uncer-
tainty optimization. The proposed uncertainty optimization
method had the effectiveness and superiority, such that the
proposed method could obtain the optimum result with
acceptable constraints and failure plausibility. The results
showed the more detailed the epistemic uncertainty vari-
ables, the more accurate the uncertainty distribution descrip-
tion, but this requires longer computing times [18]. The most
commonly mathematical representation used for aleatory
uncertainty is a probability distribution. Propagation of a
distribution through a modeling and simulation process has
been well described in many researches (see, for example,
Refs. [19–23]). Epistemic uncertainty is defined as a lack
of knowledge or information in any phase or activity of the
modeling process [17]. An increase in knowledge or infor-
mation can lead to a reduction in the predicted uncertainty of
the response of the system. Examples of sources of epistemic
uncertainty are limited understanding of complex physical
processes, the occurrence of fault sequences or environmen-
tal conditions not identified for analysis of the system, and
when there is insignificant or no experimental data for an
unknown fixed physical parameter [16]. Epistemic uncer-
tainty can be modeled by the possibility theory [14].
Yang et al. investigated the methodology development
and application of reliability-based multidisciplinary design
optimization to vehicle crashworthiness under some con-
straints. They investigated two optimization methodolo-
gies and demonstrated them by applying to a full vehicle
design of multiple impact modes with uncertainties taken
into consideration [24]. Agarwal et al. investigated how
uncertainty could be quantified in multidisciplinary systems
analysis subject to epistemic uncertainty associated with
disciplinary design tools. They used the evidence theory
to quantify uncertainty in terms of uncertain measures of
belief and plausibility [25]. Alexandrov and Lewis explored
the analytical features of MDO problem formulations that
had significant practical consequences for the ability of
non-linear programming algorithms to solve the reliably
and efficiently in the resulting computational optimization
problems. They illustrated the implications of the MDO
problem formulation for the tractability of the resulting
design optimization problem by examining a representative
class of MDO problem formulations known as collaborative
optimization. They also discussed an alternative problem
formulation, distributed analysis optimization that yielded
a more tractable computational optimization problem [26].
Agarwal and Renaud developed a framework for perform-
ing reliability based MDO using approximations. They used
response surface approximations of limit state functions to
estimate the probability of failure. They also incorporated an
outer loop to ensure that the approximate reliability-based
design optimization converged to the actual most probable
point (MPP) of failure [27]. Chen et al. presented a new
method for reliability-based optimization which required
only a modest increase in computational cost over that of
deterministic design optimization. The presented method
was implemented for comparison with previous methods
and appeared to be robust in terms of convergence from
the arbitrarily selected initial design points to the solutions
determined by the previous methods [28]. Meng et al. com-
bined a subset simulation-based reliability analysis (SSRA)
approach with MDO to improve computational efficiency in
reliability-based MDO problems. Furthermore, the SORA
approach was utilized to decouple a reliability-based MDO
problem into a sequential of deterministic MDO and reliabil-
ity evaluation problems. The formula of MDO with SSRA
within the framework of SORA was proposed to solve a
design optimization problem of a hydraulic transmission
mechanism [29]. Yao et al. proposed a reliability-based
MDO procedure based on combined probability and the evi-
dence theory to address a reliability-based MDO problem
under mixed aleatory and epistemic uncertainties. They used
the sequential optimization and mixed uncertainty analysis
(SOMUA) method to decompose the traditional double-
level reliability-based optimization problem into separate
deterministic optimization and mixed uncertainty analysis
sub-problems solved sequentially to reduce the computa-
tional load [30]. Batill et al. investigated the use of ana-
lytic models and numerical simulation in the MDO process.
They investigated how issues of physical process variability,
information uncertainty and use of models and simulations
influenced the design decision process [31]. McAllister and
Simpson presented a multidisciplinary robust design optimi-
zation formulation to evaluate uncertainty encountered in the
design process. The formulation introduced by them was a
combination of a bi-level collaborative optimization frame-
work and a multi-objective approach of a compromise deci-
sion support problem. To demonstrate the proposed frame-
work, they presented the design of a combustion chamber
of an internal combustion engine containing two subsystem
analyses [32]. Du and Chen developed a multidisciplinary
13
 Journal of Marine Science and Technology

robust design procedure that utilized efficient methods for x an uncertain variable (for example, a fuzzy number)
uncertainty analysis. Different from the previous uncertainty
analysis techniques, the proposed techniques brought the 𝜇A (x) ∈ [0, 1] Membership function of a fuzzy number
[0,1] (𝜇A (x) ∈ [0, 1])
features of the MDO framework into consideration. They
𝛼I An interval variable
developed a system uncertainty analysis method and a con-
𝛼 ,𝛼 The lower and upper bounds of 𝛼 I
current subsystem uncertainty analysis method to estimate
the mean and variance of the system performance subject 𝛼c The mid value of 𝛼 I (𝛼 c = (𝛼 + 𝛼)∕2)
to uncertainties associated with both design parameters and Δ𝛼 The radius of 𝛼 I (Δ𝛼 = (𝛼 − 𝛼)∕2)
design models [33]. 𝛽 A fuzzy number
As previously mentioned, parametric uncertainty can 𝛾 A cut level
be expressed in three ways, one of which is the mem- 𝛽𝛾l The converted fuzzy variable 𝛽 into an interval vari-
able under the cut level γ
bership function that is used in the fuzzy logic method.
𝛽𝛾 ,𝛽𝛾 The lower and upper bounds of 𝛽𝛾l
With the possibility theory, fuzzy variables are utilized
𝛽𝛾c The mid value of the fuzzy variable 𝛽
to represent epistemic uncertainties (uncertainties with
The vector of general design variables
insufficient data) [34]. It has been pointed out that when ds
The vector of local variables of the discipline i
little information is available for input data, the possibility di
The vector of output variables of the discipline i
based method is better as it provides a more conservative yi
f The objective function
design than the probabilistic design that is consistent with
The kth design constraint (k = 1, 2, … , K )
the limited available information [35]. A common goal in gk
Uncertain general variables
designing and optimizing any system can be to gain more xs
Local uncertain variables of the discipline i
profit, and in almost all systems, cost can play an impor- xi
xsc,xic The mid value of xs and xi
tant role in the design of a system. Thus, it is an important
Pr () The reliability of the constraints
factor for designers. Cost is a discipline that has interac-
zk The fuzzy variable used in the kth design constraint
tion with other disciplines [36, 37]. Accordingly, in this
zak The allowed value for zk
paper, cost is considered as a discipline. Moreover, in this
Rk The desired value for the reliability of the kth design
paper, a reliability-based multidisciplinary design opti-
constraint
mization problem is presented for the first time, in which
uncertain parameters are displayed as fuzzy numbers, as
well as the cost is considered. The main contribution of 2.1 Fuzzy numbers
this paper is to use fuzzy numbers to deal with uncertainty
and consider cost as a discipline in reliability-based mul- The fuzzy set theory was introduced by Zadeh [38]. A fuzzy
tidisciplinary design optimization problem. The rest of set is defined by a membership function (𝜇A ∶ X → [0, 1]), in
the paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, the problem which the membership grade of an element X to a fuzzy subset
formulation is described. Section 3, the solution method is A is a precise number (𝜇A (x) ∈ [0, 1]).
presented. Design optimization of an autonomous under- Assume that 𝛼 I is an interval variable. Interval variables
water vehicle is investigated as a case study in Sect. 4. The can be described by their lower and upper bounds as follows:
conclusions and future research suggestion are discussed
[ ]
in Sect. 5. 𝛼 l = 𝛼, 𝛼 = 𝛼 c + Δ𝛼𝛿𝛼
�
(1)

where 𝛿𝛼 = [−1, 1].

�

2 Problem formulation Moreover, assume that 𝛽 is a fuzzy variable with a mem-

bership function 𝜇(𝛽). A fuzzy variable can be expressed as
In this section, the problem formulation is presented for the interval variables through the level-cut strategy. If 𝛾 is a cut
reliability based multidisciplinary design optimization. As level, then, a fuzzy variable can be decomposed into an inter-
mentioned above, in this paper, the uncertain parameters val variable as Eq. (2).
are displayed as fuzzy numbers. At first, a brief descrip- [ ]
tion of fuzzy numbers is given and then multidisciplinary 𝛽𝛾l = 𝛽𝛾 , 𝛽𝛾 = 𝛽𝛾c + Δ𝛽𝛾 𝛿𝛽𝛾 (2)
design optimization is discussed and the problem formu-
lation is presented. The notations used in this section are In this case, the mid value of the fuzzy variable can be
as follows: defined as Eq. (3).

13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology

If zai and zi are fuzzy variables with a triangular mem-

∫ (3)
𝛽𝛾c = 𝜇(𝛽)d𝛽 bership function as Fig. 2, then, the possibility to satisfy
constraints under different cut levels can be calculated as
Eq. (12).
2.2 Reliability based multidisciplinary design {
optimization ( ) 0 if 𝛾 < 𝛾 ∗
p(𝛾) = poss gi > 0 =
1 if 𝛾 > 𝛾 ∗ (12)
The general formulation of the deterministic multidiscipli-
nary design optimization is as follows:
If 0 and 1 are the failure and safety states under the cut
( ( ))
mind=[ds ,di ] f ds , di , yi ds , di , yi≠j (4) level γ, respectively, then, the reliability of constraints can
be calculated as Eq. (13) [39].
1 𝛾∗ 1
2.2.1 s.t. ( )
∫ ∫ ∫
( ( )) Pr gi > 0 = p(𝛾)d𝛾 = 0d𝛾 + 1d𝛾 = 1 − 𝛾 ∗ (13)
gi ds , di , yi ds , di , yi≠j , i = 1, 2, … , N (5) 0 0 𝛾∗

The equations that describe the behavior of the system

and coupling between disciplines can be written as follows:
( )
yi = Di yj(i≠j) , d , i = 1, 2, … , ny (6) 3 Solution method
Suppose that the design constraints are as follows:
In this paper, the SORA is used as the solution method for
gk = zak − zk > 0 (7) the presented multidisciplinary design optimization model.
SORA was first introduced by Du and Chen [40]. As there
Then, the general formulation of the reliability based is a deterministic optimization problem in each iteration of
multidisciplinary design optimization is as follows: SORA, genetic algorithm (GA) and Particle Swarm Opti-
( ) mization (PSO) are used to find the optimal solution of
min f ds , di , xsc , xic (8)
deterministic problems. In the following, a brief descrip-
s.t. tion of these algorithms is provided. The notations used in
this section are as follows. The other notations not men-
Pr gk = zak − zk > 0 ≥ Rk , k = 1, 2, … , K
( )
(9) tioned here are the same as in the previous section.

In which, zk and the discipline analysis can be as follows: g(X) A limit-state function
( ) ( g(X) = h(X) − c)
zi = Fzi xs , xi , ds , di , yij (10)
X Input variables in the original
design space ( X = {x1 , x2 , ..., xn })
( )
yi = Fyi xs , xi , ds , di , yij (11) U Input variables in the standard
normal space U = {u1 , u2 , ..., un }
Fj (xj ) CDF of the input variable xj
Φ−1 (.) Inverse of standard normal distri-
bution function
𝜃 The shortest distance from the
points on the limit-state surface
to the origin in U space
1 gki The ith limit-state function in kth
iteration
nPop Population size in GA
rC Crossover rate in GA
rM Mutation rate in GA
𝜇 Probability of changing gene val-
ues of the parent chromosome in
a mutation operator in GA
0
MaxIt Maximum number of iterations
in GA
Fig. 2  The safety possibility of a triangular fuzzy system

13

g(X) A limit-state function
( g(X) = h(X) − c)
nf Flock size in PSO
xi (t) Position of particle i at iteration t
in PSO
vi (t) Velocity of particle i at iteration
t in PSO
w Inertia weight in PSO
3.1 Sequential optimization and reliability
assessment (SORA)
One of the main advantages of SORA is that it requires the
solution of a deterministic optimization problem. This fact
simplifies the computational implementation of the approach
[41]. In each iteration of SORA, a deterministic optimiza-
tion problem is solved and then the reliability analysis is
performed in the same iteration sequentially. But in other
conventional methods, there is a nondeterministic optimiza-
tion problem in each iteration that requires another loop to
analyze the reliability. In other words, in other methods, a
deterministic optimization problem should be solved in two
nested loops, but in the SORA, there is a loop in which a
deterministic optimization problem is solved once in each
iteration. Therefore, the number of deterministic optimiza-
tion problems solved in SORA is much less.
In SORA, a single loop strategy is used, in which the
optimization process and reliability assessment are per-
formed sequentially. In each cycle, optimization and reli-
ability analysis are applied separately. Thus, there is no need
for the reliability analysis during the optimization [40]. The
key concept in the SORA approach is to shift the boundaries
of violated constraints to make them feasible and prevent
shifting the boundaries of constraints that are satisfied. In
each cycle of this method, an MPP is obtained. The MPP
method was originally developed in the field of reliability
analysis [42].
In this method, the limit-state functions are defined as
Eq. (14) and then the probability that they are either bigger
or smaller than zero is evaluated approximately [43].
g(X) = h(X) − c (14)
where c is a constant.
The MPP is formally defined in terms of an independ-
ent and standardized normal vector U = {u1 , u2 , ..., un }.
The input variables in the original design space
( X = {x1 , x2 , ..., xn }) should be transformed into the standard
normal space. The most commonly used transformation is
given by Rosenblatt [44] as follows:
13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology
( )
uj = Φ−1 Fj (xj ) ; j = 1, ..., n (15)
where Φ−1 is the inverse of the standard normal distribu-
tion function. The transformation maintains the CDFs being
identical both in X space and U space [45]. Thus, the limit-
state functions can be rewritten as
g(U) = h(U) − c (16)
Hasofer and Lind defined the shortest distance from the
points on the limit-state surface to the origin in U space that
can be obtained by the following minimization problem [42]:
𝜃 = min ‖U‖
U (17)
subject to
h(U) − c = 0 (18)
The optimal solution of this problem is called the MPP. It
can be concluded that the joint PDF on the limit-state surface
has its highest value at the MPP [43]. The MPP has the high-
est probability of producing the value of limit-state function
g(U) in the standard normal space [45]. In other words, it is the
point that contributes the most to the integral for probability
estimation θ [42].
In each cycle of SORA, at first, an equivalent deterministic
optimization problem is solved, which is formulated by the
information of the MPP obtained in the last cycle. Then, the
design solution is updated, the new MPP is calculated by the
reliability assessment based on the information of the MPP
obtained in the last cycle and it is examined whether all the
reliability requirements are satisfied. Otherwise, the current
MPP is used to formulate the constraint for the deterministic
optimization problem in the next cycle. In this problem, the
constraint boundary is shifted to the feasible region by chang-
ing the locations of the design variables. When a new MPP is
sufficiently close to the optimal point obtained in the previous
cycle, the changes in the transition vector approach zero, caus-
ing the boundary of the constraints not to be shifted. In this
approach, the reliability of the constraints improves progres-
sively and the optimal solution for the probabilistic design can
be found within a few cycles [40]. This process is repeated
until all probability constraints are satisfied.
The flowchart of the SORA approach is depicted in Fig. 3.
The deterministic multidisciplinary optimization problem in
this approach (in third block of flowchart) is as Eqs. (19,20),
in which k is the algorithm iteration number.
( )
min f ds , di , xsc , xic (19)
s.t.
gki = gk−1
i
+ Δk−1
i
> 0, i = 1, 2, … , N (20)
Journal of Marine Science and Technology

Fig. 3  The flowchart of the

SORA approach Start

System modeling

Solving multidisciplinary optimization

problem and determining the optimal
values for the design variables

Producing a set of
cutting surfaces γ

Finish
Obtaining converted intervals
and uncertainty analysis

The solution
Calculating probability based on is optimal
cutting surfaces and reliability levels
yes

Calculating the amount of ∆ ≤

constraints displacement

no

3.2 Genetic algorithm (GA) 3.3 Particle swarm optimization (PSO)

GA is a well-known meta-heuristic algorithm that has been
successfully used as a solution method for optimization
problems. GA was first introduced by Tomassini [46]. In this
algorithm, each solution is represented as a vector or matrix
called chromosome. In each iteration, there is a fixed number
of chromosomes that form the population. The population
size is considered to be nPop. GA starts with an initial popu-
lation that is usually produced randomly.
To create a new generation in each iteration, new off-
spring should be produced. These offspring are created by
crossover and mutation operators. The crossover operator
is performed at a rate of rC and the mutation operator is
performed at a rate of rM. In a mutation operator, the gene
values for the parent chromosomes are changed with a prede-
termined probability of μ. GA is terminated when a stopping
condition is reached. The proposed GA is terminated when
a predetermined number of iterations which is considered to
be MaxIt is reached.
PSO is a stochastic global optimization technique inspired
by the social behavior of bird flocking or fish schooling. PSO
was first introduced by Kennedy and Eberhart [47, 48]. The
algorithm starts with an initial flock that is usually produced
randomly over a searching space where every bird or fish
is called as a particle. The flock size is considered to be
nf. Every particle flies with a certain velocity. The particles
find the global best position after some iteration. During
the optimization process, the swarm moves towards the best
position and the global best position changes at each itera-
tion. The velocity of each particle changes throughout the
algorithm. Factors influencing the velocity of a particle are
its momentum, the influence of its best position and the best
position of its neighbors. Indeed, each particle can adjust its
velocity vector based on these factors in each iteration. Then
the particle computes a new position that is to fly to.
The velocity and position of the ith particle (­ vi and ­xi) at
(t + 1)th iteration are updated using the following equations:

13
 Journal of Marine Science and Technology

( ) ( ) Table 2  Variables under uncertainty

vi (t + 1) = w.vi (t) + c1 .r1 . pbesti (t) − xi (t) + c2 .r2 . gbest(t) − xi (t)
(21) Variable under uncertainty Symbol Unit Lower limit Upper limit
xi (t + 1) = xi (t) + vi (t + 1) (22) Velocity V m/s 5 10
Sonar horizontal beam- BWh Deg 50 120
where ­pbesti is the best position of the ­ith particle, gbest is width
the best position of the total particle swarm, c1 and c2 are
constants, r1 and r2 are random variable with a uniform dis-
tribution between 0 and 1 and w is inertia weight. ( )
> 0 ≥ R1
This change of velocity and position is repeated in each mT
Pr g1 = 1 − (24)
iteration until the final solution is reached. mTmax

( )
> 0 ≥ R2
Tdet
4 Case study Pr g2 = 0.8 −
TT
(25)

In this section, the multidisciplinary design of an autono-

Pr g3 = 8 − LT > 0 ≥ R3
( )
mous underwater vehicle with six disciplines (subsystems) (26)
is investigated. The disciplines considered in this paper are
sonar, hydrodynamics, structure, power/propulsion, tactics Pr g4 = 7 − 𝛼 > 0 ≥ R4
( )
(27)
and cost. Table 1 shows the design variables for each disci-
pline. Further, the variables under uncertainty are presented
Pr g5 = 7 + 𝛼 > 0 ≥ R5
( )
in Table 2. (28)
The formulation for multidisciplinary design optimization
Pr g6 = 5 − Lb > 0 ≥ R6
of the autonomous underwater vehicle is as follows: ( )
(29)
DR × BWh × V × Tmax
Pr g7 = 1 + Lb > 0 ≥ R7
max pdet = ( ( ))2 (23) ( )
180 × R0 + Vtar Tdet + Tmax (30)

Pr g8 = 1 − Lm > 0 ≥ R8
s.t. ( )
(31)

Pr g9 = Lm − 0.3 > 0 ≥ R9
( )
(32)
Table 1  Design variables for the numerical example

Pr g10 = 0.85D − Ds > 0 ≥ R10

Discipline Variable Symbol ( )
(33)
General variables Sonar horizontal beamwidth ­(BWh) X1

Pr g11 = Ds − 0.15 > 0 ≥ R11

Dynamic viscosity of seawater (­ Lb) X2 ( )
Velocity (V) X3 (34)
Sonar directivity index (DI) X4

Pr g12 = 120 − BWh > 0 ≥ R12

Sonar Circle diameter/Sonar array (Ds) Y1 ( )
Sonar range (DR) Y2 (35)
Hydrodynamics Propulsion force (­ TF) Y3
Pr g13 = BWh − 10 > 0 ≥ R13
Seawater absorption coefficient (α) Y4 ( )
Lift force (­ LF) Y5 (36)
Drag force (­ DF) Y6

Pr g14 = cos t(BWh , V, DI) − BUDGET > 0 ≥ R14

Power/propulsion Energy stored in the battery (E) Y7 ( )
Motor length ­(Lm) Y8 (37)
Power required by the motor (Pow) Y9
The objective function is considered as the maximum
Sizing/structure Total volume of the vehicle (­ VolT) Y10
Total mass of the vehicle (­ MT) Y11 target
( )detection probability and the normalized total
( )mass
, the ratio of detection time to total time Tdet and
mT T
Area of the wetted surface (­ Sb) Y12
m
Total length ­(LT) Y13 Tmax T
the lower and upper values of some variables such as the
Tactic Probability of target detection ­(Pdet) Y14
Target detection time ­(Tdet) Y15 total length ( LT ), the angle of attack (𝛼 ), the battery length
Maximum mission time ­(TT) Y16 ( Lb), the motor length ( Lm), the sonar nose diameter (Ds) and
Range (Rng) Y17 the sonar horizontal beam width ( BWh ) are considered as
Cost Maximum budget (BUDGET) Y18 constraints. ­R1 to R ­ 14 are the reliability level of design

13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology

constraints that the model tries to improve them to a desir- 4.2 Hydrodynamics

able value.
In the following, a brief description of the disciplines is In this discipline, the longitudinal stability equations as well
provided. as the calculation of the drag and lift force is considered. The
drag force for an underwater vehicle usually includes fric-
tion drag and pressure drag. The friction drag is a function
4.1 Sonar of the wetted surface of the device and velocity whereas the
pressure drag is a function of the shape and surface of the
In this discipline, the device searcher to detect the target is
device forehead. The friction drag is created by the shear
considered as a passive sonar. To have a wider visibility and
stress caused by the boundary layer resulting from the flow
beamforming property, an array of acoustic sensors is used
of viscous fluid when passing over the body of the device,
in the passive sonar. The sonar array is as a flat circular array
and it is determined based on the Reynolds number and dis-
with diameter ­Ds that is mounted in the nose of the device.
tribution of the pressure on the body. The pressure drag for
One of the variables in sonar discipline is the beamwidth.
a completely sunken object in a non-viscous fluid is zero.
This design variable is used to define the search area of the
However, there is pressure drag for a viscous fluid due to
sonar. Determining the size of the sonar array (the length,
the presence of the boundary layer and recovery of pressure
height and diameter of the nose) is the first step in the design
at the end of the body. Pressure drag is very small for an
process of the sonar. The dimensions of the sonar array are
object with a high degree of elegance. The Reynolds number
a function of the wavelength, sonar horizontal beamwidth
is calculated as Eq. (44) based on velocity, total length and
and vertical beamwidth that are calculated as the following
dynamic viscosity of seawater.
equations:
V × LT
25.3 × 𝜆 Re = (44)
Lxa = ( ) v
BWh (38)
2
With regard to the velocity and length of the vehicle range
considered in this research, the conditions of the disordered
25.3 × 𝜆
Lya = ( boundary layer are always established and the friction coef-
)
BWv (39) ficient of the crust is calculated as Eq. (45).
2
0.075
√ Cf = (45)
� � (log (Re) − 2)2
Ds = 2 × max Lxa , Lya (40)
The drag body factor can now be calculated according to
In the above equations, 𝜆 is the sonar wavelength which the friction coefficient of the crust as Eq. (46) [49].
is calculated as Eq. (41).
[ ( )3 ( )]
c D L
𝜆= (41)
b
Df = Cf × 1 + 60 + 0.0025 T (46)
Fr LT D
where Fr = 30 kHz and c = 1480 m/s. The directivity index
Moreover, the lift force is calculated as Eq. (47), in which
can also be calculated based on the dimensions of the sonar
𝜌 is the density and assumed to be equal to 1025 and 𝛼 is the
array as Eq. (42).
angle of attack.
( )
Lxa × Lya
DI = 10 × log 4 × (42) LF = 0.5 × 𝜌 × V 2 × LT2 × 𝛼 (47)
𝜆2
The propulsion force can be calculated as follows:
The sonar range can be calculated by Eq. (43).
TF − DF cos(𝛼) − LF sin(𝛼) = 0 (48)
20 log (DR) + α × DR × 10−3 = SL − NL + DI − DT (43)

where SL, NL and 𝛼 are the source level, noise level and
water absorption coefficient, respectively, and are assumed 4.3 Structure
equal to 25, 15 and 0.00006, respectively. The directivity
index and beam width are inversely related. In fact, a sonar The variables in this discipline include the total length,
with a longer range has a narrower beamwidth, while a volume, mass, and area of the wetted surface. The outer
sonar with a wider visibility has a lower directivity index form of the body of the device can be described in terms of
and shorter range.

13
 Journal of Marine Science and Technology

radius and longitudinal positions. While the total volume, powm

total mass, and area of the wetted area can be calculated by
pow = powh +
𝜂m (56)
using these two concepts as Eqs. (49–51), in which VOLT ,
MT and Sb are the total volume, total mass and area of the The power source of the device is considered as an elec-
wetted surface, respectively. tric battery with a specific energy density. Energy density
is usually expressed as energy per battery weight unit (el ).
LT
With regard to the proportionality of the battery weight with
∫
VOLT = 𝜋 r(l)2 dl (49) its length, energy per length unit can be considered as the
0 energy density of the battery. In this case, the energy stored
in a battery of length ­Lb is calculated as Eq. (57).
LT
( 2 ) E = Lb × el (57)
∫
MT = 𝜌SH 𝜋 r(l) − ri (l)2 dl + me + mp + mb + mr + mm
0
(50) 4.5 Tactics
LT
The ultimate goal of the design of an underwater vehicle is
∫
Sb = 2𝜋 r(l)dl (51)
to carry out a specific mission in the operational environ-
0
ment. The tactical parameters considered in this paper, by
where 𝜌SH , mb, mr , mm, mp, and me are the aluminum density, which the mission scenario (the tactics for using the device
battery mass, rear part mass, motor mass, payload mass and in the operational environment) is defined, include the vehi-
electronics part mass, respectively. cle range, maximum time of operation (maximum flight
duration), time to reach the target and probability of target
detection. The vehicle range and maximum mission time for
4.4 Power/propulsion the vehicle can be calculated as Eqs. (58, 59) based on the
total power and energy stored in the battery.
In this discipline, the power required for the motor is cal- E×V
culated as Eq. (52) based on the propulsion force, forward Rng =
pow (58)
speed, propeller performance and shaft performance.
TF × V Rng E
powm = (52) TT = = (59)
𝜂p × 𝜂sh V pow

The motor length is calculated as Eq. (53). The following simplifying assumptions are made to cal-
culate the probability of target detection:
powm
Lmotor = × 10−3 (53)
Ca × N × D2m • The distance between the initial position and the target
is estimated to be equal to D ­ 0, and the uncertainty in
where N, Ca, and Dm are propeller rotation velocity, motor
estimation is as a circular region with a radius of ­R0.
power coefficient and motor diameter, respectively. The
• The target speed is equal to ­Vtar, and its target movement
power consumption of the sonar can be estimated as Eq. (54)
direction is not specified along the path of the vehicle
based on the beam width, detectability index and sonar
movement to the target.
power factor.
• The device moves directly to the target.
( )
DI
pows = 𝛽 × BW × 10 20 (54)
According to the two first assumptions, the uncertainty
The internal power of the device, which includes the region of the target presence is a circle with a radius of R
­ 0,
sonar power and electronic part power, is calculated as which is growing at a speed of V ­ tar. Therefore, the target
Eq. (55). detection time can be calculated as Eq. (60).
D0 − DR
powh = pows + powe (55) Tdet = (60)
V + Vtar
Finally, the total power is calculated as Eq. (56), in
which {𝜂}_{m} is the motor performance. And the area of the region where the target is randomly
located ( AUncertainty ) according to time is calculated as
follows:

13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology

( ( ))2 when changing the design variables. Using these estimates,

AUncertainty = 𝜋 × R0 + Vtar Tdet + t (61)
the cost of the system can be estimated for various opera-
The area that is searched by the device at any time to tional scenarios. These costs are entirely notional and are
detect the target is as Eq. (62). based upon the assumption that higher performance com-
( ) ponents, such as the motor and sonar, will translate directly
𝜋 into greater costs [37]. He estimated the cost of the system
Asearch = DR × BWh × V × t (62)
180 based on the velocity, sonar horizontal beamwidth and sonar
The probability of target detection can be written equal directivity index parameters. In the present study, the cost
to the ratio of the area of the target search to the area of has been estimated based on these parameters.
uncertainty as Eq. (63), in which Tmax is the maximum time
to reach the maximum probability of target detection and is 4.7 Computational results
calculated as Eq. (64).
To apply the presented solution method, the parameters of
Asearch DR × BW × V × Tmax GA and PSO are set as Table 3.
pdet = = ( ( ))2 (63)
AUncertainty 180 × R0 + Vtar Tdet + Tmax After applying the solution methods on the numerical
example, the reliability level of design constraints is shown
{ } in Table 4. The trend of moving the algorithms to the opti-
RO mal solution is shown in Fig. 5. As can be observed, by
Tmax = min TT − Tdet , + Tdet (64)
Vtar using both GA and PSO, SORA is convergent. SORA is
terminated after 18 iterations by using GA and after 24 itera-
tions by using PSO. By both algorithms, SORA has reached
4.6 Cost
a 95% reliability level in a relatively low number of itera-
tions, which shows its efficiency. However, SORA by using
The cost is also considered in this paper as a discipline. In
GA is terminated after fewer iterations than by using PSO.
this regard, the cost has been considered as a function of
Since the purpose of providing the solution method is to
some design variables, according to the research conducted
show its ability to obtain the optimal solution and achieve
by Frits [37]. In his PhD thesis, Frits presented a robust
the desired reliability, only the details of reliability are men-
design method for an undersea weapon by using the concept
tioned and unrelated details to our purpose are not provided.
of the probability of success based on the risk, cost, and
efficiency. In this study, no explicit relation was expressed
between the cost and the variables of the problem. How- Table 3  The value of the parameters of GA and PSO for case study
ever, the cost was estimated as a function of some design GA PSO
variables of the problem and it was shown how the cost
Parameter Value Parameter Value
changed with the change of the variables. It is assumed
that there is an exponential price increase due to improv- nPop 50 nf 50
ing the sonar performance, plus a milder price increase for rC 0.6 w 1.5
increasing the motor horsepower. The estimated relationship rM 0.2 MaxIt 100
between the cost and the design variables presented in this μ 0.1
study is as shown in Fig. 4, as the relative cost of the system MaxIt 100

Fig. 4  The estimated system cost [37]

13
 Journal of Marine Science and Technology

Table 4  Results obtained by SORA be evaluated well in the SORA method using both GA and
Iteration number Reliability level of design constraints
PSO.
The change in cost while moving to the optimal solution
By using GA By using PSO
is depicted in Figs. 6 and 7 in terms of the reliability level
1 0.484 0.289 achieved in each iteration. The trends of change in cost ver-
2 0.489 0.323 sus reliability in Figs. 6 and 7 are almost the same, with a
3 0.492 0.379 slight difference. At first, the slope of cost increase in SORA
4 0.497 0.422 with GA is steeper than with PSO. But this trend is almost
5 0.519 0.478 vice versa between around 0.5 to 0.6. And from then on, the
6 0.651 0.513 trend is almost the same in both algorithms.
7 0.673 0.581 As can be seen, as reliability increases, the rate of
8 0.716 0.616 increase in cost initially increases with a steeper slope. But
9 0.773 0.662 further, the slope of cost increase decreases significantly.
10 0.839 0.723 This trend continues until around the reliability value of
11 0.842 0.782 0.85 and from there, the slope of cost increase gets steeper
12 0.857 0.801 again. In other words, whatever the reliability gets closer
13 0.883 0.845 to 1, increasing in reliability by a specific amount can be
14 0.886 0.892 achieved by spending more cost. So, it can be said that as the
15 0.913 0.907 reliability gets closer to 1, it is less economical to increase it.
16 0.926 0.918 Therefore, increasing the reliability approximately between
17 0.942 0.924 0.5 and 0.85 is more cost-effective, and by spending a low
18 0.953 0.932 amount of cost, the reliability can be significantly improved.
19 0.932 But by reaching the reliability value to around 0.9, improv-
20 0.937 ing a certain amount of reliability is possible by spending
21 0.940 more cost.
22 0.942 Deciding on the final level of reliability of a system for
23 0.948 its design and construction depends on the type and use of
24 0.952 the system, and some other factors besides the cost can play
a role. Figures 6 and 7 show the behavior of construction
cost versus reliability. Other costs can also affect the choice
The obtained results show that SORA is able to obtain the of reliability level. For example, the cost of failing a system
final solution with the desired reliability level. As can be may be a significant financial or human cost that is separate
observed in Fig. 5, the slope of reliability improvement can from the cost of construction, and so occurrence of a failure

Fig. 5  Trend of moving SORA 1

to the optimal solution 0.95 By using GA
0.9 By using PSO
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
Reliability

0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
5 10 15 20
Iteration

13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology

Fig. 6  Change in cost while 250

moving to the optimal solution
in SORA by using GA
200

150

Cost (106 $)
100

50

0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Reliability

Fig. 7  Change in cost while 250

moving to the optimal solution
in SORA by using GA
200

150
Cost (106 $)

100

50

0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Reliability

can cause a huge cost. As a result, it can be more logical
and correct to choose high levels of reliability despite its
higher cost. This matter may be vice versa for less impor-
tant systems. Therefore, to choose the level of reliability, all
aspects must be considered and finally, the decision maker
can choose the desired level of reliability.
To evaluate the strength of the proposed algorithms, each
of them has been executed five times and the trend of mov-
ing to the optimal solution is depicted in Figs. 8 and 9. As
can be seen, the different execution of the algorithms are
almost the same trend with slightly different, which shows
the strength of them.
The number of iterations of SORA and the obtained
reliability in each execution are shown in Table 5. As can
be seen, the average number of iterations of SORA by
using GA is less than by using PSO, which indicates the
superiority of GA with respect to this criterion. As well as,
the average reliability obtained by using GA is less than
by using PSO, which indicates the superiority of PSO with
respect to this criterion.
To compare the time to reach the optimal solution by
the two algorithms, the average number of evaluations
of the objective function by them is compared with each
other. The results are shown in Table 6. It should be noted
that the number of new solutions (chromosomes) gener-
ated in each iteration of GA is nPop × rC + nPop × rM and
the number of new solutions (particles) generated in each
iteration of PSO is equal to nf. As can be seen, the aver-
age total number of the objective function evaluations by

13
 Journal of Marine Science and Technology

Fig. 8  Trend of moving SORA 0.95

by using GA to the optimal Run #1
0.9
solution in various runs Run #2
0.85
Run #3
0.8
Run #4
0.75
Run #5
0.7

Reliability
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
5 10 15 20
Iteration

Fig. 9  Trend of moving SORA 1

by using PSO to the optimal 0.95 Run #1
solution in various runs
0.9 Run #2
0.85 Run #3
0.8 Run #4
0.75 Run #5
0.7
Reliability

0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
5 10 15 20 25
Iteration

Table 5  Number of iterations of SORA and the obtained reliability in using GA is less than by using PSO, which indicates the
executions of the algorithms superiority of GA with respect to this criterion.
By GA By PSO
Number of Obtained Number of Obtained
iterations of reliability iterations of reliability 5 Conclusions and future research
SORA SORA
In most optimization problems, there is a degree of uncer-
Run #1 18 0.953 24 0.952
tainty in variables and parameters. Ignoring uncertainty
Run #2 20 0.954 18 0.953
in the design process leads to a design that is not optimal
Run #3 24 0.951 27 0.951
in the operating conditions. To deal with the uncertainty,
Run #4 21 0.952 24 0.953
there are two approaches called robust design optimization
Run #5 16 0.953 21 0.955
and reliability-based design optimization. In this paper, for
Average 19.8 0.9526 22.8 0.9528
the first time, a reliability-based multidisciplinary design

13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology
Table 6  Average total
number of objective function
evaluations by SORA Number of initial objective function evaluations
(initial population size)
Number of new solutions generated per iteration
Number of iterations of the algorithm
Total number of objective function evaluations in each execution
Average number of iterations of SORA
Average total number of objective function evaluations
optimization approach is investigated, in which uncertain
parameters are considered as fuzzy numbers and cost is con-
sidered as a discipline, due to its importance in engineer-
ing problems. In this regard, the design of an autonomous
underwater vehicle under uncertainty is considered with six
disciplines including sonar, hydrodynamics, structure, pro-
pulsion, tactics, and cost. The SORA approach is used as the
solution method, in which a GA and PSO are used to solve
the deterministic optimization problem in each iteration.
The reliability level of 95% is considered as the termina-
tion condition of SORA. The results obtained from solving
the model show that SORA achieves the desired reliability
level in a relatively low iteration number, demonstrating the
efficiency of this solution method.
The change in cost while moving to the optimal solution
is also depicted in terms of the reliability level achieved in
each iteration. SORA with GA is terminated in less itera-
tions than with PSO. Initially, the slope of cost increase in
SORA with GA is steeper than with PSO. But this trend is
almost vice versa between around 0.5 to 0.6. And from then
on, the trend is almost the same in both algorithms.
In almost both algorithms, as reliability increases, the rate
of increase in cost initially increases with a steep slope, then
the cost slope decreases significantly (until around 0.85), and
finally the cost slope increases again. In other words, what-
ever the reliability gets closer to 1, increasing in reliability
for a specific amount can be achieved by spending more
cost. So, it can be said that as the reliability gets closer to 1,
it is less economical to increase it. Improving the reliability
between 0.5 and 0.85 is more cost-effective. But some other
factors besides the cost of construction and design play a
role in choosing the reliability level. To choose the level of
reliability, all aspects must be considered and finally, the
decision-maker can choose the desired level of reliability.
For future studies, other types of uncertainty such as ran-
dom variables with a probability distribution function are
recommended. Moreover, an investigation area would be to
consider other disciplines for the reliability based multidis-
ciplinary design optimization. Moreover, development of a
model with another objective function, development of a
multi-objective problem, and use of other solution methods
can be considered as other options for further studies.
By using GA By using PSO
50 50
40 50
100 100
4050 5050
19.8 22.8
80,190 115,140
References
1. Crespo, L. G., & Bushnell, D. M. (2002). Optimization of systems
with uncertainty: initial developments for performance, robustness
and reliability based designs.
2. Sun, J., Zhang, G., Vlahopoulos, N., & Hong, S. B. (2006). Multi-
disciplinary design optimization under uncertainty for thermal
protection system applications. In: 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidis-
ciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference (p. 7002).
3. Elms DG (2004) Structural safety–issues and progress. Prog Struct
Mat Eng 6(2):116–126
4. Zang TA, Hemsch MJ, Hilburger MW, Kenny SP, Luckring
JM, Maghami P, Stroud WJ (2002) Needs and opportunities for
uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design methods for aerospace
vehicles.
5. Oberkampf WL, Helton JC, Joslyn CA, Wojtkiewicz SF, Ferson S
(2004) Challenge problems: uncertainty in system response given
uncertain parameters. Reliabil Eng Syst Safety 85(1–3):11–19
6. Choi HJ (2005) A robust design method for model and propa-
gated uncertainty (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of
Technology).
7. Phadke MS (1989) Quality engineering using robust design:
Robuste Prozesse durch Quality Engineering. German transla-
tion: G. Liesegang, gfmt-Verlag, Munich.
8. Dantzig GB (1955) Linear programming under uncertainty. Man-
age Sci 1(3–4):197–206
9. Freund RJ (1956) The introduction of risk into a programming
model. Econometrica 12:253–263
10. Sahinidis NV (2004) Optimization under uncertainty: state-of-
the-art and opportunities. Comput Chem Eng 28(6–7):971–983
11. Schuëller GI, Jensen HA (2008) Computational methods in opti-
mization considering uncertainties—an overview. Comput Meth-
ods Appl Mech Eng 198(1):2–13
12. Ahn J, Kwon JH (2006) An efficient strategy for reliability-based
multidisciplinary design optimization using BLISS. Struct Multi-
discipl Optimiz 31(5):363–372
13. Youn BD, Choi KK, Yang RJ, Gu L (2004) Reliability-based
design optimization for crashworthiness of vehicle side impact.
Struct Multidiscipl Optimiz 26(3–4):272–283
14. Zhang X, Huang HZ (2010) Sequential optimization and reliabil-
ity assessment for multidisciplinary design optimization under
aleatory and epistemic uncertainties. Struct Multidiscipl Optimiz
40(1–6):165
15. Hora SC (1996) Aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in probability
elicitation with an example from hazardous waste management.
Reliabil Eng Syst Safety 54(2–3):217–223
16. Oberkampf W, Helton J, Sentz K (2001) Mathematical representa-
tion of uncertainty. In: 19th AIAA applied aerodynamics confer-
ence (p. 1645).
17. Oberkampf WL, DeLand SM, Rutherford BM, Diegert KV,
Alvin KF (2000) Estimation of total uncertainty in computational
13

simulation. Sandia National Laboratories, SAND2000–0824,
Albuquerque NM.
18. Hang Hou Y, Jia Li Y, Liang X (2019) Mixed aleatory/epistemic
uncertainty analysis and optimization for minimum EEDI hull
form design. Ocean Eng 172:308–315
19. Cullen AC, Frey HC, Frey CH (1999) Probabilistic techniques in
exposure assessment: a handbook for dealing with variability and
uncertainty in models and inputs. Springer, Berlin
20. Ang AHS, Tang W (1975) Probability concepts in engineering
planning and design. Wiley, New York
21. Ditlevsen O (1981) Uncertainty modeling with applications to
multidimensional civil engineering systems, vol 6. McGraw-Hill,
New York
22. Neelamkavil F (1987) Computer simulation and modelling. Wiley,
New York
23. Haldar A, Mahadevan S (2000) Probability, reliability, and statisti-
cal methods in engineering design, vol 1. Wiley, New York
24. Yang RJ, Gu L, Tho CH, Choi KK, Youn B (2002) Reliability-
based multidisciplinary design optimization of a full vehicle sys-
tem. In: 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, struc-
tural dynamics, and materials conference (p. 1758).
25. Agarwal H, Renaud JE, Preston EL, Padmanabhan D (2004)
Uncertainty quantification using evidence theory in multidiscipli-
nary design optimization. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 85(1–3):281–294
26. Alexandrov NM, Lewis RM (2002) Analytical and computational
aspects of collaborative optimization for multidisciplinary design.
AIAA J 40(2):301–309
27. Agarwal H, Renaud J (2004) Reliability based design optimiza-
tion using response surfaces in application to multidisciplinary
systems. Eng Optimiz 36(3):291–311
28. Chen X, Hasselman T, Neill D, Chen X, Hasselman T, Neill D
(1997) Reliability based structural design optimization for prac-
tical applications. In: 38th Structures, structural dynamics, and
materials conference (p. 1403).
29. Meng D, Li YF, Huang HZ, Wang Z, Liu Y (2015) Reliability-
based multidisciplinary design optimization using subset simu-
lation analysis and its application in the hydraulic transmission
mechanism design. J Mech Des 137(5):051402
30. Yao W, Chen X, Ouyang Q, Van Tooren M (2013) A reliability-
based multidisciplinary design optimization procedure based on
combined probability and evidence theory. Struct Multidiscipl
Optimiz 48(2):339–354
31. Batill S, Renaud J, Gu X (2000) Modeling and simulation uncer-
tainty in multidisciplinary design optimization. In: 8th symposium
on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization (p. 4803).
32. McAllister CD, Simpson TW (2003) Multidisciplinary robust
design optimization of an internal combustion engine. J Mech
Des 125(1):124–130
33. Du X, Chen W (2002) Efficient uncertainty analysis methods for
multidisciplinary robust design. AIAA J 40(3):545–552
34. Du L, Choi KK (2008) An inverse analysis method for design
optimization with both statistical and fuzzy uncertainties. Struct
Multidiscipl Optimiz 37(2):107–119
13
Journal of Marine Science and Technology
35. Choi KK, Du L, Youn BD (2005) Integration of reliability-and
possibility-based design optimizations using performance meas-
ure approach (No. 2005-01-0342). SAE Technical Paper.
36. Khorshidi HA, Gunawan I, Ibrahim Y (2016) A dynamic unreli-
ability assessment and optimal maintenance strategies for multi-
state weighted k-out-of-n: F systems. Appl Stoch Models Bus Ind
32(4):485–493
37. Frits AP (2005) Formulation of an integrated robust design and
tactics optimization process for undersea weapon systems (Doc-
toral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology).
38. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353
39. Wang C, Qiu Z (2015) Hybrid uncertain analysis for temperature
field prediction with random, fuzzy and interval parameters. Int J
Therm Sci 98:124–134
40. Du X, Chen W (2002). Sequential optimization and reliability
assessment method for efficient probabilistic design. In: ASME
2002 international design engineering technical conferences and
computers and information in engineering conference (pp. 871–
880). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
41. Torii AJ, Lopez RH, Miguel LF (2014) A generalization of the
sequential optimization and reliability assessment method for
RBDO problems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international sym-
posium on uncertainty quantification and stochastic modeling.
Rouen, France
42. Hasofer AM, Lind NC (1974) Exact and invariant second-moment
code format. J Eng Mech Div 100(1):111–121
43. Du X, Chen W (2001) A most probable point-based method
for efficient uncertainty analysis. J Design Manufact Automat
4(1):47–66
44. Rosenblatt M (1952) Remarks on a multivariate transformation.
Ann Math Stat 23(3):470–472
45. Wu YT, Millwater HR, Cruse TA (1990) Advanced probabilistic
structural analysis method for implicit performance functions.
AIAA J 28(9):1663–1669
46. Tomassini M (1995) A survey of genetic algorithms. In: Annual
reviews of computational physics III (pp. 87–118).
47. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC. Particle swarm optimization. In: IEEE
international conference on neural networks, vol. IV. 1995. p.
1942–8.
48. Shi Y, Eberhart RC. Parameter selection in particle swarm opti-
mization. In: Evolutionary programming VII: EP 98. New York:
Springer; 1998. p. 591–600.
49. De Barros EA, Pascoal A, De Sa E (2008) Investigation
of a method for predicting AUV derivatives. Ocean Eng
35(16):1627–1636
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.