Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 44 (2008) 462471

www.elsevier.com/locate/nel
Preformtool shape optimization and redesign based on neural network
response surface methodology
Yu-Cheng Tang, Xiong-Hui Zhou, Jun Chen

National Die and Mold CAD Engineering Research Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1954 Huashan Road, Shanghai 200030, China
Received 16 January 2007; received in revised form 13 September 2007; accepted 5 January 2008
Available online 7 March 2008
Abstract
Preform tool shape optimization using response surface method (RSM) was developed in this work. Neural network approximation model was
employed for response surface construction in order to overcome the limitation of quadratic polynomial model in solving non-linear problems.
A two-step axisymmetric forging problem was studied as an example using proposed method. Optimum was achieved by using pattern search
optimization method to search response surface describing relationship between preform shape and die cavity ll ratio. In addition to that, with
respect to the complexity of the optimum solution, the knowledge-based redesign concept was proposed. Simplied preform shape description
model was built based on the knowledge extracted from previous optimization and additional shape optimization in terms of a new optimization
objective was conducted to obtain a better redesign preform shape. Finally, comparison was made between the original optimal shape and
redesigned one; better result was achieved by using the concept proposed.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Preform; Response surface method; Neural network; Optimization; Redesign
1. Introduction
In forging process, die design, especially the preform tool
design, is the most important step for product quality control.
Reasonable preformtool shape can not only reduce rawmaterial
cost but also improve material ow, reducing manufacturing
cost and eliminating following processes. Therefore, problemof
preform tool shape optimization is still of considerable interest.
Kobayashi et al. [1] rst developed the backward tracing
method for preform design on the basis of rigid viscoplastic
nite element method and several experts [2,3] successively
worked on this aspect later. However, though above research
could get an ideal preform shape, results are signicantly re-
lied on the approximate detachment criteria of boundary nodes
during backward simulation. Therefore, preform optimization
based on sensitivity analysis is developed to establish relation-
ship between preform shape design variable and forging opti-
mization objective through rigorous mathematical derivation.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 21 6281 3430x8318.

E-mail address: jun_chen@sjtu.edu.cn (J. Chen).
0168-874X/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nel.2008.01.007
Badrinarayanan [4] developed a sensitivity analysis method
for large deformation of hyperelastic viscoplastic solids. The
method was substantiated by the optimization of preform shape
of axisymmetric disk upsetting problem and a nal part with
minimum barreling effect was achieved. Fourment [5] dis-
cretized preform tool shape by spline curve and control points
of spline curve were selected as design variables. Minimum
distance between the achieved part and required part was ob-
tained through both optimum preform tool and the initial part.
Zhao [6] formulated relationship between preform tool shape
and the objective to reduce the difference between actual nal
forging shape and the desired nal forging shape. Optimum
preform tool shape was achieved in the case of axisymmet-
ric disk upsetting problem. Though sensitivity analysis-based
preform tool shape optimization theory could solve problems
of die underll and quality of nal forged part, obstacles still
lie in application: (1) sensitivity information is hard to obtain;
(2) sensitivity calculation code should be embedded into FEM
program.
In terms of above difculties of the implementation of pre-
form tool shape optimization based on sensitivity analysis, a
Y.-C. Tang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 44 (2008) 462471 463
non-gradient optimization technique was proposed by Kusiak
[7]. FEM program only acts as a solver to calculate objective
function for each trial vector of optimization variables to help
optimization algorithmneedless of gradient information search-
ing for the optimal parameter describing preform shape. Based
on this concept, non-gradient optimization techniques were ap-
plied in preform optimization [8,9]. However, optimization cost
is still very high due to frequent calling for FEM code to cal-
culate objective function value during optimization iteration.
In addition to that, results of the preform tool shape become
more and more complex with the increase of design variables
describing preform tool shape.
The emergence of the response surface methodology (RSM)
[10] successfully overcomes the defect of computational cost
during optimization. Built based on function tting ideology,
response surface in high-dimensional space was tted to de-
scribe the relation between experiment input and output so
that response surface could be used as the surrogate for accu-
rate model such as numerical simulation during optimization
to save heavy computational cost. Repalle et al. [11] adopted
response surface model to establish a relationship between the
process performance and the critical process variables and an
automotive-component forging-process design was presented
to demonstrate the applicability of the method. Maker [12] per-
formed an RSM-type optimization of a rectangular cup drawing
with drawbeads to solve crack and wrinkling problems. Bre-
itkopf [13] built the response surfaces based on a simplied
one-step inverse approach and successfully applied to the de-
sign of the initial blank dimensions of dashpot cup of Renault
Twingo and the determination of optimal restraining forces in
an oil pan drawing to prevent wrinkles.
Thus, a preform tool optimization method based on RSM
technique is proposed in this paper. Relationship between pre-
form tool shape design variable and optimization objective is
approximated by neural network-based response surface and
optimal preform tool shape is achieved by searching for the op-
timum of the surface using pattern search algorithm. Besides
that, in terms of problem of complex shape of optimization re-
sult, knowledge-based redesign concept was proposed to sim-
plify original optimization result.
2. Objective function and design variable
Fill ratio of the nal die cavity is prior to any other factor to
weigh the feasibility of forging process and quality of forged
part. Minimizing difference between actual forged part and re-
quired part is chosen as the optimization objective. B-spline
curve is used to describe the preform tool shape and control
points P
i
(X
i
, Y
i
) of B-spline curve are denoted as design vari-
ables.
According to nal forged part shape in Fig. 1, nine control
points P
i
(i = 1, 3, 5, . . . , 17) are selected as design variables
(as in Fig. 2). Besides that, in order to better reect design
variables impact on objective function, more control points
with relation P
i
= 1/2(P
i1
+ P
i+1
) (i = 2, 4, 6, . . . , 16) are
added to assist shape description. However, as newly added
control points P
i
=1/2(P
i1
+P
i+1
) (i =2, 4, 6, . . . , 16) are
Fig. 1. Final forged part.
Fig. 2. B-spline description of preform tool shape.
coupled with P
i
(i =1, 3, 5, . . . , 17), they will not be treated as
design variables. Fig. 2 shows certain preform shape generated
according to varied position of design variables.
Constraints for design variables are as follows:
(1) x-Axis coordinate of each design variable should be con-
stant.
(2) According to stroke and initial position of preformtool, side
constraints for y-axis coordinate of each design variable t
are [85, 115 mm].
(3) Dene P
1y
= P
3y
, P
11y
= P
13y
to reect partial geometric
feature of nal forged part at I and II positions.
Thus, preform tool shape optimization problem is formulated
as follows:

Variable: P
1
, P
3
, P
5
, P
7
, P
9
, P
11
, P
13,
P
15
, P
17
Min ll rate: f (P
i
) =
|actual forged part volume|
desired part volume
(i = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17)
s.t. P
ix
= Const (i = 1, 3, 5, . . . , 17),
Y
lb
P
iy
Y
ub
(i = 1, 3, 5, . . . , 17),
P
1y
= P
3y
,
P
11y
= P
13y
.
464 Y.-C. Tang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 44 (2008) 462471
3. Response surface method
For preform tool shape optimization problem, computational
cost of numerical simulations makes it impractical to rely ex-
clusively on high-delity simulations for the purpose of ob-
jective function calculation. Therefore, approximation model
should be used to substitute FEM program to reduce calcula-
tion cost during optimization iteration. RSM, currently widely
used in various engineering elds [14,15], is applied in this
paper to approximate relationship between tool shape design
variable and optimization objective.
3.1. Sampling method
Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) is selected to generate a
plausible collection of experiment input data. Compared with
regular factorial or central composite design (CCD) scheme,
LHS performs much better with much less times of experiment
[16]. LHS randomly samples the entire design space broken
down into equal-probability regions to ensure that the ensemble
of sampling points is a good representative of the whole design
space [17]. In this paper, each factor (design variable) has six
levels, and 18 sets of input data are randomly sampled using
LHS. Table 1 gives normalized partial sampling data for exper-
iment. Table 2 gives the actual data for experiment calculated
through formula P
y
actual
= P
y
normalized
(P
y
max
P
y
min
) + P
y
min
.
3.2. Approximation model
Polynomial, kriging and neural network are the most widely
used approximation models in RSMin recent years. Polynomial
model is easy to implement but with limited capability in solv-
ing non-linear problems, especially for preform tool shape opti-
mization problem with non-linear implicit relationship between
Table 1
Normalized partial sampling data for experiment
Experiment no. P
1y
= P
3y
P
5y
P
7y
P
9y
P
11y
= P
13y
P
15y
P
17y
1 0.958 0.564 0.292 0.609 0.916 0.330 0.702
2 0.441 0.988 0.402 0.266 0.546 0.556 0.502
3 0.635 0.78 0.915 0.782 0.782 0.712 0.087
4 0.751 0.065 0.755 0.931 0.148 0.453 0.182
5 0.265 0.304 0.076 0.452 0.426 0.956 0.924
6 0.089 0.396 0.5096 0.101 0.255 0.048 0.365
Table 2
Actual data for experiment
Experiment no. P
1y
= P
3y
P
5y
P
7y
P
9y
P
11y
= P
13y
P
15y
P
17y
1 113.76 101.94 93.77 103.29 112.48 94.92 106.08
2 98.23 114.64 97.06 92.99 101.39 101.68 100.06
3 104.06 108.42 112.47 108.46 108.46 106.38 87.63
4 107.54 86.95 107.67 112.94 89.43 98.59 90.48
5 92.95 94.12 87.29 98.57 97.78 113.691 112.74
6 87.68 96.89 100.28 88.02 92.66 86.45 95.97
design variables and optimization objective. Kriging model is
much more accurate for non-linear problems, but approxima-
tion model is difcult to obtain and implement [18]. Neural
network combines advantage of both the above so that it is used
in this paper to approximate relationship between preform tool
shape control parameter and die ll ratio.
3.3. Neural network architecture
In this study, a three-layer back propagation perceptron neu-
ral network (as in Fig. 3) is used as approximation model.
The input layer contains seven neurons, denoting y-axis coor-
dinate of control point of B-spline curve describing preform
tool shape. The hidden layer contains 20 neurons with sigmoid
Fig. 3. Neural network architecture.
Y.-C. Tang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 44 (2008) 462471 465
transfer function. The output layer contains one neuron with
linear transfer function, denoting actual forged part volume.
4. Pattern search algorithm [19]
Pattern search is a method for solving optimization prob-
lems that do not require any information about the gradient
of the objective function. As opposed to traditional optimiza-
tion methods that use information about the gradient or higher
derivatives to search for an optimal point, pattern search algo-
rithm searches a set of points around the current point, look-
ing for one where the value of the objective function is lower
than the value at the current point. As neural network was used
as approximation model in this study, optimization algorithm
needless of gradient information should be used.
4.1. Terminology
Pattern: A pattern is a collection of vectors that the pattern
search algorithm uses to determine which points to search at
each iteration step.
Mesh: At each step, the pattern search algorithm searches a
set of points called a mesh. Mesh is formed by multiplying the
pattern vectors by a scalar called the mesh size
k
.
Fig. 4. RSM-based preform tool shape optimization procedure.
4.2. Pattern search algorithm
General pattern search algorithm procedure is as follows:
Given initial guess x
0
, f (x
0
), initial pattern P
0
, mesh size
0
for k = 0, 1, . . . until
k
< tolerance do
1. Find a step s
i
k
, s
i
k

k
P
k
2. If f (x
k
+ s
i
k
) <f (x
k
), then x
k+1
= x
k
+ s
i
k
otherwise, x
k+1
= x
k
3. Update
k
, P
k
.
Optimal is obtained when the search is converged, and x
opt
=
x
k
.
5. RSM-based preform tool shape optimization and
redesign
5.1. RSM-based preform shape optimization procedure
Fig. 4 describes the optimization procedure: (1) Select ap-
propriate design variable and optimization objective. (2) Gen-
erate sampling data according to screened sampling method.
(3) Calculate objective function through numerical simulation
466 Y.-C. Tang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 44 (2008) 462471
Table 3
Experiment result
Experiment no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fill ratio 0.9 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.95 0.93 0.98 0.976
Experiment no. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Fill ratio 0.798 0.98 0.92 0.978 0.96 0.99 0.95 0.87 0.98
of corresponding sampling data. (4) Establish training data set
for neural network based on objective value and corresponding
sampling data and generate response surface by neural network
training. (5) Search optimum of response surface by pattern
search. (6) Verify current optimum by numerical simulation.
(7) If difference between objective value of current optimum
and target objective value is within limits, then stop the whole
optimization process. If not, current optimumdata will be added
into train data set to re-train neural network so as to generate
a more accurate response surface.
Repeat above steps until the optimum satisfying the opti-
mization stop criteria is found.
5.2. Case study
5.2.1. Case description
In order to verify the feasibility of the optimization men-
tioned above, a 2-D two-step forging problem is studied in the
paper. Simulation parameter is as follows: material: AISI 1035,
friction coefcient: 0.4, forging temperature: 980

. Flow stress
is obtained through interpolation of tabular data stored in DE-
FORM database. As the cross-section of nal forging part is
axisymmetric, only one-fourth of the part is studied. Dimen-
sion of one-fourth billet is 82.54 mm 70 mm(H W). Stroke
of preform stage is 55 mm and stroke of nal stage is 60 mm.
DEFORM
2D
is used to fulll numerical simulation. Initial mesh
number for billet is between 1500 and 2000.
5.2.2. Experiment result
Table 3 gives the results of 18 experiments. None of the
sampling input data obtain a 100% die cavity ll ratio.
5.2.3. Optimum search based on neural network response
surface
Fig. 5 describes the iteration process of optimum searching
and comparison of different preform shapes during iteration is
presented in Fig. 6. Response surface is modied for 11 times
until the nal optimum is found. Folding defect occurs at the
fth iteration step so that the die cavity ll ratio for this step
is quite low. There is no big variation of die cavity ll ratio
in other iteration steps. Fig. 7 shows the numerical simulation
of forging process using optimum preform tool. Die cavity ll
ratio reaches 100%. The normalized value of design variable at
the 11th iteration step is as follows: P
1y
=P
3y
=0, P
5y
=0.654,
P
7y
=0.482, P
9y
=0.9, P
11y
=P
13y
=1, P
15y
=0.853, P
17y
=0.
Fig. 5. Iteration process of optimization.
5.3. Redesign of optimal preform tool shape
Though mathematical optimal preform tool shape can be
achieved through method mentioned above, with both good nu-
merical simulation result and satisfaction of the optimization
objective, problems still arise during actual application. (1) Op-
timal preform tool shape is so complex or close to nal forging
die shape that it is hard to be manufactured or manufacturing
cost will be very high. (2) Optimal preform tool shape solely
relies on mathematical model, none of the design knowledge
obtained during optimization process is utilized. Therefore,
concept of redesign is proposed in this paper (as shown in
Fig. 8). On the basis of guaranteeing the optimization objec-
tive, design knowledge is extracted from existing optimal re-
sult to guide the improvement of the original optimal result,
searching for a more feasible preform tool shape to meet actual
application demand.
Preform material distribution directly affects nal forging die
quality and die cavity ll ratio. Thereby, material distribution
of traditional optimization result is used as knowledge to guide
the redesign of optimal preform tool shape. Fig. 9 shows pre-
form material distribution along x-axis obtained by traditional
optimal preform tool. Preform shape is obviously characterized
into three sections from the prospect of material distribution.
In order to eliminate complexity of original optimal preform
tool shape, approximation was used to simplify the preform
shape, while maintaining characteristics of original shape
feature. Approximation result is highlighted in red in Fig. 9
by three straight lines. In addition to that, further numerical
Y.-C. Tang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 44 (2008) 462471 467
Fig. 6. Preform shape comparison during iterations.
Fig. 7. Numerical simulation of two-step forging process.
Fig. 8. Redesign process of preform tool shape optimization.
468 Y.-C. Tang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 44 (2008) 462471
simulation should be done to verify whether this three line
models could fulll original optimization objective and to de-
termine the optimal parameter for the new model. A three line
description model (as in Fig. 10) is established to represent
preform tool shape and x-axis coordinate of points 1 and 2
and difference between y-axis coordinate of points 1 and 2 are
chosen as the variables to be determined according to specied
objective.
As there are only three design variables, Taguchi design of
experiment is chosen to generate the experiment input data for
both verication and optimization. Each design variable has
three levels and scope for each variable is x
1
: [5, 15 mm], x
2
:
Fig. 9. Material distribution of preform along x-axis.
Fig. 10. Line description model of preform tool shape.
Table 4
Redesign experiment and simulation result
Experiment no. x
1
x
2
y Fill ratio Average strain effective Average damage
1 5 45 25 0.98 1.2805 0.0859391
2 5 55 27.5 1 1.27453 0.1075149
3 5 65 30 1 1.18179 0.128434
4 10 45 27.5 1 1.29094 0.106942
5 10 55 30 1 1.21415 0.117783
6 10 65 25 1 1.2106 0.106254
7 15 45 30 1 1.34344 0.107818
8 15 55 25 1 1.28081 0.101571
9 15 65 27.5 1 1.19029 0.113055
[45, 65 mm], y: [20 cm, 35 mm]. Specied objective value is
achieved from numerical simulation as gives in Table 4.
It is obvious that most sample designs are able to achieve a
100% die cavity ll ratio demonstrating the effect of extracted
design knowledge. Besides that, further efforts should be done
to decide which parameter combination could mostly help to
get a qualied product.
5.3.1. Preform shape redesign optimization with average
strain minimization
Average strain effective, a good measure of deformation uni-
formity, is set as the objective of preform shape redesign opti-
mization. The problem is formulated as

Variable: x
1
, x
2
, y
Min Average strain effective:
f (x
1
, x
2
, y) =

NE
i=1

i
NE
s.t. ll ratio: g(x
1
, x
2
, y) 1,
x
1
[5, 15], x
2
[45, 65], y [25, 30],
= 10
4
.
Problem is solved by previously proposed RSM-based op-
timization method. Iteration process is presented in Fig. 11.
After eight iterations, optimal preform shape average strain ef-
fective is 1.127 with 100% ll ratio. Optimal design variable
Fig. 11. Iteration process of average strain effective minimization.
Y.-C. Tang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 44 (2008) 462471 469
Fig. 12. Simulationon result of two-step forging using preform after average strain effective minimization.
Fig. 13. Comparison of strain effective distribution.
value is as follows: x
1
= 8 mm, x
2
= 65 mm, y = 28.5 mm.
Verication results by DEFORM are shown in Figs. 12 and 13.
Fig. 12 shows numerical simulation of two-step forging pro-
cess using redesigned preform tool. Fig. 13 shows the strain
effective distribution of forged part before and after redesign.
Range of strain effective is [0.42,2.92] after redesign optimiza-
tion, narrower than [0.359,3.59] before redesign with average
strain effective of 1.3413, indicating improvement of deforma-
tion uniformity.
5.3.2. Preform shape redesign optimization with average
damage minimization
Average damage is set as the other objective of preform shape
redesign optimization. Normalized Cockroft & Latham model
was utilized as the damage criterion:
C
i
=

f
0

d,
where is the stress effective,

the max stress,

f
the critical
strain and the strain effective.
The problem is formulated as follows:

Variable: x
1
, x
2
, y
Min Average damage: f (x
1
, x
2
, y) =

NE
i=1
C
i
NE
s.t. ll ratio: g(x
1
, x
2
, y) 1,
x
1
[5, 15], x
2
[45, 65], y [25, 30],
= 10
4
.
Fig. 14. Iteration process of average damage minimization.
Optimal preform shape is achieved at the 10th step (as shown
in Fig. 14.) with average damage value of 0.0950347. Optimal
design variable value is as follows: x
1
=15 mm, x
2
=48.4 mm,
y = 26 mm. Numerical simulation of two-step forging pro-
cess using corresponding optimal preform shape is shown in
Fig. 15. Fig. 16 shows the damage distribution of forged part
before and after redesign. Both upper bound and lower bound
470 Y.-C. Tang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 44 (2008) 462471
Fig. 15. Simulation result of two-step forging using preform after average damage minimization.
Fig. 16. Comparison of damage distribution.
of damage range after redesign are smaller than that before
redesign with average damage of 0.100024. From the results,
we can conclude that preform tool shape is sharply simpli-
ed by redesign process. Meanwhile, ll ratio remains the
same and the different quality objective is achieved by redesign
optimization.
6. Summary
A preform tool shape optimization method is developed in
detail in this study. The method is applied to a two-step forging
problem. After the nal stage forging, a part with maximum die
cavity ll ratio is produced. The procedure demonstrates that
RSM-based approach proposed is effective in solving preform
tool shape optimization problems.
Besides that, in terms of the complexity of optimized tool
shape, concept of knowledge-based redesign is proposed to
simplify optimal preform tool shape. Material distribution of
preform in this study is utilized to guide the shape redesign.
Another optimization was adopted based on newly simplied
preform shape, aiming to achieve both 100% die cavity ll ratio
and different quality objective. Veried by numerical simula-
tion, it can be concluded that redesigned preform tool is better
than the original optimal one. What is more important is that
the complexity of the preform tool shape is sharply lowered,
making it easier to be manufactured.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant no. 50275094.
References
[1] S. Kobayashi, S.I. Oh, T. Altan, Metal Forming and Finite Element
Method, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989.
[2] N. Kim, S. Kobayashi, Preform design in H-shape cross section
axisymmetric forging by nite element method, Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manuf. 30 (1990) 243268.
[3] G. Zhao, E. Wright, R.V. Grandhi, Computer aided preform design in
forging using the inverse die contact tracking method, Int. J. Mach.
Tools Manuf. 36 (7) (1996) 755769.
[4] S. Badrinarayanan, N. Zabaras, Sensitivity analysis for the optimal design
of metal-forming processes, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 129
(4) (1996) 319348.
[5] L. Fourment, J.L. Chenot, Optimal design for non-steady-state metal
forming processI. Shape optimization method, Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng. 39 (1) (1996) 3350.
[6] G. Zhao, E. Wright, R.V. Grandhi, Preform die shape design in metal
forming using an optimization method, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 40
(7) (1997) 12131230.
[7] J. Kusiak, A technique of tool-shape optimization in large scale problems
of metal forming, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 57 (12) (1996) 7984.
[8] S. Roy, S. Ghosh, R. Shivpuri, A new approach to optimal design of
multi-stage metal forming processes with micro genetic algorithms, Int.
J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 37 (1) (1997) 2944.
Y.-C. Tang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 44 (2008) 462471 471
[9] J.S. Chung, S.M. Hwang, Application of a genetic algorithm to process
optimal design in non-isothermal metal forming, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 8081 (1998) 136143.
[10] R.H. Myers, D.C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology: Process
and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, Wiley, New
York, 2002.
[11] J. Repalle, R.V. Grandhi, Design of forging process variables under
uncertainties, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 14 (1) (2005) 123131.
[12] B.N. Maker, On drawbeads in sheet metal forming, SAE 1 (1107) (2000).
[13] P. Breitkopf, H. Naceur, et al., Moving least squares response surface
approximation: formulation and metal forming applications, Comput.
Struct. 83 (1718) (2005) 14111428.
[14] G.A. Berti, M. Monti, Thermo-mechanical fatigue life assessment of
hot forging die steel, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 28 (11) (2005)
10251034.
[15] T. Jansson, L. Nilsson, Optimizing sheet metal forming processesusing
a design hierarchy and response surface methodology, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 178 (13) (2006) 218233.
[16] T. Thiyagarajan, R.V. Grandhi, 3D preform shape optimization in forging
using reduced basis techniques, Eng. Optim. 37 (8) (2005) 797811.
[17] A. Olsson, G. Sandberg, O. Dahlblom, On Latin hypercube sampling
for structural reliability analysis, Struct. Saf. 25 (1) (2003) 4768.
[18] T.W. Simpson, T.M. Mauery, J.J. Korte, F. Mistree, Kriging models
for global approximation in simulation-based multidisciplinary design
optimization, AIAA J. 39 (12) (2001) 22332241.
[19] M.L. Robert, T. Virginia, Pattern search algorithms for bound constrained
minimization, SIAM J. Optim. 4 (9) (1999) 10821099.