Multi-objective reliability based design optimization using Kriging surrogate model for cementless hip prosthesis

References

• Aoues Y, Chateauneuf A. 2010. Benchmark study of numerical methods for reliability-based design optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim. 41(2):277–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barakat S, Bani-Hani K, Taha MQ. 2004. Multi-objective reliability-based optimization of prestressed concrete beams. Struct Saf. 26(3):311–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouazizi M-L, Ghanmi S, Bouhaddi N. 2009. Multi-objective optimization in dynamics of the structures with nonlinear behavior: Contributions of the metamodels. Finite Elem Anal Des. 45(10):612–623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradford E, Schweidtmann AM, Lapkin A. 2018. Correction to: Efficient multiobjective optimization employing gaussian processes, spectral sampling and a genetic algorithm. J Glob Optim. 71(2):439–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho JR, Lee JH, Jeong KM, Kim KW. 2012. Optimum design of run-flat tire insert rubber by genetic algorithm. Finite Elem Anal Des. 52:60–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comis Da Ronco C, Ponza R, Benini E. 2015. Aerodynamic shape optimization of aircraft components using an advanced multi-objective evolutionary approach. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 285:255–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dammak K, El Hami A, Koubaa S, Walha L, Haddar M. 2017. Reliability based design optimization of coupled acoustic-structure system using generalized polynomial chaos. Int J Mech Sci. 134:75–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dammak K, El Hami A. 2019. Multi-objective reliability based design optimization of coupled acoustic-structural system. Eng Struct. 197:109389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dammak K, Yaich A, El Hami A, Walha L, Haddar M. 2018. An efficient optimization based on the robust hybrid method for the coupled acoustic-structural system. Mech Adv Mater Struct. :1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deb K, Padmanabhan D, Gupta S, Mall AK. 2007. Reliability-based multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. In International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization; Springer. p. 66–80.
   Google Scholar
• Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Computat. 6(2):182–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dey S, Mukhopadhyay T, Adhikari S. 2017. Metamodel based high-fidelity stochastic analysis of composite laminates: A concise review with critical comparative assessment. Compos Struct. 171:227–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dey S, Mukhopadhyay T, Haddad Khodaparast H, Kerfriden P, Adhikari S. 2015. Rotational and ply-level uncertainty in response of composite shallow conical shells. Compos Struct. 131:594–605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubourg V, Sudret B, Bourinet J-M. 2011. Reliability-based design optimization using kriging surrogates and subset simulation. Struct Multidisc Optim. 44(5):673–690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El’Sheikh HF, MacDonald BJ, Hashmi MSJ. 2003. Finite element simulation of the hip joint during stumbling: a comparison between static and dynamic loading. J Mater Process Tech. 143–144:249–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang J, Gao Y, Sun G, Li Q. 2013. Multiobjective reliability-based optimization for design of a vehicledoor. Finite Elem Anal Des. 67:13–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandes PR, Folgado J, Ruben RB. 2004. Shape optimization of a cementless hip stem for a minimum of interface stress and displacement. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 7(1):51–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester A, Sobester A, Keane A. 2008. Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Forrester AI, Keane AJ. 2009. Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci. 45(1–3):50–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraldi M, Esposito L, Perrella G, Cutolo A, Cowin SC. 2010. Topological optimization in hip prosthesis design. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 9(4):389–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Girosi F. 1998. An equivalence between sparse approximation and support vector machines. Neural Comput. 10(6):1455–1480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamzehkolaei NS, Miri M, Rashki M. 2018. New simulation-based frameworks for multi-objective reliability-based design optimization of structures. Appl Math Modell. 62:1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedia HS, Fouda N. 2014. Design optimization of cementless hip prosthesis coating through functionally graded material. Comput Mater Sci. 87:83–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrera A, Rebollo S, Ibarz E, Mateo J, Gabarre S, Gracia L. 2014. Mid-term study of bone remodeling after femoral cemented stem implantation: Comparison between dxa and finite element simulation. J Arthroplasty. 29(1):90–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang C-H, Wu P-Y. 2011. An optimal control problem in estimating the cooling condition for a cemented hip replacement system. Appl Math Modell. 35(11):5480–5491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Immonen E. 2017. 2d shape optimization under proximity constraints by cfd and response surface methodology. Appl Math Modell. 41:508–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janusevskis J, Le Riche R. 2013. Simultaneous kriging-based estimation and optimization of mean response. J Glob Optim. 55(2):313–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin R, Du X, Chen W. 2003. The use of metamodeling techniques for optimization under uncertainty. Struct Multidiscip Optim. 25(2):99–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalyanmoy D. 2011. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms: An introduction. KanGAL Report 2011003.
   Google Scholar
• Katoozian H. 1993. Three dimensional design optimization of femoral components of total hip endoprostheses [PhD thesis]. Case Western Reserve University.
   Google Scholar
• Kharmanda G, Ibrahim H, Sharabaty S. 2009. Optimum safety factors for nonlinear reliability-based design optimization: applications on orthopedic replacement design. Res J Aleppo Univ. 67:22–37.
   Google Scholar
• Kharmanda G, Mohamed A, Lemaire M. 2002. Efficient reliability-based design optimization using hybrid space with application to finite element analysis. Struct Multidisc Optim. 24(3):233–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharmanda G, Sharabatey S, Ibrahim H, Makhloufi A, El Hami A. 2009. Reliability-based design optimization using semi-numerical strategies for structural engineering applications. Int J CAD/CAM. 9:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Kharmanda G. 2015. Reliability analysis for cementless hip prosthesis using a new optimized formulation of yield stress against elasticity modulus relationship. Mater Des. 65:496–504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharmanda G. 2016. Integration of multi-objective structural optimization into cementless hip prosthesis design: Improved austin-moore model. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 19(14):1557–1566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroetz HM, Tessari RK, Beck AT. 2017. Performance of global metamodeling techniques in solution of structural reliability problems. Adv Eng Softw. 114:394–404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurent L, Boucard P-A, Soulier B. 2013. Generation of a cokriging metamodel using a multiparametric strategy. Comput Mech. 51(2):151–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Wang X, Wang L. 2019. Interval uncertainty analysis for static response of structures using radial basis functions. Appl Math Modell. 69:425–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lizotte DJ, Greiner R, Schuurmans D. 2012. An experimental methodology for response surface optimization methods. J Glob Optim. 53(4):699–736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackerle J. 2006. Finite element modeling and simulations in orthopedics: a bibliography 1998–2005. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 9(3):149–199.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ. 1979. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics. 21(2):239–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meckesheimer M, Booker A, Barton R, Simpson T. 2002. Computationally inexpensive metamodel assessment strategies. AIAA J. 40(10):2053–2060.
   Google Scholar
• Mukhopadhyay T, Chakraborty S, Dey S, Adhikari S, Chowdhury R. 2017. A critical assessment of kriging model variants for high-fidelity uncertainty quantification in dynamics of composite shells. Arch Computat Methods Eng. 24(3):495–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Andersson-Cook, CM. 2008. Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. 3rd ed. New Jersey, USA: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Myers RH, Montgomery DC. 2002. Response surface methodology. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Naskar S, Mukhopadhyay T, Sriramula S, Adhikari S. 2017. Stochastic natural frequency analysis of damaged thin-walled laminated composite beams with uncertainty in micromechanical properties. Compos Struct. 160:312–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen HB, Lophaven SN, Sndergaard J, Dace A. 2002. A matlab kriging toolbox. Technical report. Technical University of Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Ruben RB, Fernandes PR, Folgado J. 2012. On the optimal shape of hip implants. J Biomech. 45(2):239–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryberg AB, Domeij BR, Nilsson L. 2012. Metamodel-based multidisciplinary design optimization for automotive applications. Technical report. Division of Solid Mechanics, Linkping University.
   Google Scholar
• Shi Y, Lu Z, Xu L, Chen S. 2019. An adaptive multiple-kriging-surrogate method for time-dependent reliability analysis. Appl Math Modell. 70:545–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson TW, Peplinski J, Koch PN, Allen JK. 1997. On the use of statistics in design and the implications for deterministic computer experiments. In Proc. Design Theory and Methodology (DTM 97).
   Google Scholar
• Simpson TW, Poplinski JD, Koch PN, Allen JK. 2001. Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. EWC. 17(2):129–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stander N, Roux W, Goel T, Eggleston T, Craig K. 2010. Ls-opt user’s manual. Technical report. Livermore Software Technology Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Sun G, Li G, Zhou S, Li H, Hou S, Li Q. 2011. Crashworthiness design of vehicle by using multiobjective robust optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim. 44(1):99–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarlochan F, Mehboob H, Mehboob A, Chang S-H. 2018. Influence of functionally graded pores on bone ingrowth in cementless hip prosthesis: a finite element study using mechano-regulatory algorithm. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 17(3):701–716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toledo R, Aznárez JJ, Greiner D, Maeso O. 2017. A methodology for the multi-objective shape optimization of thin noise barriers. Appl Math Modell. 50:656–675.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff J. The law of bone remodeling. maqet p, furlong r, trans, 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Yaich A, Kharmanda G, El Hami A, Walha L, Haddar M. 2017. Reliability based design optimization for multiaxial fatigue damage analysis using robust hybrid method. J Mech. 44:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Xu X, Sun G, Lai X, Li Q. 2018. Nondeterministic optimization of tapered sandwich column for crashworthiness. Thin-Walled Struct. 122:193–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar