Chapter 5 Robust Performance Tailoring with Tuning - SSL - MIT
Chapter 5 Robust Performance Tailoring with Tuning - SSL - MIT
Chapter 5 Robust Performance Tailoring with Tuning - SSL - MIT
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Table 5.2: <strong>Performance</strong> and design parameters for optimal designs.<br />
<strong>Tailoring</strong>, �x <strong>Performance</strong>, [µm] Total Mass<br />
d1 [m] d2 [m] m1 m2 σ0 σWC [kg]<br />
PT 0.030 0.030 0.0 1.934 100.53 1355.50 673.18<br />
RPT 0.0486 0.0581 0.0 0.0 263.87 306.86 827.04<br />
RPTT 0.0451 0.0388 N/A N/A 158.53 572.66 740.05<br />
(AO) designs. The RPTT design is significantly different from both the PT and RPT<br />
designs. In the PT design all of the truss segments are of equal diameter and are<br />
at the lower bound, while in the RPT design they are tailored so that the mass is<br />
concentrated towards the center of the array <strong>with</strong> the inner truss diameters are about<br />
a centimeter larger that those of the outer truss segments. The RPTT design is<br />
opposite the RPT as the inner segments have a smaller cross-sectional diameter than<br />
the outer segments, so mass is distributed towards the ends of the array. The tuning<br />
parameters are used as tailoring parameters in the PT and RPT optimizations so that<br />
the same design variables are used to ensure a fair comparison among the methods.<br />
The PT design has the lowest nominal cost by far (100.53µm), but is very sen-<br />
sitive to uncertainty <strong>with</strong> a worst case performance of 1355µm. The RPT design is<br />
much more robust to uncertainty, and has a much lower worst-case performance value<br />
(306.86µm), but sacrifices nominal performance (263.87µm) to achieve this robust-<br />
ness. The RPTT design lies somewhere in between the PT and RPT designs. It has<br />
a nominal performance of 158.53µm, higher than that of the PT design, but lower<br />
than that of the RPT design. It is not quite as robust as the RPT design, but has a<br />
much lower worst-case performance (572.66µm) than the PT design.<br />
Table 5.3: <strong>Performance</strong> and parameters for tuned worst-case realizations.<br />
<strong>Tuning</strong>, �y [kg] <strong>Performance</strong> Total Mass<br />
m1 m2 σt [µm] [kg]<br />
PT 175.06 0.0 303.17 848.25<br />
RPT 81.04 0.0 273.32 908.08<br />
RPTT 0.0 175.88 215.94 915.94<br />
The tuned performance of the designs is obtained by applying the tuning op-<br />
159