Data-Driven, Physics-Based, or Both: Fatigue Prediction of Structural Adhesive Joints by Artificial Intelligence

IF 12.2 1区 工程技术 Q1 MECHANICS Applied Mechanics Reviews Pub Date : 2023-03-08 DOI:10.3390/applmech4010019
P. Fernandes, G. C. Silva, D. Pitz, Matteo Schnelle, K. Koschek, C. Nagel, V. C. Beber
{"title":"Data-Driven, Physics-Based, or Both: Fatigue Prediction of Structural Adhesive Joints by Artificial Intelligence","authors":"P. Fernandes, G. C. Silva, D. Pitz, Matteo Schnelle, K. Koschek, C. Nagel, V. C. Beber","doi":"10.3390/applmech4010019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Here, a comparative investigation of data-driven, physics-based, and hybrid models for the fatigue lifetime prediction of structural adhesive joints in terms of complexity of implementation, sensitivity to data size, and prediction accuracy is presented. Four data-driven models (DDM) are constructed using extremely randomized trees (ERT), eXtreme gradient boosting (XGB), LightGBM (LGBM) and histogram-based gradient boosting (HGB). The physics-based model (PBM) relies on the Findley’s critical plane approach. Two hybrid models (HM) were developed by combining data-driven and physics-based approaches obtained from invariant stresses (HM-I) and Findley’s stress (HM-F). A fatigue dataset of 979 data points of four structural adhesives is employed. To assess the sensitivity to data size, the dataset is split into three train/test ratios, namely 70%/30%, 50%/50%, and 30%/70%. Results revealed that DDMs are more accurate, but more sensitive to dataset size compared to the PBM. Among different regressors, the LGBM presented the best performance in terms of accuracy and generalization power. HMs increased the accuracy of predictions, whilst reducing the sensitivity to data size. The HM-I demonstrated that datasets from different sources can be utilized to improve predictions (especially with small datasets). Finally, the HM-I showed the highest accuracy with an improved sensitivity to data size.","PeriodicalId":8048,"journal":{"name":"Applied Mechanics Reviews","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Mechanics Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/applmech4010019","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MECHANICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Here, a comparative investigation of data-driven, physics-based, and hybrid models for the fatigue lifetime prediction of structural adhesive joints in terms of complexity of implementation, sensitivity to data size, and prediction accuracy is presented. Four data-driven models (DDM) are constructed using extremely randomized trees (ERT), eXtreme gradient boosting (XGB), LightGBM (LGBM) and histogram-based gradient boosting (HGB). The physics-based model (PBM) relies on the Findley’s critical plane approach. Two hybrid models (HM) were developed by combining data-driven and physics-based approaches obtained from invariant stresses (HM-I) and Findley’s stress (HM-F). A fatigue dataset of 979 data points of four structural adhesives is employed. To assess the sensitivity to data size, the dataset is split into three train/test ratios, namely 70%/30%, 50%/50%, and 30%/70%. Results revealed that DDMs are more accurate, but more sensitive to dataset size compared to the PBM. Among different regressors, the LGBM presented the best performance in terms of accuracy and generalization power. HMs increased the accuracy of predictions, whilst reducing the sensitivity to data size. The HM-I demonstrated that datasets from different sources can be utilized to improve predictions (especially with small datasets). Finally, the HM-I showed the highest accuracy with an improved sensitivity to data size.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数据驱动,物理驱动,或两者兼而有之:基于人工智能的结构粘合接头疲劳预测
本文从实现的复杂性、对数据大小的敏感性和预测精度等方面对数据驱动模型、物理模型和混合模型进行了比较研究。采用极端随机树(ERT)、极端梯度增强(XGB)、LightGBM (LGBM)和基于直方图的梯度增强(HGB)构建了四个数据驱动模型(DDM)。基于物理的模型(PBM)依赖于Findley的临界平面方法。结合从不变应力(HM- i)和Findley应力(HM- f)中获得的数据驱动和基于物理的方法,开发了两种混合模型(HM)。采用四种结构胶粘剂979个数据点的疲劳数据集。为了评估对数据大小的敏感性,将数据集分为三个训练/测试比率,即70%/30%,50%/50%和30%/70%。结果表明,与PBM相比,ddm更准确,但对数据集大小更敏感。在不同的回归量中,LGBM在准确率和泛化能力方面表现最好。hmm提高了预测的准确性,同时降低了对数据大小的敏感性。HM-I证明了来自不同来源的数据集可以用来改进预测(特别是小数据集)。最后,HM-I显示出最高的准确性,并提高了对数据大小的敏感性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
28.20
自引率
0.70%
发文量
13
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Applied Mechanics Reviews (AMR) is an international review journal that serves as a premier venue for dissemination of material across all subdisciplines of applied mechanics and engineering science, including fluid and solid mechanics, heat transfer, dynamics and vibration, and applications.AMR provides an archival repository for state-of-the-art and retrospective survey articles and reviews of research areas and curricular developments. The journal invites commentary on research and education policy in different countries. The journal also invites original tutorial and educational material in applied mechanics targeting non-specialist audiences, including undergraduate and K-12 students.
期刊最新文献
Experimental Investigation of Unidirectional Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastics under High Strain Rates A Simple and Effective Method to Evaluate Seismic Maximum Floor Velocities for Steel-Framed Structures with Supplementary Dampers Dynamic Analysis of a Timoshenko–Ehrenfest Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube in the Presence of Surface Effects: The Truncated Theory MechGPT, a Language-Based Strategy for Mechanics and Materials Modeling That Connects Knowledge Across Scales, Disciplines and Modalities Refined and Simplified Simulations for Steel–Concrete–Steel Structures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1