Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for numerical model error approximation and superresolution

Bozhou Zhuang, Sashank Rana, Brandon Jones, Danny Smyl

TL;DR

The findings demonstrate that the integration of physics-informed loss functions enables neural networks (NNs) to outperform a purely data-driven approach for approximating model errors in structural engineering.

Abstract

Numerical modeling errors are unavoidable in finite element analysis. The presence of model errors inherently reflects both model accuracy and uncertainty. To date there have been few methods for explicitly quantifying errors at points of interest (e.g. at finite element nodes). The lack of explicit model error approximators has been addressed recently with the emergence of machine learning (ML), which closes the loop between numerical model features/solutions and explicit model error approximations. In this paper, we propose physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for simultaneous numerical model error approximation and superresolution. To test our approach, numerical data was generated using finite element simulations on a two-dimensional elastic plate with a central opening. Four- and eight-node quadrilateral elements were used in the discretization to represent the reduced-order and higher-order models, respectively. It was found that the developed PINNs effectively predict model errors in both x and y displacement fields with small differences between predictions and ground truth. Our findings demonstrate that the integration of physics-informed loss functions enables neural networks (NNs) to surpass a purely data-driven approach for approximating model errors.

Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for numerical model error approximation and superresolution

TL;DR

The findings demonstrate that the integration of physics-informed loss functions enables neural networks (NNs) to outperform a purely data-driven approach for approximating model errors in structural engineering.

Abstract

Numerical modeling errors are unavoidable in finite element analysis. The presence of model errors inherently reflects both model accuracy and uncertainty. To date there have been few methods for explicitly quantifying errors at points of interest (e.g. at finite element nodes). The lack of explicit model error approximators has been addressed recently with the emergence of machine learning (ML), which closes the loop between numerical model features/solutions and explicit model error approximations. In this paper, we propose physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for simultaneous numerical model error approximation and superresolution. To test our approach, numerical data was generated using finite element simulations on a two-dimensional elastic plate with a central opening. Four- and eight-node quadrilateral elements were used in the discretization to represent the reduced-order and higher-order models, respectively. It was found that the developed PINNs effectively predict model errors in both x and y displacement fields with small differences between predictions and ground truth. Our findings demonstrate that the integration of physics-informed loss functions enables neural networks (NNs) to surpass a purely data-driven approach for approximating model errors.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 15 sections, 8 equations, 11 figures, 1 table.

Figures (11)

  • Figure 1: Illustration depicting (a) a classic symmetric elastic plate stretching problem solved using 1,800 finite element 4- and 16-node quadrilateral discretizations, denoted with '4' and '16' superscripts, respectively; (b) finite element displacement solutions separated into x and y fields for coincidental nodes; (c) x- and y-displacement error heat maps; (d) the same displacement errors depicted via line graphs; and (e) histograms plotted on the same axis demonstrating typical non-Gaussian model error distributions. Units in (b-e) are in meters. Results in this figure are only for demonstration purposes.
  • Figure 2: Displacement fields of lower-order and higher-order models and model error in the generated dataset.
  • Figure 3: Architecture of the developed PINN.
  • Figure 4: Distributions of prediction differences of all nodes in the testing set. (a) Mode error difference with Q4 mesh. This histogram is obtained by subtracting the true model error from the predicted model error at all nodes, and (b) displacement field difference with Q8 mesh. This histogram is obtained by subtracting the true displacement from the predicted displacement at all nodes with Q8 mesh for superresolution.
  • Figure 5: Comparison of model errors for a single test sample between PINN prediction and ground truth.
  • ...and 6 more figures