×

Deep multimodal autoencoder for crack criticality assessment. (English) Zbl 07767234

Summary: In continuum mechanics, the prediction of defect harmfulness requires to solve approximately partial differential equations with given boundary conditions. In this contribution boundary conditions are learnt for tight local volumes (TLV) surrounding cracks in three-dimensional volumes. A nonparametric data-driven approach is used to define the space of defects, by considering defects observed via X-Ray computed tomography. The dimension of the ambient space for the observed images of defects is huge. A nonlinear dimensionality reduction scheme is proposed in order to train a reduced latent space for both the morphology of defects and their local mechanical effects in the TLV. A multimodal autoencoder enables to mix morphological and mechanical data. It contains a single latent space, termed mechanical latent space. But this latent space is fed by two encoders. One is related to the images of defects and the other to mechanical fields in the TLV. The latent variables are input variables for a geometrical decoder and for a mechanical decoder. In this work, mechanical variables are displacement fields. The autoencoder on mechanical variables enables projection-based model order reduction as proposed in the study of Lee and Carlberg. The main novelty of this paper is a submodeling approach assisted by artificial intelligence. Here, for defect images in the test set, Dirichlet boundary conditions are applied to TLV. These boundary conditions are forecasted by the mechanical decoder with a latent vector predicted by the morphological encoder. For that purpose, a mapping is trained to convert morphological latent variables into mechanical latent variables, denoted “direct mapping.” An “inverse mapping” is also trained for error estimation with respect to morphological predictions. Errors on mechanical predictions are close to 5% with simulation speed-up ranging for 3 to 120. We show that latent variables forecasted by the images of defects are prone to a better understanding of the predictions.
{© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.}

MSC:

74S05 Finite element methods applied to problems in solid mechanics

References:

[1] RyckelynckD, GoesselT, NguyenF. Mechanical dissimilarity of defects in welded joints via Grassmann manifold and machine learning. working paper or preprint; July 2020.
[2] BhattG, JhaP, RamanB. Representation learning using step‐based deep multi‐modal autoencoders. Pattern Recognit. 2019;95:12‐23.
[3] LeeK, CarlbergKT. Model reduction of dynamical systems on nonlinear manifolds using deep convolutional autoencoders. J Comput Phys. 2020;404:108973. · Zbl 1454.65184
[4] Le DelliouP, DahlA, SonnefraudC, VincentW. Experimental results and numerical analyses of tests conducted on large alloy 600 centre cracked tensile specimens. Design Anal. 2018;3B:07.
[5] ZerbstU, SchödelM, WebseterS, AinsworthR. Fitness‐for‐Service Fracture Assessment of Structures Containing Cracks. European SINTAP/FITNET, Elsevier Science. 2013. Retrieved from https://www.perlego.com/book/1855711/fitnessforservice‐fracture‐assessment‐of‐structures‐containing‐cracks‐pdf
[6] BergJ, NyströmK. A unified deep artificial neural network approach to partial differential equations in complex geometries. Neurocomputing. 2018;317:28‐41.
[7] LayouniM, HamdiMS, TaharS. Detection and sizing of metal loss defects in oil and gas pipelines using pattern‐adapted wavelets and machine learning. Appl Soft Comput. 2017;52:247‐261.
[8] San BiagioM, Beltran‐GonzalezC, GiuntaS, Del BueA, MurinoV. Automatic inspection of aeronautic components. Mach Vis Appl. 2017;28:1‐15.
[9] EscobarC, MenendezRM. Machine learning techniques for quality control in high conformance manufacturing environment. Adv Mech Eng. 2018;10:1687814018755519.
[10] SobieC, FreitasC, NicolaiM. Simulation driven machine learning: bearing fault classification. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2018;99:403‐419.
[11] JiZ, ZhaoY, PangY, LiX. Cross‐modal guidance based auto‐encoder for multi‐video summarization. Pattern Recognit Lett. 2020;135:131‐137.
[12] ZhangY, QiuY, CuiY, LiuS, ZhangW. Predicting drug‐drug interactions using multi‐modal deep auto‐encoders based network embedding and positive‐unlabeled learning. Methods. 2020;179:37‐46.
[13] LacourtL. Étude numérique de la nocivité des défauts dans les soudures. PhD thesis. Mines ParisTech ‐ Université PSL; 2019.
[14] LacourtL, RyckelynckD, ForestS, RancourtV, FlouriotS. Hyper‐reduced direct numerical simulation of voids in welded joints via image‐based modeling. Int J Numer Methods Eng. 2020;121:2581‐2599. · Zbl 07841932
[15] BartoňM, HannielI, ElberG, KimM‐S. Precise hausdorff distance computation between polygonal meshes. Comput Aid Geometr Des. 2010;27(8):580‐591. Advances in Applied Geometry. · Zbl 1205.65066
[16] BerdinC, BugatS, DesmoratR, et al. Local Approach to Fracture (Vol 01). Paris: Presses des Mines; 2004. https://www.pressesdesmines.com/produit/local‐approach‐to‐fracture/
[17] DavazeV, VallinoN, LangrandB, BessonJ, Feld‐PayetS. A non‐local damage approach compatible with dynamic explicit simulations and parallel computing. Int J Solids Struct. 2021;228:110999.
[18] BessonJ, FoerchR. Large scale object-oriented finite element code design. Comp Meth Appl Mech Eng. 1997;142:165‐187. · Zbl 0896.73056
[19] FoerchR, BessonJ, CailletaudG, PilvinP. Polymorphic constitutive equations in finite element codes. Comp Meth Appl Mech Eng. 1997;141:355‐372. · Zbl 0893.73061
[20] BessonJ, FoerchR. Application of object-oriented programming techniques to the finite element method. Part I— general concepts. Revue Européenne Des éléments Finis. 1998;7(5):535‐566. · Zbl 0979.68024
[21] BessonJ, Le RicheR, FoerchR, CailletaudG. Application of object-oriented programming techniques to the finite element method. Part II— application to material behaviors. Revue Européenne Des éléments Finis. 1998;7(5):567‐588. · Zbl 1050.68515
[22] CiarletPG. The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems. SIAM; 1978. · Zbl 0383.65058
[23] FayolleS. Modèles de grandes déformations gdef log et gdef hypo elas; 2015. www.codeaster.org
[24] MieheC, ApelN, LambrechtM. Anisotropic additive plasticity in the logarithmic strain space: modular kinematic formulation and implementation based on incremental minimization principles for standard materials. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2002;191(47):5383‐5425. · Zbl 1083.74518
[25] ChaiJ, ZengH, LiA, NgaiEW. Deep learning in computer vision: a critical review of emerging techniques and application scenarios. Mach Learn Appl. 2021;6:100134.
[26] HuangD, FuhgJN, WeißenfelsC, WriggersP. A machine learning based plasticity model using proper orthogonal decomposition. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2020;365:113008. · Zbl 1442.74042
[27] CheriditoP, JentzenA, RossmannekF. Non‐convergence of stochastic gradient descent in the training of deep neural networks. J Complex. 2021;64:101540. · Zbl 1494.65044
[28] GuoY, ChenJ, DuQ, Van Den HengelA, ShiQ, TanM. Multi‐way backpropagation for training compact deep neural networks. Neural Netw. 2020;126:250‐261.
[29] Le CunY, BoserB, DenkerJS, et al. Handwritten digit recognition with a back‐propagation network. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 1989;2:396‐404.
[30] HintonGE, SalakhutdinovRR. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science. 2006;313(5786):504‐507. · Zbl 1226.68083
[31] GomedeE, deBarrosRM, deSouza MendesL. Deep auto encoders to adaptive e‐learning recommender system. Comput Educ Artif Intell. 2021;2:100009.
[32] WuY, WangS, HuangQ. Multi‐modal semantic autoencoder for cross‐modal retrieval. Neurocomputing. 2019;331:165‐175.
[33] RaimiK. Towards data science, illustrated: 10 CNN architectures; 2019.
[34] MachadoJT, LuchkoY. Multidimensional scaling and visualization of patterns in distribution of nontrivial zeros of the zeta‐function. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul. 2021;102:105924. · Zbl 1469.11298
[35] BorgI, GroenenPJF. Modern Multidimensional Scaling Theory and Applications. Springer; 2005. · Zbl 1085.62079
[36] LaunayH, WillotF, RyckelynckD, BessonJ. Mechanical assessment of defects in welded joints: morphological classification and data augmentation. J Math Ind. 2021;11(1):1‐18.
[37] DanielT, CasenaveF, AkkariN, RyckelynckD. Model order reduction assisted by deep neural networks (rom‐net). Adv Model Simul Eng Sci. 2020;26(1):1‐25.
[38] LaunayH, BessonJ, RyckelynckD, WillotF. Hyper‐reduced arc‐length algorithm for stability analysis in elastoplasticity. Int J Solids Struct. 2021;208‐209:167‐180.
[39] SharmaRK, GhoshA, BhachawatD, IngoleS, BalasubramanianA, MuktibodhU. Assessment of structural integrity of pressure tubes during cold pressurization. Proc Eng. 2014;86:359‐366. Structural Integrity.
[40] EversonR, SirovichL. Karhunen‐Loève procedure for gappy data. J Opt Soc Am A. 1995;12:1657‐1664.
[41] RyckelynckD, LampohK, QuilicyS. Hyper‐reduced predictions for lifetime assessment of elasto‐plastic structures. Meccanica. 2016;51:309‐317.
[42] HütterG, LinseT, MühlichU, KunaM. Simulation of ductile crack initiation and propagation by means of a non‐local gurson‐model. Int J Solids Struct. 2013;50(5):662‐671.
[43] TaylorR. A mixed‐enhanced formulation for tetrahedral finite elements. J Numer Methods Eng. 2000;47:205‐227. · Zbl 0985.74074
[44] Al AkhrassD, BruchonJ, DrapierS, FayolleS. Integrating a logarithmic‐strain based hyperelastic formulation into a three‐field mixed finite element formulation to deal with incompressibility in finite‐strain elastoplasticity. Finite Elements Anal Des. 2014;86:61‐70.
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.