4.6 Article

Predicting elemental stiffness matrix of FG nanoplates using Gaussian Process Regression based surrogate model in framework of layerwise model

Journal

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS WITH BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
Volume 143, Issue -, Pages 779-795

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enganabound.2022.08.001

Keywords

Stiffness matrix; FG nanoplate; Machine learning; GPR; Surrogate model; Stiffness matrix; FG nanoplate; Machine learning; GPR; Surrogate model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this article, the stiffness matrix of functionally graded nanoplate is evaluated using Gaussian process regression based surrogate model. Two different methodologies for predicting the stiffness matrix are adopted and compared, with the second one being found to be outstanding.
The accuracy of predicting the behaviour of structure using finite element (FE) depends widely on the precision of the evaluation of the stiffness matrix. In the present article, an attempt has been made to evaluate the stiffness matrix of functionally graded (FG) nanoplate using Gaussian process regression (GPR) based surrogate model in the framework of the layerwise theory. The stiffness matrix comprises various matrix terms corresponding to the membrane, membrane-bending, bending-membrane, and bending and shear. Following two different method-ologies are adopted for predicting the stiffness matrix at the elemental level, one in which the final elemental stiffness matrix is evaluated, and the second one in which all the matrix terms as stated are evaluated separately using the GPR surrogate model and then are added to get the final stiffness matrix at the elemental level. The effectiveness of both approaches has been worked out by comparing the present results with those available in the literature. Both the proposed methodologies can predict the behaviour of FG nanoplates with good accuracy. However, the second one is found to be outstanding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available