4.7 Article

A multi-objective optimizer-based model for predicting composite material properties

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 284, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122746

关键词

Composite material; Property; Prediction; Machine learning; Multi-objective grey wolf optimizer; Support vector machine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A hybrid model combining multi-objective grey wolf optimizer and support vector machine was proposed to predict composite material properties in six datasets. The results showed that the model performed well in property prediction, and the prediction accuracy was closely related to the amount of data in the training set.
Composite material property testing usually requires multiple experiments if multiple variables, is timeconsuming. The practice in many fields indicates that machine learning models have great potential in solving this problem because they can predict the material properties through the existing data. In this work, a hybrid model combining multi-objective grey wolf optimizer and support vector machine is proposed to predict composite material properties in six datasets. Among them, three datasets have time series characteristics, and the rest do not. The results reveal that the proposed model performs well in the property prediction of composite materials, the mean absolute percentage error of the predictions ranged from 0.14% to 5.574%. Discussions indicate that the more data in the training set, the better the model's prediction performance. Moreover, machine learning models have great potential in composite material property testing and new material design. The correlation between different variables and material properties is analyzed, and the influence of input variables on prediction is also discussed. The results imply that if factors with weak linear correlation are not used as input, the model's prediction accuracy in some datasets may be improved. (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据