4.6 Article

On the use of graph neural networks and shape-function-based gradient computation in the deep energy method

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nme.7146

关键词

automatic differentiation; elasticity; hyperelasticity; partial differential equations; physics-informed neural networks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the application of graph convolutional networks in the deep energy method model for solving the momentum balance equation of linear elastic and hyperelastic materials in three-dimensional space. Numerical examples demonstrate that the proposed method achieves similar accuracy with shorter run time compared to traditional methods. The study also discusses two different spatial gradient computation techniques.
A graph convolutional network (GCN) is employed in the deep energy method (DEM) model to solve the momentum balance equation in three-dimensional space for the deformation of linear elastic and hyperelastic materials due to its ability to handle irregular domains over the traditional DEM method based on a multilayer perceptron (MLP) network. The method's accuracy and solution time are compared to the DEM model based on a MLP network. We demonstrate that the GCN-based model delivers similar accuracy while having a shorter run time through numerical examples. Two different spatial gradient computation techniques, one based on automatic differentiation (AD) and the other based on shape function (SF) gradients, are also accessed. We provide a simple example to demonstrate the strain localization instability associated with the AD-based gradient computation and show that the instability exists in more general cases by four numerical examples. The SF-based gradient computation is shown to be more robust and delivers an accurate solution even at severe deformations. Therefore, the combination of the GCN-based DEM model and SF-based gradient computation is potentially a promising candidate for solving problems involving severe material and geometric nonlinearities.

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

4.6
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