4.6 Article

Data-Driven Design of Electrically Conductive Nanocomposite Materials: A Case Study of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene/Carbon Nanotube Binary Composites

期刊

ADVANCED INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/aisy.202200399

关键词

acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene; carbon nanotubes; deep learning; deep neural network; machine learning; Monte Carlo simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the use of online literature data to develop an efficient deep learning model for designing ABS/CNT binary composites. The proposed model achieves a 26% lower average mean absolute error and an accuracy of 80.6%, which is 16.2% higher than the traditional model, in predicting the electrical and mechanical properties of ABS/CNT composites. Additionally, a Monte Carlo simulation integrated with the deep neural network model effectively screens input variables and guides users in manufacturing composite products with desired physical properties.
The field of polymer-based nanoscience has always been of significant interest in the search for polymer/carbon nanotube (CNT) nanocomposites with optimized material properties for new applications. Herein, it is demonstrated that data collected from the online literature can be used to develop an efficient deep learning model to design acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS)/CNT binary composites. A dataset of 14 945 data points is constructed from 110 studies. The results demonstrate that compared with a vanilla deep regression model, the proposed model achieves a 26% lower average mean absolute error and an accuracy of 80.6%, which is 16.2% higher than the vanilla deep regression model in predicting the six electrical and mechanical properties of target ABS/CNT composites. In addition, a Monte Carlo simulation integrated with the developed deep neural network (DNN) model effectively screens input variables for users and thus appropriately guides them to manufacture a composite product with desired physical properties.

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