A machine learning-based comparative analysis of surrogate models for design optimisation in computational fluid dynamics

Complex computer codes are frequently used in engineering to generate outputs based on inputs, which can make it difficult for designers to understand the relationship between inputs and outputs and to determine the best input values. One solution to this issue is to use design of experiments (DOE)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mukhtar A., Yasir A.S.H.M., Nasir M.F.M.
Other Authors: 57195426549
Format: Article
Published: Elsevier Ltd 2024
Subjects:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my.uniten.dspace-34115
record_format dspace
spelling my.uniten.dspace-341152024-10-14T11:18:01Z A machine learning-based comparative analysis of surrogate models for design optimisation in computational fluid dynamics Mukhtar A. Yasir A.S.H.M. Nasir M.F.M. 57195426549 58518504200 59270953100 -Surrogate model Design of experiment (DOE) Kriging-based model Polynomial regression (PR) Underground shelter Complex computer codes are frequently used in engineering to generate outputs based on inputs, which can make it difficult for designers to understand the relationship between inputs and outputs and to determine the best input values. One solution to this issue is to use design of experiments (DOE) in combination with surrogate models. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to select the appropriate model for a given data set. This study compares two surrogate modelling techniques, polynomial regression (PR) and kriging-based models, and analyses critical issues in design optimisation, such as DOE selection, design sensitivity, and model adequacy. The study concludes that PR is more efficient for model generation, while kriging-based models are better for assessing max-min search results due to their ability to predict a broader range of objective values. The number and location of design points can affect the performance of the model, and the error of kriging-based models is lower than that of PR. Furthermore, design sensitivity information is important for improving surrogate model efficiency, and PR is better suited to determining the design variable with the greatest impact on response. The findings of this study will be valuable to engineering simulation practitioners and researchers by providing insight into the selection of appropriate surrogate models. All in all, the study demonstrates surrogate modelling techniques can be used to solve complex engineering problems effectively. � 2023 Final 2024-10-14T03:18:01Z 2024-10-14T03:18:01Z 2023 Article 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18674 2-s2.0-85166631212 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85166631212&doi=10.1016%2fj.heliyon.2023.e18674&partnerID=40&md5=4c3e9f4def7af5e6af5fa7d427ae5abd https://irepository.uniten.edu.my/handle/123456789/34115 9 8 e18674 All Open Access Gold Open Access Elsevier Ltd Scopus
institution Universiti Tenaga Nasional
building UNITEN Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider Universiti Tenaga Nasional
content_source UNITEN Institutional Repository
url_provider http://dspace.uniten.edu.my/
topic -Surrogate model
Design of experiment (DOE)
Kriging-based model
Polynomial regression (PR)
Underground shelter
spellingShingle -Surrogate model
Design of experiment (DOE)
Kriging-based model
Polynomial regression (PR)
Underground shelter
Mukhtar A.
Yasir A.S.H.M.
Nasir M.F.M.
A machine learning-based comparative analysis of surrogate models for design optimisation in computational fluid dynamics
description Complex computer codes are frequently used in engineering to generate outputs based on inputs, which can make it difficult for designers to understand the relationship between inputs and outputs and to determine the best input values. One solution to this issue is to use design of experiments (DOE) in combination with surrogate models. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to select the appropriate model for a given data set. This study compares two surrogate modelling techniques, polynomial regression (PR) and kriging-based models, and analyses critical issues in design optimisation, such as DOE selection, design sensitivity, and model adequacy. The study concludes that PR is more efficient for model generation, while kriging-based models are better for assessing max-min search results due to their ability to predict a broader range of objective values. The number and location of design points can affect the performance of the model, and the error of kriging-based models is lower than that of PR. Furthermore, design sensitivity information is important for improving surrogate model efficiency, and PR is better suited to determining the design variable with the greatest impact on response. The findings of this study will be valuable to engineering simulation practitioners and researchers by providing insight into the selection of appropriate surrogate models. All in all, the study demonstrates surrogate modelling techniques can be used to solve complex engineering problems effectively. � 2023
author2 57195426549
author_facet 57195426549
Mukhtar A.
Yasir A.S.H.M.
Nasir M.F.M.
format Article
author Mukhtar A.
Yasir A.S.H.M.
Nasir M.F.M.
author_sort Mukhtar A.
title A machine learning-based comparative analysis of surrogate models for design optimisation in computational fluid dynamics
title_short A machine learning-based comparative analysis of surrogate models for design optimisation in computational fluid dynamics
title_full A machine learning-based comparative analysis of surrogate models for design optimisation in computational fluid dynamics
title_fullStr A machine learning-based comparative analysis of surrogate models for design optimisation in computational fluid dynamics
title_full_unstemmed A machine learning-based comparative analysis of surrogate models for design optimisation in computational fluid dynamics
title_sort machine learning-based comparative analysis of surrogate models for design optimisation in computational fluid dynamics
publisher Elsevier Ltd
publishDate 2024
_version_ 1814061166605893632
score 13.214268