Comparison of Various Surrogate Models to Predict Stress Intensity Factor of a Crack Propagating in Offshore Piping

This paper examines the applicability of the different surrogate-models (SMs) to predict the stress intensity factor (SIF) of a crack propagating in topside piping, as an inexpensive alternative to the finite element methods (FEM). Six different SMs, namely, multilinear regression (MLR), polynomial...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of offshore mechanics and Arctic engineering 2017-12, Vol.139 (6)
Hauptverfasser: Keprate, Arvind, Chandima Ratnayake, R. M, Sankararaman, Shankar
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 6
container_start_page
container_title Journal of offshore mechanics and Arctic engineering
container_volume 139
creator Keprate, Arvind
Chandima Ratnayake, R. M
Sankararaman, Shankar
description This paper examines the applicability of the different surrogate-models (SMs) to predict the stress intensity factor (SIF) of a crack propagating in topside piping, as an inexpensive alternative to the finite element methods (FEM). Six different SMs, namely, multilinear regression (MLR), polynomial regression (PR) of order two, three, and four (with interaction), Gaussian process regression (GPR), neural networks (NN), relevance vector regression (RVR), and support vector regression (SVR) have been tested. Seventy data points (consisting of load (L), crack depth (a), half crack length (c) and SIF values obtained by FEM) are used to train the aforementioned SMs, while 30 data points are used for testing. In order to compare the accuracy of the SMs, four metrics, namely, root-mean-square error (RMSE), average absolute error (AAE), maximum absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R2) are used. A case study illustrating the comparison of the prediction capability of various SMs is presented. python and matlab are used to train and test the SMs. Although PR emerged as the best fit, GPR was selected as the best SM for SIF determination due to its capability of calculating the uncertainty related to the prediction values. The aforementioned uncertainty representation is quite valuable, as it is used to adaptively train the GPR model (GPRM), which further improves its prediction accuracy and makes it an accurate, faster, and alternative method to FEM for predicting SIF.
doi_str_mv 10.1115/1.4037290
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>asme_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1115_1_4037290</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>474801</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a249t-43bea1877aea6db2e8efb2ae48db2c321a727ef2545563be65024a22812c58253</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkM9PwjAUxxujiYgePHvp1cOwfWu37mgWQRIMJKjxtjzGGw5hXdpy4L-3BE7vRz7fl5cPY49SjKSU-kWOlEhzKMQVG0gNJjFF9nPNBsIUkOQgi1t25_1WCJmmWgyYL-2-R9d623Hb8O_Y2oPny4NzdoOB-Idd087zYPnC0bqtA18GR97zaReo82048jHWwbpTHHnpsP6LqO0xxttuw9uOz5vG_1pHfNH2cXXPbhrceXq41CH7Gr99lu_JbD6Zlq-zBEEVIVHpilCaPEfCbL0CMtSsAEmZONQpSMwhpwa00jqLbKYFKAQwEmptQKdD9ny-WzvrvaOm6l27R3espKhOtipZXWxF9unMot9TtbUH18XXKpUrE1X9Az-hZoI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Various Surrogate Models to Predict Stress Intensity Factor of a Crack Propagating in Offshore Piping</title><source>ASME Transactions Journals (Current)</source><creator>Keprate, Arvind ; Chandima Ratnayake, R. M ; Sankararaman, Shankar</creator><creatorcontrib>Keprate, Arvind ; Chandima Ratnayake, R. M ; Sankararaman, Shankar</creatorcontrib><description>This paper examines the applicability of the different surrogate-models (SMs) to predict the stress intensity factor (SIF) of a crack propagating in topside piping, as an inexpensive alternative to the finite element methods (FEM). Six different SMs, namely, multilinear regression (MLR), polynomial regression (PR) of order two, three, and four (with interaction), Gaussian process regression (GPR), neural networks (NN), relevance vector regression (RVR), and support vector regression (SVR) have been tested. Seventy data points (consisting of load (L), crack depth (a), half crack length (c) and SIF values obtained by FEM) are used to train the aforementioned SMs, while 30 data points are used for testing. In order to compare the accuracy of the SMs, four metrics, namely, root-mean-square error (RMSE), average absolute error (AAE), maximum absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R2) are used. A case study illustrating the comparison of the prediction capability of various SMs is presented. python and matlab are used to train and test the SMs. Although PR emerged as the best fit, GPR was selected as the best SM for SIF determination due to its capability of calculating the uncertainty related to the prediction values. The aforementioned uncertainty representation is quite valuable, as it is used to adaptively train the GPR model (GPRM), which further improves its prediction accuracy and makes it an accurate, faster, and alternative method to FEM for predicting SIF.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0892-7219</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-896X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1115/1.4037290</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>ASME</publisher><subject>Materials</subject><ispartof>Journal of offshore mechanics and Arctic engineering, 2017-12, Vol.139 (6)</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a249t-43bea1877aea6db2e8efb2ae48db2c321a727ef2545563be65024a22812c58253</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a249t-43bea1877aea6db2e8efb2ae48db2c321a727ef2545563be65024a22812c58253</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,38497</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Keprate, Arvind</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandima Ratnayake, R. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sankararaman, Shankar</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Various Surrogate Models to Predict Stress Intensity Factor of a Crack Propagating in Offshore Piping</title><title>Journal of offshore mechanics and Arctic engineering</title><addtitle>J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng</addtitle><description>This paper examines the applicability of the different surrogate-models (SMs) to predict the stress intensity factor (SIF) of a crack propagating in topside piping, as an inexpensive alternative to the finite element methods (FEM). Six different SMs, namely, multilinear regression (MLR), polynomial regression (PR) of order two, three, and four (with interaction), Gaussian process regression (GPR), neural networks (NN), relevance vector regression (RVR), and support vector regression (SVR) have been tested. Seventy data points (consisting of load (L), crack depth (a), half crack length (c) and SIF values obtained by FEM) are used to train the aforementioned SMs, while 30 data points are used for testing. In order to compare the accuracy of the SMs, four metrics, namely, root-mean-square error (RMSE), average absolute error (AAE), maximum absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R2) are used. A case study illustrating the comparison of the prediction capability of various SMs is presented. python and matlab are used to train and test the SMs. Although PR emerged as the best fit, GPR was selected as the best SM for SIF determination due to its capability of calculating the uncertainty related to the prediction values. The aforementioned uncertainty representation is quite valuable, as it is used to adaptively train the GPR model (GPRM), which further improves its prediction accuracy and makes it an accurate, faster, and alternative method to FEM for predicting SIF.</description><subject>Materials</subject><issn>0892-7219</issn><issn>1528-896X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotkM9PwjAUxxujiYgePHvp1cOwfWu37mgWQRIMJKjxtjzGGw5hXdpy4L-3BE7vRz7fl5cPY49SjKSU-kWOlEhzKMQVG0gNJjFF9nPNBsIUkOQgi1t25_1WCJmmWgyYL-2-R9d623Hb8O_Y2oPny4NzdoOB-Idd087zYPnC0bqtA18GR97zaReo82048jHWwbpTHHnpsP6LqO0xxttuw9uOz5vG_1pHfNH2cXXPbhrceXq41CH7Gr99lu_JbD6Zlq-zBEEVIVHpilCaPEfCbL0CMtSsAEmZONQpSMwhpwa00jqLbKYFKAQwEmptQKdD9ny-WzvrvaOm6l27R3espKhOtipZXWxF9unMot9TtbUH18XXKpUrE1X9Az-hZoI</recordid><startdate>20171201</startdate><enddate>20171201</enddate><creator>Keprate, Arvind</creator><creator>Chandima Ratnayake, R. M</creator><creator>Sankararaman, Shankar</creator><general>ASME</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171201</creationdate><title>Comparison of Various Surrogate Models to Predict Stress Intensity Factor of a Crack Propagating in Offshore Piping</title><author>Keprate, Arvind ; Chandima Ratnayake, R. M ; Sankararaman, Shankar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a249t-43bea1877aea6db2e8efb2ae48db2c321a727ef2545563be65024a22812c58253</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Materials</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Keprate, Arvind</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandima Ratnayake, R. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sankararaman, Shankar</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of offshore mechanics and Arctic engineering</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Keprate, Arvind</au><au>Chandima Ratnayake, R. M</au><au>Sankararaman, Shankar</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Various Surrogate Models to Predict Stress Intensity Factor of a Crack Propagating in Offshore Piping</atitle><jtitle>Journal of offshore mechanics and Arctic engineering</jtitle><stitle>J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng</stitle><date>2017-12-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>139</volume><issue>6</issue><issn>0892-7219</issn><eissn>1528-896X</eissn><abstract>This paper examines the applicability of the different surrogate-models (SMs) to predict the stress intensity factor (SIF) of a crack propagating in topside piping, as an inexpensive alternative to the finite element methods (FEM). Six different SMs, namely, multilinear regression (MLR), polynomial regression (PR) of order two, three, and four (with interaction), Gaussian process regression (GPR), neural networks (NN), relevance vector regression (RVR), and support vector regression (SVR) have been tested. Seventy data points (consisting of load (L), crack depth (a), half crack length (c) and SIF values obtained by FEM) are used to train the aforementioned SMs, while 30 data points are used for testing. In order to compare the accuracy of the SMs, four metrics, namely, root-mean-square error (RMSE), average absolute error (AAE), maximum absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R2) are used. A case study illustrating the comparison of the prediction capability of various SMs is presented. python and matlab are used to train and test the SMs. Although PR emerged as the best fit, GPR was selected as the best SM for SIF determination due to its capability of calculating the uncertainty related to the prediction values. The aforementioned uncertainty representation is quite valuable, as it is used to adaptively train the GPR model (GPRM), which further improves its prediction accuracy and makes it an accurate, faster, and alternative method to FEM for predicting SIF.</abstract><pub>ASME</pub><doi>10.1115/1.4037290</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0892-7219
ispartof Journal of offshore mechanics and Arctic engineering, 2017-12, Vol.139 (6)
issn 0892-7219
1528-896X
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1115_1_4037290
source ASME Transactions Journals (Current)
subjects Materials
title Comparison of Various Surrogate Models to Predict Stress Intensity Factor of a Crack Propagating in Offshore Piping
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T06%3A08%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-asme_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Various%20Surrogate%20Models%20to%20Predict%20Stress%20Intensity%20Factor%20of%20a%20Crack%20Propagating%20in%20Offshore%20Piping&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20offshore%20mechanics%20and%20Arctic%20engineering&rft.au=Keprate,%20Arvind&rft.date=2017-12-01&rft.volume=139&rft.issue=6&rft.issn=0892-7219&rft.eissn=1528-896X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1115/1.4037290&rft_dat=%3Casme_cross%3E474801%3C/asme_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true