journal article·2025-01-13Open access

Accelerating phase field simulations through a hybrid adaptive Fourier neural operator with U-net backbone

Christophe Bonneville, Nathan Bieberdorf, Arun Hegde, Mark Asta, Habib N. Najm, Laurent Capolungo, Cosmin Safta

npj Computational Materials· Volume 11· Issue 1

Abstract

Abstract Prolonged contact between a corrosive liquid and metal alloys can cause progressive dealloying. For one such process as liquid-metal dealloying (LMD), phase field models have been developed to understand the mechanisms leading to complex morphologies. However, the LMD governing equations in these models often involve coupled non-linear partial differential equations (PDE), which are challenging to solve numerically. In particular, numerical stiffness in the PDEs requires an extremely refined time step size (on the order of 10−12 s or smaller). This computational bottleneck is especially problematic when running LMD simulation until a late time horizon is required. This motivates the development of surrogate models capable of leaping forward in time, by skipping several consecutive time steps at-once. In this paper, we propose a U-shaped adaptive Fourier neural operator (U-AFNO), a machine learning (ML) based model inspired by recent advances in neural operator learning. U-AFNO employs U-Nets for extracting and reconstructing local features within the physical fields, and passes the latent space through a vision transformer (ViT) implemented in the Fourier space (AFNO). We use U-AFNOs to learn the dynamics of mapping the field at a current time step into a later time step. We also identify global quantities of interest (QoI) describing the corrosion process (e.g., the deformation of the liquid-metal interface, lost metal, etc.) and show that our proposed U-AFNO model is able to accurately predict the field dynamics, in spite of the chaotic nature of LMD. Most notably, our model reproduces the key microstructure statistics and QoIs with a level of accuracy on par with the high-fidelity numerical solver, while achieving a significant 11, 200 × speed-up on a high-resolution grid when comparing the computational expense per time step. Finally, we also investigate the opportunity of using hybrid simulations, in which we alternate forward leaps in time using the U-AFNO with high-fidelity time stepping. We demonstrate that while advantageous for some surrogate model design choices, our proposed U-AFNO model in fully auto-regressive settings consistently outperforms hybrid schemes.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Nanoporous metals and alloys · Solidification and crystal growth phenomena · Advanced Mathematical Modeling in Engineering

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (88)

Show source-provided references
1. Chen, L.-Q. Phase-field models for microstructure evolution. Ann. Rev. Mater. Res. 32, 113–140 (2002).10.1146/annurev.matsci.32.112001.132041 ↗
2. Karma, A. In Encyclopedia of Materials: Science and Technology (eds Buschow, K. J. et al.) (Elsevier, 2001).
3. Steinbach, I. Phase-field models in materials science. Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 17, 073001 (2009).10.1088/0965-0393/17/7/073001 ↗
4. Provatas, N., Goldenfeld, N. & Dantzig, J. Adaptive mesh refinement computation of solidification microstructures using dynamic data structures. J. Comput. Phys. 148, 265–290 (1999).10.1006/jcph.1998.6122 ↗
5. Karma, A. & Rappel, W.-J. Phase-field method for computationally efficient modeling of solidification with arbitrary interface kinetics. Phys. Rev. E 53, R3017–R3020 (1996).10.1103/PhysRevE.53.R3017 ↗
6. Karma, A. & Rappel, W.-J. Quantitative phase-field modeling of dendritic growth in two and three dimensions. Phys. Rev. E 57, 4323–4349 (1998).10.1103/PhysRevE.57.4323 ↗
7. Karma, A. Phase-field formulation for quantitative modeling of alloy solidification. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 115701 (2001).10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.115701 ↗
8. Harrison, J. & Wagner, C. The attack of solid alloys by liquid metals and salt melts. Acta Metall. 7, 722–735 (1959).10.1016/0001-6160(59)90178-6 ↗
9. Erlebacher, J., Aziz, M. J., Karma, A., Dimitrov, N. & Sieradzki, K. Evolution of nanoporosity in dealloying. Nature 410, 450–453 (2001).10.1038/35068529 ↗
10. McCue, I., Karma, A. & Erlebacher, J. Pattern formation during electrochemical and liquid metal dealloying. MRS Bull. 43, 27–34 (2018).10.1557/mrs.2017.301 ↗
11. McCue, I., Gaskey, B., Geslin, P.-A., Karma, A. & Erlebacher, J. Kinetics and morphological evolution of liquid metal dealloying. Acta Mater. 115, 10–23 (2016).10.1016/j.actamat.2016.05.032 ↗
12. Wada, T., Geslin, P.-A., Wei, D. & Kato, H. Partial liquid metal dealloying to synthesize nickel-containing porous and composite ferrous and high-entropy alloys. Commun. Mater. 4, 43 (2023).10.1038/s43246-023-00374-3 ↗
13. Liu, X. et al. Formation of three-dimensional bicontinuous structures via molten salt dealloying studied in real-time by in situ synchrotron x-ray nano-tomography. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–12 (2021).10.1038/s41467-020-20314-w ↗
14. Calderoni, P. & Cabet, C. In Nuclear Corrosion Science and Engineering (ed. Féron, D.) Ch. 23 (Woodhead Publishing, 2012).
15. Roper, R. et al. Molten salt for advanced energy applications: a review. Ann. Nucl. Energy 169, 108924 (2022).10.1016/j.anucene.2021.108924 ↗
16. Geslin, P.-A., Mccue, I., Gaskey, B., Erlebacher, J. & Karma, A. Topology-generating interfacial pattern formation during liquid metal dealloying. Nat. Commun. 6, 8887 (2015).10.1038/ncomms9887 ↗
17. chen Karen Chen-Wiegart, Y. et al. Structural evolution of nanoporous gold during thermal coarsening. Acta Mater. 60, 4972–4981 (2012).10.1016/j.actamat.2012.05.012 ↗
18. Lai, L., Gaskey, B., Chuang, A., Erlebacher, J. & Karma, A. Topological control of liquid-metal-dealloyed structures. Nat. Commun. 13, 2918 (2022).10.1038/s41467-022-30483-5 ↗
19. Lai, L., Geslin, P.-A. & Karma, A. Microstructural pattern formation during liquid metal dealloying: phase-field simulations and theoretical analyses. Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 093803 (2022).10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.6.093803 ↗
20. Bieberdorf, N., Asta, M. & Capolungo, L. Grain boundary effects in high-temperature liquid-metal dealloying: a multi-phase field study. npj Comput. Mater. 9, 127 (2023).10.1038/s41524-023-01076-7 ↗
21. Biegler, L. et al. Large-scale inverse problems and quantification of uncertainty. http://hdl.handle.net/10754/656260 (2010).10.1002/9780470685853 ↗
22. Smith, R. C. Uncertainty Quantification - Theory, Implementation, and Applications (SIAM, 2013).10.1137/1.9781611973228 ↗
23. Galbally, D., Fidkowski, K., Willcox, K. & Ghattas, O. Non-linear model reduction for uncertainty quantification in large-scale inverse problems. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 81, 1581–1608 (2010).10.1002/nme.2746 ↗
24. Fountoulakis, V. & Earls, C. Duct heights inferred from radar sea clutter using proper orthogonal bases. Radio Sci. 51, 1614–1626 (2016).10.1002/2016RS005998 ↗
25. Peherstorfer, B., Willcox, K. & Gunzburger, M. Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization. Siam Rev. 60, 550–591 (2018).10.1137/16M1082469 ↗
26. Wang, S., Sturler, E. D. & Paulino, G. H. Large-scale topology optimization using preconditioned Krylov subspace methods with recycling. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 69, 2441–2468 (2007).10.1002/nme.1798 ↗
27. White, D., Choi, Y. & Kudo, J. A dual mesh method with adaptivity for stress-constrained topology optimization. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 61, 749–762 (2020).10.1007/s00158-019-02393-6 ↗
28. Forrester, A., Sobester, A. & Keane, A. Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling: A Practical Guide (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).10.1002/9780470770801 ↗
29. Berkooz, G., Holmes, P. & Lumley, J. L. The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 25, 539–575 (1993).10.1146/annurev.fl.25.010193.002543 ↗
30. Rozza, G., Huynh, D. & Patera, A. Reduced basis approximation and a posteriori error estimation for affinely parametrized elliptic coercive partial differential equations. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 15, 1–47 (2007).10.1007/BF03024948 ↗
31. Benner, P., Gugercin, S. & Willcox, K. A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems. SIAM Rev. 57, 483–531 (2015).10.1137/130932715 ↗
32. Benner, P. et al. Model Reduction and Approximation: Theory and Algorithms (SIAM, 2017).10.1137/1.9781611974829 ↗
33. Safonov, M. G. & Chiang, R. Y. A schur method for balanced model reduction. In 1988 American Control Conference 1036–1040 (1988).10.23919/ACC.1988.4789873 ↗
34. Stabile, G. & Rozza, G. Finite volume POD-galerkin stabilised reduced order methods for the parametrised incompressible navier–stokes equations. Comput. Fluids 173, 273–284 (2018).10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.01.035 ↗
35. Iliescu, T. & Wang, Z. Variational multiscale proper orthogonal decomposition: Navier-stokes equations. Numer. Methods Partial Differ. Equ. 30, 641–663 (2014).10.1002/num.21835 ↗
36. Copeland, D. M., Cheung, S. W., Huynh, K. & Choi, Y. Reduced order models for lagrangian hydrodynamics. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 388, 114259 (2022).10.1016/j.cma.2021.114259 ↗
37. Cheung, S. W., Choi, Y., Copeland, D. M. & Huynh, K. Local lagrangian reduced-order modeling for rayleigh-taylor instability by solution manifold decomposition. J. Comput. Phys. 472, 111655 (2023).10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111655 ↗
38. McLaughlin, B., Peterson, J. & Ye, M. Stabilized reduced order models for the advection–diffusion–reaction equation using operator splitting. Comput. Math. Appl. 71, 2407–2420 (2016).10.1016/j.camwa.2016.01.032 ↗
39. Holmes, P. Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems and Symmetry (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).10.1017/CBO9780511919701 ↗
40. Amsallem, D., Cortial, J., Carlberg, K. & Farhat, C. A method for interpolating on manifolds structural dynamics reduced-order models. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 80, 1241–1258 (2009).10.1002/nme.2681 ↗
41. Georgiou, I. T. & Schwartz, I. B. Dynamics of large scale coupled structural/mechanical systems: a singular perturbation/proper orthogonal decomposition approach. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 59, 1178–1207 (1999).10.1137/S0036139997299802 ↗
42. Guyan, R. J. Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices. AIAA J. 3, 380–380 (1965).10.2514/3.2874 ↗
43. Antoulas, A. C. Approximation of Large-Scale Dynamical Systems (SIAM, 2005).10.1137/1.9780898718713 ↗
44. Krener, A. J. Analysis and Design of Nonlinear Control Systems: In Honor of Alberto Isidori (Springer, 2008).
45. Strazzullo, M., Ballarin, F., Mosetti, R. & Rozza, G. Model reduction for parametrized optimal control problems in environmental marine sciences and engineering. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 40, B1055–B1079 (2018).10.1137/17M1150591 ↗
46. Lee, K. & Carlberg, K. T. Model reduction of dynamical systems on nonlinear manifolds using deep convolutional autoencoders. J. Computat. Phys. 404, 108973 (2020).10.1016/j.jcp.2019.108973 ↗
47. Kutz, J. N. Deep learning in fluid dynamics. J. Fluid Mech. 814, 1–4 (2017).10.1017/jfm.2016.803 ↗
48. Bonneville, C., Choi, Y., Ghosh, D. & Belof, J. L. Gplasdi: Gaussian process-based interpretable latent space dynamics identification through deep autoencoder. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 418, 116535 (2024).10.1016/j.cma.2023.116535 ↗
49. Bonneville, C. et al. A comprehensive review of latent space dynamics identification algorithms for intrusive and non-intrusive reduced-order-modeling. Preprint at arXiv:2403.10748 (2024).
50. Kovachki, N. B. et al. Neural operator: learning maps between function spaces with Application to PDEs. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 24, 1–97 (2023).
51. Li, Z. et al. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2021).
52. Lu, L., Jin, P., Pang, G., Zhang, Z. & Karniadakis, G. E. Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 218–229 (2021).10.1038/s42256-021-00302-5 ↗
53. Cao, Q., Goswami, S. & Karniadakis, G. E. Lno: Laplace neural operator for solving differential equations. Nat. Mach. Intell. 6, 631–640 (2024).10.1038/s42256-024-00844-4 ↗
54. Raonić, B. et al. Convolutional neural operators for robust and accurate learning of PDEs. In NIPS '23: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2023).
55. Choubineh, A., Chen, J., Wood, D. A., Coenen, F. & Ma, F. Fourier neural operator for fluid flow in small-shape 2d simulated porous media dataset. Algorithms. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/16/1/24 (2023).10.3390/a16010024 ↗
56. Li, Z., Peng, W., Zelong, Y. & Wang, J. Fourier neural operator approach to large eddy simulation of three-dimensional turbulence. Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 12, 100389 (2022).10.1016/j.taml.2022.100389 ↗
57. Pornthisan, N. & Markidis, S. Fast electromagnetic field pattern calculation with fourier neural operators. In Computational Science – ICCS 2023 247–255 (eds Mikyška, J. et al.) (Springer Nature, 2023).10.1007/978-3-031-36021-3_24 ↗
58. Cai, S., Wang, Z., Lu, L., Zaki, T. A. & Karniadakis, G. E. Deepm&mnet: Inferring the electroconvection multiphysics fields based on operator approximation by neural networks. J. Comput. Phys. 436, 110296 (2021).10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110296 ↗
59. Goswami, S., Yin, M., Yu, Y. & Karniadakis, G. E. A physics-informed variational deeponet for predicting crack path in quasi-brittle materials. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 391, 114587 (2022).10.1016/j.cma.2022.114587 ↗
60. Pathak, J. et al. Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-resolution weather model using adaptive fourier neural operators. Preprint at arXiv:2202.11214 (2022).
61. Kurth, T. et al. Fourcastnet: Accelerating global high-resolution weather forecasting using adaptive fourier neural operators. In Proc. Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing Conference, PASC ’23 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2023).10.1145/3592979.3593412 ↗
62. Oommen, V., Shukla, K., Goswami, S., Dingreville, R. & Karniadakis, G. Learning two-phase microstructure evolution using neural operators and autoencoder architectures. npj Comput. Mater. 8, 190 (2022).10.1038/s41524-022-00876-7 ↗
63. Wen, G., Li, Z., Azizzadenesheli, K., Anandkumar, A. & Benson, S. M. U-fno – an enhanced fourier neural operator-based deep-learning model for multiphase flow. Adv. Water Resour. 163, 104180 (2022).10.1016/j.advwatres.2022.104180 ↗
64. Gopakumar, V. et al. Fourier neural operator for plasma modelling. Preprint at arXiv:2302.06542. (2023).
65. Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T. U-net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015, 234–241 (2015).10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28 ↗
66. Dosovitskiy, A. et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2021).
67. Diab, W. & Al-Kobaisi, M. U-deeponet: U-net enhanced deep operator network for geologic carbon sequestration. Sci. Rep. 14, 21298 (2024).10.1038/s41598-024-72393-0 ↗
68. Li, Z., Peng, W., Yuan, Z. & Wang, J. Long-term predictions of turbulence by implicit U-Net enhanced Fourier neural operator. Phys. Fluids 35, 075145 (2023).10.1063/5.0158830 ↗
69. Ovadia, O., Kahana, A., Stinis, P., Turkel, E. & Karniadakis, G. E. Vito: Vision transformer-operator. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 428, 117109 (2024).10.1016/j.cma.2024.117109 ↗
70. Ovadia, O. et al. Real-time inference and extrapolation via a diffusion-inspired temporal transformer operator (ditto). Preprint at arXiv:2307.09072 (2023).
71. Guibas, J. et al. Adaptive fourier neural operators: efficient token mixers for transformers. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2022).
72. Li, Z. et al. Learning dissipative dynamics in chaotic systems. In 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2022).
73. Oommen, V., Shukla, K., Desai, S., Dingreville, R. & Karniadakis, G. E. Rethinking materials simulations: blending direct numerical simulations with neural operators. npj Comput. Mater. 10, 145 (2024).10.1038/s41524-024-01319-1 ↗
74. Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2015).
75. Paszke, A. et al. Pytorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2019).
76. Vakili, S., Steinbach, I. & Varnik, F. On the numerical evaluation of local curvature for diffuse interface models of microstructure evolution. Procedia Comput. Sci. 108, 1852–1862 (2017).10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.256 ↗
77. Tran, A., Liu, D., Tran, H. & Wang, Y. Quantifying uncertainty in the process-structure relationship for al–cu solidification. Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 27, 064005 (2019).10.1088/1361-651X/ab2690 ↗
78. Herman, E., Stewart, J. A. & Dingreville, R. A data-driven surrogate model to rapidly predict microstructure morphology during physical vapor deposition. Appl. Math. Model. 88, 589–603 (2020).10.1016/j.apm.2020.06.046 ↗
79. Li, Z. et al. Physics-informed neural operator for learning partial differential equations. ACM/JMS J. Data Sci. 1, (2024).10.1145/3648506 ↗
80. Steinbach, I. & Pezzolla, F. A generalized field method for multiphase transformations using interface fields. Phys. D. 134, 385–393 (1999).10.1016/S0167-2789(99)00129-3 ↗
81. Badalassi, V. E., Ceniceros, H. D. & Banerjee, S. Computation of multiphase systems with phase field models. J. Comput. Phys. 190, 371–397 (2003).10.1016/S0021-9991(03)00280-8 ↗
82. Han, K. et al. A survey on vision transformer. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 45, 87–110 (2023).10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3152247 ↗
83. Khan, S. et al. Transformers in vision: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 1–41 (2022).10.1145/3505244 ↗
84. Hao, Z. et al. Dpot: auto-regressive denoising operator transformer for large-scale pde pre-training. Preprint at arXiv:2403.03542 (2024).
85. Varghese, A. J., Bora, A., Xu, M. & Karniadakis, G. E. Transformerg2g: adaptive time-stepping for learning temporal graph embeddings using transformers. Neural Netw. 172, 106086 (2024).10.1016/j.neunet.2023.12.040 ↗
86. Li, Z., Meidani, K. & Farimani, A. B. Transformer for partial differential equations’ operator learning. In Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2023).
87. Vaswani, A. et al. Attention is all you need. In 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2017).
88. Beyer, L. et al. Flexivit: one model for all patch sizes. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023).10.1109/CVPR52729.2023.01393 ↗