Analysis of data‐driven models for predicting fatigue strength of steel components with uncertainty quantification
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Material informatics has emerged as a valuable research field in material science, providing solutions to previously unsolvable problems or accelerating deliverables. Fatigue failure, as a complex and non‐deterministic phenomenon, requires a probabilistic approach to assess the uncertainty of the fatigue strength prediction. This study compares various probabilistic data‐driven models for credible fatigue strength predictions for three distinct steel groups. The analysis considers data and model uncertainty, evaluating their impacts on predictive quality from engineering and data science perspectives. Results reveal that deep ensembles outperform other probabilistic models regarding negative log‐likelihood (NLL), while random forest exhibits the lowest root mean square error (RMSE). Notably, the prediction accuracy of case‐hardened steels is negatively affected by insufficient material properties definitions, while stainless steels demonstrate the best performance compared to other steel types.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fatigue and fracture mechanics · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Hydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
CR Robert Bosch GmbH Renningen Germany
Laboratory for Micro‐ and Materials Mechanics University of Freiburg Freiburg im Breisgau Germany
Fraunhofer Institute for Mechanics of Materials Freiburg im Breisgau Germany
References (70)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.msea.2017.01.07010.1016/j.msea.2017.01.070 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2010.01.00310.1016/j.ijfatigue.2010.01.003 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.10662110.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106621 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.10679210.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.106792 ↗
5. 10.3390/ma1218285210.3390/ma12182852 ↗
6. Institution BS · 1999
7. 10.1007/BF0326657710.1007/BF03266577 ↗
8. NorsokS.Design of steel structures. N‐004 Rev 2;2004.
9. RP579API.Recommended practice for fitness‐for‐service. American Petroleum Institute.2000.
10. 10.1115/1.404771210.1115/1.4047712 ↗
11. 10.1007/978-3-658-17459-010.1007/978-3-658-17459-0 ↗
12. 10.1186/2193-9772-3-810.1186/2193-9772-3-8 ↗
13. 10.1111/ffe.1364010.1111/ffe.13640 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.jmst.2021.02.02110.1016/j.jmst.2021.02.021 ↗
15. 10.1063/5.004556110.1063/5.0045561 ↗
16. KolyshkinA FrieC FroschmeierT.Datenbasierte lebensdauervorhersage. 48 Tagung des DVM‐Arbeitskreises Betriebsfestigkeit.2022.https://dvm-wissen.de/gb/betriebsfestigkeit-2022/240-BF-2022-017.html
17. WeichertD KisterA HoubenS ErnisG WrobelS.Robustness in fatigue strength estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:221201136;2022.
18. 10.1007/s11431-020-1599-510.1007/s11431-020-1599-5 ↗
19. Castillo E · 2009
20. 10.1007/978-0-387-45528-010.1007/978-0-387-45528-0 ↗
21. 10.1007/s10994-021-05946-310.1007/s10994-021-05946-3 ↗
22. GawlikowskiJ TassiCRN AliM other.A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks.2022.
23. WangH YeungD‐Y.A survey on bayesian deep learning.2021.
24. 10.1109/MCI.2022.315532710.1109/MCI.2022.3155327 ↗
25. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles
26. WangH YeungD‐Y.Towards Bayesian deep learning: a framework and some existing methods.2016.10.1109/TKDE.2016.2606428 ↗
27. GalY GhahramaniZ.Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: representing model uncertainty in deep learning.2016.
28. KingmaDP BaJ.Adam: a method for stochastic optimization.2017.
29. ZhangR LiC ZhangJ ChenC WilsonAG.Cyclical stochastic gradient MCMC for Bayesian deep learning.2020.
30. WellingM TehYW.Bayesian learning via stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics.2011.
31. AminiA SchwartingW SoleimanyA RusD.Deep evidential regression.2020.
32. WagerS HastieT EfronB.Confidence intervals for random forests: the jackknife and the infinitesimal jackknife.2014.
33. NixDA WeigendAS.Estimating the mean and variance of the target probability distribution. In: Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN'94) Vol. 1;1994:55‐60 vol.1.10.1109/ICNN.1994.374138 ↗
34. What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision?
35. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.298107210.1109/ACCESS.2020.2981072 ↗
36. ProbstP BischlB BoulesteixA‐L.Tunability: importance of hyperparameters of machine learning algorithms.2018.
37. Practical Bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms
38. SnoekJ RippelO SwerskyK et al.Scalable Bayesian optimization using deep neural networks. In: International Conference on Machine Learning PMLR;2015:2171‐2180.
39. Bergstra J · 2011
40. GuoC PleissG SunY WeinbergerKQ.On calibration of modern neural networks.2017.
41. KuleshovV FennerN ErmonS.Accurate uncertainties for deep learning using calibrated regression.2018.
42. LeeK LeeH LeeK ShinJ.Training confidence‐calibrated classifiers for detecting out‐of‐distribution samples.2018.
43. WilsonAG IzmailovP.Bayesian deep learning and a probabilistic perspective of generalization.2022.
44. ChungY CharI GuoH SchneiderJ NeiswangerW.Uncertainty toolbox: an open‐source library for assessing visualizing and improving uncertainty quantification.2021.
45. The exponential law of endurance tests
46. 10.1016/S0142-1123(98)00048-610.1016/S0142-1123(98)00048-6 ↗
47. KöderM.Schwingfestigkeitsnachweis für innendruckbelastete common‐rail‐bauteile aus 100cr6 unter berücksichtigung hochzyklischer betriebsbeanspruchungen.2014.
48. Die lebensdauer von kugellagern
49. 10.1098/rspa.1914.006610.1098/rspa.1914.0066 ↗
50. GarwoodMF.Interpretation of tests and correlation with service. ASM 1;1951.
51. 10.1017/CBO978051181094710.1017/CBO9780511810947 ↗
52. Murakami Y · 2002
53. 10.1016/j.msea.2012.11.10310.1016/j.msea.2012.11.103 ↗
54. 10.1017/CBO978051180657510.1017/CBO9780511806575 ↗
55. 10.1080/14686996.2019.168057410.1080/14686996.2019.1680574 ↗
56. EllmerF EsdertsA EulitzK‐G HinkelmannK.Forschungskuratorium maschinenbau. Datenbank und auswertesystem betriebsfestigkeit.FKM‐Vorhaben;2011.
57. 10.1063/5.004556110.1063/5.0045561 ↗
58. 10.1007/s11431-020-1599-510.1007/s11431-020-1599-5 ↗
59. Sander M · 2008
60. AbadiM AgarwalA BarhamP other.TensorFlow: large‐scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems.https://www.tensorflow.org/ Software available from tensorflow.org;2015.
61. Scikit‐learn: machine learning in Python
62. 10.1088/1749-4699/8/1/01400810.1088/1749-4699/8/1/014008 ↗
63. DuaD GraffC.UCI machine learning repository. University of California Irvine School of Information and Computer Sciences.2017.http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml
64. GustafssonFK DanelljanM SchonTB.Evaluating scalable Bayesian deep learning methods for robust computer vision. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops.2020:318‐319.10.1109/CVPRW50498.2020.00167 ↗
65. BeluchWH GeneweinT NurnbergerA KohlerJM.The power of ensembles for active learning in image classification.2018.10.1109/CVPR.2018.00976 ↗
66. BorisovV LeemannT SesslerK HaugJ PawelczykM KasneciG.Deep neural networks and tabular data: a survey. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems PP.2021.10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3229161 ↗
67. LeviD GispanL GiladiN FetayaE.Evaluating and calibrating uncertainty prediction in regression tasks.2020.
68. RahamanR ThieryAH.Uncertainty quantification and deep ensembles.2021.
69. 10.1016/0956-7151(94)90493-610.1016/0956-7151(94)90493-6 ↗
70. 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2008.06.00110.1016/j.pmatsci.2008.06.001 ↗