journal article·2025-07-23Open access

Multi-Objective Automated Machine Learning for Inversion of Mesoscopic Parameters in Discrete Element Contact Models

Xu Ao, Shengpeng Hao, Yuyu Zhang, Wenyu Xu

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 15

Abstract

Accurate calibration of mesoscopic contact model parameters is essential for ensuring the reliability of Particle Flow Code in Three Dimensions (PFC3D) simulations in geotechnical engineering. Trial-and-error approaches are often used to determine the parameters of the contact model, but they are time-consuming, labor-intensive, and offer no guarantee of parameter validity or simulation credibility. Although conventional machine learning techniques have been applied to invert the contact model parameters, they are hampered by the difficulty of selecting the optimal hyperparameters and, in some cases, insufficient data, which limits both the predictive accuracy and robustness. In this study, a total of 361 PFC3D uniaxial compression simulations using a linear parallel bond model with varied mesoscopic parameters were generated to capture a wide range of rock and geotechnical material behaviors. From each stress–strain curve, eight characteristic points were extracted as inputs to a multi-objective Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) model designed to invert three key mesoscopic parameters, i.e., the elastic modulus (E), stiffness ratio (ks/kn), and degraded elastic modulus (Ed). The developed AutoML model, comprising two hidden layers of 256 and 32 neurons with ReLU activation function, achieved coefficients of determination (R2) of 0.992, 0.710, and 0.521 for E, ks/kn, and Ed, respectively, demonstrating acceptable predictive accuracy and generalizability. The multi-objective AutoML model was also applied to invert the parameters from three independent uniaxial compression tests on rock-like materials to validate its practical performance. The close match between the experimental and numerically simulated stress–strain curves confirmed the model’s reliability for mesoscopic parameter inversion in PFC3D.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Manufacturing Process and Optimization · Gear and Bearing Dynamics Analysis · Tunneling and Rock Mechanics

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

Affiliations

School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China

State Key Laboratory of Coal Mine Disaster Dynamics and Control, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China

Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Montréal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China · Chongqing Natural Science Foundation General Project · Postdoctoral Research Foundation of China · Special Funding for Research Projects of Postdoctoral Researchers in Chongqing

References (38)

Show source-provided references
1. Preliminary study on PFC3D microparameter calibration using optimization of an artificial neural network10.1088/1755-1315/833/1/012096 ↗
2. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies10.1680/geot.1979.29.1.47 ↗
3. Numerical simulation of failure process of rock-like materials subjected to impact loads10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000778 ↗
4. A bonded-particle model for rock10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.09.011 ↗
5. Application of experimental design and optimization to PFC model calibration in uniaxial compression simulation10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.01.004 ↗
6. Influence of mesoscopic defects on the mechanical behaviour of granites based on a three-dimensional multilevel force chain network10.1007/s00603-024-04011-4 ↗
7. Chen, Y.-L., Pan, Y.-G., Du, X., Chen, Q.-J., Liao, S.-M., Zhang, N., Wang, S.-R., and Peng, B. (2022). A quantitative study of micro and macro mechanical parameters based on the PFC3D flat-joint model. Materials, 15.10.3390/ma15196790 ↗
8. An integrated parameter calibration method and sensitivity analysis of microparameters on mechanical behavior of transversely isotropic rocks10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104573 ↗
9. Identification of DEM simulation parameters by artificial neural networks and bulk experiments10.1016/j.powtec.2016.01.003 ↗
10. Topological phonon transport in an optomechanical system10.1038/s41467-022-30941-0 ↗
11. Microparameter prediction for a triaxial compression PFC3D model of rock using full factorial designs and artificial neural networks10.1007/s10706-013-9647-1 ↗
12. Hutter, F., Kotthoff, L., and Vanschoren, J. (2019). Automated Machine Learning: Methods, Systems, Challenges, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-05318-5 ↗
13. Jin, H., Song, Q., and Hu, X. (2019, January 4–8). Auto-keras: An efficient neural architecture search system. Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, New York, NY, USA.10.1145/3292500.3330648 ↗
14. Xu, W., Hao, S., and Zhang, Z. (2024). Experimental investigation and AutoML prediction of the resilient behaviour of coarse-grained waste rocks. Road Mater. Pavement Des., 1–25.10.1080/14680629.2024.2430371 ↗
15. Bhanja, S., and Das, A. (2018). Impact of data normalization on deep neural network for time series forecasting. arXiv.
16. de Amorim, L.B.V., Cavalcanti, G.D.C., and Cruz, R.M.O. (2022). The choice of scaling technique matters for classification performance. arXiv.10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109924 ↗
17. Burdack, J., Horst, F., Giesselbach, S., Hassan, I., Daffner, S., and Schöllhorn, W.I. (2019). Systematic comparison of the influence of different data preprocessing methods on the performance of gait classifications using machine learning. arXiv.10.3389/fbioe.2020.00260 ↗
18. Ahsan, M.M., Mahmud, M.A.P., Saha, P.K., Gupta, K.D., and Siddique, Z. (2021). Effect of data scaling methods on machine learning algorithms and model performance. Technologies, 9.10.3390/technologies9030052 ↗
19. Nakamura, K., Soatto, S., and Hong, B.-W. (2020). Stochastic batch size for adaptive regularization in deep network optimization. arXiv.
20. Scikit-Learn Developers (2025, July 20). RobustScaler. Scikit-Learn Documentation. Available online: https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.preprocessing.RobustScaler.html.
21. Effect of varying training epochs of a faster region-based convolutional neural network on the accuracy of an automatic weed classification scheme10.1016/j.atech.2022.100128 ↗
22. Kohavi, R. (1995, January 20–25). A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95), San Francisco, CA, USA.
23. Wager, S., Wang, S.I., and Liang, P. (2013). Dropout training as adaptive regularization. arXiv.
24. Sobol sensitivity analysis for risk assessment of uranium in groundwater10.1007/s10653-020-00522-5 ↗
25. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., and Courville, A. (2016). Deep Learning, MIT Press. Available online: https://www.deeplearningbook.org/.
26. Bayesian Gaussian Mixture Linear Inversion for Geophysical Inverse Problems10.1007/s11004-016-9671-9 ↗
27. Porous structure reconstruction using convolutional neural networks10.1007/s11004-018-9743-0 ↗
28. Predicting the effective mechanical property of heterogeneous materials by image-based modeling and deep learning
29. Mesoscopic modeling approach and application based on rock thin slices and nanoindentation10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105875 ↗
30. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 ↗
31. Physics-informed neural networks for modeling fluid dynamics
32. Physics-informed machine learning10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5 ↗
33. Dahal, A., and Lombardo, L. (2024). Towards physics-informed neural networks for landslide prediction. arXiv.10.5194/egusphere-egu25-5633 ↗
34. Prediction of stratified ground consolidation via a physics-informed neural network utilizing short-term excess pore water pressure monitoring data10.1111/mice.13326 ↗
35. PINN-CHK: Physics-informed neural network for high-fidelity prediction of early-age cement hydration kinetics10.1007/s00521-024-09791-y ↗
36. Physics-informed neural networks for consolidation of soils10.1108/EC-08-2021-0492 ↗
37. Physics-informed machine learning model for computational fracture of quasi-brittle materials without labelled data10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.107282 ↗
38. Hyperparameter optimization for machine learning models based on Bayesian optimization