Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Degradation-Aware and Machine Learning-Driven Uncertainty Quantification in Crystal Plasticity Finite Element: Texture-Driven Plasticity in 316L Stainless Steel

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A 200-run surrogate reveals Cube and Goss texture dominate 316L weld stress variability.

desk verdict The 200-run PCE workflow for texture-driven UQ is a solid engineering demonstration, but the Cube/Goss sensitivity ranking is not supported because the compositional texture fractions are treated as independent inputs in the PCE and Sobol analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18891 v1 pith:JG6EBFAI submitted 2025-05-24 stat.AP cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Dinesh Kumar , Eralp Demir , Julio Spadotto , Kazuma Kobayashi , Syed Bahauddin Alam , Brian Connolly , Ed Pickering , Paul Wilcox
show 2 more authors
David Knowles Mahmoud Mostafavi
This is my paper
classification stat.APcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords crystalplasticityfiniteelementpolynomialchaosexpansionuncertaintyquantificationcrystallographictextureSobolsensitivityanalysis316LstainlesssteelweldEBSDboundssurrogatemodeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that texture-induced uncertainty in the plastic response of electron-beam-welded 316L stainless steel can be quantified at a tiny fraction of the usual cost: a polynomial-chaos surrogate trained on only 200 crystal-plasticity finite-element simulations stands in for the thousands of runs a Monte Carlo study would need. The input space is not synthetic; it comes from electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) maps of the actual weld, which set realistic minimum and maximum volume fractions for eight texture components. If the surrogate is faithful, mean stress, scatter bands, and sensitivity rankings all become cheap to compute, and the material-science payoff is a clear hierarchy: Cube and Goss texture drive most of the stress variability, while Brass, Copper, S1, S2, S3, and Taylor have negligible influence. That hierarchy matters because it points to which microstructural features a degradation assessment or weld-quality screen should track.

What carries the argument

The central object is the polynomial-chaos expansion (PCE) surrogate: an expansion of the CPFE output in orthogonal polynomial basis functions of the eight random texture fractions, with coefficients obtained by least-squares regression on 200 training runs. The inputs themselves are grounded in experiment: 104 EBSD sub-maps of the electron-beam weld define min–max volume-fraction bounds for Cube, Goss, Brass, S1, S2, S3, Copper, and Taylor, and a texture-analysis routine converts sampled weights into grain Euler angles for RVE construction. Once fitted, the PCE gives closed-form estimates of the mean and variance of stress and of first-order Sobol indices, which is what allows the paper to attribute stress variability to individual texture components without additional Monte Carlo simulation.

What would settle it

Quantitatively validate the surrogate on all 40 held-out CPFE simulations, reporting pointwise relative error in engineering stress and coverage of the reported uncertainty bands, and repeat the validation at the corners of the EBSD texture bounds where Cube and Goss are extreme; if errors there are large, or if the Sobol ranking changes when the PCE training set or polynomial degree is varied, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a sparse polynomial-chaos expansion, fitted by least-squares regression to 200 crystal-plasticity finite-element simulations whose eight inputs are texture-component volume fractions bounded by experimental EBSD data, reproduces the CPFE stress–strain response closely enough to replace direct Monte Carlo sampling. From the surrogate's coefficients the authors compute mean stress, uncertainty bands, and Sobol sensitivity indices, and they find that at 0.2%, 1.0%, and 3.0% strain the Cube and Goss texture components are the only inputs with material influence. The conclusion is concrete: two 316L weld samples that differ only in Brass, Copper, S1, S2, S3, or Taylor content should show nearly identical stress–strain curves, while small differences in Cube or Goss content should shift the flow stress noticeably. The paper reports a yield-stress band of 378.6–409.2 MPa, widening to 472.9–527.5 MPa at 3% strain, as the texture-induced uncertainty envelope.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a polynomial-chaos surrogate trained on 200 CPFE runs accurately represents the CPFE stress–strain response across the full eight-dimensional space of texture volume fractions; the paper's evidence is a visual match on eight of forty held-out samples, with no quantitative error metric or convergence study.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Uncertainty quantification for CPFE-based degradation studies drops from thousands of Monte Carlo runs to 200 simulations plus a polynomial-chaos fit, cutting computational cost by several orders of magnitude.
  • The reported stress uncertainty widens with plastic strain, from a yield-stress band of 378.6–409.2 MPa to a 3%-strain band of 472.9–527.5 MPa, directly bounding degradation-relevant flow scatter.
  • Texture control in 316L welding can be prioritized: Cube and Goss fractions are the variables that change flow stress, while Brass, Copper, S1, S2, S3, and Taylor variations leave the response nearly unchanged.
  • The calibrated 615-grain RVE with realistic EBSD texture bounds can be reused as the base simulator for propagating texture uncertainty into other degradation-relevant outputs such as strain localization or fatigue indicators.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: if Cube and Goss really dominate, weld-process control and quality screening can focus on those two volume fractions; measuring the other six adds little for flow-stress prediction.
  • Inference: the Sobol ranking is tied to the EBSD-derived joint distribution of texture fractions; a different weld schedule with a different texture envelope could reorder the inputs, so 'negligible' should be read as negligible within this data envelope.
  • Inference: since the constitutive law already includes Armstrong–Frederick back-stress for kinematic hardening, the same 200-run PCE pipeline is immediately extendable to cyclic loading, where the Cube/Goss dominance may or may not persist.
  • Inference: a cheap testable extension is to retrain the PCE on outputs such as per-grain strain-localization metrics or stress hotspots instead of mean flow stress; if Cube/Goss remain the dominant inputs there, the texture-based degradation ranking is stronger than the surrogate's current scalar validation suggests.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines EBSD-derived texture statistics from electron-beam-welded 316L stainless steel with crystal plasticity finite element (CPFE) simulations and a polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) surrogate to perform uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis of the stress-strain response. The authors calibrate a CPFE model against experimental data, select an RVE with 615 grains via a convergence study, and train a PCE surrogate on 200 CPFE simulations with eight texture volume fractions as inputs. The central scientific claim is that the surrogate accurately reproduces the CPFE stress-strain response and that the Cube and Goss texture components dominate stress variability, while Brass, S1, S2, S3, Copper, and Taylor have negligible influence. If established, this would be a useful acceleration of texture-driven uncertainty quantification for weld degradation assessment.

Significance. The workflow is practically motivated and the integration of high-throughput EBSD texture bounds with CPFE and PCE is a reasonable direction. The claimed computational speedup over Monte Carlo CPFE is plausible, and the idea of using experimentally grounded texture bounds as uncertainty inputs is valuable for degradation-oriented modeling. I credit the authors for presenting the constitutive formulation, the calibration procedure, and the RVE selection study in detail. However, the central sensitivity and surrogate-accuracy claims are not currently supported by quantitative evidence: no Sobol indices, no error metrics on the held-out set, no convergence study, and no explicit treatment of the compositional nature of the texture inputs. The paper also does not ship data or code, and several reported numbers and table entries are internally inconsistent. The framework is defensible, but the current manuscript does not yet substantiate its headline scientific conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.6, Eqs. (19)–(23), Table 3] The eight texture volume fractions are compositional, but the PCE construction in Eqs. (19)–(23) assumes independent input variables. The marginal bounds in Table 3 have maxima whose sum is approximately 293%, so independently sampling each component within its interval would generate physically impossible vectors; if the vectors are normalized or otherwise made dependent, the product-basis PCE and the textbook Sobol decomposition used for sensitivity analysis are not valid. The manuscript states that 'MTex' was used 'to create a joint probability distribution' but does not report that distribution, the correlations among the eight components, or the normalization procedure applied to the 200 samples. Without this information, the derived ranking that Cube and Goss dominate is not well-defined and may be an artifact of the sampling distribution or of implicit dependence among inputs.
  2. [§4.6, Figure 19] The surrogate validation is only visual: eight of the forty held-out samples are shown, and no quantitative error metric such as R², RMSE, normalized mean error, or maximum error is reported. There is also no convergence study in which the PCE degree, basis truncation, or training-set size is varied, and no statement about whether the validation samples cover the corners or edges of the eight-dimensional texture domain. The claim that the surrogate 'reliably approximates' the CPFE response across the full input space is therefore not established. I request quantitative validation metrics over all forty held-out samples, a check of extrapolation behavior near the texture-boundary corners, and a convergence study of the PCE approximation.
  3. [§4.7, Figures 20–21, Table 4] The central sensitivity conclusion is presented without reporting any numerical sensitivity indices. Figure 20 and Figure 21 purportedly show 'sensitivity' of the stress to the eight texture components, but no Sobol indices, variance contributions, or even axis definitions are given. Table 4 reports 'Min.' and 'Max.' stress bounds without stating whether these are PCE-based mean±standard deviation, empirical quantiles, or extrema of the surrogate output. To make the main claim testable, the authors must report the Sobol indices (total and first-order, or the specific index plotted) for each texture component at the three strain points, together with the corresponding uncertainty bounds and their definitions.
  4. [§2.3, §4.6] The PCE hyperparameters are not reported: the polynomial degree, the number of basis terms P, the sample design used to generate the 200 input vectors, and the train/test split are not given. The system in Eq. (21) is solved by ordinary least squares in Eq. (23), yet the conclusion describes the surrogate as 'sparse polynomial chaos'; no sparsity-promoting method is described in §2.3. This matters because with eight inputs and an unknown degree, P can be large relative to the 160 training samples, and the risk of overfitting cannot be assessed. Please report the basis construction, the sparsity technique (if any), and the resulting number of retained terms.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2 and Figure 4 caption] The third row of Table 2 lists an element size of 3.2 µm for the 32³ mesh of the 80 µm RVE, but 80/32 = 2.5 µm; Figure 4's caption also says the 80 µm RVE 'contains 25 grains', whereas the text of §4.1 states it contains approximately 190 grains. These inconsistencies should be corrected.
  2. [§4.2] The calibrated values of the five constitutive parameters are never reported; only the optimization trajectory and the final stress-strain comparison are shown. Since the CPFE model is the basis for all subsequent surrogate training, the parameter values (and their uncertainties, if any) should be given in a table for reproducibility.
  3. [§4.1, Figures 3–4] The mesh-convergence criterion is described qualitatively as 'approximately 40 elements per grain', but no quantitative convergence measure (e.g., relative change in a selected stress statistic) is reported. Defining the convergence threshold would strengthen the RVE-selection argument.
  4. [§5, Conclusions] The conclusion says the surrogate is 'sparse polynomial chaos', but §2.3 only describes ordinary least-squares regression. Either describe the sparsity mechanism or remove the word 'sparse'.
  5. [Data and code availability] The data and code are only 'available from the corresponding author on reasonable request'. Given the central role of the 200 CPFE simulations and the PCE fit, a public repository with the surrogate coefficients and validation data would substantially improve transparency and verification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the surrogate-based sensitivity ranking is a post-hoc statistic of a fitted response surface with out-of-sample validation, not an input reused as a prediction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is standard surrogate-based UQ and does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. The CPFE model is calibrated to an experimental tensile curve (Sec. 4.2, Fig. 7); the same CPFE model is then run on 200 RVEs whose texture weights are sampled from EBSD-derived bounds via MTEX (Sec. 4.6); a PCE surrogate is fitted to those runs by least-squares regression (Eqs. 19-23); and the mean, uncertainty bounds, and Cube/Goss sensitivity ranking in Sec. 4.7 are post-hoc statistics of the fitted surrogate. Nothing in these steps defines the input texture fractions in terms of the output stress, nor fits a parameter to a subset and then reports that same subset as a prediction. The held-out validation (Sec. 4.6, Fig. 19) is genuine out-of-sample evidence, though reported only visually with eight curves and no quantitative error metric. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Demir et al. 2023 for CPFE constitutive details and tangent) are methodological dependencies, not a uniqueness theorem or an unverified premise that forces the Cube/Goss conclusion. The manuscript itself flags a calibration limitation ('the experiment against which the current calibration is carried out is not cyclic, the isotropic hardening ... and kinematic hardening ... cannot be separated', Sec. 4.2), and the compositional/independence issue surrounding the MTEX joint distribution and standard Sobol indices is a real validity risk; however, these are correctness, validation, and reporting gaps, not reductions of the claimed result to its inputs by definition. Hence no circular step meeting the quoted-equation standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This ledger captures the fitted quantities and domain assumptions behind the central claim. The main free parameters are the five calibrated CPFE constants (values undisclosed), the PCE polynomial order (undisclosed), and the chosen RVE size and sample count. The domain assumptions are the validity of the CPFE constitutive model, RVE representativeness, EBSD texture bounds, and PCE basis-input distribution matching.

free parameters (4)
  • Five CPFE constitutive parameters (CRSS, hardening and softening constants, etc.)
    Section 4.2 says five key parameters were calibrated against experimental stress-strain data, but their fitted values are not reported.
  • Polynomial chaos expansion order (degree)
    Section 2.3 describes PCE regression without stating the polynomial degree used for the 8-input surrogate.
  • RVE size and grain count = 120 µm, ~615 grains
    Chosen in Section 4.3 as a trade-off between variability and computational cost; the selection criterion is not an independently derived optimum.
  • Number of training simulations and train/test split = 200 simulations, 80/20 split
    Section 4.6 sets these values without a convergence study of the surrogate itself.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CPFE constitutive laws (power-law slip rate, Taylor hardening, Kocks-Mecking-Estrin, Armstrong-Frederick) govern 316L plasticity at the grain scale.
    Equations (15)-(18) are taken from prior literature and are not independently verified against micromechanical data in this paper.
  • domain assumption The 120 µm RVE with 615 grains is statistically representative of weld microstructure for degradation-relevant stress-strain response.
    Section 4.3 concludes statistical convergence from decreasing stress variability across grain counts, but no comparison to experimental strain localization or damage metrics is given.
  • domain assumption The EBSD-derived texture bounds (Table 3) capture the full service-relevant range of texture variability.
    Derived from 104 sub-regions of 13 EBSD maps from a single weld; weld-to-weld and across-component variability is not assessed.
  • standard math The chosen orthogonal polynomial basis is matched to the joint distribution of the texture weight inputs.
    PCE accuracy requires basis orthogonality with respect to the input distribution (Wiener; Xiu and Karniadakis); the paper does not verify this for the MTEX-generated texture weight distribution.
  • domain assumption The five calibrated CPFE parameters are identifiable from a single monotonic tensile curve.
    Section 4.2 admits the calibration is nonunique and notes that isotropic and kinematic hardening cannot be separated from monotonic data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Degradation-Aware and Machine Learning-Driven Uncertainty Quantification in Crystal Plasticity Finite Element: Texture-Driven Plasticity in 316L Stainless Steel." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JG6EBFAI

@misc{pith2026250518891,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Degradation-Aware and Machine Learning-Driven Uncertainty Quantification in Crystal Plasticity Finite Element: Texture-Driven Plasticity in 316L Stainless Steel},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JG6EBFAI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18891}
}
read the original abstract

The mechanical properties and long-term structural reliability of crystalline materials are strongly influenced by microstructural features such as grain size, morphology, and crystallographic texture. These characteristics not only determine the initial mechanical behavior but also govern the progression of degradation mechanisms, such as strain localization, fatigue damage, and microcrack initiation under service conditions. Variability in these microstructural attributes, introduced during manufacturing or evolving through in-service degradation, leads to uncertainty in material performance. Therefore, understanding and quantifying microstructure-sensitive plastic deformation is critical for assessing degradation risk in high-value mechanical systems. This study presents a first-of-its-kind machine learning-driven framework that couples high-fidelity crystal plasticity finite element (CPFE) simulations with data-driven surrogate modeling to accelerate degradation-aware uncertainty quantification in welded structural alloys. Specifically, the impact of crystallographic texture variability in 316L stainless steel weldments, characterized via high-throughput electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD), is examined through CPFE simulations on calibrated representative volume elements (RVEs). A polynomial chaos expansion-based surrogate model is then trained to efficiently emulate the CPFE response using only 200 simulations, reducing computational cost by several orders of magnitude compared to conventional Monte Carlo analysis. The surrogate enables rapid quantification of uncertainty in stress-strain behavior and identifies texture components such as Cube and Goss as key drivers of degradation-relevant plastic response.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18891 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A representative volume element with grains for CPFE simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Large EBSD maps (IPF-Z) of 316L austenitic stainless steel welded by electron beam process. (a) Entire [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mesh refinement: RVE size of 40 𝜇m that contains 25 grains (average grain size of 20 ± 8 𝜇m) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mesh refinement: RVE size of 80 𝜇m that contains 25 grains (average grain size of 20 ± 8 𝜇m) 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental data and CFPFE simulations with different model parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CPFE Calibration 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Calibrated CPFE response and experimental data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Different RVE with sizes of 40 𝜇m, 80 𝜇m, 120 𝜇m and 160 𝜇m (100 realizations for each case) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: CPFE response with number of grains (and RVE size): stress with number of Grains [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: CPFE response error with number of grains (and RVE size): associated scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: RVE with 615 grains considered for the analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 200 samples of different orientation, Brass: [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Stress-strain curve with no preferred grains orientation and associated scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Stress-strain curve with brass grains orientation and associated scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Stress-strain curve with cube grains orientation and associated scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Mean stress-strain curve for different grains orientations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Texture information for a sample taken from a section as shown in Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Texture distribution (histogram) extracted from EBSD data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Results from the surrogate model against randomly selected 8 validation samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Statistical analysis and impact of texture on the stress-strain: mean and variability (top) and sensitivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Stress values at 0.2% (Yield stress), 1.0% and 3.0% strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_21.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Distribution-Free Uncertainty-Aware Virtual Sensing via Conformalized Neural Operators

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    CMCO attaches conformalized Monte Carlo dropout intervals to DeepONet field predictions, achieving high average coverage but severe undercoverage in some test samples.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence skip FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1 'skip if FUNCTION new.block.checka empty 'skip 'new.block if FUNCTION new.block.checkb...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  3. [3]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 'after.sentence ...

  4. [4]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  5. [5]

    Exceptional cryogenic tensile properties of k4169 superalloy by micro-grain casting process

    Yue Wang, Jinshan He, Pinpin Hu, Chengbo Xiao, and Xitao Wang. Exceptional cryogenic tensile properties of k4169 superalloy by micro-grain casting process. Materials & Design, 236: 0 112450, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Effects of mg17al12 phase on microstructure evolution and ductility in the az91 magnesium alloy during the continuous rheo-squeeze casting-extrusion process

    Dijia Zhao, Shulin L \"u , Wenbo Guo, Shilong Li, Jianyu Li, Guanghui Guo, Wei Guo, and Shusen Wu. Effects of mg17al12 phase on microstructure evolution and ductility in the az91 magnesium alloy during the continuous rheo-squeeze casting-extrusion process. Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 191: 0 63--79, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Grain size distribution and interfacial heat transfer coefficient during solidification of magnesium alloys using high pressure die casting process

    P Sharifi, J Jamali, K Sadayappan, and JT Wood. Grain size distribution and interfacial heat transfer coefficient during solidification of magnesium alloys using high pressure die casting process. Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 34 0 (2): 0 324--334, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Sensor degradation in nuclear reactor pressure vessels: the overlooked factor in remaining useful life prediction

    Raisa Bentay Hossain et al. Sensor degradation in nuclear reactor pressure vessels: the overlooked factor in remaining useful life prediction. npj Materials Degradation, 8 0 (1): 0 71, 2024

    2024

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    Weight loss and burst testing investigations of sintered silicon carbide under oxidizing environments for next generation accident tolerant fuels for smr applications

    Bader Almutairi et al. Weight loss and burst testing investigations of sintered silicon carbide under oxidizing environments for next generation accident tolerant fuels for smr applications. Materials Today Communications, 30: 0 102958, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Microstructure and properties of novel al-ce-sc, al-ce-y, al-ce-zr and al-ce-sc-y alloy conductors processed by die casting, hot extrusion and cold drawing

    Weiyi Wang, Qinglin Pan, Geng Lin, Xiaoping Wang, Yuqiao Sun, Xiangdong Wang, Ji Ye, Yuanwei Sun, Yi Yu, Fuqing Jiang, et al. Microstructure and properties of novel al-ce-sc, al-ce-y, al-ce-zr and al-ce-sc-y alloy conductors processed by die casting, hot extrusion and cold dra...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Exceptional mechanical properties of az31 alloy wire by combination of cold drawing and ept

    Zhaohui Shan, Jing Bai, Jianfeng Fan, Hongfei Wu, Hua Zhang, Qiang Zhang, Yucheng Wu, Weiguo Li, Hongbiao Dong, and Bingshe Xu. Exceptional mechanical properties of az31 alloy wire by combination of cold drawing and ept. Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 51: 0 111--118, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Grain evolution analysis and experimental validation in the extrusion of 6xxx alloys by use of a lagrangian fe code

    Lorenzo Donati, Antonio Segatori, Mohamad El Mehtedi, and Luca Tomesani. Grain evolution analysis and experimental validation in the extrusion of 6xxx alloys by use of a lagrangian fe code. International Journal of Plasticity, 46: 0 70--81, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Crystal plasticity analysis of texture development in magnesium alloy during extrusion

    Tsuyoshi Mayama, Masafumi Noda, Ryoichi Chiba, and Mitsutoshi Kuroda. Crystal plasticity analysis of texture development in magnesium alloy during extrusion. International Journal of Plasticity, 27 0 (12): 0 1916--1935, 2011

    1916

  6. [14]

    Predicting residual stress in a 316l electron beam weld joint incorporating plastic properties derived from a crystal plasticity finite element model

    Mehdi Mokhtarishirazabad, Martin McMillan, VD Vijayanand, Chris Simpson, Dylan Agius, Christopher Truman, David Knowles, and Mahmoud Mostafavi. Predicting residual stress in a 316l electron beam weld joint incorporating plastic properties derived from a crystal plasticity fini...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Microstructure-based multiscale and heterogeneous elasto-plastic properties of 2205 duplex stainless steel welded joints: Experimental and modeling

    Zhilong Dong, Xue-fang Xie, Wenchun Jiang, Yu Wan, Xiangnan Zhai, and Xu Zhao. Microstructure-based multiscale and heterogeneous elasto-plastic properties of 2205 duplex stainless steel welded joints: Experimental and modeling. International Journal of Plasticity, 159: 0 103474, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Tailored deformation behavior of 304l stainless steel through control of the crystallographic texture with laser-powder bed fusion

    C Sofras, J C apek, A Arabi-Hashemi, C Leinenbach, M Frost, K An, RE Log \'e , M Strobl, and E Polatidis. Tailored deformation behavior of 304l stainless steel through control of the crystallographic texture with laser-powder bed fusion. Materials & Design, 219: 0 110789, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Crystallographic texture evolution in bulk deformation processing of fcc metals

    Surya R Kalidindi, Curt A Bronkhorst, and Lallit Anand. Crystallographic texture evolution in bulk deformation processing of fcc metals. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 40 0 (3): 0 537--569, 1992

    1992

  10. [18]

    Machine learning-based multi-objective optimization for efficient identification of crystal plasticity model parameters

    Khem Veasna, Zhangxi Feng, Qi Zhang, and Marko Knezevic. Machine learning-based multi-objective optimization for efficient identification of crystal plasticity model parameters. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 403: 0 115740, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Improving mechanical properties of selective laser melted co29cr9w3cu alloy by eliminating mesh-like random high-angle grain boundary

    Yanjin Lu, Wei Zhao, Chunguagn Yang, Yujing Liu, Hongliang Xiang, Ke Yang, and Jinxin Lin. Improving mechanical properties of selective laser melted co29cr9w3cu alloy by eliminating mesh-like random high-angle grain boundary. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 793: 0 139895, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Transition between low and high angle grain boundaries

    Myrjam Winning and Anthony D Rollett. Transition between low and high angle grain boundaries. Acta materialia, 53 0 (10): 0 2901--2907, 2005

    2005

  13. [21]

    The response of dislocations, low angle grain boundaries and high angle grain boundaries at high strain rates

    Qian Liu, Leiming Fang, Zhengwei Xiong, Jia Yang, Ye Tan, Yi Liu, Youjun Zhang, Qing Tan, Chenchun Hao, Linhong Cao, et al. The response of dislocations, low angle grain boundaries and high angle grain boundaries at high strain rates. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 822:...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Localized brittle intergranular cracking and recrystallization-induced blunting in fatigue crack growth of ductile tantalum

    Rongzheng Huang, Ye Zhou, Qidong Yang, Xujing Yang, Kai Wei, Zhaoliang Qu, Haiqiong Xie, Xiang Chen, and Daining Fang. Localized brittle intergranular cracking and recrystallization-induced blunting in fatigue crack growth of ductile tantalum. International Journal of Plastici...

    2025

  15. [23]

    Mechanics and mechanisms of fatigue damage and crack growth in advanced materials

    RO Ritchie, CJ Gilbert, and JM McNaney. Mechanics and mechanisms of fatigue damage and crack growth in advanced materials. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 37 0 (1-2): 0 311--329, 2000

    2000

  16. [24]

    Variational gradient plasticity at finite strains

    Christian Miehe, Steffen Mauthe, and FE Hildebrand. Variational gradient plasticity at finite strains. part iii: Local--global updates and regularization techniques in multiplicative plasticity for single crystals. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 268: 0 ...

    2014

  17. [25]

    Crystal plasticity simulations with representative volume element of as-build laser powder bed fusion materials

    Dmitry S Bulgarevich, Sukeharu Nomoto, Makoto Watanabe, and Masahiko Demura. Crystal plasticity simulations with representative volume element of as-build laser powder bed fusion materials. Scientific Reports, 13 0 (1): 0 20372, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    A virtual laboratory based on full-field crystal plasticity simulation to characterize the multiscale mechanical properties of ahss

    Hongyue Ma, Yangqi Li, Haiming Zhang, Qian Li, Fei Chen, and Zhenshan Cui. A virtual laboratory based on full-field crystal plasticity simulation to characterize the multiscale mechanical properties of ahss. Scientific reports, 12 0 (1): 0 5054, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    The inverse band-structure problem of finding an atomic configuration with given electronic properties

    Alberto Franceschetti and Alex Zunger. The inverse band-structure problem of finding an atomic configuration with given electronic properties. Nature, 402 0 (6757): 0 60--63, 1999

    1999

  20. [28]

    Machine learning for molecular and materials science

    Keith T Butler, Daniel W Davies, Hugh Cartwright, Olexandr Isayev, and Aron Walsh. Machine learning for molecular and materials science. Nature, 559 0 (7715): 0 547--555, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Materials discovery and design using machine learning

    Yue Liu, Tianlu Zhao, Wangwei Ju, and Siqi Shi. Materials discovery and design using machine learning. Journal of Materiomics, 3 0 (3): 0 159--177, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Grain-orientation induced stress formation in aa2024 monocrystal and bicrystal using crystal plasticity finite element method

    Qi Zhao, Magd Abdel Wahab, Yong Ling, and Zhiyi Liu. Grain-orientation induced stress formation in aa2024 monocrystal and bicrystal using crystal plasticity finite element method. Materials & Design, 206: 0 109794, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Machine learning-enabled self-consistent parametrically-upscaled crystal plasticity model for ni-based superalloys

    George Weber, Maxwell Pinz, and Somnath Ghosh. Machine learning-enabled self-consistent parametrically-upscaled crystal plasticity model for ni-based superalloys. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 402: 0 115384, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Micro-mechanisms of anisotropic deformation in the presence of notch in commercially pure titanium: An in-situ study with cpfem simulations

    Vivek Kumar Sahu, Pritam Chakraborty, Manasij Yadava, and Nilesh P Gurao. Micro-mechanisms of anisotropic deformation in the presence of notch in commercially pure titanium: An in-situ study with cpfem simulations. International Journal of Plasticity, 177: 0 103985, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Modeling cyclic deformation of inconel 718 superalloy by means of crystal plasticity and computational homogenization

    A Cruzado, J LLorca, and J Segurado. Modeling cyclic deformation of inconel 718 superalloy by means of crystal plasticity and computational homogenization. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 122: 0 148--161, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Investigating grain-resolved evolution of lattice strains during plasticity and creep using 3dxrd and crystal plasticity modelling

    Farhan Ashraf, Ranggi S Ramadhan, Abdullah Al Mamun, James AD Ball, Eralp Demir, Thomas Connolley, David M Collins, Mahmoud Mostafavi, and David Knowles. Investigating grain-resolved evolution of lattice strains during plasticity and creep using 3dxrd and crystal plasticity mo...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Improved generalization with deep neural operators for engineering systems: Path towards digital twin

    Kazuma Kobayashi et al. Improved generalization with deep neural operators for engineering systems: Path towards digital twin. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 131: 0 107844, 2024 a

    2024

  28. [36]

    Deep neural operator-driven real-time inference to enable digital twin solutions for nuclear energy systems

    Kazuma Kobayashi et al. Deep neural operator-driven real-time inference to enable digital twin solutions for nuclear energy systems. Nature Scientific reports, 14 0 (1): 0 2101, 2024 b

    2024

  29. [37]

    A machine learning model to predict yield surfaces from crystal plasticity simulations

    Anderson Nascimento, Sharan Roongta, Martin Diehl, and Irene J Beyerlein. A machine learning model to predict yield surfaces from crystal plasticity simulations. International Journal of Plasticity, 161: 0 103507, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Data-driven inverse design of monbtivwzr refractory multicomponent alloys: Microstructure and mechanical properties

    Lavanya Raman, Arindam Debnath, Erik Furton, Shuang Lin, Adam Krajewski, Subrata Ghosh, Na Liu, Marcia Ahn, Bed Poudel, Shunli Shang, et al. Data-driven inverse design of monbtivwzr refractory multicomponent alloys: Microstructure and mechanical properties. Materials Science a...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Explainable, interpretable, and trustworthy AI for an intelligent digital twin: A case study on remaining useful life

    Kazuma Kobayashi et al. Explainable, interpretable, and trustworthy AI for an intelligent digital twin: A case study on remaining useful life. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 129: 0 107620, 2024 c

    2024

  32. [40]

    Transfer learning with spinally shared layers

    H Kabir et al. Transfer learning with spinally shared layers. Applied Soft Computing, page 111908, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Digital twin-centered hybrid data-driven multi-stage deep learning framework for enhanced nuclear reactor power prediction

    James Daniell et al. Digital twin-centered hybrid data-driven multi-stage deep learning framework for enhanced nuclear reactor power prediction. Energy and AI, 19: 0 100450, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Physics-regularized neural networks for predictive modeling of silicon carbide swelling with limited experimental data

    Kazuma Kobayashi et al. Physics-regularized neural networks for predictive modeling of silicon carbide swelling with limited experimental data. Scientific reports, 14 0 (1): 0 30666, 2024 d

    2024

  35. [43]

    A generic high-throughput microstructure classification and quantification method for regular sem images of complex steel microstructures combining ebsd labeling and deep learning

    Chunguang Shen, Chenchong Wang, Minghao Huang, Ning Xu, Sybrand van der Zwaag, and Wei Xu. A generic high-throughput microstructure classification and quantification method for regular sem images of complex steel microstructures combining ebsd labeling and deep learning. Journ...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Unveiling the quantitative relationship between microstructural features and quasi-static tensile properties in dual-phase titanium alloys based on data-driven neural networks

    Gan Li, Qunbo Fan, Guoju Li, Lin Yang, Haichao Gong, Meiqin Li, Shun Xu, and Xingwang Cheng. Unveiling the quantitative relationship between microstructural features and quasi-static tensile properties in dual-phase titanium alloys based on data-driven neural networks. Materia...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Gaussian process regression as a surrogate model for the computation of dispersion relations

    Alexander C Ogren, Berthy T Feng, Katherine L Bouman, and Chiara Daraio. Gaussian process regression as a surrogate model for the computation of dispersion relations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 420: 0 116661, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Gaussian process regressions on hot deformation behaviors of fgh98 nickel-based powder superalloy

    Jie Xiong, Jian-Chao He, Xue-Song Leng, and Tong-Yi Zhang. Gaussian process regressions on hot deformation behaviors of fgh98 nickel-based powder superalloy. Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 146: 0 177--185, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Practical applications of gaussian process with uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis for digital twin for accident-tolerant fuel

    Kazuma Kobayashi, Dinesh Kumar, Matthew Bonney, and Syed Alam. Practical applications of gaussian process with uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis for digital twin for accident-tolerant fuel. In Handbook of Smart Energy Systems, pages 1--12. Springer, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions

    Bruno Sudret. Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliability engineering & system safety, 93 0 (7): 0 964--979, 2008

    2008

  41. [49]

    Surrogate modeling of high-dimensional problems via data-driven polynomial chaos expansions and sparse partial least square

    Yicheng Zhou, Zhenzhou Lu, Jinghan Hu, and Yingshi Hu. Surrogate modeling of high-dimensional problems via data-driven polynomial chaos expansions and sparse partial least square. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 364: 0 112906, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Data-driven multi-scale modeling and robust optimization of composite structure with uncertainty quantification

    Kazuma Kobayashi, Shoaib Usman, Carlos Castano, Ayodeji Alajo, Dinesh Kumar, Susmita Naskar, and Syed Alam. Data-driven multi-scale modeling and robust optimization of composite structure with uncertainty quantification. In Handbook of Smart Energy Systems, pages 1333--1343. S...

    2023

  43. [51]

    Recent advances in machine learning-assisted fatigue life prediction of additive manufactured metallic materials: A review

    H Wang, SL Gao, BT Wang, YT Ma, ZJ Guo, K Zhang, Y Yang, XZ Yue, J Hou, HJ Huang, et al. Recent advances in machine learning-assisted fatigue life prediction of additive manufactured metallic materials: A review. Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Bayesian analysis of parametric uncertainties and model form probabilities for two different crystal plasticity models of lamellar grains in + titanium alloys

    Aditya Venkatraman, David L McDowell, and Surya R Kalidindi. Bayesian analysis of parametric uncertainties and model form probabilities for two different crystal plasticity models of lamellar grains in + titanium alloys. International Journal of Plasticity, 154: 0 103289, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    A predictive machine learning approach for microstructure optimization and materials design

    Ruoqian Liu, Abhishek Kumar, Zhengzhang Chen, Ankit Agrawal, Veera Sundararaghavan, and Alok Choudhary. A predictive machine learning approach for microstructure optimization and materials design. Scientific reports, 5 0 (1): 0 11551, 2015 a

    2015

  46. [54]

    Extracting dislocation microstructures by deep learning

    Yuqi Zhang and Alfonso HW Ngan. Extracting dislocation microstructures by deep learning. International Journal of Plasticity, 115: 0 18--28, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Structural health monitoring: a machine learning perspective

    Charles R Farrar and Keith Worden. Structural health monitoring: a machine learning perspective. John Wiley & Sons, 2012

    2012

  48. [56]

    Machine learning strategy for accelerated design of polymer dielectrics

    Arun Mannodi-Kanakkithodi, Ghanshyam Pilania, Tran Doan Huan, Turab Lookman, and Rampi Ramprasad. Machine learning strategy for accelerated design of polymer dielectrics. Scientific reports, 6 0 (1): 0 20952, 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    A review of the application of machine learning and data mining approaches in continuum materials mechanics

    Frederic E Bock, Roland C Aydin, Christian J Cyron, Norbert Huber, Surya R Kalidindi, and Benjamin Klusemann. A review of the application of machine learning and data mining approaches in continuum materials mechanics. Frontiers in Materials, 6: 0 110, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Data-driven reduced-order models for rank-ordering the high cycle fatigue performance of polycrystalline microstructures

    Noah H Paulson, Matthew W Priddy, David L McDowell, and Surya R Kalidindi. Data-driven reduced-order models for rank-ordering the high cycle fatigue performance of polycrystalline microstructures. Materials & Design, 154: 0 170--183, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    Combining a neural network with a genetic algorithm for process parameter optimization

    Deborah F Cook, Cliff T Ragsdale, and RL Major. Combining a neural network with a genetic algorithm for process parameter optimization. Engineering applications of artificial intelligence, 13 0 (4): 0 391--396, 2000

    2000

  52. [60]

    Understanding of additively manufactured material cyclic behavior at the grain scale by neutron diffraction and crystal plasticity modeling

    Hugo Roirand, Nicolas Saintier, Anis Hor, and Benoit Malard. Understanding of additively manufactured material cyclic behavior at the grain scale by neutron diffraction and crystal plasticity modeling. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 918: 0 147380, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Convolutional neural network-based method for real-time orientation indexing of measured electron backscatter diffraction patterns

    Yu-Feng Shen, Reeju Pokharel, Thomas J Nizolek, Anil Kumar, and Turab Lookman. Convolutional neural network-based method for real-time orientation indexing of measured electron backscatter diffraction patterns. Acta Materialia, 170: 0 118--131, 2019

    2019

  54. [62]

    Real-time coherent diffraction inversion using deep generative networks

    Mathew J Cherukara, Youssef SG Nashed, and Ross J Harder. Real-time coherent diffraction inversion using deep generative networks. Scientific reports, 8 0 (1): 0 16520, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Applied machine learning to predict stress hotspots i: Face centered cubic materials

    Ankita Mangal and Elizabeth A Holm. Applied machine learning to predict stress hotspots i: Face centered cubic materials. International Journal of Plasticity, 111: 0 122--134, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Smart finite elements: A novel machine learning application

    German Capuano and Julian J Rimoli. Smart finite elements: A novel machine learning application. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 345: 0 363--381, 2019

    2019

  57. [65]

    Stress--strain curve predictions by crystal plasticity simulations and machine learning

    Dmitry S Bulgarevich and Makoto Watanabe. Stress--strain curve predictions by crystal plasticity simulations and machine learning. Scientific Reports, 14 0 (1): 0 29492, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Application of artificial neural networks in micromechanics for polycrystalline metals

    Usman Ali, Waqas Muhammad, Abhijit Brahme, Oxana Skiba, and Kaan Inal. Application of artificial neural networks in micromechanics for polycrystalline metals. International Journal of Plasticity, 120: 0 205--219, 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    An uncertainty quantification framework for multiscale parametrically homogenized constitutive models (phcms) of polycrystalline ti alloys

    Deniz Ozturk, Shravan Kotha, and Somnath Ghosh. An uncertainty quantification framework for multiscale parametrically homogenized constitutive models (phcms) of polycrystalline ti alloys. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 148: 0 104294, 2021

    2021

  60. [68]

    Grain size and shape dependent crystal plasticity finite element model and its application to electron beam welded ss316l

    Eralp Demir, Edward W Horton, Mehdi Mokhtarishirazabad, Mahmoud Mostafavi, and David Knowles. Grain size and shape dependent crystal plasticity finite element model and its application to electron beam welded ss316l. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, page 105331, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    Kinetics of flow and strain-hardening

    H Mecking and UF Kocks. Kinetics of flow and strain-hardening. Acta metallurgica, 29 0 (11): 0 1865--1875, 1981

    1981

  62. [70]

    A unified phenomenological description of work hardening and creep based on one-parameter models

    Yu Estrin and H Mecking. A unified phenomenological description of work hardening and creep based on one-parameter models. Acta metallurgica, 32 0 (1): 0 57--70, 1984

    1984

  63. [71]

    A mathematical representation of the multiaxial Bauschinger effect, volume 731

    Peter J Armstrong, CO Frederick, et al. A mathematical representation of the multiaxial Bauschinger effect, volume 731. Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories Berkeley, CA, 1966

    1966

  64. [72]

    Three dimensional predictions of grain scale plasticity and grain boundaries using crystal plasticity finite element models

    Marko Knezevic, Borys Drach, Milan Ardeljan, and Irene J Beyerlein. Three dimensional predictions of grain scale plasticity and grain boundaries using crystal plasticity finite element models. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 277: 0 239--259, 2014

    2014

  65. [73]

    Crystal plasticity finite element modeling of extension twinning in we43 mg alloys: calibration and validation

    Mohammadreza Yaghoobi, Zhe Chen, Veera Sundararaghavan, Samantha Daly, and John E Allison. Crystal plasticity finite element modeling of extension twinning in we43 mg alloys: calibration and validation. Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation, 10: 0 488--507, 2021

    2021

  66. [74]

    Multiscale stress and strain statistics in the deformation of polycrystalline alloys

    Jingwei Chen, Zifan Wang, and Alexander M Korsunsky. Multiscale stress and strain statistics in the deformation of polycrystalline alloys. International Journal of Plasticity, 152: 0 103260, 2022

    2022

  67. [75]

    Investigating mesh sensitivity and polycrystalline rves in crystal plasticity finite element simulations

    Hojun Lim, Corbett C Battaile, Joseph E Bishop, and James W Foulk III. Investigating mesh sensitivity and polycrystalline rves in crystal plasticity finite element simulations. International Journal of Plasticity, 121: 0 101--115, 2019

    2019

  68. [76]

    Managing computational complexity using surrogate models: a critical review

    Reza Alizadeh, Janet K Allen, and Farrokh Mistree. Managing computational complexity using surrogate models: a critical review. Research in Engineering Design, 31 0 (3): 0 275--298, 2020

    2020

  69. [77]

    Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide

    Alexander Forrester, Andras Sobester, and Andy Keane. Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. John Wiley & Sons, 2008

    2008

  70. [78]

    Building surrogate models based on detailed and approximate simulations

    Zhiguang Qian, Carolyn Conner Seepersad, V Roshan Joseph, Janet K Allen, and CF Jeff Wu. Building surrogate models based on detailed and approximate simulations. 2006

    2006

  71. [79]

    The homogeneous chaos

    Norbert Wiener. The homogeneous chaos. American Journal of Mathematics, 60 0 (4): 0 897--936, 1938

    1938

  72. [80]

    The wiener--askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations

    Dongbin Xiu and George Em Karniadakis. The wiener--askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 24 0 (2): 0 619--644, 2002

    2002

  73. [81]

    Quantitative risk assessment of a high power density small modular reactor ( SMR ) core using uncertainty and sensitivity analyses

    Dinesh Kumar, Syed Alam, Tuhfatur Ridwan, and Cameron S Goodwin. Quantitative risk assessment of a high power density small modular reactor ( SMR ) core using uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. Energy, 227: 0 120400, 2021

    2021

  74. [82]

    Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainties in composite materials selection and design

    Dinesh Kumar, Mariapia Marchi, Syed Bahauddin Alam, Carlos Kavka, Yao Koutsawa, Gaston Rauchs, and Salim Belouettar. Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainties in composite materials selection and design. Composite Structures, 279: 0 114680, 2022

    2022

  75. [83]

    Uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis for digital twin enabling technology

    Kazuma Kobayashi et al. Uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis for digital twin enabling technology. Springer Nature, Handbook of Smart Energy Systems: 0 2265--–2277, 2023 b

    2023

  76. [84]

    Sparse polynomial chaos expansions and adaptive stochastic finite elements using a regression approach

    G \'e raud Blatman and Bruno Sudret. Sparse polynomial chaos expansions and adaptive stochastic finite elements using a regression approach. Comptes Rendus M \'e canique , 336 0 (6): 0 518--523, 2008

    2008

  77. [85]

    An efficient non-intrusive reduced basis model for high dimensional stochastic problems in CFD

    Dinesh Kumar, Mehrdad Raisee, and Chris Lacor. An efficient non-intrusive reduced basis model for high dimensional stochastic problems in CFD . Computers & Fluids, 138: 0 67--82, 2016

    2016

  78. [86]

    Efficient uncertainty quantification and management in the early stage design of composite applications

    Dinesh Kumar, Yao Koutsawa, Gaston Rauchs, Mariapia Marchi, Carlos Kavka, and Salim Belouettar. Efficient uncertainty quantification and management in the early stage design of composite applications. Composite Structures, page 112538, 2020

    2020

  79. [87]

    Recent advances in uncertainty quantification methods for engineering problems

    Dinesh Kumar et al. Recent advances in uncertainty quantification methods for engineering problems. Academic Press, AI Assurance: 0 453--472, 2023

    2023

  80. [88]

    Uncertainty quantification and polynomial chaos techniques in computational fluid dynamics

    Habib N Najm. Uncertainty quantification and polynomial chaos techniques in computational fluid dynamics. Annual review of fluid mechanics, 41 0 (1): 0 35--52, 2009

    2009

  81. [89]

    AI -driven uncertainty quantification & multi-physics approach to evaluate cladding materials in a microreactor

    Alexander Foutch, Kazuma Kobayashi, Ayodeji Alajo, Dinesh Kumar, and Syed Bahauddin Alam. AI -driven uncertainty quantification & multi-physics approach to evaluate cladding materials in a microreactor. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 186: 0 105793, 2025

    2025

  82. [90]

    AI -driven non-intrusive uncertainty quantification of advanced nuclear fuels for digital twin-enabling technology

    Kazuma Kobayashi, Dinesh Kumar, and Syed Bahauddin Alam. AI -driven non-intrusive uncertainty quantification of advanced nuclear fuels for digital twin-enabling technology. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 172: 0 105177, 2024 e

    2024

  83. [91]

    Error estimation and adaptive mesh refinement in boundary element method, an overview

    Eisuke Kita and Norio Kamiya. Error estimation and adaptive mesh refinement in boundary element method, an overview. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 25 0 (7): 0 479--495, 2001

    2001

  84. [92]

    Adaptive mesh refinement method for optimal control using nonsmoothness detection and mesh size reduction

    Fengjin Liu, William W Hager, and Anil V Rao. Adaptive mesh refinement method for optimal control using nonsmoothness detection and mesh size reduction. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 352 0 (10): 0 4081--4106, 2015 b

    2015

  85. [93]

    Isogeometric analysis: Cad, finite elements, nurbs, exact geometry and mesh refinement

    Thomas JR Hughes, John A Cottrell, and Yuri Bazilevs. Isogeometric analysis: Cad, finite elements, nurbs, exact geometry and mesh refinement. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 194 0 (39-41): 0 4135--4195, 2005

    2005

  86. [94]

    The inclusion and role of micro mechanical residual stress on deformation of stainless steel type 316l at grain level

    Edward William Horton, Eralp Demir, Dylan Agius, Anna Kareer, David M Collins, Mahmoud Mostafavi, and David Knowles. The inclusion and role of micro mechanical residual stress on deformation of stainless steel type 316l at grain level. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 876...

    2023

  87. [95]

    Stress fields and geometrically necessary dislocation density distributions near the head of a blocked slip band

    T Benjamin Britton and Angus J Wilkinson. Stress fields and geometrically necessary dislocation density distributions near the head of a blocked slip band. Acta Materialia, 60 0 (16): 0 5773--5782, 2012

    2012

  88. [96]

    On the measurement of dislocations and dislocation substructures using ebsd and hrsd techniques

    Ondrej Muransky, Levente Balogh, M Tran, CJ Hamelin, J-S Park, and Mark R Daymond. On the measurement of dislocations and dislocation substructures using ebsd and hrsd techniques. Acta Materialia, 175: 0 297--313, 2019

    2019

  89. [97]

    Experimental measurement of dislocation density in metallic materials: A quantitative comparison between measurements techniques (xrd, r-ecci, hr-ebsd, tem)

    Julien Gallet, Michel Perez, Rapha \"e lle Guillou, Clement Ernould, Christophe Le Bourlot, Cyril Langlois, Benoit Beausir, Emmanuel Bouzy, Thibaut Chaise, and Sophie Cazottes. Experimental measurement of dislocation density in metallic materials: A quantitative comparison bet...

    2023

  90. [98]

    Methods and guidelines for effective model calibration

    Mary C Hill. Methods and guidelines for effective model calibration. In Building partnerships, pages 1--10. 2000

    2000

  91. [99]

    The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction

    Keith Beven and Andrew Binley. The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrological processes, 6 0 (3): 0 279--298, 1992

    1992

  92. [100]

    Crystal plasticity modeling of deformation and creep in polycrystalline ti-6242

    Dhyanjyoti Deka, Deepu S Joseph, Somnath Ghosh, and Michael J Mills. Crystal plasticity modeling of deformation and creep in polycrystalline ti-6242. Metallurgical and materials transactions A, 37: 0 1371--1388, 2006

    2006

  93. [101]

    Calibration and surrogate model-based sensitivity analysis of crystal plasticity finite element models

    Hugh Dorward, David M Knowles, Eralp Demir, Mahmoud Mostafavi, and Matthew J Peel. Calibration and surrogate model-based sensitivity analysis of crystal plasticity finite element models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12024, 2023

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.