REVIEW
Multi-fidelity uncertainty quantification for homogenization problems in structure-property relationships from crystal plasticity finite elements
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Crystal plasticity finite element method (CPFEM) has been an integrated computational materials engineering (ICME) workhorse to study materials behaviors and structure-property relationships for the last few decades. These relations are mappings from the microstructure space to the materials properties space. Due to the stochastic and random nature of microstructures, there is always some uncertainty associated with materials properties, for example, in homogenized stress-strain curves. For critical applications with strong reliability needs, it is often desirable to quantify the microstructure-induced uncertainty in the context of structure-property relationships. However, this uncertainty quantification (UQ) problem often incurs a large computational cost because many statistically equivalent representative volume elements (SERVEs) are needed. In this paper, we apply a multi-level Monte Carlo (MLMC) method to CPFEM to study the uncertainty in stress-strain curves, given an ensemble of SERVEs at multiple mesh resolutions. By using the information at coarse meshes, we show that it is possible to approximate the response at fine meshes with a much reduced computational cost. We focus on problems where the model output is multi-dimensional, which requires us to track multiple quantities of interest (QoIs) at the same time. Our numerical results show that MLMC can accelerate UQ tasks around 2.23x, compared to the classical Monte Carlo (MC) method, which is widely known as the ensemble average in the CPFEM literature.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.