The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Surrogate modeling for fluid flows based on physics-constrained deep learning without simulation data
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Numerical simulations on fluid dynamics problems primarily rely on spatially or/and temporally discretization of the governing equation using polynomials into a finite-dimensional algebraic system. Due to the multi-scale nature of the physics and sensitivity from meshing a complicated geometry, such process can be computational prohibitive for most real-time applications (e.g., clinical diagnosis and surgery planning) and many-query analyses (e.g., optimization design and uncertainty quantification). Therefore, developing a cost-effective surrogate model is of great practical significance. Deep learning (DL) has shown new promises for surrogate modeling due to its capability of handling strong nonlinearity and high dimensionality. However, the off-the-shelf DL architectures, success of which heavily relies on the large amount of training data and interpolatory nature of the problem, fail to operate when the data becomes sparse. Unfortunately, data is often insufficient in most parametric fluid dynamics problems since each data point in the parameter space requires an expensive numerical simulation based on the first principle, e.g., Navier–Stokes equations. In this paper, we provide a physics-constrained DL approach for surrogate modeling of fluid flows without relying on any simulation data. Specifically, a structured deep neural network (DNN) architecture is devised to enforce the initial and boundary conditions, and the governing partial differential equations (i.e., Navier–Stokes equations) are incorporated into the loss of the DNN to drive the training. Numerical experiments are conducted on a number of internal flows relevant to hemodynamics applications, and the forward propagation of uncertainties in fluid properties and domain geometry is studied as well. The results show excellent agreement on the flow field and forward-propagated uncertainties between the DL surrogate approximations and the first-principle numerical simulations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2019) · Journal of Computational Physics · doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 · Cited by 20,384
Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classification
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2015) · 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2015.123 · Cited by 19,741
Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks
Carleo, G., & Troyer, M. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aag2302 · Cited by 2,215
Theano: new features and speed improvements
Bastien, F., Lamblin, P., Pascanu, R., Bergstra, J., Goodfellow, I., Bergeron, A., Bouchard, N., Warde-Farley, D., & Bengio, Y. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1211.5590 · Cited by 1,005
Wang, J.-X., Wu, J.-L., & Xiao, H. (2017) · Physical Review Fluids · doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.2.034603 · Cited by 737
Self-citationZhu, Y., & Zabaras, N. (2018) · Journal of Computational Physics · doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.04.018 · Cited by 704
Wang, J.-X., Wu, J.-L., & Xiao, H. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.07987 · Cited by 1
Self-citation
Cited by
Enforcing Analytic Constraints in Neural Networks Emulating Physical Systems
Beucler, T., Pritchard, M., Rasp, S., Ott, J., Baldi, P., & Gentine, P. (2021) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.098302 · Cited by 451
Bandai, T., & Ghezzehei, T. A. (2022) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-26-4469-2022 · Cited by 111
Qi, X., de Almeida, G. A. M., & Maldonado, S. (2024) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.131263 · Cited by 78
Gao, H., Zhu, X., & Wang, J.-X. (2020) · Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cma.2020.113047 · Cited by 27
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sun, L., Gao, H., Pan, S., & Wang, J.-X.
- Venue
- Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 361
- Pages
- 112732
- ISSN
- 0045-7825 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2948230027
- Cited by
- 1,045
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 29.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Surrogate modeling for fluid flows based on physics-constrained deep learning without simulation data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cma.2019.112732
- The paper
- Sun, L., Gao, H., Pan, S., & Wang, J.-X. (2020). Surrogate modeling for fluid flows based on physics-constrained deep learning without simulation data. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.112732
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.