Benchmarking convolutional neural network and graph neural network based surrogate models on a real-world car external aerodynamics dataset

IF 3 3区 工程技术 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Sam Jacob Jacob , Markus Mrosek , Carsten Othmer , Harald Köstler
{"title":"Benchmarking convolutional neural network and graph neural network based surrogate models on a real-world car external aerodynamics dataset","authors":"Sam Jacob Jacob ,&nbsp;Markus Mrosek ,&nbsp;Carsten Othmer ,&nbsp;Harald Köstler","doi":"10.1016/j.compfluid.2025.106760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Aerodynamic optimization is crucial for developing eco-friendly, aerodynamic, and stylish cars, which requires close collaboration between aerodynamicists and stylists, a collaboration impaired by the time-consuming nature of aerodynamic simulations. Surrogate models offer a viable solution to reduce this overhead, but they are untested in real-world aerodynamic datasets. We present a comparative evaluation of two surrogate modeling approaches for predicting drag on a real-world dataset: a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model that uses a signed distance field as input and a commercial tool based on Graph Neural Networks (GNN) that directly processes a surface mesh. In contrast to previous studies based on datasets created from parameterized geometries, our dataset comprises 343 geometries derived from 32 baseline vehicle geometries across five distinct car projects, reflecting the diverse, free-form modifications encountered in the typical vehicle development process. Our results show that the CNN-based method achieves a mean absolute error of 2.3 drag counts, while the GNN-based method achieves 3.8. Both methods achieve approximately 77% accuracy in predicting the direction of drag change relative to the baseline geometry. While both methods effectively capture the broader trends between baseline groups (set of samples derived from a single baseline geometry), they struggle to varying extents in capturing the finer intra-baseline group variations. In summary, our findings suggest that aerodynamicists can effectively use both methods to predict drag in under two minutes, which is at least 600 times faster than performing a simulation. However, there remains room for improvement in capturing the finer details of the geometry.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":287,"journal":{"name":"Computers & Fluids","volume":"300 ","pages":"Article 106760"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers & Fluids","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045793025002208","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aerodynamic optimization is crucial for developing eco-friendly, aerodynamic, and stylish cars, which requires close collaboration between aerodynamicists and stylists, a collaboration impaired by the time-consuming nature of aerodynamic simulations. Surrogate models offer a viable solution to reduce this overhead, but they are untested in real-world aerodynamic datasets. We present a comparative evaluation of two surrogate modeling approaches for predicting drag on a real-world dataset: a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model that uses a signed distance field as input and a commercial tool based on Graph Neural Networks (GNN) that directly processes a surface mesh. In contrast to previous studies based on datasets created from parameterized geometries, our dataset comprises 343 geometries derived from 32 baseline vehicle geometries across five distinct car projects, reflecting the diverse, free-form modifications encountered in the typical vehicle development process. Our results show that the CNN-based method achieves a mean absolute error of 2.3 drag counts, while the GNN-based method achieves 3.8. Both methods achieve approximately 77% accuracy in predicting the direction of drag change relative to the baseline geometry. While both methods effectively capture the broader trends between baseline groups (set of samples derived from a single baseline geometry), they struggle to varying extents in capturing the finer intra-baseline group variations. In summary, our findings suggest that aerodynamicists can effectively use both methods to predict drag in under two minutes, which is at least 600 times faster than performing a simulation. However, there remains room for improvement in capturing the finer details of the geometry.

Abstract Image

在真实汽车外部空气动力学数据集上对基于卷积神经网络和图形神经网络的代理模型进行基准测试
空气动力学优化对于开发环保、空气动力学和时尚的汽车至关重要,这需要空气动力学家和造型师之间的密切合作,而空气动力学模拟的耗时特性削弱了这种合作。替代模型提供了一种可行的解决方案来减少这种开销,但它们尚未在实际空气动力学数据集中进行测试。我们对两种代理建模方法进行了比较评估,用于预测现实世界数据集上的拖动:使用带符号距离场作为输入的卷积神经网络(CNN)模型和直接处理表面网格的基于图神经网络(GNN)的商业工具。与之前基于参数化几何图形创建的数据集的研究不同,我们的数据集包括来自五个不同汽车项目的32个基线车辆几何图形的343个几何图形,反映了典型车辆开发过程中遇到的各种自由形式的修改。结果表明,基于cnn的方法平均绝对误差为2.3次,而基于gnn的方法平均绝对误差为3.8次。两种方法在预测相对于基线几何形状的阻力变化方向方面都达到了大约77%的精度。虽然这两种方法都有效地捕获了基线组之间更广泛的趋势(来自单一基线几何的一组样本),但它们在捕获更精细的基线组内变化方面存在不同程度的困难。总之,我们的研究结果表明,空气动力学家可以在两分钟内有效地使用这两种方法来预测阻力,这比进行模拟至少快600倍。然而,在捕捉更精细的几何细节方面仍有改进的余地。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Computers & Fluids
Computers & Fluids 物理-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
242
审稿时长
10.8 months
期刊介绍: Computers & Fluids is multidisciplinary. The term ''fluid'' is interpreted in the broadest sense. Hydro- and aerodynamics, high-speed and physical gas dynamics, turbulence and flow stability, multiphase flow, rheology, tribology and fluid-structure interaction are all of interest, provided that computer technique plays a significant role in the associated studies or design methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信