Advanced Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning-based Intelligent Agent for Finite Element Modeling of Aerospace Structures

Navy SBIR 25.2 - Topic N252-088
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)
Pre-release 4/2/25   Opens to accept proposals 4/23/25   Closes 5/21/25 12:00pm ET
   [ View Q&A ]

N252-088 TITLE: Advanced Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning-based Intelligent Agent for Finite Element Modeling of Aerospace Structures

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced Computing and Software;Sustainment;Trusted AI and Autonomy

OBJECTIVE: Develop an advanced Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-based intelligent agent to automate the generation, prediction, and optimization of finite element models, with the ability to accurately account for model errors, enhance modeling fidelity, and reduce user input bias.

DESCRIPTION: Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a critical computational tool used across a spectrum of engineering disciplines, including, but not limited to, automotive, aeronautical, civil engineering, and biomedical engineering. FEA enables the prediction of the behavior of materials and systems in response to various physical effects such as mechanical stress, strain, heat transfer, fluid flow, and electrostatics. This computational method has empowered engineers with the ability to develop safer and more efficient designs, optimize systems, and predict failure points, significantly reducing the need for physical prototypes and expensive testing procedures. However, the process of building a Finite Element Model (FEM) is subject to multiple sources of errors, including discretization error, errors from geometrical approximation, errors due to assumptions in material modeling, element formulation selection, and errors from inaccurately represented boundary conditions. The iterative process related to model development helps to better understand the physics and mechanical behavior in the actual assembled system, and better understanding is the purpose of FEM and FEA. The intelligence gained through the iterative modeling process often reveals complexities and system effects that can and should be added into the model to achieve accurate physical behavior or acceptable calibration to the physical system. While conventional error mitigation strategies such as mesh refinement techniques, manual error checking, and model validation against experimental data do exist, these methods can be time-intensive, require extensive human intervention, and may still result in biased results due to user subjectivity. In recent years, AI/ML methods such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), Deep Reinforcement Learning, Machine Vision, and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) have demonstrated significant potential to revolutionize the FEM/FEA fields. These advanced computational methods offer the ability to automate model generation, accurately predict and mitigate modeling errors, and streamline the process, thereby significantly reducing human intervention and the associated subjectivity. However, a comprehensive, integrated framework utilizing these AI/ML methods for finite element modeling, accuracy modeling impact assessment, and model optimization is lacking.

The Navy seeks to develop a comprehensive AI/ML software toolkit that can transform an input geometry list to generate the finite elements and nodes used in the FEM input deck automatically. The toolkit will estimate the accuracy impact, optimize the model parameters for enhanced fidelity, ensure the meshing process matches the problem, be efficient, and be free from user input bias. The Navy seeks a software toolkit that can refine the ML models based on the outcomes of these tests. The goal is to improve the system's predictive accuracy and error mitigation advice. With constant learning and adjustment, the system will progressively improve and adapt to handle more complex and varied finite element models. The successful completion of Phase II will provide an advanced prototype system capable of automatically generating FEM input decks from input geometry lists, assessing accuracy impact, and providing strategies for error mitigation, thus enhancing the fidelity of finite element modeling processes.

The envisioned AI/ML software toolkit will be capable of handling complex geometries and boundary conditions, accurately representing material behaviors, and robustly accounting for various physical phenomena. Furthermore, the toolkit will provide a user-friendly interface, streamline the workflow of finite element modeling, and effectively communicate results to the user, enabling them to make informed decisions. The toolkit will encapsulate modern AI/ML techniques such as GANs, Deep Reinforcement Learning, Machine Vision, and ANNs.

The system's capabilities will include detecting and analyzing the source of errors in the FEMs, assessing these errors, and offering insights into how to mitigate them. A comprehensive series of tests will be conducted to assess the performance of the prototype system. These will include various scenarios and geometries to ensure the system can handle a broad spectrum of FEM tasks.

To validate the designed system, a basic prototype is needed to demonstrate the core functionalities. This prototype will facilitate the automation of simple finite models' generation from existing CAD data and demonstrate the potential of AI/ML techniques in predicting and mitigating modeling errors. An example of this would be the impact of element size, type, and transition on accuracy.

Additionally, the small business awardee will develop a detailed verification and validation (V & V) test plan, which will define clear, measurable metrics and benchmarks that can be used to quantitatively assess the toolkit's performance and effectiveness. The plan will also aid in identifying areas for potential improvements and modifications in the following phases.

PHASE I: Develop a concept for an AI/ML-driven software toolkit. Demonstrate technical feasibility of the proposed concept for automating finite element meshing, creating nodes and elements, predicting potential accuracy impact, and optimizing models for improved accuracy and fidelity. Prove feasibility of the proposed concept by first performing in-depth study of the current state of finite element modeling processes and the inherent error sources, including those not addressed by meshing alone (i.e., post-processing methodology, boundary condition errors, misrepresentation of the structural behavior, etc.). This study would guide the design and development of the AI/ML-driven toolkit, ensuring that the toolkit robustly accounts for the most significant error sources. This toolkit will encapsulate modern AI/ML techniques such as GANs, Deep Reinforcement Learning, Machine Vision, and ANNs. The focus would be on creating a road map for how these AI/ML techniques can be integrated and utilized to automate the model generation process, predict potential modeling accuracy impact, and optimize the model parameters.

The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

PHASE II: Devise an AI/ML software toolkit. Design and develop a prototype intelligent support system utilizing the AI/ML software toolkit. Focus on effectively integrating these methods into an automated software system that can handle geometric transformations for FEM input deck generation and offer a standardized process without user input bias. Ensure that the toolkit will address the problem of model uncertainty prediction in mixed fidelity FEMs.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Transition validated AI/ML modeling toolkit to integrate with existing FE engineering analysis tools.

FEA is widely used in aerospace, automotive, trucking, heavy equipment companies, medical reconstruction in a vast plethora of private sectors. The benefits to the private sector would be confidence in FEA solutions in a variety of domains including structural mechanics, fluid flow analysis, heat conduction, additive manufacturing, electrical and electronics field, bio-engineering, and so forth. The reduction in cost in these fields makes this topic highly beneficial to the private sector. Dropping the costs and turn-around time for analyses will allow additional opportunities for analysis arising from the decreased cost threshold. This toolkit will improve analysis availability across the entire domain of manufacturing.

REFERENCES:

  1. Bathe, K.-J. "Finite element procedures." Klaus-Jurgen Bathe, 2006. https://www.worldcat.org/title/963526772
  2. Goodfellow, I.; Bengio, Y. and Courville, A. "Deep learning." MIT press, 2016. https://www.amazon.com/Deep-Learning-Adaptive-Computation-Machine/dp/0262035618/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=9780262337373&linkCode=qs&qid=1694019496&s=books&sr=1-1
  3. Lipton, Z. C.; Berkowitz, J. and Elkan, C. "A critical review of recurrent neural networks for sequence learning." arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.00019, 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00019
  4. Lu, L.; Jin, P. and Karniadakis, G. E. "Deeponet: Learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operators." arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03193, 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.03193
  5. Zhu, Y.; Zabaras, N.; Koutsourelakis, P. S. and Perdikaris, P. "Physics-constrained deep learning for high-dimensional surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification without labeled data." Journal of Computational Physics, 394, 2019, pp. 56-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2019.05.024
  6. Hughes, T. J. "The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element analysis." Courier Corporation, 2012. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780486135021&i=stripbooks&linkCode=qs
  7. Zhu, Y. and Zabaras, N. "Bayesian deep convolutional encoder–decoder networks for surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification." Journal of Computational Physics, 366, 2018, pp. 415-447.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.04.018
  8. Chollet, F. "Deep learning with Python." Manning, 2021. https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Python-Second-Fran%C3%A7ois-Chollet/dp/1617296864/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=9781617296864&linkCode=qs&qid=1694020165&s=books&sr=1-3
  9. Long, J., Shelhamer, E., & Darrell, T. "Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation". Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2015, pp. 3431-3440. https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_cvpr_2015/html/Long_Fully_Convolutional_Networks_2015_CVPR_paper.html
  10. Goodfellow, I.; Pouget-Abadie, J.;, Mirza, M.; Xu, B.; Warde-Farley, D.; Ozair, S.;, Courville, A. and Bengio, Y. "Generative adversarial nets." Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2014/hash/5ca3e9b122f61f8f06494c97b1afccf3-Abstract.html
  11. Kohar, C. P.; Greve, L.; Eller, T. K.; Connolly, D. S. and Inal, K. "A machine learning framework for accelerating the design process using CAE simulations: An application to finite element analysis in structural crashworthiness." Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 385, 1 November 2021, 114008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2021.114008

KEYWORDS: Finite Element Analysis; Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning; Solid Structural Mechanics Stress; Preprocessing and Post Processing; Manual Effort and Manual Review; Shape Function and Numerical Integration Points; Particular Stress Regions


** TOPIC NOTICE **

The Navy Topic above is an "unofficial" copy from the Navy Topics in the DoD 25.2 SBIR BAA. Please see the official DoD Topic website at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/solicitation-documents/active-solicitations for any updates.

The DoD issued its Navy 25.2 SBIR Topics pre-release on April 2, 2025 which opens to receive proposals on April 23, 2025, and closes May 21, 2025 (12:00pm ET).

Direct Contact with Topic Authors: During the pre-release period (April 2, 2025, through April 22, 2025) proposing firms have an opportunity to directly contact the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) to ask technical questions about the specific BAA topic. The TPOC contact information is listed in each topic description. Once DoD begins accepting proposals on April 23, 2025 no further direct contact between proposers and topic authors is allowed unless the Topic Author is responding to a question submitted during the Pre-release period.

DoD On-line Q&A System: After the pre-release period, until May 7, 2025, at 12:00 PM ET, proposers may submit written questions through the DoD On-line Topic Q&A at https://www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/login/ by logging in and following instructions. In the Topic Q&A system, the questioner and respondent remain anonymous but all questions and answers are posted for general viewing.

DoD Topics Search Tool: Visit the DoD Topic Search Tool at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/topics-app/ to find topics by keyword across all DoD Components participating in this BAA.

Help: If you have general questions about the DoD SBIR program, please contact the DoD SBIR Help Desk via email at [email protected]

Topic Q & A

4/29/25  Q. Looking at the Phase I and Phase II descriptions, I understand that the main outcome of Phase I is a roadmap/plan (not a prototype), and Phase II is a prototype. Is my understanding correct? The description says, “a basic prototype is needed to demonstrate the core functionalities." Would this be in Phase II, or is some prototyping expected in Phase I?
   A. Phase I needs to demonstrate technical feasibility of what's been proposed.
4/24/25  Q. Question 1: Is the Phase I requested AI/ML-driven software toolkit intended to be independent of a pre/post FEM processor such as Patran/Nastran?

Question 2: Is the requested toolkit intended to be just a geometry processor (an optimized finite element model mesh) OR is the toolkit intended to iterate an analytical process to optimize the analysis?
   A. Answer 1: This topic is in support of the general engineer either supporting the fleet or supporting new acquisition. However, the technology developed should be useful and marketable outside of DoD. The intentions whether to make the software independent or dependent is for you to decide.

Answer 2: I want it all, but the extent is limited by time, money and available technologies. Demonstrating feasibility is the objective for Phase I.
4/20/25  Q.
  1. What specific types of aerospace structures should the toolkit prioritize? Are there particular components or systems (e.g., airframes, propulsion systems, control surfaces) that are most critical or prone to errors in current finite element modeling (FEM) practices?
  2. Can you provide more details on the "input geometry list" mentioned in the description? What format does this input take (e.g., CAD files, point clouds, mesh data), and what level of detail is typically included (e.g., material properties, boundary conditions)?
  3. The description mentions "model uncertainty prediction in mixed fidelity FEMs." Could you elaborate on what "mixed fidelity" means in this context? How should the toolkit handle models that combine different levels of fidelity (e.g., high-fidelity simulations for critical areas and lower fidelity for less critical regions)?
  4. Are there any existing FEM software or tools that the Navy currently uses which the new toolkit should integrate with or build upon? Does the Navy rely on platforms like ANSYS or Abaqus that the toolkit should be compatible with?
  5. For the verification and validation (V&V) plan, what specific metrics or benchmarks does the Navy consider most important for assessing the toolkit's performance? Are there particular targets for accuracy, error reduction, or computational efficiency that the toolkit must achieve?
   A.
  1. It's up to you to decide. Basic or introductory level FE might be a good foundation for building upon, and as milestones are reached, then next-level complexities can be added.
  2. Starting with CAD files would be good. Ideas related to geometrical optimization like slicing and dicing would be good. Ideas related to geometrical topology optimization is not recommended for exploration under this topic.
  3. That is a question that the software program you develop will hopefully to be able to answer.
  4. There are no specific commercial or open-source FEA platforms, CAD software or computational frameworks that the US Navy prefers. You are free to choose the programs you would like to use. If you can develop your technology to work with your available set of FE tools, then follow-on projects can take the software you develop and with some modifications, to make your software compatible with other operating systems, scalability improvements, FE disciplines and with commercial and DoD specific FE packages.
  5. The Navy does not have any data set for model training or validation. You may want to use a model that is giving you grief, modify it for public release and publishing reasons, and then focus on that model. You may want to start with something very simple and develop the training. The innovation is yours to explore.


[ Return ]