arXiv:2504.06699cs.LG2025-04被引 10

对比两种神经网络预测汽车风阻,速度提升600倍且精度达标。

Benchmarking Convolutional Neural Network and Graph Neural Network based Surrogate Models on a Real-World Car External Aerodynamics Dataset

  • 用体素化距离场和表面网格分别输入CNN与GNN模型
  • CNN误差2.3阻力单位,GNN为3.8,方向预测准确率77%
  • 适合快速风阻评估,但细节捕捉仍需改进

aerodynamic optimization 对开发环保、流线型和美观的汽车至关重要,但需要空气动力学家与设计师密切协作,而空气动力学模拟耗时过长,阻碍了这一协作。代理模型可有效降低计算开销,但尚未在真实世界空气动力学数据集上验证。本文对两种代理建模方法在真实世界汽车外部气动数据集上的表现进行了对比评估:一种基于卷积神经网络(CNN)的方法,以符号距离场作为输入;另一种是基于图神经网络(GNN)的商用工具,直接处理表面网格。与以往基于参数化几何的数据集不同,本研究数据集包含从32个基础车型衍生出的343个几何形态,涵盖五个不同的汽车项目,反映了车辆开发中常见的自由形态修改。结果表明,基于CNN的方法平均绝对误差为2.3阻力单位,基于GNN的方法为3.8。两种方法在预测相对于基准几何的阻力变化方向上均达到约77%的准确率。虽然两者都能有效捕捉基线组之间的整体趋势(来自同一基线几何的一组样本),但在捕捉组内细微差异方面表现不一。总体而言,两类方法均可在两分钟内完成风阻预测,比传统模拟快至少600倍。然而,在捕捉几何细节方面仍有改进空间。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

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.

风阻预测代理模型CNNGNN

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。