Fluid–structure interaction analysis has high computing costs when using computational fluid dynamics. These costs become prohibitive when optimizing the fluid–structure interaction system because of the huge sample space of structural parameters. To overcome this realistic challenge, a deep neural network-based reduced-order model for the fluid–structure interaction system is developed to quickly and accurately predict the flow field in the fluid–structure interaction system. This deep neural network can predict the flow field at the next time step based on the current flow field and the structural motion conditions. A fluid–structure interaction model can be constructed by combining the deep neural network with a structural dynamic solver. Through learning the structure motion and fluid evolution in different fluid–structure interaction systems, the trained model can predict the fluid–structure interaction systems with different structural parameters only with initial flow field and structural motion conditions. Within the learned range of the parameters, the prediction accuracy of the fluid–structure interaction model is in good agreement with the numerical simulation results, which can meet the engineering needs. The simulation speed is increased by more than 20 times, which is helpful for the rapid analysis and optimal design of fluid–structure interaction systems.

1.
A. S.
Eldemerdash
and
T.
Leweke
, “
Fluid–structure interaction of a flexible rotor in water
,”
J. Fluids Struct.
103
,
103259
(
2021
).
2.
J.
Kou
,
W.
Zhang
,
Y.
Liu
 et al, “
The lowest Reynolds number of vortex-induced vibrations
,”
Phys. Fluids
29
,
041701
(
2017
).
3.
W.
Yao
and
R.
Jaiman
, “
Model reduction and mechanism for the vortex-induced vibrations of bluff bodies
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
827
,
357
393
(
2017
).
4.
T.
Suzuki
,
L.
Chatellier
, and
L.
David
, “
A few techniques to improve data-driven reduced-order simulations for unsteady flows
,”
Comput. Fluids
201
,
104455
107930
(
2020
).
5.
G.
Chen
,
D.
Li
,
Q.
Zhou
 et al, “
Efficient aeroelastic reduced order model with global structural modifications
,”
Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
76
,
1
13
(
2018
).
6.
P. J.
Schmid
, “
Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical experimental data
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
656
(
10
),
5
28
(
2010
).
7.
Y.
LeCun
,
Y.
Bengio
, and
G.
Hinton
, “
Deep learning
,”
Nature
521
(
7553
),
436
444
(
2015
).
8.
S. L.
Brunton
,
B. R.
Noack
, and
P.
Koumoutsakos
, “
Machine learning for fluid mechanics
,”
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.
52
(
1
),
477
508
(
2020
).
9.
S. L.
Brunton
, “
Applying machine learning to study fluid mechanics
,”
Acta Mech. Sin.
37
,
1718
(
2021
).
10.
L.
Hu
,
J.
Zhang
,
Y.
Xiang
 et al, “
Neural networks-based aerodynamic data modeling: A comprehensive review
,”
IEEE Access
8
,
90805
90823
(
2020
).
11.
S.
Cai
,
Z.
Mao
,
Z.
Wang
 et al, “
Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: A review
,”
Acta Mech. Sin.
37
,
1727
(
2021
).
12.
D.
Sun
,
Z.
Wang
,
F.
Qu
 et al, “
A deep learning based prediction approach for the supercritical airfoil at transonic speeds
,”
Phys. Fluids
33
,
086109
(
2021
).
13.
J.
Wang
,
C.
He
,
R.
Li
 et al, “
Flow field prediction of supercritical airfoils via variational autoencoder based deep learning framework
,”
Phys. Fluids
33
,
086108
(
2021
).
14.
C.
Xie
,
J.
Wang
,
H.
Li
 et al, “
Artificial neural network mixed model for large eddy simulation of compressible isotropic turbulence
,”
Phys. Fluids
31
,
085112
(
2019
).
15.
M.
Wang
,
H.
Li
,
X.
Chen
 et al, “
Deep learning-based model reduction for distributed parameter systems
,”
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern.: Syst.
46
(
12
),
1664
1674
(
2016
).
16.
N.
Omataa
and
S.
Shirayama
, “
A novel method of low-dimensional representation for temporal behavior of flow fields using deep autoencoder
,”
AIP Adv.
9
,
015006
(
2019
).
17.
Y.
Li
,
Z.
Wang
,
W.
Jiang
 et al, “
Research on time sequence prediction of the flow field structure of supersonic cascade channels in wide range based on artificial neural network
,”
Phys. Fluids
34
,
016106
(
2022
).
18.
X.
Jin
,
P.
Cheng
,
W.
Chen
 et al, “
Prediction model of velocity field around circular cylinder over various Reynolds numbers by fusion convolutional neural networks based on pressure on the cylinder
,”
Phys. Fluids.
30
,
047105
(
2018
).
19.
V.
Sekar
,
Q.
Jiang
,
C.
Shu
 et al, “
Fast flow field prediction over airfoils using deep learning approach
,”
Phys. Fluids
31
,
057103
(
2019
).
20.
R.
Han
,
Y.
Wang
,
Y.
Zhang
 et al, “
A novel spatial-temporal prediction method for unsteady wake flows based on hybrid deep neural network
,”
Phys. Fluids
31
,
127101
(
2019
).
21.
S.
Pawar
,
S. M.
Rahman
,
H.
Vaddireddy
 et al, “
A deep learning enabler for nonintrusive reduced order modeling of fluid flows
,”
Phys. Fluids
31
,
085101
(
2019
).
22.
R.
Halder
,
M.
Damodaran
, and
B. C.
Khoo
, “
Deep learning based reduced order model for airfoil-gust and aeroelastic interaction
,”
AIAA J.
58
,
4304
(
2020
).
23.
M.
Zhang
,
S.
Fu
,
H.
Ren
 et al, “
A hybrid FEM-DNN-based vortex-induced vibration prediction method for flexible pipes under oscillatory flow in the time domain
,”
Ocean Eng.
246
,
110488
(
2022
).
24.
K.
Li
,
J.
Kou
, and
W.
Zhang
, “
Deep neural network for unsteady aerodynamic and aeroelastic modeling across multiple Mach numbers
,”
Nonlinear Dyn.
96
,
2157
2177
(
2019
).
25.
C.
Cheng
,
H.
Meng
,
Y.
Li
 et al, “
Deep learning based on PINN for solving 2 DOF vortex induced vibration of cylinder
,”
Ocean Eng.
240
,
109932
(
2021
).
26.
R.
Han
,
Z.
Zhang
,
Y.
Wang
 et al, “
Hybrid deep neural network based prediction method for unsteady flows with moving boundary
,”
Acta Mech. Sin.
37
,
1557
1566
(
2021
).
27.
D. P.
Kingma
and
J.
Ba
, “
Adam: A method for stochastic optimization
,” paper presented at the
Third International Conference on Learning Representations
, San Diego, CA, USA,
2015
.
You do not currently have access to this content.