Submitted:
13 March 2026
Posted:
16 March 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overall Numerical Framework and Study Design
2.2. Blade Model: Geometry, Boundary Conditions, and Rotation
2.3. Blade Material Model: Ti-6Al-4V with Johnson–Cook Strength and Failure
2.4. Bird Geometry and Mass Consistency Across Formulations
2.5. Lagrangian Bird Model: Gelatin with Mooney–Rivlin Hyperelasticity
2.6. SPH Bird Model: Water-Like Material with Hydrodynamic EOS
2.7. Mesh Convergence Study
2.8. Dataset Generation and Reference Validation
2.9. Machine Learning Surrogate Modeling Workflow
2.10. Feature Engineering and Physical Coupling of Input Parameters
2.11. Data Preprocessing and Collinearity Assessment
2.12. Training-Testing Split and Cross-Validation Strategy
2.13. Surrogate Models Evaluated
2.13.1. Random Forest Regression
2.13.2. Support Vector Regression with Radial Basis Function Kernel
2.13.3. Polynomial Regression
2.13.4. Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)
2.14. Model Evaluation Metrics
3. Results
3.1. Validation of High-Fidelity Numerical Simulations
3.2. Surrogate Model Performance for Global Response Quantities
3.2.1. Maximum Total Deformation
3.2.2. Total Energy Dissipation
3.3. Surrogate Model Performance for Von Mises Stress Prediction
3.4. Feature Importance Analysis
3.5. Computational Speed-Up
4. Discussion
4.1. Surrogate Model Performance in Context of Prior Work
4.2. Divergence Between SPH and Lagrangian Surrogate Performance
4.3. Global vs. Localized Response Quantities
4.4. Feature Importance and Physical Interpretability
4.5. Computational Speed-Up and Practical Applicability
4.6. Limitations and Future Directions
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Boyacı, E.; Altın, M. Experimental and Numerical Approach on Bird Strike: A Review. Int. J. Automot. Sci. Technol. 2023, 7, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walvekar, V.; Thorbole, C.K.; Bhonge, P.; Lankarani, H.M. Birdstrike Analysis on Leading Edge of an Aircraft Wing Using a Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics Bird Model. In Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE2010), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 12–18 November 2010; Paper No. IMECE2010-37667, pp. 77–87. [Google Scholar]
- Niering, E. Simulation of Bird Strikes on Turbine Engines. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 1990, 112, 573–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmes, I.; Whisler, D. Simulating Bird Strikes Using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for Improved Aircraft Safety. In Proceedings of the SPIE 11380, Nondestructive Characterization and Monitoring of Advanced Materials, Aerospace, Civil Infrastructure, and Transportation XIV, Online, 27 April–8 May 2020; p. 113800M. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryabov, A.; Romanov, V.; Kukanov, S.; Shmotin, Y.; Chupin, P. Fan Blade Bird Strike Analysis Using Lagrangian, SPH and ALE Approaches. In Proceedings of the 6th European LS-DYNA Users Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 29–30 May 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Riccio, A.; Cristiano, R.; Saputo, S. A Brief Introduction to the Bird Strike Numerical Simulation. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2016, 9, 946–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huertas-Ortecho, C.A. Robust Bird-Strike Modeling Using LS-DYNA. Master’s Thesis, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Goyal, V.K.; Huertas, C.A.; Vasko, T.J. Arbitrary Lagrange Eulerian Approach for Bird-Strike Analysis Using LS-DYNA. Am. Trans. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2013, 2, 109–132. [Google Scholar]
- Siemann, M.H.; Ritt, S.A. Novel Particle Distributions for SPH Bird-Strike Simulations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2019, 343, 746–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Audic, S.; Berthillier, M.; Bonini, J.; Bung, H.; Combescure, A. Prediction of Bird Impact in Hollow Fan Blades. In Proceedings of the 36th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Huntsville, AL, USA, 17–19 July 2000; pp. AIAA 2000–3201. [Google Scholar]
- Guida, M.; Marulo, F.; Belkhelfa, F.Z.; Russo, P. A Review of the Bird Impact Process and Validation of the SPH Impact Model for Aircraft Structures. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2022, 129, 100787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, M.A.; Xiao, J.R.; McCarthy, C.T.; Kamoulakos, A.; Ramos, J.; Gallard, J.P.; Melito, V. Modeling of Bird Impacts on an Aircraft Wing—Part II: Modeling the Impact with an SPH Bird Model. Int. J. Crashworthiness 2005, 10, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Hedayati, R.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Zhong, Z. Dynamic Responses of the Aero-Engine Rotor System to Bird Strike on Fan Blades at Different Rotational Speeds. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aslam, M.A.; Rayhan, S.B.; Mohd Zain, M.Z.; Alias, A.; Ramli, A.S.; Ahmad, F. Ballistic Gelatin Lagrange Mooney-Rivlin Material Model as a Substitute of Bird in Finite Element Bird Strike Case Studies. Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 2020, 17, e298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, N.A.; Yusoff, M.D.; Shahimi, S.S.; Meor Ahmad, M.I. Numerical Modelling of Bird Strike on Aerospace Structures by Means of Coupling FE-SPH. Int. J. Integr. Eng. 2021, 13, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heimbs, S. Computational methods for bird strike simulations: A review. Computers & Structures 2011, 89, 2093–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vurtur Badarinath, P.; Chierichetti, M.; Davoudi Kakhki, F. A Machine Learning Approach as a Surrogate for a Finite Element Analysis: Status of Research and Application to One Dimensional Systems. Sensors 2021, 21, 1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez-Gonzalez, D.A.; Jude, D.; Wissink, A.M. ROAM-ML: A Reduced Order Aerodynamic Module Augmented with Neural Network Digital Surrogates. In Proceedings of the AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum, San Diego, CA, USA, 3–7 January 2022; p. 1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, S.; Thaler, S.; Kandanaarachchi, S. Machine Learning Methods for Predicting the Outcome of Hypervelocity Impact Events. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 45, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, L. Deep and Physics-Informed Neural Networks as a Substitute for Finite Element Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2024 9th International Conference on Machine Learning Technologies, Oslo, Norway, 24–26 May 2024; pp. 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, N.; Wissink, A.; Ekaterinaris, J. Comparison of Data-Driven Approaches to Rotorcraft Store Separation Modeling. J. Aircr. 2024, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, L.; Liu, M.; Martin, C.; Sun, W. A deep learning approach to estimate stress distribution: a fast and accurate surrogate of finite-element analysis. J. R. Soc. Interface 2018, 15, 20170844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pana, S.; Duy, V.; Thongchai, F.; Ramnarong, W.; Yuttana, M.; Tossapon, K.; Nakorn, T.; Itthidet, T. The role of machine learning for insight into the material behavior of lattices: A surrogate model based on data from finite element simulation. Results in Engineering 2024, 23, 102547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grinsztajn, L.; Oyallon, E.; Varoquaux, G. Why Do Tree-Based Models Still Outperform Deep Learning on Typical Tabular Data? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (NeurIPS 2022); Koyejo, S., Mohamed, S., Agarwal, A., Belgrave, D., Cho, K., Oh, A., Eds.; Curran Associates, Inc.: Red Hook, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 507–520. [Google Scholar]
- Shwartz-Ziv, R.; Armon, A. Tabular Data: Deep Learning Is Not All You Need. Inf. Fusion 2022, 81, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badshah, S.; Naeem, A.; Farhan Rafique, A.; Ul Haq, I.; Abdullah Malik, S. Numerical study on the critical frequency response of jet engine rotors for blade-off conditions against bird strike. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahimi, S.S.; Abdullah, N.A.; Topa, A.; Hrairi, M.; Ismail, A.F. Numerical modelling of bird strike on a rotating engine blades based on variations of porosity density. IIUM Eng. J. 2022, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedayati, R.; Ziaei-Rad, S. A new bird model and the effect of bird geometry in impacts from various orientations. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2013, 28, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Lin, J.; Xie, A.; Wang, N.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, J.; Dai, H. Flocking bird strikes on engine fan blades and their effect on the rotor system: a numerical simulation. Aerospace 2022, 9, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garg, A.; Mukhopadhyay, T.; Belarbi, M.O.; Li, L. Random forest-based surrogates for transforming the behavioral predictions of laminated composite plates and shells from FSDT to Elasticity solutions. Composite Structures 2023, 309, 116756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, R.; Fourtakas, G.; Rogers, B.D.; Lombardi, D. Large Deformation Analysis of Granular Materials with Stabilized and Noise-Free Stress Treatment in Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH). Comput. Geotech. 2021, 138, 104356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L.; Li, G.; Guan, Y.; Jiao, W.; Gong, S.; Xu, S. Machine learning and finite element integration-driven surrogate model for fluid-structure interaction seismic response analysis of aqueduct structures. Results Eng. 2025, 27, 106176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolandi, H.; Sreekumar, G.; Li, X.; Lajnef, N.; Boddeti, V.N. Physics Informed neural network for dynamic stress prediction. Applied Intelligence 2023, 53, 26313–26328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]












| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Density | 4420 kg·m−3 |
| Young’s modulus | 9.6 × 1010 Pa |
| Poisson’s ratio | 0.36 |
| Specific heat (Cp) | 612 J·kg−1·K−1 |
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| A (Yield stress) | 1098 MPa |
| B (Hardening constant) | 1092 MPa |
| n (Hardening exponent) | 0.93 |
| C (Strain rate constant) | 0.014 |
| m (Thermal softening exponent) | 1.1 |
| Tₘ (Melt temperature) | 1878 K |
| ε̇0 (Reference strain rate) | 1 s−1 |
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| D1 (damage strain coefficient) | 0.112 |
| D2 (damage strain coefficient) | 0.123 |
| D3 (damage strain coefficient) | 0.48 |
| D4 (strain rate coefficient) | 0.014 |
| D5 (temperature coefficient) | 3.87 |
| Tₘ (melt temperature) | 1878 K |
| Property/Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Density | 968 kg·m−3 |
| Mooney–Rivlin Constant (C10) | 2.18 × 105 Pa |
| Mooney–Rivlin Constant (C01) | 8.05 × 104 Pa |
| Compressibility Parameter (D1) | 1.45 × 10−8 Pa−1 |
| Mesh Size (mm) | Max. Total Deformation (m) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 20 | 0.718 | Coarse |
| 18 | 0.541 | |
| 15 | 0.317 | Selected |
| 12 | 0.305 | |
| 10 | 0.345 | Non-monotonic |
| Formulation (Bird Material) | Max. Deformation (m) | Von Mises Stress (Pa) |
|---|---|---|
| Lagrangian (Gelatin) | 0.568 | 1.11 × 109 |
| SPH (Water-like) | 0.317 | 9.65 × 108 |
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Number of trees | 25 |
| Maximum tree depth | 5 |
| Minimum samples per leaf | 2 |
| Feature selection | Square-root criterion |
| Random state | 42 |
| Parameter | Lagrangian | SPH |
|---|---|---|
| Kernel | Radial Basis Function (RBF) | Radial Basis Function (RBF) |
| Kernel coefficient (γ) | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Regularization parameter (C) | 160 | 160 |
| Margin of tolerance (ε) | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Parameter | Lagrangian | SPH |
|---|---|---|
| Loss function | Squared error | Squared error |
| Boosting rounds | 25 | 25 |
| Shrinkage (learning rate) | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Max. tree depth | 5 | 5 |
| Random state | 42 | 42 |
| Train/test split | 90/10 | 90/10 |
| Model | Target | R2 (test) | R2 (CV 5f) | RMSE (test) | RMSE (CV 5f) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | Max. Deformation (m) | 0.770 | 0.644 | 0.0749 | 0.0953 |
| RF | Von Mises Stress (MPa) | 0.236 | 0.799 | 30.88 | 31.28 |
| RF | Total Energy (kJ) | 0.988 | 0.992 | 47.54 | 40.49 |
| SVR | Max. Deformation (m) | −0.371 | −0.371 | 0.183 | 0.113 |
| SVR | Von Mises Stress (MPa) | −0.515 | 0.754 | 43.48 | 29.34 |
| SVR | Total Energy (kJ) | 0.682 | 0.937 | 245.8 | n/a 1 |
| Poly. Reg. | Max. Deformation (m) | 0.769 | 0.611 | 0.0872 | 0.1019 |
| Poly. Reg. | Von Mises Stress (MPa) | −0.770 | 0.704 | 35.43 | 31.67 |
| Poly. Reg. | Total Energy (kJ) | 0.509 | 1.000 | 390.8 | 0.897 |
| XGBoost | Max. Deformation (m) | 0.820 | 0.362 | 0.0770 | 0.1038 |
| XGBoost | Von Mises Stress (MPa) | −2.149 | 0.773 | 40.36 | 45.15 |
| XGBoost | Total Energy (kJ) | 0.423 | 0.967 | 423.4 | 85.58 |
| Model | Target | R2 (test) | R2 (CV 5f) | RMSE (test) | RMSE (CV 5f) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | Max. Deformation (m) | 0.994 | 0.989 | 0.0041 | 0.0048 |
| RF | Eq. Stress (MPa) | 0.915 | 0.820 | 18.37 | 21.14 |
| RF | Total Energy (kJ) | 0.996 | 0.995 | 29.18 | 36.77 |
| SVR | Max. Deformation (m) | −0.011 | −0.005 | 0.0527 | 0.0587 |
| SVR | Eq. Stress (MPa) | 0.964 | 0.978 | 11.89 | 4.72 |
| SVR | Total Energy (kJ) | 0.966 | 0.970 | 88.11 | 99.73 |
| Poly. Reg. | Max. Deformation (m) | 0.265 | 0.995 | 0.0390 | 0.0033 |
| Poly. Reg. | Eq. Stress (MPa) | −0.645 | 1.000 | 53.45 | ≈0 |
| Poly. Reg. | Total Energy (kJ) | 0.499 | 1.000 | 311.9 | ≈0 |
| XGBoost | Max. Deformation (m) | 0.256 | 0.980 | 0.0392 | 0.0065 |
| XGBoost | Eq. Stress (MPa) | −1.492 | 0.966 | 65.79 | 11.21 |
| XGBoost | Total Energy (kJ) | 0.463 | 0.995 | 323.1 | 48.65 |
| Validation Case | Bird Velocity (m/s) | Blade Speed (rad/s) | Scientific Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case A (Edge 1) | 122.5 | 645 | Minimum bird / maximum blade speed. Tests the model’s ability to handle high-divergence inputs. |
| Case B (Edge 2) | 247.5 | 395 | Maximum bird / minimum blade speed. Inverse of Case A; checks for symmetry in error distribution. |
| Case C (Center) | 185 | 520 | Pure interpolation. Verifies the model’s performance in the heart of the training range. |
| Case D (Extrap.) | 260 | 660 | Upper extrapolation. Tests model generalisation outside the training bounds. |
| Case E (Off-Diag) | 210 | 450 | Moderate asymmetry. Realistic scenario where the bird is fast but the engine is at lower power setting. |
| Case | Bird Vel. (m/s) | Blade Speed (rad/s) | ANSYS Def. (m) | ANSYS Stress (MPa) | Sim. Time (min) | ML Pred. Def. (m) | ML Pred. Stress (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case A (Edge 1) | 122.5 | 645 | 0.5261 | 1192.1 | 33 | 0.6288 | 1159.2 |
| Case B (Edge 2) | 247.5 | 395 | 0.7988 | 1183.2 | 25 | 0.6887 | 1168.2 |
| Case C (Center) | 185 | 520 | 0.9433 | 1165.2 | 22 | 0.8603 | 1170.2 |
| Case D (Extrap.) | 260 | 660 | 0.8683 | 1244.2 | 28 | 0.8304 | 1213.7 |
| Case E (Off-Diag) | 210 | 450 | 0.6787 | 1146.4 | 30 | 0.7024 | 1168.1 |
| Case | Bird Vel. (m/s) | Blade Speed (rad/s) | ANSYS Def. (m) | ANSYS Stress (MPa) | Sim. Time (min) | ML Pred. Def. (m) | ML Pred. Stress (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case A (Edge 1) | 122.5 | 645 | 0.5203 | 1252.2 | 28 | 0.4158 | 1118.4 |
| Case B (Edge 2) | 247.5 | 395 | 0.3217 | 1187.6 | 30 | 0.3264 | 992.0 |
| Case C (Center) | 185 | 520 | 0.4193 | 1192.5 | 24 | 0.3923 | 1099.0 |
| Case D (Extrap.) | 260 | 660 | 0.5272 | 1237.8 | 31 | 0.4158 | 1118.4 |
| Case E (Off-Diag) | 210 | 450 | 0.3640 | 1165.7 | 27 | 0.3264 | 992.0 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.