Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates improved reliability assessment in power electronic modules, suggesting more accurate predictions of lifetime under realistic conditions.
Reliability assessment of power electronic modules (PEMs) traditionally relies on counting methods to decompose complex mission profiles (MPs) into equivalent loading cycles, followed by a cumulative damage rule to estimate fatigue life. While effective for simplified load descriptions, this approach neglects nonlinear load interactions and the underlying physics of degradation, often leading to inaccurate lifetime predictions under realistic operating conditions. A more robust solution is autoregressive damage prediction, where the effect of loading is measured sequentially, thus accounting for cycle interactions, sequence effects, and nonlinear damage accumulation. However, this alternative is computationally inefficient as it requires frequent updates on the module's state, usually via slow and complex simulations. In this paper, we present physics-augmented machine learning (ML) solutions to alleviate the computational burden in realistic remaining useful life (RUL) estimation of PEMs. Specifically, we introduce surrogate models that replicate numerical simulations with high fidelity while being 10 6 times faster. Surrogate model results are thoroughly analyzed, providing guidelines on model selection, the number of simulations needed, and optimal data acquisition strategies. Our framework is designed for practitioners with minimal AI experience, and is supplemented with openly available data and source code to facilitate reproducibility and future research. • AI surrogate models accelerate reliability simulations by 10 6 times. • Enables practical use of slow yet accurate autoregressive RUL estimation • Provides a rigorous framework for AI model selection • Pinpoint simulation data gaps and mesh flaws by analyzing residuals • Optimizes simulation selection using active learning
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghrabli et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: