用人工智能方法预测肘部固体颗粒侵蚀和不确定性

S. Karimi, Bohan Xu, Alireza Asgharpour, S. Shirazi, S. Sen
{"title":"用人工智能方法预测肘部固体颗粒侵蚀和不确定性","authors":"S. Karimi, Bohan Xu, Alireza Asgharpour, S. Shirazi, S. Sen","doi":"10.1115/fedsm2020-20458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n AI approaches include machine learning algorithms in which models are trained from existing data to predict the behavior of the system for previously unseen cases. Recent studies at the Erosion/Corrosion Research Center (E/CRC) have shown that these methods can be quite effective in predicting erosion. However, these methods are not widely used in the engineering industries due to the lack of work and information in this area. Moreover, in most of the available literature, the reported models and results have not been rigorously tested. This fact suggests that these models cannot be fully trusted for the applications for which they are trained. Therefore, in this study three machine learning models, including Elastic Net, Random Forest and Support Vector Machine (SVM), are utilized to increase the confidence in these tools. First, these models are trained with a training data set. Next, the model hyper-parameters are optimized by using nested cross validation. Finally, the results are verified with a test data set. This process is repeated several times to assure the accuracy of the results. In order to be able to predict the erosion under different conditions with these three models, six main variables are considered in the training data set. These variables include material hardness, pipe diameter, particle size, liquid viscosity, liquid superficial velocity, and gas superficial velocity. All three studied models show good prediction performances. The Random Forest and SVM approaches, however, show slightly better results compared to Elastic Net. The performance of these models is compared to both CFD erosion simulation results and also to Sand Production Pipe Saver (SPPS) results, a mechanistic erosion prediction software developed at the E/CRC. The comparison shows SVM prediction has a better match with both CFD and SPPS. The application of AI model to determine the uncertainty of calculated erosion is also discussed.","PeriodicalId":333138,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Fluid Mechanics; Multiphase Flows","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicting Solid Particle Erosion and Uncertainty in Elbows by Artificial Intelligence Methods\",\"authors\":\"S. Karimi, Bohan Xu, Alireza Asgharpour, S. Shirazi, S. Sen\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/fedsm2020-20458\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n AI approaches include machine learning algorithms in which models are trained from existing data to predict the behavior of the system for previously unseen cases. Recent studies at the Erosion/Corrosion Research Center (E/CRC) have shown that these methods can be quite effective in predicting erosion. However, these methods are not widely used in the engineering industries due to the lack of work and information in this area. Moreover, in most of the available literature, the reported models and results have not been rigorously tested. This fact suggests that these models cannot be fully trusted for the applications for which they are trained. Therefore, in this study three machine learning models, including Elastic Net, Random Forest and Support Vector Machine (SVM), are utilized to increase the confidence in these tools. First, these models are trained with a training data set. Next, the model hyper-parameters are optimized by using nested cross validation. Finally, the results are verified with a test data set. This process is repeated several times to assure the accuracy of the results. In order to be able to predict the erosion under different conditions with these three models, six main variables are considered in the training data set. These variables include material hardness, pipe diameter, particle size, liquid viscosity, liquid superficial velocity, and gas superficial velocity. All three studied models show good prediction performances. The Random Forest and SVM approaches, however, show slightly better results compared to Elastic Net. The performance of these models is compared to both CFD erosion simulation results and also to Sand Production Pipe Saver (SPPS) results, a mechanistic erosion prediction software developed at the E/CRC. The comparison shows SVM prediction has a better match with both CFD and SPPS. The application of AI model to determine the uncertainty of calculated erosion is also discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":333138,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Volume 2: Fluid Mechanics; Multiphase Flows\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Volume 2: Fluid Mechanics; Multiphase Flows\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/fedsm2020-20458\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 2: Fluid Mechanics; Multiphase Flows","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/fedsm2020-20458","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

人工智能方法包括机器学习算法,其中从现有数据中训练模型,以预测系统在以前未见过的情况下的行为。侵蚀/腐蚀研究中心(E/CRC)最近的研究表明,这些方法在预测侵蚀方面非常有效。然而,由于这方面的工作和信息的缺乏,这些方法并没有广泛应用于工程行业。此外,在大多数可用的文献中,报告的模型和结果都没有经过严格的测试。这一事实表明,这些模型不能完全被用于训练它们的应用程序。因此,在本研究中,使用弹性网络,随机森林和支持向量机(SVM)三种机器学习模型来增加对这些工具的置信度。首先,使用训练数据集对这些模型进行训练。其次,采用嵌套交叉验证对模型超参数进行优化。最后,用测试数据集对结果进行了验证。这个过程要重复几次,以保证结果的准确性。为了能够用这三种模型预测不同条件下的侵蚀,在训练数据集中考虑了六个主要变量。这些变量包括材料硬度、管径、粒度、液体粘度、液体表面速度和气体表面速度。所研究的三种模型均具有良好的预测性能。然而,与Elastic Net相比,随机森林和支持向量机方法显示出稍好的结果。将这些模型的性能与CFD侵蚀模拟结果以及E/CRC开发的机械侵蚀预测软件产砂管节省器(SPPS)的结果进行了比较。结果表明,SVM预测结果与CFD和SPPS预测结果都具有较好的匹配性。讨论了人工智能模型在确定侵蚀计算不确定度中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predicting Solid Particle Erosion and Uncertainty in Elbows by Artificial Intelligence Methods
AI approaches include machine learning algorithms in which models are trained from existing data to predict the behavior of the system for previously unseen cases. Recent studies at the Erosion/Corrosion Research Center (E/CRC) have shown that these methods can be quite effective in predicting erosion. However, these methods are not widely used in the engineering industries due to the lack of work and information in this area. Moreover, in most of the available literature, the reported models and results have not been rigorously tested. This fact suggests that these models cannot be fully trusted for the applications for which they are trained. Therefore, in this study three machine learning models, including Elastic Net, Random Forest and Support Vector Machine (SVM), are utilized to increase the confidence in these tools. First, these models are trained with a training data set. Next, the model hyper-parameters are optimized by using nested cross validation. Finally, the results are verified with a test data set. This process is repeated several times to assure the accuracy of the results. In order to be able to predict the erosion under different conditions with these three models, six main variables are considered in the training data set. These variables include material hardness, pipe diameter, particle size, liquid viscosity, liquid superficial velocity, and gas superficial velocity. All three studied models show good prediction performances. The Random Forest and SVM approaches, however, show slightly better results compared to Elastic Net. The performance of these models is compared to both CFD erosion simulation results and also to Sand Production Pipe Saver (SPPS) results, a mechanistic erosion prediction software developed at the E/CRC. The comparison shows SVM prediction has a better match with both CFD and SPPS. The application of AI model to determine the uncertainty of calculated erosion is also discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信