4.7 Article

Predicting particle collection performance of a wet electrostatic precipitator under varied conditions with artificial neural networks

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 377, 期 -, 页码 632-639

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2020.09.027

关键词

Artificial neural network (ANN); Wet electrostatic precipitator; Particle collection; Univariate analysis; Contribution weight

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51906258]
  2. Key Technology Research and Development Program of Shandong [2019JZZY010403]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2019M652505]
  4. Talent Introduction Project of China University of Petroleum (East China) [yj20180085]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A three-layer artificial neural network was developed to predict the wet ESP performance, with parameters contributing to particle collection weight determined, and current and voltage dominating particle collection in different regions.
The prediction of particle collection is important in designing and operating an electrostatic precipitator (ESP). In this work, a three-layer artificial neural network (ANN) was developed to predict the wet ESP performance under various conditions. The mean square error (MSE), standard deviation error (SDE), and variance account for (VAF) were used to evaluate the ANN model. The univariate analysis method was used to determine the contribution weight of each parameter. The MSE, SDE, and VAF for the trained ANN model were 0.0027%, 0.0362%, and 97.95%, respectively. The current decrease with operation time accounted for the inaccurate evaluation of wet ESP performance. The operating voltage, corona current, gas temperature, and residence time contributed 61.53%, 36.65%, 1.26%, and 0.56% to particle collection respectively. Furthermore, current and voltage dominated the particle collection in different regions. The research findings provide a valuable research approach to retrofit the design and operation of wet ESPs. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据