4.7 Article

Estimation of kinematic viscosity of biodiesel-diesel blends: Comparison among accuracy of intelligent and empirical paradigms

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 177, 期 -, 页码 318-326

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.092

关键词

Sustainable fuel; Biodiesel-diesel blends; Kinematic viscosity; Comparison study; Smart modeling; Empirical correlations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the accuracy of different empirical and intelligent paradigms for estimating biodiesel-diesel blends, and determines that the LSSVM with a polynomial kernel is the most accurate approach. The designed model estimated the kinematic viscosity of 636 biodiesel-diesel blends with high accuracy.
Recently, Biodiesels are found high popularity as environmentally friendly and renewable fuels. Suitable combustion, appropriate atomization process, high flash point, and proper cetane number approved biodiesels as potential alternative for petroleum-based diesel fuels. Since, characteristics of biodiesels as well as biodiesel-diesel blends are directly related to their viscosity, an accurate approach is required for prediction of this important transport property. Therefore, this study tries to compare the accuracy of different empirical and intelligent paradigms for estimation of biodiesel-diesel blends. For this regard, the best topology of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems (ANFIS) and least squares support vector machines (LSSVM) are determined at first, and then their predictive performances are compared with five empirical correlations in literatures. Combination of statistical study and ranking analysis justified that the LSSVM with polynomial kernel is the most accurate approach for the considered matter. The designed model estimated kinematic viscosity of 636 biodiesel-diesel blends with an excellent AARD = 0.754%, MAE = 0.03, RAE = 1.98%, RRSE = 2.3%, MSE = 0.003, RMSE = 0.05, and R-2_value of 0.9997. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. 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