4.6 Article

Neural network prediction of residence time distribution for quasi-2D pebble flow

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 250, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2021.117363

关键词

Pebble flow; Residence time; Quasi-static flow; Image identification; PTV algorithm; Neural network

资金

  1. Naval Reactors Division of the U.S. Department of Energy
  2. National Science and Technology Major Project [2011ZX06901-003]
  3. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2014AA052701]
  4. funds of Nuclear Power Technology Innovation Centre [HDLCXZX-2020-HD-022, HDLCXZX-2021-ZH-024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research focuses on the residence time distribution (RTD) in silo discharging and examines the feasibility of using neural network methods for RTD prediction. The results reveal that neural networks offer a significant advantage in computing speed while maintaining an acceptable level of prediction accuracy.
An important parameter in silo discharging is residence time distribution (RTD), which describes the time each pebble stays within the bed. RTD can be applied as a key indicator to estimate reaction processes, and a key analytical metric to assess the inherent safety of reactors. However, due to the difficulty in obtaining pebble trajectories, few studies on discharging processes have been carried out. In this research, a pilot experimental study is conducted to get quantitative data and prediction model on RTD with precise predictions. The feasibility of applying neural network methods to RTD prediction is also checked. The accuracy of neural network prediction is confirmed by comparing the error between predicted and experimental results. It is discovered that RTD isoline changes in different regions and characterized by intuitive physical models. Compared to DEM, the neural network has a significant advantage in computing speed while retaining acceptable prediction accuracy.(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

4.6
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