Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Nanofluids Viscosity Assessment.
artificial intelligence
artificial neural network
big data
computational fluid dynamics
computational mechanics
data science
deep learning
ensemble models
experimental data
machine learning
material design
nano
nanofluid
nanofluid viscosity
nanomaterials
Journal
Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2079-4991
Titre abrégé: Nanomaterials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101610216
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Sep 2020
07 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
23
06
2020
revised:
29
08
2020
accepted:
31
08
2020
entrez:
10
9
2020
pubmed:
11
9
2020
medline:
11
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The process of selecting a nanofluid for a particular application requires determining the thermophysical properties of nanofluid, such as viscosity. However, the experimental measurement of nanofluid viscosity is expensive. Several closed-form formulas for calculating the viscosity have been proposed by scientists based on theoretical and empirical methods, but these methods produce inaccurate results. Recently, a machine learning model based on the combination of seven baselines, which is called the committee machine intelligent system (CMIS), was proposed to predict the viscosity of nanofluids. CMIS was applied on 3144 experimental data of relative viscosity of 42 different nanofluid systems based on five features (temperature, the viscosity of the base fluid, nanoparticle volume fraction, size, and density) and returned an average absolute relative error (AARE) of 4.036% on the test. In this work, eight models (on the same dataset as the one used in CMIS), including two multilayer perceptron (MLP), each with Nesterov accelerated adaptive moment (Nadam) optimizer; two MLP, each with three hidden layers and Adamax optimizer; a support vector regression (SVR) with radial basis function (RBF) kernel; a decision tree (DT); tree-based ensemble models, including random forest (RF) and extra tree (ET), were proposed. The performance of these models at different ranges of input variables was assessed and compared with the ones presented in the literature. Based on our result, all the eight suggested models outperformed the baselines used in the literature, and five of our presented models outperformed the CMIS, where two of them returned an AARE less than 3% on the test data. Besides, the physical validity of models was studied by examining the physically expected trends of nanofluid viscosity due to changing volume fraction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32906742
pii: nano10091767
doi: 10.3390/nano10091767
pmc: PMC7558292
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : European Commission
ID : EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00010
Références
Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2015 Apr 25;27(2):130-5
pubmed: 26120265
Nanomaterials (Basel). 2020 May 18;10(5):
pubmed: 32443641
Neural Netw. 1999 Jan;12(1):145-151
pubmed: 12662723
Int Stat Rev. 2014 Dec 1;82(3):359-361
pubmed: 25844011
Nanomaterials (Basel). 2020 May 06;10(5):
pubmed: 32384755