MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084313711 · doi:10.32393/csme.2020.31

Modelling of Hydrocarbon and Non-hydrocarbon Gases Viscosity by Using an Artificial Neural Networks Model

2020· article· en· W3084313711 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Canadian Mechanical Engineering. Volume 3 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Data Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrocarbonArtificial neural networkPetroleum engineeringViscosityComputer scienceGeologyArtificial intelligenceChemistryThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The viscosity of gas mixtures is one of the most crucial governing parameters, which affect oil and natural gas flow in reservoirs and exploitation equipment. Ideally, viscosity must be determined experimentally in a laboratory on actual fluid samples. However, in the absence of experimentally measured data, due to its difficulty or when invalid samples are available, parameters would be simulated by different mathematical models. Existing models need experimentally obtained gas components' mole fraction. This study presents an artificial neural network model that predicts the hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon gases viscosity by only three input parameters: temperature, pressure, and gas molecular weight, which are easier to find compared to gas components' mole fraction. The prediction procedure in this study was carried out using a large database containing 2445 experimental data in a wide range of temperatures (100-460 F), pressure (14.7-10000 psi) and molecular weights (16.04-53.92 Ib/Ib-mole). To develop a suitable model, a multi-layer feed-forward neural network with a back propagation learning algorithm is used. 70 percent of data points were used to train the network. 15 percent were used to validate along the training process and finally, 15 percent were used for blind testing of the network. To find the optimized structure of the network a MATLAB code is written. This code searches through different networks to find the optimal number of hidden layers, number of hidden neurons, the activation function of the hidden layer and the activation function of the output layer. In this study up to two hidden layers, 25 neurons in the first hidden layer and 20 neurons in the second hidden were evaluated. Also, sigmoid and tangent sigmoid activation functions were tested for the hidden layer and sigmoid, tangent sigmoid and linear activation functions were tested for the output layer. As a result, an investigation is made through a vast number of networks. A network with two hidden layers including 12 neurons in the first hidden layer and 10 neurons in the second hidden layer showed the least error. Activation functions of this network are the sigmoid function. The average absolute relative error of the network for test data is 3.27%. A comparison study between this model and five other models is done. Not only the input parameters of this new model are easier to be obtained, but also the proposed artificial neural network model can predict gas viscosity more accurately.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it