MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312629370 · doi:10.1115/ipc2022-87001

CNN-Based Flow Pattern Identification Based On Flow-Induced Vibration Characteristics For Multiphase Flow Pipelines

2022· article· en· W4312629370 on OpenAlexaff
Haobin Chen, Zhuoran Dang, Ronald J. Hugo, Simon Park

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and Joining · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFlow (mathematics)Convolutional neural networkNoise (video)Short-time Fourier transformPipeline (software)Hilbert transformPipeline transportMultiphase flowArtificial intelligenceVibrationPattern recognition (psychology)AcousticsFourier transformEngineeringComputer visionMechanicsPhysicsFourier analysisMechanical engineeringFilter (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Structural health monitoring (SHM) techniques designed for single phase flow pipelines can be difficult to apply to multiphase flow pipelines. Data collected for pipeline SHM can be affected by intermittent changes in flow characteristics associated with flow patterns. Therefore, determining the flow pattern can help to better predict the unsteadiness of the flow parameters associated with pipeline integrity management. It is known that flow-induced vibration (FIV) in multiphase flow is highly correlated with flow pattern. In this paper, the characterization of FIV under various flow patterns is investigated experimentally, and a CNN-based flow pattern identification method is presented for horizontal gas-liquid pipe flow. Measurements were performed using two wall-mounted triaxial accelerometers with a high-speed camera, which simultaneously acquired both images and accelerometer signals. The difference of flow-induced vibration under various flow patterns can be explicitly shown by extracting morphological features using the Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) and Short Time Fourier Transform (STFT). In this paper, the HHT with 1st to 3rd IMFs is intended to emphasize the portion of FIV due to the unsteady fluctuations, while the STFT is intended to examine the FIV contributed to by both steady and unsteady fluctuations. To eliminate human interpretation errors, a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based machine learning model is built for the flow pattern identification task. To increase the size of the dataset used for flow pattern identification, the original time-series database is augmented by applying a series of data augmentation methods including sliding window, window stretch, denoising, and noise enhancement. These enable the flow pattern identification process to be more robust under various void fractions and flow geometries. The flow pattern identification results show that both HHT and STFT trained model have promising performance with overall accuracy above 97%. A comparison of identification results using HHT and STFT extracted morphological features from different accelerometer axes is performed. The results show that model trained by HHT images has a higher level of generalization.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 score0.566
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and JoiningSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207