Artificial neural network to predict the power number of agitated tanks fed by <scp>CFD</scp> simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The power consumption of the agitator is a critical variable to consider in the design of a mixing system. It is generally evaluated through a dimensionless number known as the power number . Multiple empirical equations exist to calculate the power number based on the Reynolds number and dimensionless geometrical variables that characterize the tank, the impeller, and the height of the fluid. However, correlations perform poorly outside of the conditions in which they were established. We create a rich database of 100 k computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. We simulate paddle and pitched blade turbines in unbaffled tanks from 1 to 100 and use an artificial neural network (ANN) to create a robust and accurate predictor of the power number. We perform a mesh sensitivity analysis to verify the precision of the values given by the CFD simulations. To sample the 100 k mixers by their geometrical and physical properties, we use the Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) method. We then normalize the data with a MinMax transformation to put all features in the same scale and thus avoid bias during the ANN's training. Using a grid search cross‐validation, we find the best architecture of the ANN that prevents overfitting and underfitting. Finally, we quantify the performance of the ANN by extracting 30% of the database, predicting the using the ANN, and evaluating the mean absolute percentage error. The mean absolute error in the ANN prediction is 0.5%, and its accuracy surpasses correlations even for untrained geometries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".