Analyzing Power Consumption in a Coaxial Bioreactor Using Machine Learning Techniques with Computational Fluid Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agitated bioreactors are the subject of many studies regarding their design and scale-up to enhance the productivity in various chemical and biochemical industries. In this regard, accurately predicting their power consumption is very important, because it influences the mass transfer rate and flow uniformity inside the bioreactor. A literature review revealed that no study has been conducted to investigate the performance of coaxial bioreactors in terms of their power consumption using a machine learning method. In this study, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was developed and validated against experimental data. Subsequently, 500 simulations at different aeration rates (2–6 L/min), anchor impeller speeds (3.5–9.5 rpm), central impeller speeds (60–150 rpm), and rotating modes (co-rotating and counter-rotating) were conducted. The data from these simulations were utilized to train and test various machine learning models. Initially, the k-nearest neighbor (KNN) classification model was employed to categorize the coaxial bioreactors into different rotating modes. It was found that with just the torque value and central impeller speed, the model achieved successful classification. In addition, various regression models, including multi-layer perceptron (MLP), KNN, and random forest, were developed to predict the torque that would be produced by the coaxial bioreactor. For all models, the hyperparameter tuning and cross-validations were performed. The mean squared error (MSE) evaluation showed that the random forest model had superior performance compared to its counterparts.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".