Predicting soot formation in fossil fuels: A comparative study of regression and machine learning models

IF 3 Q2 ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL Digital Chemical Engineering Pub Date : 2024-08-24 DOI:10.1016/j.dche.2024.100172
Ridhwan Lawal , Wasif Farooq , Abdulazeez Abdulraheem , Abdul Gani Abdul Jameel
{"title":"Predicting soot formation in fossil fuels: A comparative study of regression and machine learning models","authors":"Ridhwan Lawal ,&nbsp;Wasif Farooq ,&nbsp;Abdulazeez Abdulraheem ,&nbsp;Abdul Gani Abdul Jameel","doi":"10.1016/j.dche.2024.100172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The incomplete combustion of fossil fuels results in the emission of soot, a carbonaceous, solid fine powder that causes harm to human health and the environment. This study compares multiple linear regression (MLR) with three different machine learning (ML) models for predicting the threshold sooting index (TSI), a commonly employed index for measuring the sooting propensity of fuels. The dataset used for model development consists of experimental TSI data for 342 fuels, including various chemical classes, including oxygenated components like ethers and alcohols. Ten input features were employed, comprising eight functionalities, molecular weight, and the branching index (BI). These parameters used as input features have been demonstrated to affect fuels' physical and thermochemical properties. The ML models employed in this study are support vector regression with Nu parameter (NuSVR), extra trees regression (ETR), and extreme gradient boosting regression (XGBR). The models were trained, validated, and tested using randomly split datasets, with 56 % for training, 14 % for validation, and 30 % for testing. The accuracy of the MLR, NuSVR, ETR, and XGBR models for the entire dataset was 91 %, 96 %, 98 %, and 96 %, respectively. The mean absolute errors (MAE) of prediction were 3.4, 0.022, 0.011, and 0.028 for MLR, NuSVR, ETR, and XGBR respectively. These results highlight the effectiveness of the ML models in making predictions, with error levels similar to the uncertainties observed in experimental measurements. The developed ML models have been validated to ensure generalizability and can be used to predict petroleum fuels' TSI.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72815,"journal":{"name":"Digital Chemical Engineering","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100172"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772508124000346/pdfft?md5=cc7397098bfb4ba34202a20ec0a0dd60&pid=1-s2.0-S2772508124000346-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digital Chemical Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772508124000346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The incomplete combustion of fossil fuels results in the emission of soot, a carbonaceous, solid fine powder that causes harm to human health and the environment. This study compares multiple linear regression (MLR) with three different machine learning (ML) models for predicting the threshold sooting index (TSI), a commonly employed index for measuring the sooting propensity of fuels. The dataset used for model development consists of experimental TSI data for 342 fuels, including various chemical classes, including oxygenated components like ethers and alcohols. Ten input features were employed, comprising eight functionalities, molecular weight, and the branching index (BI). These parameters used as input features have been demonstrated to affect fuels' physical and thermochemical properties. The ML models employed in this study are support vector regression with Nu parameter (NuSVR), extra trees regression (ETR), and extreme gradient boosting regression (XGBR). The models were trained, validated, and tested using randomly split datasets, with 56 % for training, 14 % for validation, and 30 % for testing. The accuracy of the MLR, NuSVR, ETR, and XGBR models for the entire dataset was 91 %, 96 %, 98 %, and 96 %, respectively. The mean absolute errors (MAE) of prediction were 3.4, 0.022, 0.011, and 0.028 for MLR, NuSVR, ETR, and XGBR respectively. These results highlight the effectiveness of the ML models in making predictions, with error levels similar to the uncertainties observed in experimental measurements. The developed ML models have been validated to ensure generalizability and can be used to predict petroleum fuels' TSI.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预测化石燃料中烟尘的形成:回归模型与机器学习模型的比较研究
化石燃料不完全燃烧会产生烟尘,这是一种碳质固体粉末,会对人类健康和环境造成危害。本研究比较了多元线性回归(MLR)和三种不同的机器学习(ML)模型,以预测阈值烟尘指数(TSI),这是衡量燃料烟尘倾向的常用指数。用于模型开发的数据集由 342 种燃料的 TSI 实验数据组成,其中包括各种化学类别,包括醚和醇等含氧成分。模型采用了十个输入特征,包括八个官能度、分子量和支化指数(BI)。这些作为输入特征的参数已被证明会影响燃料的物理和热化学性质。本研究采用的 ML 模型包括带 Nu 参数的支持向量回归(NuSVR)、额外树回归(ETR)和极端梯度提升回归(XGBR)。这些模型使用随机分割的数据集进行训练、验证和测试,其中 56% 用于训练,14% 用于验证,30% 用于测试。MLR、NuSVR、ETR 和 XGBR 模型对整个数据集的准确率分别为 91%、96%、98% 和 96%。MLR、NuSVR、ETR 和 XGBR 预测的平均绝对误差(MAE)分别为 3.4、0.022、0.011 和 0.028。这些结果凸显了 ML 模型在预测方面的有效性,其误差水平与实验测量中观察到的不确定性相似。所开发的 ML 模型已通过验证,可用于预测石油燃料的 TSI,以确保其通用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The trust region filter strategy: Survey of a rigorous approach for optimization with surrogate models Multi-agent distributed control of integrated process networks using an adaptive community detection approach Industrial data-driven machine learning soft sensing for optimal operation of etching tools Process integration technique for targeting carbon credit price subsidy Robust simulation and technical evaluation of large-scale gas oil hydrocracking process via extended water-energy-product (E-WEP) analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1