Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 13

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Data-driven prediction of the equivalent sand-grain roughness

Ma, Haoran, Li, Yuhao, Yang, Xin, Ye, Lili·2023·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Surface roughness affects the near-wall fluid velocity profile and surface drag, and is commonly quantified by the equivalent sand-grain roughness $${k}_{s}$$ k s . It is essential to estimate $${k}_{s}$$ k s for accurate fluid dynamic problem modeling. While numerous roughness correlation formulas have been proposed to predict $${k}_{s}$$ k s in the fully rough regime, most of them are restricted to certain roughness types, with various geometric parameters considered in each case, leading to ongoing disagreements regarding its parameterization and lack of universality. In this study, a Particle Swarm Optimized Backpropagation (PSO-BP) method is proposed to predict $${k}_{s}$$ k s based on the selected surface parameters from previous DNS, LES, and experimental results for flow behavior over various surface roughness. The PSO-BP model’s ability to predict $${k}_{s}$$ k s in the fully rough region is evaluated and compared with both the existing roughness correction formulas as well as the traditional BP model. An optimized polynomial function is also proposed to serve as a ‘white box’ for predicting $${k}_{s}$$ k s . It turns out that the PSO-BP method has better performance in the evaluation metrics compared to other methods, yielding a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 0.0390, a Mean Squared Error (MSE) of 0.0026 and a Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) of 28.12%. This novel approach for estimating $${k}_{s}$$ k s has practical applicability and holds promise for improving the precision and efficiency of calculations related to equivalent sand-grain roughness, and thus provides more accurate and effective solutions for CFD and other engineering applications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-023-46564-4

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Heatmap of the correlation matrix.
Figure 1 Heatmap of the correlation matrix.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Overall prediction module of the PSO-BP algorithm.
Figure 2 Overall prediction module of the PSO-BP algorithm.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Feature importance plot measured by Random Forest.
Figure 3 Feature importance plot measured by Random Forest.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 (a) Scatter plot of true ks and predicted ks, (b) Scatter plot of relative error for each sample.
Figure 4 (a) Scatter plot of true ks and predicted ks, (b) Scatter plot of relative error for each sample.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 (a) Scatter plot of true ks and predicted ks, (b) Scatter plot of relative error for each sample.
Figure 5 (a) Scatter plot of true ks and predicted ks, (b) Scatter plot of relative error for each sample.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Bar plots of performance evaluation metrics.
Figure 6 Bar plots of performance evaluation metrics.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 90% Confidence Interval for PSO-BPNN.
Figure 7 90% Confidence Interval for PSO-BPNN.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Metadata

Authors
Ma, H., Li, Y., Yang, X., & Ye, L.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2023-11-04
Volume
13
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322
Cited by
13
References
21
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.