Issue
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,
Vol.39, No.3, 515-528, 2022
Physics-informed deep learning for data-driven solutionsof computational fluid dynamics
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is an essential tool for solving engineering problems that involve fluid dynamics. Especially in chemical engineering, fluid motion usually has extensive effects on system states, such as temperature and component concentration. However, due to the critical issue of long computational times for simulating CFD, application of CFD is limited for many real-time problems, such as real-time optimization and process control. In this study, we developed a surrogate model of a continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) with van de Vusse reaction using physics-informed neural network (PINN), which can train the governing equations of the system. We propose a PINN architecture that can train every governing equation which a chemical reactor system follows and can train a multi-reference frame system. Also, we investigated that PINN can resolve the problem of neural network that needs a large number of training data, is easily overfitted and cannot contain physical meaning. Furthermore, we modified the original PINN suggested by Raissi to solve the memory error and divergence problem with two methods: Mini-batch training and weighted loss function. We also suggest a similarity-based sampling strategy where the accuracy can be improved up to five times over random sampling. This work can provide a guideline for developing a high performance surrogate model of the chemical process.
[References]
  1. Sanderse B, Van der Pijl SP, Koren B, Wind Energy, 14, 799, 2011
  2. Zajaczkowski FJ, Haupt SE, Schmehl KJ, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 99, 320, 2011
  3. Harris CK, Roekaerts D, Rosendal FJJ, Buitendijk FGJ, Daskopoulos P, Vreenegoor AJN, Wang H, Chem. Eng. Sci., 51, 1569, 1996
  4. Forrester AI, Keane AJ, Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 45, 50, 2009
  5. Park S, Na J, Kim M, Lee JM, Comput. Chem. Eng., 119, 25, 2018
  6. Lang YD, Malacina A, Biegler LT, Munteanu S, Madsen JI, Zitney SE, Energy Fuels, 23, 1695, 2009
  7. Ling J, Kurzawski A, Templeton J, J. Fluid Mech., 807, 155, 2016
  8. Na J, Jeon K, Lee WB, Chem. Eng. Sci., 181, 68, 2018
  9. Carleo G, Cirac I, Cranmer K, Daudet L, Schuld M, Tishby N, Vogt-Maranto L, Zdeborov? L, Rev. Mod. Phys., 91, 45002, 2019
  10. Jia X, Willard J, Karpatne A, Read JS, Zwart JA, Steinbach M, Kumar V, arXiv preprint 2017.
  11. Raissi M, Perdikaris P, Karniadakis GE, J. Comp. Phys., 378, 686, 2019
  12. Mao Z, Jagtap AD, Karniadakis GE, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 360, 112789, 2020
  13. Yang XIA, Zafar S, Wang JX, Xiao H, Phys. Rev. Fluids, 4, 34602, 2019
  14. Jin X, Cai S, Li H, Karniadakis GE, J. Comp. Phys., 426, 109951, 2021
  15. Kuntanapreeda S, Marusak PM, Comput. Chem. Eng., 41, 10, 2012
  16. Chen CT, Peng ST, J. Process Control, 15, 515, 2005
  17. Doyle III FJ, Ogunnaike BA, Pearson RK, Automatica, 31, 697, 1995
  18. Akesson BM, Toivonen HT, J. Process Control, 16, 937, 2006
  19. Graichen K, Hagenmeyer V, Zeitz M, Comput. Chem. Eng., 33, 473, 2009
  20. Ridlehoover GA, Seagrave BC, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund., 12, 444, 1973
  21. Meng C, Sun M, Yang J, Qiu M, Gu Y, In: Proc. of ML Systems Workshop in NIPS, December, 7 (2017).
  22. Latz J, Stat Comput, 31, 1, 2021
  23. Keskar NS, Mudigere D, Nocedal J, Smelyanskiy M, Tang PTP, arXiv Preprint 2016.
  24. Kalal Z, Matas J, Mikolajczyk K, BMVC, 2, 5, 2008