Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Slurry Viscosity Calc PDF
Slurry Viscosity Calc PDF
Faculty of Technology
Masters Degree Program in Chemical and Process Engineering
Alina Lozhechnikova
Lappeenranta, 2011
ABSTRACT
Lappeenranta University of Technology
Faculty of Technology
Masters Degree Program in Chemical Technology
Alina Lozhechnikova
Determination of slurrys viscosity using case based reasoning approach
Masters Thesis
2011
57 pages, 12 figures, 2 tables and 2 appendices
Examiners:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Masters thesis was carried out in the Lappeenranta University of
Technology. I am very grateful to Professor Andrzej Kraslawski that he gave me
an opportunity to work under his control. His complete assistance, inexpressible
help and also support during my illness were very important for me.
I would like to express my gratitude to D. Mendeleev University of Chemical
Technology of Russia for great knowledge base, which helps me to continue my
education. Special thanks to Natalia Menshytina, my supervisor from MUCTR for
this fantastic possibility to study at LUT.
And of course, my very special thanks go to my family and friends. Thanks to my
mother and my father, to my lovely grandmother, and my best friend Marina.
These people support me all the time and make my staying in Lappeenranta great.
Thank you dears!
This research work is dedicated to my grandfather. I hope that you are proud of
me.
Lappeenranta, 2011
Alina Lozhechnikova
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 8
2. CLASSIFICATION OF FLOW BEHAVIOR ..................................................... 9
2.1 Newtonian flow...................................................................................... 9
2.2 Non-Newtonian flow ........................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Bingham plastic fluids .......................................................... 12
2.2.2 Pseudo-plastic fluids ............................................................. 12
2.2.3 Yield pseudo-plastic fluids.................................................... 13
2.3 Classes of slurries according to the type of flow ................................. 13
2.4 Time-dependent flow behavior ............................................................ 14
3. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SLURRIES ..................................................... 15
3.1 Density ................................................................................................. 15
3.2 Concentration ....................................................................................... 16
3.3 Viscosity .............................................................................................. 16
4. INTRODUCTION TO CASE-BASED REASONING ..................................... 18
4.1 History review of CBR field ................................................................ 18
4.2 Case-based reasoning conception ........................................................ 19
5. THE CBR PROCESS ........................................................................................ 20
5.1 Case-based interpretation ..................................................................... 20
5.2 Case-based problem-solving ................................................................ 21
6. REVIEW OF CBR MODELS ........................................................................... 22
6.1 Kolodners CBR model ....................................................................... 23
6.2 Aamodt & Plazas CBR model ............................................................ 24
6.3 Six-REs CBR model ............................................................................ 25
6.4 Finnie & Suns CBR model ................................................................. 25
7. REPRESENTATION OF CASES ..................................................................... 26
7.1 The dynamic memory model ............................................................... 27
7.2 The Category-Exemplar Model ........................................................... 29
8. CBR CYCLE ..................................................................................................... 30
8.1 Retrieval in CBR .................................................................................. 30
8.2 Reuse in Case-Based Reasoning .......................................................... 35
8.3 Case revision ........................................................................................ 38
8.4 Retention in Case-Based Reasoning .................................................... 39
9. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CBR .................................... 40
9.1 Benefits ................................................................................................ 40
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Newtonian flow .................................................................................. 9
Figure 2: Newtonian and Non-Newtonian fluids ............................................ 10
Figure 3: Flow curves for a Thixotropic and Rheopectic fluids ...................... 15
Figure 4: Ratio of viscosity of mixture versus viscosity of carrier ................. 18
Figure 5: Relationship between problem and solution spaces in CBR ............ 22
Figure 6: The CBR cycle by Kolodner ............................................................ 23
Figure 7: The CBR cycle by Aamodt & Plaza ................................................ 24
Figure 8: The CBR cycle by Ian Watson ......................................................... 25
Figure 9: The CBR cycle by Finnie & Sun ..................................................... 26
Figure 10: Structure of cases and generalized episodes .................................. 28
Figure 11: The structure of categories, features and exemplars ...................... 29
Figure 12: Workspace section of decision support system .............................. 45
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Companies developing and applying CBR technology ...................... 42
Table 2: The results of system test ................................................................... 46
1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays a variety of industrial processes involve various operations with
slurries and suspensions. First of all, to be able to perform design and modeling of
industrial process, it is necessary to research the properties of the slurry, which
will be used in industrial process. And in this case the apparent viscosity is one of
the most important characteristics of slurry. However, in some cases it is quite a
difficult task to measure the slurrys viscosity. Especially when dealing with NonNewtonian rheological fluids, whose behavior depends on time. Also some
suspensions require special handling, due to their chemical and physical
properties, concentration of solid particles, and tendency to aggregation or
degradation under the deformation, etc.
To reduce the time and amount of resources spent on carry out experiments to
determine the viscosity of the new slurry, it is possible to use the Case-Based
Reasoning (CBR) approach. And today, the CBR approach is not simply an
isolated research area, but a methodology that is widely used in various fields.
The aim of this work is: to develop a CBR system to support the decision making
process about the type of slurries behavior, to collect a sufficient volume of
qualitative data for case base, and to calculate the viscosity of the Newtonian
slurries.
Firstly in this paper, the literature review about the types of fluid flow, Newtonian
and non-Newtonian slurries are presented. Some physical properties of the
suspensions are also considered. The second part of the literature review provides
an overview of the case-based reasoning field. Different models and stages of
CBR cycles, benefits and disadvantages of this methodology are considered
subsequently. Brief review of the CBS tools is also given in this work. Finally,
some results of work and opportunities for system modernization are presented.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Slurry is a mixture of solids and liquids. Technical term slurry contains a wide
range of solid-liquid blends. So, if a solid-liquid mixture has some liquidity, we
can call it slurry. Solid particles can be different sizes: from very fine colloidal
particles to coarse particles, which can precipitate. The solid concentration and
materials of solid and liquid phase have a great influence on viscosity and other
flow characteristics. The following parameters also affect the slurry properties:
size and shape of the particles, level of turbulence, temperature, the particle size
distribution, the diameter of the pipe and the surface properties of the solid
particles. /1, 2/
Figure 2.1
10
The classical Newtons equation for Newtonian fluids is this relationship between
shear stress and shear rate (also known as velocity gradient). Equation 2.1
represents the Newtonian model.
(2.1)
where is a viscosity of fluid, shear stress, and dV/du is a shear rate. /4/
For Newtonian liquids the slope of the shear stress versus shear rate is constant
while the velocity is constant at a given pressure and temperature. Also at zero
shear rate, the shear stress is equal to zero for Newtonian fluids, and thus the
graph passes through the origin. Non-Newtonian fluids mostly dont satisfy these
conditions. Thus, for them shear stress versus shear rate could be curved line and
could have positive value at the origin. This is illustrated in Fig.2.2. /3, 5/
Figure 2.2
As you can see on the Fig.2.2, Newtonian and Bingham plastic fluids have
straight lines on the plot, due to constant dynamic viscosity. And in contrast with
them, pseudo-plastic and dilatant fluids have curved plots and inconstant viscosity
which depends on the shear rate. Also Dilatant, Newtonian and Pseudo-Plastic
liquids have zero shear stress at a zero shear rate, so they dont need minimum
shear stress to start flow. Slurries are basically non-newtonian fluids, but if
concentration of particles decreases, they can become Newtonian fluids. /4, 6, 7/
11
On the Fig.2.2 were shown several possible rheograms for non-Newtonian liquids
with different flow types.
Factors influencing non-Newtonian flow behavior:
-
Size and shape of particles. The smaller the size of the particles, the
greater the chance, that fluid will show a non-Newtonian behavior. But too
small particles which are suspended by Brownian motion may flocculate
and reduce the degree of behavior. If slurries with the same solids
concentration, the slurry with fine particles will have higher consistency.
Also with concentrations higher than 35% by weight, particle shape affects
the consistency of slurry. Slurries with round-shaped solids have smaller
consistencies than substances with chaotic-shaped particles. /9, 10/
12
= 0 +
(2.2)
(2.3)
where is a shear stress at distance y from the pipe wall, n power law exponent,
K is a power law coefficient and dV/dy velocity gradient.
13
K and n are parameters that describe the rheology of the power-law fluid in
Eq. 2.3. Parameter K is also known as fluid consistency index. The higher the
viscosity of the fluid, the greater the coefficient K. The constant n is also called
the flow index; n is a measure of difference from Newtonian fluid behavior. For
pseudo-plastic (shear thinning) fluids, coefficient n < 1; for dilatant (shear
thickening) fluids, parameter n > 1 /4, 18/. Rather small values of power-law
index are encountered in the fine suspensions, such as kaolin in water, bentonite
in water, water mixtures of limestone and hydrocarbon grease, etc. And logically,
that the lower the value of n, the more shear-thinning is the material. /3, 4/
2.2.3 Yield pseudo-plastic fluids
Yield pseudoplastic fluids are time-independent liquids; they follow the powerlaw model, but have a positive intercept on the axis, representing the yield stress
0. Thus, if the power-law fluid has a yield value, we can describe it by the
equation, which was suggested by Herschel and Bulkley:
= 0 +
(2.4)
where is a shear stress at distance y from the pipe wall, 0 is a yield stress, K power law coefficient, n power law exponent, dV/dy velocity gradient. /4, 18/
If the parameters values will be equal to as follows: n = 1 and K = , Bingham
plastic fluid equation will be obtained, this can be seen from the Eq. 2.4 and
Eq. 2.2. /4/
2.3 Classes of slurries according to the type of flow
In general there are two types of solid-liquid suspensions (i.e. slurries) according
to the type of flow:
-
14
15
Figure 2.3
In case of thixotropic fluids, the apparent viscosity decreases with the continuance
of shearing, when fluid is sheared at a constant rate. If thixotropic material after
shearing is allowed to stand for some hours, the original viscosity will be
recovered. Sometimes if these liquids have too high apparent viscosity, they can
recover their structure only partially. This could be because of incomplete
dispersion of the particles, for example. /13/
Rheopectic fluids behavior is much less known than thixotropic behavior. In this
case, apparent viscosity is increasing during the shear. With these fluids, small
shearing motions lead to the formation of structure, but above the critical value
decay occurs. The structure doesnt form, if the shearing is too rapid. Most
rheopectic liquids restore to their original viscosity very quickly. Vanadium
pentoxide, sols of bentonite and aqueous gypsum suspensions are some examples
of rheopectic liquids. /3, 13/
16
The density of the slurry could be calculated with the following equation:
= (
100
)+ 100
(3.1)
100
+(100 )
(3.2)
+(100 )
(3.3)
17
(3.4)
(3.5)
(3.6)
Based on Eq.3.6, was built a graph, which is very widely used in slurry industry
for heterogeneous mixtures of a Newtonian rheology. Ratio of viscosity of
mixture versus viscosity of a carrier liquid phase, in accordance with the Thomas
equation for coarse slurries is shown on the Figure 3.1. For Non-Newtonian
slurries the term viscosity has no meaning unless it is related to a particular shear
18
rate. For such fluids the shear stress vs. shear rate is not a constant, but a function
of shear rate and is called the apparent viscosity. /22, 23/
Figure 3.1
19
20
solution. But in many commercial applications, problem and solution parts of the
case arent distinguished, and case means a record with piece of experience,
which includes a set of special features. All cases are collected together to form a
case base. /29/
21
The interpretive style uses cases to ensure substantiation for solutions, to evaluate
solutions when clear-cut methods not available, and to interpret the situations with
open-ended or fuzzy boundaries. There are usually a lot of unknowns in these
situations, thus even if computational methods are available there is not enough
knowledge for their work. In that case, reasoner justifies his lack of knowledge
with the assumption, that the world is consistent. /28/
5.2 Case-based problem-solving
Like previous type, problem-solving CBR includes situation assessment, retrieval
of the case, and similarity evaluation. Similarities and differences between old and
new cases are used to determine how the previous solution can be adapted to the
new situation. In addition, old solutions can prevent potential warnings and
failures in the future, as well as provide almost right solutions for new problems.
Case-based problem solving can be used for wide range of tasks, such as
diagnosis, planning, and design. /28/
There are two different types of similarity, which are used in case-based problemsolving. These two types belong to two different spaces: the space of problem
description and the space of problem solutions. Both spaces are illustrated in
Fig. 5.1. When new problem enters the CBR system, it makes the assessment of
the situation to obtain a description of problem, and then searches for problems
with similar descriptions. To generate a solution for new problem, the solutions of
those problems are used as a starting point. If the right way to describe the
problem was chosen, it will be easier to adapt solutions to the new situations,
because similar problems have similar solutions. /26/
In this work, the term similarity considered as a fuzzy relation between two cases.
It is intended to adapt available knowledge about previous problems to solve new
ones. There are two different techniques to determine the similarity in CBR. The
first one is computational approach. In this approach, an explicit similarity
function is calculated for all cases in the case base. New problems and cases from
past are vague matched, to determine their degree of similarity. The degree is
22
Figure 5.1
23
Adapt
Justify
Criticize
Evaluate
Store
Figure 6.1
The described steps in a certain sense could be recursive; for example adapt and
criticize steps frequently require new cases to be retrieved. Process also can have
some loops. For example: when the process of reasoning goes bad with chosen
case, it might be necessary to choose new case and to restart procedure from the
beginning; also sometimes after criticism or evaluation stage additional adaptation
is required. /28/
24
Figure 6.2
Retrieve old cases, the most similar to new one, from the case base;
A new problem is compared with the cases in the case base and one or more cases
are retrieved. Then solution from case base is reused and tested for success. If the
retrieved case is a close match, the solution could be retained. Thus the new case
is formed, which can be retained subsequently.
Revision may include other methods of reasoning, such as the use of the proposed
solutions as a starting point to search for a solution. Adaptation in an interactive
system also could be done by human. After that new case with the solution can be
retained during last stage. /32, 33/
25
Figure 6.3
The six-REs of the CBR cycle can be mapped to the activities required by a
knowledge management system. In this cycle, first three steps (retrieve, reuse and
revise) are completely the same with previous model steps, so only last three steps
(review, retain, refine) will be considered further:
-
Review the new case by comparing it against cases already retained in the
case base;
Refine the case-based index and feature weights as its necessary. /34/
26
case based on utilizing similarity relations to the possible world of problems and
the world of solutions. This five-REs model, unlike previous ones, takes into
account the fact, that to build a case base it is also important CBR task. Thus in
their model, Finnie and Sun have included the process of preparation of case
bases /29/. The whole cycle of five-REs model is shown on the Fig. 6.4.
Figure 6.4
Furthermore, repartition provides the theoretical basis for case retrieval, because
of one-to-one correspondence between the similarity relations and the partitions.
In this way, both case-base building and case retrieval can be considered as a
similarity-based reasoning in a uniform way. Thus, the proposed model can unify
case base building, case retrieval, and case adaptation process. /35, 36/
7. REPRESENTATION OF CASES
The efficiency of CBR process is very dependent on the structure of its collection
of cases, the so-called case memory. Problems are solved be recalling a previous
experience suitable for solving new problems, so searching process should be both
effective and reasonably fast. The process of storing new cases in the case base
must also satisfy these conditions. The representation problem in CBR is
primarily the problem of deciding what to store in a case, finding an appropriate
27
structure for describing case contents, and deciding how the case memory should
be organized and indexed for effective retrieval and reuse. An additional problem
is how to integrate the case memory structure into a model of general domain
knowledge, to the extent that such knowledge is incorporated /25/. The dynamic
memory model of Schank and Kolodner, and the category-exemplar model of
Porter and Bareiss are the most well-known case memory models. Both of them
will be briefly reviewed in this chapter.
7.1 The dynamic memory model
In this method, the case memory model consists of memory organization pockets
or MOPs. MOPs are the basic unit in dynamic memory. MOPs are a form of
frame and they are used for knowledge representation about classes of events.
There are two groups of MOPs:
-
As it was mentioned before, Kolodners CYRUS system /37/ was the first system,
which could be called case-based reasoner. The system was based on Schanks
more general MOP theory /38/. The case memory in this model is a hierarchical
structure of what is called episodic memory organization pockets or E-MOPs,
from other sources known as generalized episodes. The basic idea is to organize
specific cases which share similar properties under a more general structure (i.e. a
generalized episode). There are three different types of objects which constitute a
generalized episode, they are: norms, cases and indices. Features, which are
common to all cases indexed under a GE, are called norms. Indices are features
which discriminate between a GEs cases. An index may point directly to a case
or to a more specific generalized episode. An index consists of two parts: an index
name and an index value. /39, 40/
Structure of cases and generalized episodes is shown on Fig. 7.1. The figure
illustrates a complex generalized episode, with its underlying cases and more
28
Figure 7.1
29
Difference links pointing from cases to the neighbour cases that only
differs in one or a small number of features. /30/
Figure 7.2
30
In this model, the categories are interrelated within a semantic network, which
also includes the features and intermediate states (such as subclasses of target
concepts) related to by other terms. This network represents a background of
general domain knowledge, which enables explanatory support to some of the
CBR tasks. For example, a core mechanism of case matching is a method called
knowledge based pattern matching. /30/
Searching for case, which matches an input description, in the case base is done
by merging the input features of a problem case into a pointer to the case or
category that shares most of the features. If a reminding points directly to a
category, the links to its most prototypical cases are traversed, and these cases are
returned. In such a way, the general domain knowledge is used to allow matching
of features that are semantically similar. A new case is stored be searching for a
matching case, and by establishing the corresponding feature indices. If a case is
found with only slight differences to the input case, the new one may not be
retained or the two cases may be combined by following taxonomic links in the
semantic network. /25/
8. CBR CYCLE
8.1 Retrieval in CBR
Retrieval algorithm finds the most similar cases to current situation or problem,
given the description of the problem and by using the indices in the case-base
memory. Searching for potentially useful cases directly depends on the indices
and memory organization. The problem of choosing the best cases many times
has been the subject of research in the area of analogy. At that time some
algorithms were developed, such as: serial search, hierarchical search and
simulated parallel search. /40/
The purpose of the conventional database search it is a certain number or record.
Unlike a traditional database search, retrieval of cases from case-base should
include partial matches, because full coincidence of a new case with old one is
31
practically impossible. And only when the retrieval algorithms will be effective
for processing thousands of cases, the CBR system will be ready to solve largescale problems. /40/
Similarity assessment
Assessment of the similarity of the stored cases can be done by using their surface
features (surface features are those which are the part of description and usually
are attribute-value pairs). If cases are represented by complex structures (e.g.
graphs), retrieval could require an assessment of their structural similarity. By
using structural similarity, more relevant cases could be retrieved, but its
computationally expensive. Use of carefully crafted indexing vocabularies to
describe cases will help to avoid extra computations. Therefore an explicit
description of the case captures the features that determine its relevance. /31/
There are a lot of different ways how to measure a similarity. According to case
representation, one or another approach could be selected. For example, if each
case is represented as a simple feature vector (or set of attribute-value pairs), local
similarity measure is determined for every attribute. Global similarity can be
calculated as weighted average of the local similarities. Different weights allow
various attributes to have different degrees of importance. /25, 31/
Nearest neighbor, induction, knowledge guided induction and template retrieval
are widely known methods for retrieval of cases from case base. They can be used
separately or combined into one hybrid strategy /40/. A brief description of these
methods will be given further:
-
32
, =
=1 ( , )
(8.1)
where T is the target case, S is the source case; n the number of attributes
in each case, i an individual attribute from 1 to n; f is a similarity function
for attribute i in case T and S; w the importance weighting of attribute i.
This calculation is repeated for each case in case library, to rank the cases
according to their similarity with the target case. Usually, when
calculations are already completed, similarities are normalized to fall
within a range of zero to one. Where one is an exact match and zero is
totally dissimilar (percentage similarity is also used, where 100% is an
exact match). /42/
-
Some approaches were also investigated to reduce retrieval time. For example,
Stanfill & Waltz /45/ suggested using massive parallel computers. This approach
is guaranteed to find the most similar cases, but requires a lot of expensive
equipment. Some other researchers, in their attempts to reduce the search time,
relied on the organization of cases in memory. Certain of these methods will be
considered below:
33
However side by side with reducing the searching time, some investigators tried
to improve the solution quality. It is also important aspect of case retrieval.
Methods of quality assessment for founded solutions depend on the type of
problem-solving task for which the system is designed, e.g. recommendation,
classification or planning. For example, evaluation in terms of classification
accuracy is possible only if the outcome classes are represented in the training set.
But in such domains like product recommendation, this is not the case, because
every outcome class (a unique service or product) is represented by a single case
in the case memory. Estimation of classification accuracy is similarity
34
compromised in conversational CBR, where for most cases its common to have
unique solutions. /31/
There are several problems that could affect the solution quality. Here are some of
them: using of inappropriate measures of similarity, missing values in cases,
noise, unknown values in target problem description, and so-called problem of
heterogeneity, which occurs when different features are used to describe different
cases. Some possible strategies for handling missing information in similarity
assessment were proposed and evaluate by Bogaerts & Leake (2004) /49/.
Retrieval based on incomplete information is an important challenge in
conversational CBR, where a description of the target problem is incrementally
(and often incompletely) elicited in an interactive dialogue with the reasoner.
Aha et al. in their work proposed an incremental query elicitation approach that
takes into account the heterogeneity, which is typically found in such areas like
fault diagnosis /50/. In his work, McSherry suggested a conversational CBR
approach to product recommendation. The method includes a mechanism, which
ends the dialogue only if it is known that more similar cases will not be found in
the future. /51/
Nowadays, similarity plays an impressive role in case retrieval, but similarity
increasingly being combined with other criteria, such as how effectively the
solution space is covered by the retrieved cases, how easily old solutions could be
adapted to solve target problem, and how easily the proposed solution can be
explained /52, 53/. Some alternatives to similarity-based retrieval will be
considered below:
-
35
36
solution is likely quite often represented in the case base; thus, the most similar
retrieved case, if similar enough, is likely to contain a relevant solution. But if
there is big difference between the new problem and the retrieved cases problem,
reuse becomes much more complicated. Under these conditions, to take the
difference into account, it might be required to adapt the old solution to solve new
problem. There are some areas, where the process of adaptation is needed:
medical decision making, design, configuration, and planning. /31/
Adaptation
As soon as the coincident case is retrieved, the CBR system should adapt an
existing solution for new problem needs. Adaptation looks for difference between
the current case and retrieved one, and then applies rules of formulas, which can
take into account these differences. Basically, there are two types of adaptation in
CBR:
-
In order to generate complete solutions from scratch, the ideal set of adaptation
rules should be strong enough. Sometimes an effective CBR system is able to use
both types of adaptation. For example, structural adaptation rules can be used to
adapt poorly understood solutions, and derivational method to adapt solutions of
37
cases that are well understood. Several techniques have been used in CBR
systems for adaptation, some of them are listed below:
-
Null adaptation. Simple and direct technique, which applies any retrieved
solution to the current problem, without adaptation. Suitable for problems
with complex reasoning, but quite simple solution.
The purpose of the CBR system is to provide solutions to the new problems.
Typically this is achieved by adapting existing solution to satisfy the conditions of
new problem. But when its impossible to adapt solutions for new problem, there
is an alternative way to adapt the problem situation itself, thus the retrieved case
can apply to the new problem without adaptation. The adaptation of context can
be done by explaining why the retrieved case is relevant. In such type of systems,
bridging generates a description of why a case is relevant, showing how the case
applies. The bridge provided by that explanation makes the retrieved case
useful. /26/
38
39
failure explanations to modify the solution in such a way that failures do not
occur. /25/
8.4 Retention in Case-Based Reasoning process
The purpose of this stage is to decide what will be useful to include in the already
existing knowledge from new episode. The learning from success and failures of
the proposed solution is triggered by the outcome of the evaluation and possible
repair. This stage includes some tasks: which information from the case should be
retained and in what form, how to index the case for later retrieval, and how to
integrate the new case in the memory structure. /25/
The most important process that takes place at this stage is choosing the way how
to index the new case in case base. The index should be chosen in such a way
that the new case can be easily recalled from the memory every time it will be
useful for solving new problems. In other words, the reasoner has to anticipate the
importance of a case for further reasoning. During this step, memorys indexing
structure and organization are also adjusted. Thus, its important to choose
appropriate indexes for the new case and at the same time make sure that all other
cases still available as we add to the case librarys store. /28/
Learning may also take place within the general conceptual knowledge model in
some knowledge-intensive approaches to CBR; for example by other machine
learning methods or through interaction with the reasoner. Thus, with effective
interaction with the user (it could be an expert or a competent user), the CBR
system can progressively expand and improve its general knowledge model, as
well as its memory of past cases, in the normal mode of problem-solving process.
Just learned cases can be easily tested by re-entering the initial problem to make
sure that system behaves as it needed. /25/
Early CBR systems simply stored in memory all the cases they created. More
recent works examine the effect of design decisions about the maximum size of
case library, as well as how to decide which cases must be stored in order to
40
provide the best coverage. Some systems also reason about which cases to try to
acquire. /26, 60/
CBR allows a reasoner to propose solutions in domains that have not been
studied completely and in those, which almost impossible to explore fully
(for example, those ones, which much depend on unpredictable human
behavior). In other words, it is possible to make assumptions and
predictions based on what worked in the past and sometimes even without
full understanding of the problem.
When algorithmic methods are not available for evaluation, CBR gives a
reasoner a means of evaluating solution. When there are a lot of
unknowns, and it is very hard or even impossible to use other methods,
using of cases to aid evaluation is particularly useful. Again, the reasoner
does evaluation based on what worked in the past and solutions are
evaluated in the context of previous similar cases.
Cases are particularly useful for use in interpreting open-ended and illdefined concepts.
41
Cases can indicate the features of the problems, which are the most useful
for a reasoner, this way they helps reasoner to focus on really important
aspects of the problem. What was important in past issues is likely to be
important in the new ones. Thus, if in a previous case, some set of features
was implicated in a failure, the reasoner focused on those features to
insure that the failure will not be repeated. Similarly, if some features have
led to success, they are also worthy of attention. This focus plays a role
both in problem solving and in interpretive case-based reasoning. In the
interpretative approach, justification and critiques are based on those
features that are responsible for success and failures in the past. In
problem solving approach, reasoner can adapt the solution, by including
more of what was successful in the past and less of what led to mistakes.
/28/
9.2 Disadvantages
A case-based reasoner might be tempted to use old cases blindly, relying on
previous experience without validating it in the new situation, or cases can bias
reasoner too much in solving a new problem. Quite often reasoners, and
particularly novices, can forget about the most appropriate sets of cases during the
reasoning process. People do find case-based reasoning a natural way to reason,
however.
In addition, the case memory technology might allow us to build decision aiding
systems that augment human memory by providing the appropriate cases while
still allowing the human to reason in a natural and familiar way. In addition,
disadvantages of case-based learning include: increased time to design and
develop quality cases, particularly technology or multimedia cases; also it is
needed to provide reasoners with sufficient resources to understand the case.
Complex cases require the collection and storage of a large quantity of resources.
/28, 62/
42
Works
brox
caseBank
mapping
to
support
database
43
empolis
Organization
creates
knowledge
management
Industrial
Intelligence
Global Research
Kaidara
Knexus
Corporation
Stottler Henke
case-based
reasoning
and
model-based
support,
knowledge
management,
44
Verdande Technology
This
companys
technology
combines
the
45
11. RESULTS
To develop a decision support system for slurry viscosity determination, software
application MS Office Excel was used. Designed system consists of three parts:
workspace, the case base, and section for calculating the viscosity of Newtonian
slurries. First and second sections are supposed to work with Newtonian and
Bingham fluids. In the last section, apparent viscosity can be calculated only for
Newtonian slurries. Results of several laboratory studies of slurries were taken
from several sources /1, 14, 18/ and were used to fill the case base with cases. The
case base consists of 112 cases. At any moment, reasoner can add new cases,
which he considers to be useful for further work.
The Fig. 11.1 shows Workspace part of system. For each new case it is possible to
enter 6 initial data, i.e. density, solid volume fraction, solid weight fraction,
viscosity yield stress, particles size. The system is flexible and the number of
parameters can be further increased. The data availability coefficient is entered for
correct calculations of the degree of difference. Thus, if the value is unknown, it
does not contribute to the degree of difference calculations.
Figure 11.1
46
As a result of search for most similar cases, 15 less different cases are retrieved.
This amount was chosen because of the small size of the case base and can be
easily increased.
The second part of system is a Slurry Case Base. In addition to main data about
slurries, it contains some helpful calculations (i.e. normalized values of
parameters of target case and previous cases, max and min values, degree of
difference). One of the main tasks of the reasoner is to add new cases in the case
base. Record for new slurry can contain all the features or just some known ones.
But the type of liquid should always be known for each case in case base, based
on the objectives of the developed system. The degree of difference in this case
base is the primary search criteria for appropriate cases; the smaller the value, the
more appropriate case will be retrieved.
Calculation section allows user to calculate the viscosity of Newtonian slurry, on
the basis of absolute viscosity of liquid phase and total solid volume fraction. The
equations for these calculations were discussed earlier in the Section 3.3 of the
literature review. The system is able to calculate the apparent viscosity for very
diluted slurries with solids concentration less that 1%; for slurries with solids
concentration less that 20%; and for very concentrated liquids.
To check the efficiency of the system, some tests were performed. For this
purpose, record (case) was removed from case base and then was used as new
slurry to find matches.
Particles
size
Yield
stress
kg/l
Viscosity
Solid
volume
fraction
Solid
weight
fraction
Density
Type
Name
mPas
Pa
40
40
Test 1
23
59
Target case
Cromite 1 Newtonian 1,10
3,1
12,1
1,47
Retrieved case (Degree of difference = 0,0457)
Sulphide 1 Newtonian 1,08
4,3
11,5
1,29
47
Test 2
57
77
Target case
Phlogopite
Bingham
1,45
24,5
48
4,46
4
Retrieved case (Degree of difference = 0,0295)
Fine coal
Bingham
49
0,309
35
40
30,0
50
33,2
30
2,318
30
38
35
40
Test 3
Target case
107
93
Fine
liminite
Bingham
2,44
52,4
Test 4
76
88
Target case
Sulphide 3
Bingham
1,63
33,4
59,2
8,18
Retrieved case (Degree of difference = 0,0456)
Uranium
Bingham
58
Tails
Test 5
7
3
Target case
Quartz 2 Newtonian 1,21
13,6
28,7
1,73
Retrieved case (Degree of difference = 0,0353)
Quartz 1 Newtonian 1,22
14,2
29,8
1,76
From the presented results it can be seen, that system correctly finds the instances
of the appropriate type of fluids, which is its main objective. You can also note
that the search is much more efficient if all the features of target and previous
cases are known. Thus, the quality of the system in general is highly dependent on
the quality of the case base. And the more full and complex cases will fill the case
base, the more similar cases will be retrieved.
All three parts of the system are presented in Appendixes.
Some recommendations how to improve the system:
-
Improve the case base. The best option is to look for a large industrial
database for slurries. Also it is possible to continue the search in various
scientific papers.
48
Add new features for the slurries. It will make the process of search more
efficient.
Use new techniques and methodologies to store and retrieve the cases.
49
12. CONCLUSION
This work has shown that CBR can be an effective problem-solving method in
complex, real-world tasks, and in domains where more traditional approaches are
difficult to apply. However it is very important to assess the quality of the data
base (case base) before investing significant resources in developing sophisticated
algorithms; thereby the quality of the case base is the determining factor for the
efficiency of whole CBR system. According to this, for the further development
of designed system it is necessary to make a more thorough search for
comprehensive and complete cases for case base.
Being able to retrieve appropriate cases, based on partial information (if one or
more features of case are unknown), is also a fundamental problem for CBR
systems. Alternative strategies and ways to address this problem should be
investigated.
The objective of the developed system is to support the decision making process.
The system helps to select the type of fluid for current slurry. After that it
becomes possible to choose correct model and make needed calculations. Also
some data from the most similar retrieved case can be used as initial
approximations for some calculations. For Newtonian fluids, if it is necessary for
further reasoning, the viscosity value can be calculated in system. According to
the tests results, the system works effectively, even despite the small and rather
poor case base with some amount of incomplete cases. This once again proves the
effectiveness of the CBR methods for various industrial applications.
50
REFERENCES
1.
Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_fluid,
[referred
04.04.2010].
6.
R.P.Chhabra,
J.F.Richardson,
Non-Newtonian
Flow
and
Applied
nd
Viscosity of a polymers.
Available:
http://www.ias.ac.in/initiat/sci_ed/resources/chemistry/Viscosity.pdf,
[referred 05.04.2011].
8.
non-Newtonian turbulent slurry flow in pipes, 1996, Cape Technikon Theses &
Dissertations, Paper 78.
10.
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/10809/Mine%20Ventilation%20and
%20Fluid%20Flow%20Applications/Fluid%20Applications/Slurry%20Flow.pdf
[referred 05.04.2011].
11.
Senapati P.K. et al., Modeling of viscosity for power plant ash slurry at
51
13.
Holland, F.A., Bragg, R., Fluid Flow for Chemical Engineers, 2nd edition,
and Between Parallel Plates, SPE Journal, Volume 7, Number 4, December 1967,
p. 342-346.
17.
Artificial
Intelligence
Applications
Institute.
http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/technology/casebasedreasoning.html,
10.05.2011].
Available:
[referred
52
25.
case-based reasoning, The Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol. 00:0, 1-2. 2005,
32 p.
32.
Artificial
7.6
Intelligence
Foundations
Case-Based
of
Computational
reasoning.
Agents
Available:
Case
Base
Reasoning.
Available:
Match?, 14th Int. FLAIRS Conference, West Florida, May 21-23, 2001, AAAI
Press, Menlo Park CA, US., pp.118-123.
35.
Sun, Z., Finnie, G., A Unified Logical Model for CBR-based E-commerce
53
38.
computers and people, 1982, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 234 s.
39.
Systems Survey and Future Directions, Vol. 1570, Springer (1999), p. 67-89.
47.
cases: distance metrics for partial problem description, Proceedings of the Seventh
European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, Berlin: Springer, 2004, pp. 6267.
50.
54
52.
case acquisition, storage and utilization. Machine learning, 1993, Vol. 10 (iii):
pp.249-278.
60.
Case-Based
Available
on-line:
http://www.edtech.vt.edu/edtech/id/models/powerpoint/casebased.pdf,
[referred
23.06.2011].
Learning,
Lecture
slides.
55
63.
Main
paige
CBRwiki.
Available:
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Workspace part of system
Appendix 2. Case Base part of system
Appendix 3. Working interface for viscosity calculations