Yazar "Buradi, Abdulrajak" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 3 / 3
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Blends of scum oil methyl ester, alcohols, silver nanoparticles and the operating conditions affecting the diesel engine performance and emission: an optimization study using Dragon fly algorithm
    (Springer Heidelberg, 2021) Afzal, Asif; Agbulut, Umit; Soudagar, Manzoore Elahi M.; Razak, R. K. Abdul; Buradi, Abdulrajak; Saleel, C. Ahamed
    The effect of the addition of different proportions of silver (Ag) nanoparticles and alcohols in milk scum oil methyl ester on the performance of engine and emission are studied. B20 blend is added with 5% of ethanol, n-butanol, and iso-butanol as ternary additives for the experimental analysis from no load to full load. Furthermore, at a fixed load, operating conditions such as injection pressure (12 and 15 bar) and injection timing (23 degrees and 26 degrees) are varied without and with the addition of 0.8 vol% of Ag (silver) nanoparticles to the fuel blends. Also, the concentrations of Ag nanoparticles are increased from 0.2 to 1 vol% and comparisons are made with diesel and B60 blend. Mathematical models are developed for selected features of engine performance which fits with the experimental values for the purpose of optimization using the Dragon fly algorithm (DA) by considering these models as the objective functions. The concentration of nanoparticles lowers the BSFC significantly and helps in reducing the emission with an increased percentage. Using full biodiesel, 16.6% reduction in BTE was obtained, while use of alcohols prevented this reduction approximately by 5%. A highest of 4.6% improvement was obtained with the addition of Ag nanoparticles. 4.5% reduction in HC and 13% in NOx emission using nanoparticles are obtained. The DA algorithm provided the same optimized value at the end of 30 iterations in different cycles of execution. Nanoparticle addition and use of pressure in the range of 20 bar gives the lowest emission from the engine.
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Single- and combined-source typical metrological year solar energy data modelling
    (Springer, 2023) Afzal, Asif; Buradi, Abdulrajak; Alwetaishi, Mamdooh; Agbulut, Umit; Kim, Boyoung; Kim, Hyun-Goo; Park, Sung Goon
    Prediction of solar energy data is very crucial for the effective utilization of freely available renewable energy abundantly in nature. Solar energy data are widely available which must be carefully prepared and arranged for modelling. In this work, typical meteorological year (TMY) data made available by the Korea institute of energy research (KIER) and the National renewable energy laboratory (NREL) are used for modelling in different phases. TMY data at single-point location and multiple locations from KIER are initially used for training of machine learning (ML) algorithms. Later, the TMY data from NREL and KIER are combined and then modelled using radius nearest neighbour (RNN), decision tree regressor (DTR), random forest regressor (RFR), and X-gradient boosting (XGB) algorithms. The solar energy parameters modelled in this work are dew point temperature (DPT), dry bulb temperature (DBT), relative humidity (RH), surface pressure (SP), windspeed (WS), and solar insolation of horizontal plane (IHP). Quantitative analysis of the algorithms is also performed in each stage of the work. The modelling indicates that the DBT, DPT, RH, and SP are able to be predicted with a minimum accuracy of over 90% in each stage. The WS and IHP data when modelled from a single-source TMY data provide superior accuracy than when they are combined. RFR and XGB have outperformed overall as they provide good accuracy for WS and IHP data as well. RNN and DTR achieved 100% accuracy in training, while RFR and XGB showed slightly lower training accuracy due to their avoidance of overfitting. There are errors in testing for RNN/DTR. Using RNN/DTR, the training errors are 0% in all cases, while in some cases like DTP the error by RFR/XGB up to 3%, whereas RNN/DTR testing errors go up to 5% and in case of RFR/XGB they are up to 7.5%. For RH modelling RFR/XGB, training errors are max 6%. RNN/DTR testing errors go up to 11%, while for RFR/XGB up to 7.5% which indicates their robustness. It is observed that many solar parameters, when combined with different source data, can be predicted easily with good accuracy, while WS and IHP become a little bit challenging to model.
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Use of modern algorithms for multi-parameter optimization and intelligent modelling of sustainable battery performance
    (Elsevier, 2023) Afzal, Asif; Buradi, Abdulrajak; Jilte, Ravindra; Sundara, Vikram; Shaik, Saboor; Agbulut, Umit; Alwetaishi, Mamdooh
    The focus of this computational work is to predict and optimize the battery thermal performance indicators for its sustainable operation using different meta-heuristic optimization algorithms and machine learning models. The contribution of this work is two-fold, first, the heat removal ability from battery indicated by average Nusselt number (Nuavg) and hotspots (MaxT) to avoid battery thermal runaway are optimized as single objective optimization (SOO) and as multi-level objective optimization (MOO) problem. Second, intelligent algorithms: Gradient boosting (GB) algorithm and Gaussian process regressor (GPR) algorithm are used for modelling of Nuavg and MaxT. For SOO, Multi-verse optimization (MVO) and Grey wolf optimization (GWO) algorithms are used for individual battery performance indicators. Similarly, the enhanced version of MVO and GWO for MOO (MMVO and MGWO) algorithms is customized. Each algorithm is operated for five cycles and 100 iterations in each cycle of execution. In GB algorithm the effect of different loss functions and in GPR algorithm the effect of parameter alpha (alpha) is analyzed. SOO gives highest fitness of Nuavg and lowest hotspots occurrence from both the algorithms with same converged positions of operating parameters. MMVO and MGWO relatively provide lower Nuavg with MaxT in the same range of SOO. The MOO provides different set of particle positions compared to SOO. MGWO algorithm has outperformed in providing the best non-dominated solution. The GB and GPR algorithm are good enough for the forecasting of battery thermal parameters. GPR is even accurate, however the range of alpha is important during training and testing. The best Nuavg obtained from SOO using MVO algorithm is around 82.06 while MaxT is 0.34. The same from GWO algorithm is 82.05 and 0.33 respectively. MGWO algorithm in MOO provides Nuavg and MaxT around 75.57 and 0.34 while MMWO provides 66.76 and 0.33 respectively. GPR algorithm gives accuracy as close as 98 % for MaxT while it gives 94 % accuracy for Nuavg. On the other hand GB algorithm gives 99 % and 97.5 % accuracy for MaxT and Nuavg respectively.