In the paper, feed-forward Recurrent Neural Networks with a single hidden layer and trained by using a back-propagation learning algorithm are studied and developed for the simulation of compressor behavior under unsteady conditions. The data used for training and testing the RNNs are both obtained by means of a non-linear physics-based model for compressor dynamic simulation (simulated data) and measured on a multi-stage axial-centrifugal small size compressor (field data). The analysis on simulated data deals with the evaluation of the influence of the number of training patterns and of each RNN input on model response, both for data not corrupted and corrupted with measurement errors, for different RNN configurations and different values of the total delay time. For RNN models trained directly on experimental data, the analysis of the influence of RNN input combination on model response is repeated, as carried out for models trained on simulated data, in order to evaluate real system dynamic behavior. Then, predictor RNNs (i.e., those which do not include among the inputs the exogenous inputs evaluated at the same time step as the output vector) are developed and a discussion about their capabilities is carried out. The analysis on simulated data led to the conclusion that, to improve RNN performance, it is beneficial the adoption of a one-time delayed RNN, with an as low as possible total delay time (in the paper, 0.1 s) and trained with an as high as possible number of training patterns (at least 500). The analysis of the influence of each input on RNN response, conducted for RNN models trained on field data, showed that the single-step-ahead predictor RNN allowed very good performance, comparable with that of RNN models with all inputs (overall error for each single calculation equal to 1.3% and 0.9% for the two test cases considered). Moreover, the analysis of multi-step-ahead predictor capabilities showed that the reduction of the number of RNN calculations is the key factor for improving its performance over a significant time horizon. In fact, when a high test data sampling time is chosen (in the paper, 0.24 s), prediction errors were acceptable (lower than 1.9%).

This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.