Journals / Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 18

Prediction of Gross Calorific Value of Washed Turkish Lignite Coals with Support Vector Regression

Yıkanmış Türk Linyit Kömürlerinin Üst Isıl Değerinin Destek Vektör Regresyonu ile Tahmini

Pages
16–24
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

For GCV prediction, the results reveal that the SVR-based model performed slightly better than the ANNbased models and among the ANN-based models, the RBFN-based model performed better than MLP- and GRNN-based models.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the gross calorific value (GCV) of washed Turkish lignite coals was predicted by using dry-basis proximate analysis data of coal samples with machine learning methods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data set was generated by using ash (A), volatile matter (VM), sulfur (S) and GCV variables obtained from the analysis results.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:For GCV prediction, the results reveal that the SVR-based model performed slightly better than the ANNbased models and among the ANN-based models, the RBFN-based model performed better than MLP- and GRNN-based models.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, the gross calorific value (GCV) of washed Turkish lignite coals was predicted by using dry-basis proximate analysis data of coal samples with machine learning methods. The data set was generated by using ash (A), volatile matter (VM), sulfur (S) and GCV variables obtained from the analysis results. The GCV prediction models were developed by applying Support Vector Regression (SVR) and three different Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), namely Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), General Regression Neural Network (GRNN) and Radial Basis Function Neural Network (RBFN), separately to the data set. The generalization capability of the developed models was ensured by using 10-fold cross-validation, and the prediction accuracy of the models was calculated by using performance metrics Multiple Correlation Coefficient (R), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE). For GCV prediction, the results reveal that the SVR-based model performed slightly better than the ANNbased models and among the ANN-based models, the RBFN-based model performed better than MLP- and GRNN-based models.

Özet

Bu çalışmada yıkanmış Türk linyit kömürlerinin üst ısıl değeri (GCV), makine öğrenmesi yöntemleri ile kömür numunelerinin kuru bazkısa analiz sonuçları kullanılarak tahmin edilmiştir. Laboratuvar kömür analiz sonuçlarından elde edilen kül (A), uçucu madde (VM),kükürt (S) ve GCV değişkenleri kullanılarak veri kümesi oluşturulmuştur. Veri kümesine, Destek Vektör Regresyonu (SVR) ile ÇokKatmanlı Algılayıcı (MLP), Genel Regresyon Sinir Ağı (GRNN) ve Radyal Temelli Fonksiyon Sinir Ağı (RBFN) olmak üzere üç farklıYapay Sinir Ağı (ANN) uygulanarak GCV tahmin modelleri geliştirilmiştir. Geliştirilen modellerin performans genelleştirme kabiliyeti10-katlı çapraz-doğrulama kullanılarak sağlanmış ve modellerin tahmin doğruluğu, performans ölçütleri Çoklu Korelasyon Katsayısı(R), Kök Ortalama Kare Hatası (RMSE), Ortalama Mutlak Hata (MAE) ve Ortalama Mutlak Yüzde Hata (MAPE) kullanılarakhesaplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, GCV tahmini için, tüm modeller arasında SVR tabanlı modelin ANN tabanlı modellere göre biraz daha iyi,ANN tabanlı modeller arasında ise RBFN tabanlı modelin MLP ve GRNN tabanlı modellere göre daha iyi performans gösterdiğiniortaya koymuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

SİVRİKAYA, O., AÇIKKAR, M. (2022). Prediction of Gross Calorific Value of Washed Turkish Lignite Coals with Support Vector Regression. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 18, 16–24. https://ajindex.com/articles/457596

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Abut, F., Akay, M. F., & George, J. (2016). Developing new VO2max prediction models from maximal, submaximal and questionnaire variables using support vector machines combined with feature selection. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 79(October), 182– 192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.10.018
  2. Açıkkar, M., Akay, M. F., Aktürk, E., & Güleç, M. (2013). Intelligent regression techniques for non-exercise prediction of VO2max. 2013 21st Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference, SIU 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIU.2013.6531534
  3. Açıkkar, M., & Sivrikaya, O. (2018a). Artificial neural networks for estimation of the gross calorific value of Turkish lignite coals. 3rd International Mediterranean Science and Engineering Congress (IMSEC 2018), 1075–1079.
  4. Açıkkar, M., & Sivrikaya, O. (2018b). Prediction of gross calorific value of coal based on proximate analysis using multiple linear regression and artificial neural networks. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences, 26(5), 2541–2552. https://doi.org/10.3906/elk-1802-50
  5. Akande, K. O., Owolabi, T. O., Twaha, S., & Olatunji, S. O. (2014). Performance Comparison of SVM and ANN in Predicting Compressive Strength of Concrete. In IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering (Vol. 16). https://doi.org/10.9790/0661-16518894
  6. Akhtar, J., Sheikh, N., & Munir, S. (2017). Linear regression-based correlations for estimation of high heating values of Pakistani lignite coals. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 39(10), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2017.1289283
  7. Akkaya, A. V. (2009). Proximate analysis based multiple regression models for higher heating value estimation of low rank coals. Fuel Processing Technology, 90(2), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2008.08.016
  8. Arliansyah, J., & Hartono, Y. (2015). Trip Attraction Model Using Radial Basis Function Neural Networks. Procedia Engineering, 125, 445–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROENG.2015.11.117
  9. Baydaroğlu, Ö., & Koçak, K. (2014). SVR-based prediction of evaporation combined with chaotic approach. Journal of Hydrology, 508, 356–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2013.11.008
  10. Campbell, C. (2002). Kernel methods: a survey of current techniques. In Neurocomputing (Vol. 48). Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/neucom Channiwala, S. A., & Parikh, P. P. (2002). A unified correlation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Fuel, 81(8), 1051–1063. https://doi.org