Performance Prediction and Interpretation of a Refuse Plastic Fuel Fired Boiler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to cater to the energy requirement in the form of steam at a reasonable cost, the process industries are relying on the waste incineration plants by engaging themselves through industry symbiosis. However, before the establishment of industrial symbiosis, it is very crucial to monitor and predict the operational performance of the boiler used in the waste incineration plants. The existing works focus on using Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) for prediction of the performance of the boiler in terms of pressure, temperature, and mass flow rate of steam using the input parameters viz. feed water temperature, feed water pressure, incinerator exit temperature and conveyor speed. However, the problem with this approach is that shallow ANNs cannot model the complex mathematical non-linear relationships so precisely. In addition, ANNs are not interpretable which makes stakeholders apprehensive to use these networks in production. In this paper, we address these drawbacks of ANNs by modeling the complex relationship governing the boiler performance by using a set of machine learning and deep learning models. Also, the research paper introduces multiple techniques like feature importance, Partial Dependence Plots(PDP) plots etc. which interpret the reason behind the model's output to make it more reliable for the stakeholders. It has been empirically shown that the new Machine Learning and Deep Learning models performed better than the ANNs for predicting the boiler performance. The Random Forest model made a Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) of 1.12 and LSTMs had a MAPE of 1.14 in the prediction of steam temperature C <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">o</sup> which is a significant improvement in comparison to the original ANN model which had a MAPE of 6.93. In the case of the predictions for steam pressure kgf /cm <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> the MAPE for the Random Forest model and LSTM was 5.54 and 4.21 respectively as compared to ANNs MAPE of 1.49. Similarly for steam mass flow rate(t/h), the MAPE was improved to 15.6 and 9.63 by Random Forest Model and LSTM respectively, which was originally 18.77 for ANN based model. These results clearly show that LSTM based models outperformed ANNs and Random Forests in terms of prediction accuracy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".