| Literature DB >> 34883880 |
Jingcheng Guo1,2, Aijun Yan1,2,3.
Abstract
It is difficult to establish an accurate mechanism model for prediction incinerator temperatures due to the comprehensive complexity of the municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration process. In this paper, feature variables of incineration temperature are selected by combining with mutual information (MI), genetic algorithms (GAs) and stochastic configuration networks (SCNs), and the SCN-based incinerator temperature model is obtained simultaneously. Firstly, filter feature selection is realized by calculating the MI value between each feature variable and the incinerator temperature from historical data. Secondly, the fitness function of GAs is defined by the root mean square error of the incinerator temperature obtained by training SCNs, and features obtained by MI methods are searched iteratively to complete the wrapper feature selection, where the SCN-based incinerator temperature prediction model is obtained. Finally, the proposed model is verified by MSW incinerator temperature historical data. The results show that the SCN-based prediction model using the hybrid selection method can better predict the change trend of incinerator temperature, which proves that the SCNs has great development potential in the field of prediction modeling.Entities:
Keywords: feature selection; incinerator temperature prediction; municipal solid waste; stochastic configuration networks
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34883880 PMCID: PMC8659944 DOI: 10.3390/s21237878
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Flow chart of MSW incineration.
Details of Feature Variables.
| Sub-Process Name | Number of Variables | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Grate Speed | 18 | Feeder velocity ( |
| Grate Temperature | 24 | Drying grate temperature ( |
| Air Flow | 23 | Drying grate air flow ( |
Remark: In the above table, L and R represent left and right and the subscripts 1 and 2 represent inside and outside, respectively. In addition, “*” represents the feature variable finally selected by the proposed method.
Figure 2Secondary feature selection procedure based on GA-SCN.
Figure 3The error of SCN incinerator temperature model.
Performance comparison of MI, GA-SCN and MI-GA-SCN.
| Feature Selection Methods | MI | GA-SCN | MI-GA-SCN |
|---|---|---|---|
| Running time/s | 9.7 | 264.5 | 225.1 |
| Number of selected features | 50 | 34 | 19 |
| 85.5129 | 46.2922 | 32.2995 |
Figure 4Fitting of incinerator temperature by MI-SCN, GA-SCN and MI-GA-SCN.
Figure 5Fitting of incinerator temperature by SCN, BP and RBF.
Comparison among RMSE (°C) of SCN, BP and RBF.
| Number of | SCN | BP | RBF |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 24.758 | 43.2929 | 48.6292 |
| 2 | 37.7678 | 48.3751 | 63.5188 |
| 3 | 37.4844 | 43.0013 | 59.5881 |
| 4 | 28.8737 | 41.6697 | 51.4547 |
| 5 | 34.6255 | 46.4093 | 54.4388 |
| 6 | 44.4658 | 43.1152 | 64.5210 |
| 7 | 40.4379 | 46.8904 | 65.8555 |
| 8 | 40.9450 | 46.9623 | 56.0849 |
| Average | 36.1678 | 44.9645 | 58.0114 |
Figure 6Training situation of SCN model.