Artificial neural network based modelling approach for municipal
solid waste gasification in a fluidized bed reactor
Daya Shankar Pandeya, Saptarshi Dasb, Indranil Panc, James J. Leahya, Witold Kwapinskia,*
a

Carbolea Research Group, Chemical and Environmental Science Department, Bernal
Institute, University of Limerick, Ireland
b
Department of Physics, University of Cambridge, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3
0HE, United Kingdom
c
Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road,
London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom
*Corresponding author:
Tel.: +353 61234935; fax: +353 61202568.
E-mail address: witold.kwapinski@ul.ie (W. Kwapinski).

Abstract
In this paper, multi-layer feed forward neural networks are used to predict the lower heating
value of gas (LHV), lower heating value of gasification products including tars and entrained
char (LHVp) and syngas yield during gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW) during
gasification in a fluidized bed reactor. These artificial neural networks (ANNs) with different
architectures are trained using the Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) back-propagation algorithm
and a cross validation is also performed to ensure that the results generalise to other unseen
datasets. A rigorous study is carried out on optimally choosing the number of hidden layers,
number of neurons in the hidden layer and activation function in a network using multiple
Monte Carlo runs. Nine input and three output parameters are used to train and test various
neural network architectures in both multiple output and single output prediction paradigms
using the available experimental datasets. The model selection procedure is carried out to
ascertain the best network architecture in terms of predictive accuracy. The simulation results
show that the ANN based methodology is a viable alternative which can be used to predict
the performance of a fluidized bed gasifier.

1

Keywords: Municipal solid waste; gasification; artificial neural networks; feed-forward
multilayer perceptron; fluidized bed gasifier
1. Introduction:
According to World Bank data, about 4 billion tonnes of waste is generated per year, out of
which cities’ alone contribute 1.3 billion tonnes of solid waste. This volume is forecast to
increase to 2.2 billion tonnes by 2025. Three-fourths of this waste is disposed of in landfills,
with only one fourth being recycled. It is expected that in lower income countries waste
generation will double in the next 25 years (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). With rapid
industrial growth and growing world population, most developing countries are facing acute
disposal problem for municipal solid waste (MSW). MSW refers to the discarded materials
from household wastes such as kitchen garbage, paper, wood, food waste, cotton as well as
materials derived from fossil fuels such as plastic, rubber etc. (Cheng and Hu, 2010). In urban
areas significant environmental problems are arising from the disposal of MSW which have
led to major concerns regarding human health and environment. These issues are common to
both developed as well as developing countries (Pires et al., 2011). Furthermore, these issues
are stimulating the need for further development of treatment technologies to meet these
global challenges. The new European sustainable development strategy (EU, 2009) promotes
thermal treatment processes to recover energy from MSW while tackling the issues related to
climate change.

There are several processes that could treat MSW including thermal, biochemical and
mechanical processes. Incineration technology is widely used to process MSW, but the
control of NOx, SOx, nano-particle, dioxins and furans emissions are challenging (Cheng and
Hu, 2010). In a quest for a sustainable waste treatment technology, waste to energy (WtE)
technology has been reviewed by (Brunner and Rechberger, 2015). The study concluded that
2

due to the advancement in combustion and air pollution control technologies WtE plants are
useful for energy and material recovery from waste without having adverse effects on
environment. The impact on the environment of thermal treatment of waste with energy
recovery was evaluated by Pavlas et al. (2010) who concluded that thermal treatment of
MSW with energy recovery was undoubtedly one of the best techniques. WtE not only offers
an alternative to treat the waste but also produces clean energy which can offset primary
energy consumption in conventional heat and power units. In general, WtE plants are
considered as carbon neutral but they are not. The total carbon content present in the MSW is
bound with various materials present in the waste. It was found that more than half of the
carbon present is biogenic in nature but the remaining part originates from fossil fuels which
cannot be considered as biogenic carbon (Gohlke, 2009). As per the EU’s new directive, each
WtE plant has to report how much electricity was produced from the renewable sources
present in the waste feed. The measured biogenic CO2 fraction in the flue gas from an
incinerator plant in Netherlands was between 48-50% (Palstra and Meijer, 2010) whereas, in
Austria the ratio of biogenic to anthropogenic energy content in MSW was reported in the
range 36-53% (Fellner et al., 2007).

Thermal treatment technologies for MSW have been extensively reviewed by Arena
(2012); Leckner (2015); Lombardi et al. (2015); Malkow (2004) and it was proposed that an
alternative to combustion is to gasify the MSW for energy recovery. To date, gasification
processes have been investigated by several contemporary researchers and extensively
reviewed by Gómez-Barea and Leckner (2010). Thermal gasification provides flexibility for
the production of heat and power based on clean biomass derived syngas (Basu, 2010). In
addition, thermochemical conversion technologies can reduce the original volume of wastes
disposed by 80-95% along with energy recovery (Rand et al., 1999). Lately, gasification of
solid wastes which originates from the household or industrial sectors have received
3

increasing attention by researchers. The syngas from MSW can be used for heating and
production of electricity to offset the use of fossil fuels. However, gasification of MSW is not
widespread. The major barrier that has prevented the widespread uptake of advanced
gasification technologies for treating MSW has been the higher ash content in the feed
making the gasification operation difficult. In addition, high amounts of tar and char
contaminants in the produced gas make it unsuitable for power production using energy
efficient gas engines or turbines.

A comprehensive review of fluidized bed biomass gasification model was presented by
Gómez-Barea and Leckner (2010). In the past, different modelling approaches starting from
black box modelling to thermodynamic equilibrium, kinetic rate, fluid-dynamics, neural
network and genetic programming models (Pandey et al., 2015; Puig-Arnavat et al., 2010)
and Gaussian process based Bayesian inference (Pan and Pandey, 2016) were applied for
modelling gasification. These models were validated using pilot scale gasification data.
Simulating MSW gasification is computationally expensive and fast meta-models are
required. In this paper an artificial intelligence technique namely feedforward neural network
is used to predict the heating value of gas (LHV), heating value of gasification products
(LHVp) as well as the syngas (product gas) yield. LHVp is defined as the sum of the LHV of
gas and the calorific value of unreacted char (entrained) and tar.

ANN models are not based on modelling the physical combustion and transport equations
governing the reactor but they are a class of generic nonlinear regression models which learns
the arbitrary mapping from the input data on to the output to obtain computational models
with high predictive accuracy. Although ANN based models have been extensively used in
other scientific fields, it has only recently gained popularity in renewable energy related

4

applications (Kalogirou, 2001). ANN based models were developed for predicting the
product yield and gas composition in an atmospheric steam blown biomass fluidized bed
gasifier (Guo et al., 2001). It was concluded that the feed forward neural network (FFNN)
model has better predictive accuracy over the traditional regression models. An FFNN model
was employed to predict the lower heating value of MSW based on its chemical composition
(Dong et al., 2003). ANN was applied for predicting the gasification characteristics of MSW
(Xiao et al., 2009) and tested for its feasibility. ANN methodology was used to predict future
MSW quality and composition in Serbia to achieve the targets for waste management set by
national policy and EU directive by 2016 (Batinic et al., 2011). Two different types of ANN
based data-driven models have been developed for the prediction of gas production rate and
heating value of gas in coal gasifiers (Chavan et al., 2012). Recently, ANN based predictive
tools have been used in fluidized bed gasifiers to predict the syngas composition and gas
yield (Puig-Arnavat et al., 2013). The ANN technique has been applied in the gasification
area and has shown better results compared to the conventional process modelling
approaches. A brief overview of different modelling approaches and their pros and cons is
presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Pros and cons of different gasification modelling approach (Gómez-Barea and
Leckner, 2010; Robert et al., 2014)
Modelling

Advantages

Disadvantages

approaches

Models using this
approach

Black Box

Independent of gasifier type.

Only applicable for

Equilibrium model,

model

Easy to implement.

stationary process.

Thermodynamic

Fast convergence.

Does not provide

model, Pseudo-

Widely used for the gas

insight into the

equilibrium model

prediction and heating value.

gasification process.

Realistic model, which can

Depend on reaction

Uniform conversion

be used for process design

kinetics and gasifier

model

Kinetic model

5

and scaling-up.

type.

Shrinking core
model etc.

Fluidisation

Offers a trade-off between

Applicability of the

model

precision and numerical

correlations used has

complications.

limited scope.

Davidson–Harrison
model, Kunii–
Levenspiel model
etc.

Computational Useful in improving the

Computationally

Direct numerical

fluid-

expensive, time

simulation, Large

dynamics

consuming and

eddy simulation,

(CFD) model

uncertainty involved

Two fluid model,

with the parameters

Euler-Euler model,

in closure.

Euler-Lagrange

details of the gasifier.

model etc.
ANN model

Do not need extensive

Dependent on

Feed-forward neural

understanding of the process. quantity of datasets.

network, Hybrid

High predictive accuracy.

neural network etc.

No proper physical
interpretation of
models can be made.

Most of the mathematical models for fluidised bed gasifier are based on the law of
conservation (mass, energy and momentum) and other boundary conditions (Gómez-Barea
and Leckner, 2010). Depending on the complexity, the model can be a 3-D fluid dynamic
model or kinetic rate based model or less complex such as an equilibrium based model. Due
to the inherent complexity of gasification processes, development of mathematical models are
still at a nascent stage. The aim of this research is to develop neural network based models
which can be used to simulate the gasification process with improved accuracy. In this study,
computational models derived from artificial intelligence techniques are exploited to learn the
nonlinear mapping problem. These types of models can predict the performance of complex
systems (including gasification). Therefore, this study is focused on exploiting the potential
of the ANN technique to estimate the performance of MSW gasification in a fluidized bed
reactor.
6

2. Material and methods
2.1 Theory of artificial neural network based modelling approach
ANN is a biologically inspired computational technique that imitates the behaviour and
learning process of the human brain. ANNs are universal approximators and their predictions
are based on prior available data. It is therefore preferred in many data driven research
applications over other theoretical and empirical models where predictive accuracy is of
prime concern. The ANN technique has been extensively used in several applications in the
fields of pattern recognition, signal processing, function approximation, weather prediction
and process simulations (Guo et al., 1997). The recent developments and potential application
of ANN in diverse disciplines has motivated the present study. However, application of the
ANN technique for modelling of MSW gasification is rarely reported in the literature. ANNs
are essentially supervised learning methods, i.e. given an input and an output dataset; they
have enough flexibility to model the nonlinear input output mapping. The methodology is
generic and does not have any limitation to the type of dataset or the number of input-output
variables. These generic ANN models provide flexibility to include other process parameters
like tars, unconverted carbon, steam-to-biomass ratio (in the case of steam gasification) etc.
or any other process parameter which are deemed necessary (Puig-Arnavat et al., 2013).
However the models might not work well for a drastically new configuration of gasifier
which is not similar to the training dataset. Nevertheless, this is a limitation of the dataset and
not of the ANN based modelling methodology.

Figure 1 represents the multilayer feed-forward neural network architecture with multiple
input and multiple output (MIMO) variables. For multiple input and single output (MISO)
models the number of output is set to one. It consists of an input layer, multiple hidden layers
and an output layer. Each node (neuron) other than the input nodes are equipped with a

7

nonlinear transfer function. Neurons xi in the input layer distributes the input signals to
neurons in the hidden layer  j  , while neurons in hidden layers sum up its input signal ( xi )
after multiplying them by their weight wij . The output

y 
j

of the ANN model can be

represented as follows (1).

d

y j  f   wijl xil 1 
 i 0

( l 1)





(1)

where f is a simple threshold function which can be a sigmoid, hyperbolic tangent or radial
basis function, d is the dimension of the network, l represents the number of layers and wijl is
the weight which belongs to network with l layer and having i input and j hidden layers.
The mathematical representation of the ANN model weights can be depicted as (2).

1  l  L layers

w   0  i  d l 1 input
 1  j  d l output

l
ij

8

(2)

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the MIMO ANN model (a) single hidden layer (b) double
hidden layer.
9

The input and validated datasets were obtained from a lab-scale fluidized bed gasifier. Those
experiments were performed in a lab-scale fluidized bed gasifier (560 mm high with an
internal diameter of 31 mm) operating at atmospheric pressure. Heat was supplied from an
external source (electric heater) to maintain the temperature of the gasifier. Silica sand was
used as a bed material (particle size 0.250–0.355 mm). The gasifier consists of an electric
heater, screw feeder to supply the feed, filter for collecting elutriated char and ash and gasbag for off-line sampling of produced gas. The reported product gas yield was estimated by
N2 balance. The details of the gasifier can be found elsewhere (Xiao et al., 2009). Hong Kong
MSW data was extracted from (Choy et al., 2004) where MSW was gasified in a small scale
gasifier to assess the feasibility of installing an MSW gasifier in Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology. Experiments were performed at different temperatures (400 ≤
temperature ≤ 800 °C) and equivalence ratios (0.2 ≤ ER ≤ 0.6).

The modelling methodology using ANN is divided into a training phase and a validation
phase. For checking the accuracy and generalization capability of the model, the experimental
dataset is divided into training (70%) with the remainder for the validation (15%) and testing
(15%) purposes. The input  xi  and output  yi  parameters are normalized with respect to
the maximum value, to ensure that all data used for training of the network lie within a range
of  0 ,1 . The datasets used for the training, testing and validation purpose of the model are
randomised. A hyperbolic tangent sigmoid function (tansig) f  x  
sigmoid function (logsig) f  x  

e x  e x
and logarithmic
e x  e x

1
are used in the hidden layers whereas a pure linear
1  e x

function (purelin) is used in the output layer. Both the tansig and logsig transfer functions are
traditionally used and make the ANNs a universal function approximator given a sufficient
number of hidden nodes. However, depending on the nature of the data, amongst these two
10

transfer functions, one may outperform the other. Therefore, both the transfer functions are
exploited in finding the best suited one for fitting this data.

There have been exhaustive studies on using different training algorithms for ANNs, e.g.
Levenberg-Marquardt (LM), scaled conjugate gradient (SCG), Broyden-Fletcher-GoldfarbShanno quasi-Newton (BFGS), gradient descent with momentum and adaptive learning rate
(GDX), amongst many others (Plumb et al., 2005). The LM gives accurate training results for
moderate size neural networks. The other algorithms have disadvantage of slower
convergence speed particularly for large networks. In the LM, the Jacobian (J) is calculated
using the backpropagation technique described in (Hagan and Menhaj, 1994) followed by
Hessian ( H  J T J ) and gradient ( g  J T e ) calculation, e being the network error. The
network weight and bias terms (x) are then updated as (3):
1

xk 1  xk   J T J   I  J T e

where, μ is a scalar, whose zero or large values make the training algorithm similar to
Newton’s method, using approximate Hessian or gradient descent with small step size
respectively. After each successful step the value of μ is decreased or alternatively increased
if the cost function is not decreased in a step. Based on the above reason, the LM backpropagation training algorithm is used here for minimising the mean squared error (MSE)
between the network output and target output.

To develop the ANN model, the nine process parameters that have been used as model
inputs are carbon ( x1 , wt%), hydrogen ( x2 , wt%), nitrogen ( x3 , wt%), sulphur ( x4 , wt%),
oxygen ( x5 , wt%), moisture content ( x6 , wt%), ash ( x7 , wt%), equivalence ratio ( x8 , ER) and
the temperature of the gasifier ( x9 , Tg 0C). ER is defined as the ratio between the actual air
fed to the gasifier and the air necessary for stoichiometric combustion of the biomass. The
11

(3)

input parameters are represented as an input vector x i   x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 , x6 , x7 , x8 , x9  and the
output variables are LHV of product gas ( y1 kJ/Nm3), LHVp ( y2 kJ/Nm3) and gas yield ( y3
Nm3/kg). The input and output variables are in different units. The mean and standard
deviation values provide the statistic summary of the dataset to facilitate the reproducibility.

 

The statistical analysis of the input x i and output variables  y1 , y2 , y3  are represented by
the mean vectors  x and  y , respectively and are given in equations (4) and (5).

 x   43.815 5.11 0.685 0.17 36.53 4.21 9.55 0.4 581
(4)

 y  3153 7273

2.86

(5)
Similarly, their corresponding standard deviations are given by  x and  y in equations (6)
and (7).

 x   0.1202 0.6929 0.5868 0.1838 6.2649 5.9538 10.6773 0.2828 154.1493 (6)
 y  835.80 4556.60

2.62 

(7)

2.2 Proposed approach of ANN based learning methodology and optimisation of
the model parameters
The MISO and MIMO configurations are used for training of multilayer neural network
models. In the MISO case, 9 inputs and 1 output are modelled. Therefore 3 separate ANNs
are trained for each of the three cases of LHV, LHVp and syngas yield. For the MIMO case,
the network is trained with 9 inputs and 3 outputs. Therefore, one single network is capable
of predicting all three outputs.

12

Different sets of internal network parameters have been used while training the ANN model
viz. number of hidden layer, number of neurons in the hidden layer and transfer function,
learning rate etc. Deciding the number of neurons in the hidden layer is an important issue in
the selection of the neural network architecture and their choice varies on a case by case
basis. A detailed study of the effect of internal parameters on the performance of back
propagation networks (Hornik et al., 1989) and the procedure involved in selecting the best
network topology has been described elsewhere (Maier and Dandy, 1998). The network
architecture has a huge influence on the trade-off between predictive accuracy on the training
dataset and generalisation capability of the model on untrained data. Hence, both the number
of hidden layers and number of neurons in each of these hidden layers must be carefully
considered. Having too few neurons in the hidden layer can give rise to lower predictive
accuracy (i.e. the network cannot capture the nonlinear trends in the dataset), on the other
hand too many neurons in the hidden layers can also result in problems. A highly complex
model can suffer from over-fitting the training dataset and it takes much more computational
time to train large networks. Hence, a trade-off needs to be found in order to determine the
numbers of layers, number of neurons in each layer and transfer function used in the hidden
layer. In the past, a trial and error method was employed by other researchers to decide the
number of neurons and hidden layers but selection of the optimum layer/hidden node
combination was not clear (Azadi and Karimi-Jashni, 2016; Azadi and Sepaskhah, 2012;
Puig-Arnavat et al., 2013). An increase or decrease in number of neurons in the hidden layer
using the trial and error method cannot accurately identify the best bias-variance trade-off
architecture of the ANN. A different approach with a rigorous cross validated accuracy check
can be employed while sweeping the number of hidden nodes in single and double layer
configuration selecting the best representative model first. This increases the computational
load, as reported in this paper, due to the aim of finding out the best ANN architecture to best

13

capture the underlying patterns of this data. This is intrinsically different from what already
exists in the literature and also advances the traditional supervised learning data analysis
workflow, where the right model is not precisely known.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the proposed methodology.

14

This study also provides a comprehensive and rigorous approach on how to decide the
optimum hidden layers and number of neurons in ANN based models and outlines a
systematic method of choosing the optimum ANN architecture. Figure 2 represents the
schematic flowchart of the proposed methodology. An optimum neural network architecture
is proposed by varying the number of hidden layers, transfer functions and number of
neurons in each hidden layer. Each ANN configuration has been trained with 100
independent runs to find the lowest training error, in order to minimize the chance of getting
stuck in local minima in the ANN weight/bias term tuning process. The performance of the
model can be evaluated by different accuracy measures such as the mean absolute error
(MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), normalised root mean squared error (NMSE) etc.
However, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. This aspect was very well
explained by Azadi and Karimi-Jashni (2016). All of these quantitative measures summarises
the error incurred in training and testing in a similar way. For training ANNs, MSE is the
most popular choice of performance indicator and has been widely used in a wide variety of
pattern recognition and machine learning problems (Bishop, 1995).The predictive accuracy of
the model is evaluated by the MSE metric as given in equation (8).

 n  y  y 2 
p
o

MSE   
 i 1

n



(8)

where, n is number of datasets used for training the network, y p is mean of the predicted
value and yo is the experimental (target) value.

Simulations were performed on a desktop workstation which consists of Intel i7- 3770
CPU, 3.4GHz processors with 4 GB of RAM. Parallelised simulation technique was used to
optimise the capabilities of computer clusters (4 cores) using the parallel for loop.
15

Computational times for single and double layer model were also calculated and were
approximately 18 hours and 190 hours ≈ 8 days respectively for 100 independent runs with
re-shuffling the training datasets (100 times) and hidden layer with 30 neurons in the case of
single layer and 15 neurons in each hidden layer for the double layer model. It is imperative
to stress that the computational time reported here is the simulation time for finding the best
model which train and cross validate multiple models with different number of layers and
architecture to search for the best possible one.

Deciding the optimum ANN architecture is often tricky as there is always a chance of
picking up inconsistent patterns and also a risk of premature convergence during the
optimisation of the weight and bias terms of the FFNN. Therefore multiple randomisation of
the optimiser with different initial guess and multiple shuffles of the data segmentation in
training, validation, testing sets have been adopted here to enable higher accuracy and error
estimates, in multiple Monte Carlo runs, to decide the best ANN architecture including the
number of layers, neurons in each layer and the activation function, as also explored in (Das
et al., 2012; Saha et al., 2012).

3. Results
3.1 Single layer MISO and MIMO models
The number of input and output parameter are nine and one respectively for the MISO model
where the number of neurons in the hidden layer varies from 1 to 30 and LM algorithm is
applied to train the neural networks. The models were trained and tested using both tansig
and logsig nonlinear transfer functions in the hidden layer and purelin in the output layer. The
dataset used to develop the ANN model contains 67 input/output patterns, out of which 70%
(47 datasets) are used for training, 30% for testing and validation (10 datasets each) of the

16

ANN model. Also, the input datasets are randomised for each and every iteration (100
independent runs were carried out). Simulations were also performed by varying the number
of hidden layers in the model and transfer function. The networks are trained with varying
number of hidden neurons in a hidden layer with different combinations of transfer functions.
The performance of the network is evaluated on the basis of the MSE. The ANN architecture
with the lowest MSE indicates a better model model (the best model is represented in the
figures below by an arrow) in terms of predictive accuracy

Figure 3. Box plot of single layer MISO model. Each box plot shows variation across
multiple optimisation runs.

17

Figure 4. Box plot of single layer MIMO model. Each box plot shows variation across
multiple optimisation runs.
The MSE of a single layer NN model is illustrated by box plots, as shown in Figure 3 & 4.
Considering the variation of whiskers at different neuron numbers, a logarithmic scale is used
on the ordinate axis for better representation of the graph. Box plots are used to display the
distribution of data by minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile and maximum values.
The central box comprises values between 25 and 75 percentiles and the whisker shows the
range of values that fall within the maximum of 1.5 interquartile ranges (IQR). The band
inside the box represents the median. The box plots often display the whole range of data
starts from minimum to maximum, median and IQR. Box plots also display the outliers.

It can be seen from Figure 3 & 4 that increasing the number of neurons in the hidden layer
does not imply that the model will have a better predictive accuracy (in the sense of the
median across multiple optimisation runs). The best architecture for the neural network
model is identified as that which has a minimum MSE (in terms of median of MSE). The
minimum MSE with model details are presented in Table 2. It is evident from Table 2 that a
single layer model with logsig transfer function has better accuracy compared to the tansig
18

transfer function when used in the hidden layer. However, it is imperative to stress that
models obtained using tansig are simpler than those obtained using logsig (i.e. the number of
neurons are lower for the best model). Further simulations were performed with minimum
MSE.

3.2 Double layer MISO and MIMO model
Figure 5 & 6 show the surface plots of the double layered MISO and MIMO models.
Different combinations of transfer functions are used to find the best model. The minimum
MSE with different combination of double layer NN models predicting the performances of
the gasifier are presented in Table 2. As explained in Section 3.1, the best architectures are
identified based on the lowest MSE for the subsequent simulations. Double layer MISO
models show better predictive accuracy when the logsig transfer function was used in both
the layers. Moreover, the MIMO model with the tansig/logsig (8/15 neurons in respective
layers) combination has shown slightly better predictive accuracy.

Figure 5. Surface plot of MSE for double layer MISO models (a) LHV (b) LHVp and (c) Gas
yield.

19

Figure 6. Surface plot of MSE for double layer MIMO models (LHV-LHVp-Gas yield).
Surface plots in Figure 5 & 6 show a three-dimensional view of the best prediction accuracy
for the double layer model across a combination of different number of neurons in the
respective layers. These plots are useful in finding the optimum combinations when an ANN
regression model is fitted. It is used for the graphical visualisation of the smoothness of the
fitted surface as the numbers of neurons in the layers are varied. The colour of the surface
determined by the MSE is presented on the Z-axis. Contour maps of the MSE surface are
presented below the surface plots to get a 2D visualization of the change in the predictive
accuracy for the double layer NN model. The optimum number of neurons in the hidden
layers for both the MISO and MISO models are tabulated in Table 2 based on the minimum
reported MSE. The remaining discussion of this paper is based on the optimum architecture
reported in Table 2.

20

Table 2. Training performance of the best ANN configuration
ANN model

Number of
Layer

Predictive
parameter
LHV

Activation
Number of
Minimum
function
neurons
MSE
tansig
9
0.0086
logsig*
30
0.0077
LHVp
tansig
12
0.0024
MISO
1
logsig*
30
0.0021
Gas yield
tansig
6
0.0004
logsig*
8
0.0003
MIMO
1
LHV-LHVptansig
11
0.0035
Gas yield
logsig
28
0.0031
tansig/tansig
4/12
0.00852
LHV
tansig/logsig
10/15
0.00837
logsig/logsig*
9/15
0.00810
logsig/tansig
4/12
0.00840
tansig/tansig
4/13
0.00251
LHVp
tansig/logsig
4/14
0.00247
MISO
2
logsig/logsig*
4/13
0.00229
logsig/tansig
4/10
0.00234
tansig/tansig
6/6
0.00057
Gas yield
tansig/logsig
6/10
0.00055
logsig/logsig*
6/5
0.00051
logsig/tansig
5/6
0.00056
tansig/tansig
6/12
0.00353
MIMO
2
LHV-LHVptansig/logsig*
8/15
0.00346
Gas yield
logsig/logsig
7/15
0.00347
logsig/tansig
7/15
0.00357
* corresponds to the optimum NN model for the prediction of gasifier performance.
4. Discussion
Figure 7 depicts the representative case of the convergence characteristic of the ANN model
for the LHVp (MISO, 4–13, logsig/logsig and LM algorithm). It can be seen that the MSE of
the validation curve decreases slightly after 7 iterations. The validation fitness was found to
increase after iteration 7 while predicting the LHVp in this particular case, indicating that the
model would not generalise well if trained beyond this point. The model was trained to
achieve an MSE of 0.001 with the prescribed number of neurons in the hidden layer as
identified from Table 2. The double layer model has a logsig transfer function in each layer
which has 4 and 13 neurons respectively. A similar approach was used while predicting the
performance of the other output parameters.
21

Figure 7. Convergence characteristics of the optimum double layer MISO model for the
LHVp (4/13, logsig/logsig and LM algorithm).

4.1. Predictive performance of the single layer MISO ANN model
The optimum architecture for the MISO model for LHV, LHVp and gas yield is identified
from Table 2 where it can be seen that a single layer model with logsig transfer function and
LM learning algorithm has demonstrated better predictive accuracy. The optimum numbers
of neurons in the hidden layers are 30, 30 and 8 for the LHV, LHVp and gas yield
respectively.

22

The coefficient of determination (R2) and MSE of training validation and testing datasets are
reported in Figure 8 to predict the LHV, LHVp and syngas produced. Subplots show the
experimental vs. ANN based model predicted values for the output calculation of the gas
generated from the MSW gasification process. The R2 value measures the performance of the
model in predicting the output parameters from the experimental datasets. The plots (Figure
8) show that the degree of agreement between the experimental and predicted values for the
training; validation and testing datasets are quite good (~ 90% or more). It is evident that
most of the data-points lie on the straight line which indicates good performance of the
developed model. It is clearly apparent that the accuracy of the network on training data is
better than testing data. During the training mode the network always alters the values of its
input and output weights to get the best fitness whereas in the testing phase (generalisation or
validation) the output shows the actual predictive performance of the trained model on
unseen data without adjusting the weights.

Figure 8. Prediction of single layer MISO ANN model with R2 and MSE on the training,
validation and the testing datasets (a) LHV (b) LHVp and (c) Gas yield.
23

4.2. Predictive capability of the single layer MIMO ANN model
This model is developed to predict multiple outputs by a single neural network. It can be seen
from Table 2 that the logsig transfer function shows better accuracy compared with the tansig
function. The actual vs. predicted output parameter from the best MIMO model on the
training, validation and testing dataset have been reported in Figure 9. It shows the combined
R2 and MSE values. It can be observed that the generalisation and performance of the model
is quite good. The evolved model has R2 values over 94% in all three cases i.e. training,
validation and testing. Although, a similar modelling paradigm is used while predicting the
LHV, LHVp and syngas yield values separately, the MIMO model has a slightly better
prediction accuracy (R2 value over 98% on unseen data) on training, validation and testing
over the MISO model. It is also evident that the MIMO model performed better compared to
the three MISO models.

Figure 9. Prediction of single layer MIMO ANN model with R2 and MSE on the training,
validation and the testing datasets.

24

4.3. Predictive performance of the double layer MISO ANN model
Figure 10 shows the prediction performance of the trained double layered NN model
reporting the actual vs. predicted values of LHV, LHVp and gas yield production. The
simulations are performed at the best solution in Table 2, reporting minimum MSE and
corresponding neural network architecture. It is noticed that the evolved models for LHVp
and gas yield have slightly better predictive accuracy compared to LHV for the unseen
datasets. The R2 values for the testing and validation datasets are close to 100% for LHV and
gas yield confirming the predictive reliability of the ANN model. In the case of the LHV
prediction, R2 for the validation dataset is found to be low, although the model generalised
well over unseen datasets (testing) with an R2 value of 96%. The plots in Figure 10 show that
the degree of agreement between the experimental and predicted values for the training,
validation and testing datasets are quite good with low relative error between the
experimental and model predicted values under the cross-validation scheme.

Figure 10. Prediction of double layer MISO based ANN model with R2 and MSE on the
training, validation and the testing datasets (a) LHV (b) LHVp and (c) Gas yield.
25

4.4. Predictive performance of the double layer MIMO ANN model
The training, validation and testing regression plots of the double layer MIMO model is
illustrated in Figure 11. The trained MIMO model predicts the performance of the MSW
gasification process using fuel characteristics and process parameters. The model used here
contained 2 hidden layers consisting of 8 and 15 neurons in each layer with tansig and logsig
as the activation functions in the first and second hidden layer respectively, which predicts
the gasifier performance most accurately with respect to MSE criteria. The neural network
was trained to predict three different output parameters (LHV, LHVp and gas yield). The
degree of agreement (R2 value) between experimental and simulated values justified the
accuracy of the proposed ANN model.

Figure 11. Prediction of double layer MIMO based ANN model with R2 and MSE on the
training, validation and the testing datasets.
4.5. Comparison of MISO and MIMO ANN models
The overall R2 values for the different optimised structures and their corresponding MSE are
reported in Table 3. It can be seen from Table 3 that the MIMO models show an improved
26

performance over the MISO models. Although, the degree of agreement (R2) for gas yield in
the case of a single layer and the LHVp and gas yield for double layer models are higher
compared to their respective MIMO model. Moreover, in both cases the MSE for the MIMO
model is lower compared to the MISO model which measures the comparative performance
of the two trained ANN modelling philosophies. Most of the studies reported to date (PuigArnavat et al., 2013; Xiao et al., 2009), focused on multiple input and single output. The
comparative statistical analysis presented in Table 3 shows that the ANN model with multiple
outputs has better prediction accuracy. It turns out that a single layer MIMO model with 28
neurons, LM training algorithm and logsig transfer function has better predictive accuracy
amongst all four type of models explored, MISO, MIMO, single and double layer NNs. The
computation time for finding the best model was about 18 hrs, whereas the double layer
model took almost 200 hrs ≈ 8 days for the same simulation with the above reported
computing hardware.
Table 3. Statistics of the best solutions of single and double layer model variants
Algorithm ϕ
30/logsig/LHV
1
30/logsig/LHVp
8/logsig/Gas yield
28/logsig/ MIMO
9/logsig/15/logsig/ LHV
2
4/logsig/13/logsig/LHVp
6/logsig/5/logsig/Gas yield
8/tansig/15/logsig/MIMO
ϕ
Number of neurons/ activation function/output parameter.
Number of layer

Overall R2
95.95
92.56
98.68
98.05
93.56
98.66
98.95
98.90

MSE
0.00372
0.00496
0.00109
0.00074
0.00157
0.00203
0.00093
0.00077

Despite the fact that ANN based models have advantages over traditional statistical
approaches and have been widely used for similar prediction problems, they also have their
own limitations. ANN based models are often referred to as black box models which are not
capable of identifying the relative significance of the various parameters involved in the
regression i.e. which input parameter influences the output most. The knowledge acquired
27

during training of the model is intrinsic in nature and therefore it is difficult to draw a
reasonable interpretation of the overall structure of the network. Furthermore, it also suffers
from a greater computational burden, proneness to overfitting, and the empirical nature of
model development (Tu, 1996).

5. Conclusion
In this study, MISO and MIMO ANN models, trained with the Levenberg-Marquardt back
propagation algorithm are used to predict the LHV, LHVp and syngas yield from MSW in a
fluidized bed gasifier using process parameters and elemental composition. It is shown that
the predictive performance of the ANN models explored have a good agreement with the
experimental datasets. This indicates that ANN can be used as an alternative method for
modelling complex thermochemical processes. Good accuracy and performance of the
trained ANN models (with R2 ≈ 98% for single layer and R2 ≈ 99% for double layer) have
been achieved in all cases and the MSE is also found to be sufficiently low. The model has
been tested against data from an atmospheric fluidized bed gasifier. The first application of
this new approach has given a useful insight for equilibrium modelling however, calibration
of the ANN model with more data is recommended since it is a self-adaptive, data-driven
method with a few or no prior assumptions about the model structure. A simulation result for
the presented study is quite promising and can be employed in learning and prediction of
nonlinear complex mapping of gasification yields. This simulation paradigm illustrates the
advantage of the proposed ANN model and can be exploited to simulate complex
thermochemical processes such as gasification, pyrolysis and combustion.

The trained ANN model can be used for predicting the performance of similar kinds of
gasifier operating under similar experimental condition. However, if the physical parameters

28

in the input to the regression problem changes, the model needs to be retrained. Also, caution
should be taken while developing the same ANN prediction model for heterogeneous data
that comes partly or completely from different experimental protocols, which might need the
breaking of the prediction problem into several smaller sub-problems that share some
commonality between them, to improve prediction accuracy.

Abbreviations:
LHV

Lower heating value

LHVp

Lower heating value of product gas including tars and entrained char

MSW

Municipal solid waste

ANN

Artificial neural network

LM

Levenberg–Marquardt

WtE

Waste to energy

FFNN

Feed forward neural network

CFD

Computational fluid-dynamics

SCG

Scaled conjugate gradient

BFGS

Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno quasi-Newton

GDX

Gradient descent with momentum and adaptive learning rate

MIMO

Multiple input and multiple output

MISO

Multiple input and single output

tansig

Hyperbolic tangent sigmoid function

logsig

Logarithmic sigmoid function

purelin

Pure linear function

MSE

Mean squared error

IQR

Interquartile range

29

Acknowledgements
The reported research has received funding from the People Programme (Marie Curie
Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013/under
REA grant agreement no [289887]. The first author also acknowledges postgraduate research
scholarship received from the University of Limerick, Ireland.
References
Arena, U., 2012. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification. A
review. Waste Management 32, 625–39.
Azadi, S., Karimi-Jashni, A., 2016. Verifying the performance of artificial neural network
and multiple linear regression in predicting the mean seasonal municipal solid waste
generation rate: A case study of Fars province, Iran. Waste Management 48, 14–23.
Azadi, S., Sepaskhah, A.R., 2012. Annual precipitation forecast for west, southwest, and
south provinces of Iran using artificial neural networks. Theoretical and Applied
Climatology 109, 175–189.
Basu, P., 2010. Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: practical design and theory. Academic
Press.
Batinic, B., Vukmirovic, S., Vujic, G., Stanisavljevic, N., Ubavin, D., Vumirovic, G., 2011.
Using ANN model to determine future waste characteristics in order to achieve specific
waste management targets-case study of Serbia. Journal of Scientific and Industrial
Research 70, 513–518.
Bishop, C.M., 1995. Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford University Press.
Brunner, P.H., Rechberger, H., 2015. Waste to energy-key element for sustainable waste
management. Waste Management 37, 3–12.

30

Chavan, P., Sharma, T., Mall, B., Rajurkar, B., Tambe, S., Sharma, B., Kulkarni, B., 2012.
Development of data-driven models for fluidized-bed coal gasification process. Fuel 93,
44–51.
Cheng, H., Hu, Y., 2010. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy:
current and future practices in China. Bioresource Technology 101, 3816–24.
Choy, K.K., Porter, J.F., Hui, C.-W., McKay, G., 2004. Process design and feasibility study
for small scale MSW gasification. Chemical Engineering Journal 105, 31–41.
Das, S., Pan, I., Sur, K., Das, S., 2012. Artificial neural network based prediction of optimal
pseudo-damping and meta-damping in oscillatory fractional order dynamical systems. In:
Advances in Engineering, Science and Management (ICAESM), 2012 International
Conference on. pp. 350–356.
Dong, C., Jin, B., Li, D., 2003. Predicting the heating value of MSW with a feed forward
neural network. Waste Management 23, 103–6.
EU, 2009. Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development (EU SDS) −
Renewed Strategy. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Fellner, J., Cencic, O., Rechberger, H., 2007. A new method to determine the ratio of
electricity production from fossil and biogenic sources in waste-to-energy plants.
Environmental Science & Technology 41, 2579–2586.
Gohlke, O., 2009. Efficiency of energy recovery from municipal solid waste and the resultant
effect on the greenhouse gas balance. Waste Management & Research 27, 894–906.
Gómez-Barea, A., Leckner, B., 2010. Modeling of biomass gasification in fluidized bed.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 36, 444–509.
Guo, B., Li, D., Cheng, C., Lü, Z., Shen, Y., 2001. Simulation of biomass gasification with a
hybrid neural network model. Bioresource Technology 76, 77–83.

31

Guo, B., Shen, Y., Li, D., Zhao, F., 1997. Modelling coal gasification with a hybrid neural
network. Fuel 76, 1159–1164.
Hagan, M.T., Menhaj, M.B., 1994. Training feedforward networks with the Marquardt
algorithm. IEEE transactions on Neural Networks 5, 989–993.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a waste: A global review of solid waste
management. World Bank Publications, Washington, DC.
Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., White, H., 1989. Multilayer feedforward networks are
universal approximators. Neural Networks 2, 359–366.
Kalogirou, S.A., 2001. Artificial neural networks in renewable energy systems applications: a
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 5, 373–401.
Leckner, B., 2015. Process aspects in combustion and gasification Waste-to-Energy (WtE)
units. Waste Management 37, 13–25.
Lombardi, L., Carnevale, E., Corti, A., 2015. A review of technologies and performances of
thermal treatment systems for energy recovery from waste. Waste Management 37, 26–44.
Maier, H.R., Dandy, G.C., 1998. The effect of internal parameters and geometry on the
performance of back-propagation neural networks: an empirical study. Environmental
Modelling & Software 13, 193–209.
Malkow, T., 2004. Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for energy
efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal. Waste Management 24, 53–79.
Palstra, S., Meijer, H., 2010. Carbon-14 based determination of the biogenic fraction of
industrial CO 2 emissions-application and validation. Bioresource Technology 101, 3702–
3710.
Pan, I., Pandey, D.S., 2016. Incorporating uncertainty in data driven regression models of
fluidized bed gasification: A Bayesian approach. Fuel Processing Technology 142, 305–
32

314.
Pandey, D.S., Pan, I., Das, S., Leahy, J.J., Kwapinski, W., 2015. Multi-gene genetic
programming based predictive models for municipal solid waste gasification in a fluidized
bed gasifier. Bioresource Technology 179, 524–533.
Pavlas, M., Touš, M., Bébar, L., Stehlík, P., 2010. Waste to energy-an evaluation of the
environmental impact. Applied Thermal Engineering 30, 2326–2332.
Pires, A., Martinho, G., Chang, N.-B., 2011. Solid waste management in European countries:
a review of systems analysis techniques. Journal of Environmental Management 92, 1033–
50.
Plumb, A.P., Rowe, R.C., York, P., Brown, M., 2005. Optimisation of the predictive ability
of artificial neural network (ANN) models: a comparison of three ANN programs and four
classes of training algorithm. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 25, 395–405.
Puig-Arnavat, M., Bruno, J.C., Coronas, A., 2010. Review and analysis of biomass
gasification models. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, 2841–2851.
Puig-Arnavat, M., Hernández, J.A., Bruno, J.C., Coronas, A., 2013. Artificial neural network
models for biomass gasification in fluidized bed gasifiers. Biomass and Bioenergy 49,
279–289.
Rand, T., Haukohl, J., Marxen, U., 1999. Decision maker’s guide to municipal solid waste
incineration. World Bank Publications, Washington, DC.
Robert, M., Dražen, L., Bӧhning, D., Bӧhme, R., Beckmann, M., 2014. Artificial neural
network modelling approach for a biomass gasification process in fixed bed gasifiers.
Energy Conversion and Management 87, 1210–1223.
Saha, S., Das, S., Acharya, A., Kumar, A., Mukherjee, S., Pan, I., Gupta, A., 2012.
Identification of nonlinear systems from the knowledge around different operating
conditions: A feed-forward multi-layer ANN based approach. In: Parallel Distributed and
33

Grid Computing (PDGC), 2012 2nd IEEE International Conference on. pp. 413–418.
Tu, J.V., 1996. Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus
logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 49,
1225–1231.
Xiao, G., Ni, M., Chi, Y., Jin, B., Xiao, R., Zhong, Z., Huang, Y., 2009. Gasification
characteristics of MSW and an ANN prediction model. Waste Management 29, 240–244.

34

