HYBRID MODELS FOR PREDICTING

LANDFILL DEGRADATION PROCESSES

- A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO
COMPENSATE MECHANISTIC MODEL´S
UNCERTAINTIES

A. HAARSTRICK, E. FRANCO-LARA, T. REICHEL AND I. I. VÖLKERDING

Institute of Biochemical Engineering, Technical University of Braunschweig,
Gaußstr. 17, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany

SUMMARY: Current research topics in landfill model development are mainly based on
mechanistic model concepts. This applies to every working group being involved in modelling
landfill behaviour. However, even when desirable, the development of formal model approaches
is a very complex task. To gain and validate these approaches a large number of experimental
data, physical, chemical, and biological parameter as well as different waste compositions and
environmental conditions must be taken into account. Currently, modelling working groups have
their own strategies and focal points in order to get a reliable approach to landfill reality. Hybrid
models offer ways out when processes are complex and poorly understood in a mechanistic
sense, and aim to describe different components of a process in different ways. This approach
can be employed with advantage because the model accuracy can be increased by integrating
alternative and complementary sources of knowledge. In this work the structure of a hybrid
model is presented and its application for simulating gas emission from a lab-scale landfill
simulation bioreactor is discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION

At present time, existing mechanistic landfill models are different in many points and often
tailored to one landfill and locally existing problem. Existing mechanistic knowledge, like mass
and energy balances or given specific reaction kinetics are usually described by formal
approaches (e.g. differential equations, Monod kinetics, etc.). Contrastingly, knowledge hidden
in data is commonly found in form of “black box” models like polynomials, artificial neural
networks, engineering correlations, etc. Lee et al. (2005) reported the use of a mechanistic
wastewater treatment plant model that was combined with non-parametric approaches like, for
example, linear partial least squares (PLS), quadratic PLS, and neural network PLS (NNPLS)
models. Here the performance of each parallel hybrid model, which is the combination of non-
parametric models with the Activated Sludge Model No.1, was compared based on their ease of
model building, prediction accuracy.
In recent years, hybrid model approaches have received considerable attention (Thompson and

Proceedings Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 1 - 5 October 2007
 2007 by CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy
 Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Kramer, 1994; van Can et al., 1997; Lee et al., 2002, 2005). These hybrid models mainly consist
on differential equation systems describing the mass balance of the reaction and transport
components, which are supported by formal kinetic s and at least one “black-box” component
coupled either with either in serial or parallel manner. Between available alternative of these
“black-box” approaches, there has been a great preference to use neural networks, especially
feedforward feedforward (FFNN) and feedforward back-propagation neural networks (FBNN)
and radial basis functions networks (RBFN), as non-parametric model (Montage and Morris,
1994; Thompson and Kramer, 1994; Zhao et al., 1999; Neural Networks: The Official Journal of
the International Neural Network Society, Elsevier).
This combines first principles modelling, in form of mass balance equations, with an artificial
neural network (ANN). Since the ANN does not require any previous knowledge of kinetic
mechanisms, it is suited to improve the accuracy of the describing waste degradation kinetics
applied.

2. STATE OF THE ART

2.1 Limitation of conventional routes

It is clear that the development of appropriate process models cannot be achieved without
sufficiently accurate experimental data and comprehensive integration of empirical knowledge.
Conversely, such data cannot be fully exploited in the absence of sufficiently accurate process
models.
With regard to the concrete example of a landfill, adequate means of obtaining measurement
data are not available for most of the key process variables, like specific growth rates for
different microorganism species. Further, obtaining equivalent information directly is also
difficult, as it is difficult to obtain sufficient online data from landfills with respect to space and
time. Under these circumstances model adaptation is therefore restricted and predictions of
process conditions are only possible over a short period.

2.2 Possible integration of new routes

In case of biodegradation processes, for instance, it is straightforward to base the model on a
macroscopic mass balance of well-known biochemical species formulated by means of a set of
ordinary differential equations. Kinetics can be formulated via mathematical expression inspired
by Monod or by means of an artifical neural network. These alternatives of describing the
phenomenon and different interactions are usually not equivalent. Referred to kinetics, both
approaches are different in the sense that the Monod expression has a more global applicability
as it can be reliably extrapolated to substrate values not experienced during the previous
experiments. The neural network approach, however, allows the description of complex
behaviours considering the influence of more process variables in a general and simple manner.
Both applications have their pros and cons, but in the end, it is of advantage to make use of them
simultaneously and to combine their benefits which may result in synergetic effects. The
combination requires an adequate, weighting procedure or the definition of the application range
of different approaches.
For weighting procedure between models, different techniques have been reported in
literature, e.g. using clustering techniques (Leonard and Kramer, 1995), with expert systems
(Schubert et al., 1994) or with fuzzy techniques (Franco-Lara et al., 2000, 2006).
The hybrid model transfer to landfill application is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. The
box on the left hand side of this figure represents the landfill’s process variables, process data,
 Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

FS, Si
Landfill gas

Visualization
Model-Output

Landfill Data
Model- Xij, Sij, Pij, …, FS, Tj, … Integration
Input • Real time data
Xij(t) ; Sij(t) ; Pij(t)
• Data storage
Optimization
Tj, pH, …

Monod-Kinetics Mass
balance
Scenario DOC
Correlations Weighting
Stoichio-
ANN, Fuzzy metry

Mechanistic
Hypotheses
model
Hybrid-Model

Figure 1: Transfer and adaptation to landfill problem (using different approaches for generating
hybrid models).

and environmental impact factors to be recorded. These data will be used as model input data
and stored in a data pool. From here data are applied for different modelling methods. The
combination of models, for instance, Monod-kinetics and neural networks, may be based on a
parallel hybrid model structure. The non-parametric model is used to estimate the difference
between the mechanistic (parametric) model predictions and the corresponding operational and
experimental data. This is particularly of primary interest in cases where single processes are not
as thoroughly understood as others for which well-established mathematical relations exist.

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1 General waste characteristic and model input data

A mass of 251 kg of fresh waste was taken from a municipal landfill and was analyzed for total
composition (Table 1). Masurement of the average waste density and the water content resulted
in 662.5 kg/m3 and 43 % m/m, respectively.
In Table 1 the waste has been arranged according to the criteria easily, slowly, and hardly
degradable and inert. According to dry waste, analysis of the percentages resulted in 1.67 % of
easily (2.38 kg), 13.6 % of slowly (19.52 kg), and 24.9 % (35.56 kg) of hardly degradable and
59.8 % (85.57 kg) of inert material. For simulation procedures, the model was provided with
initial data from waste analysis (Table 2).
The chemical composition of the biopolymers has been analyzed yielding an average
composition of the elements: C30H65O15N. Henze et al. (1995) gave the average composition of
the biomass, C5H7NO2. The average element compositions of organic waste and biomass served
for stoichiometric calcultions (see Table 3).
 Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Table 1. Composition of wet waste (total: 251 kg, density 662.5 kg/m3) and dry waste (total:
143.1 kg).
Waste composition Percentage % Mass kg Dry mass kg Degradability
Organic (fine material) 1.67 4.20 2.38 easily
Wood 6.59 16.55 9.43 slowly
Plastics 19.58 49.15 28.01 hardly
Textiles 5.28 13.25 7.55 hardly
Stones 7.67 19.25 10.97 inert
Glas 1.73 4.35 2.48 inert
Metal 1.65 4.15 2.36 inert
Waste paper 7.05 17.70 10.09 slowly
Undefined 48.78 122.45 69.79 inert

Table 2. Initial model input values of organic and inorganic components in the aqueous and solid
phase
Organic Organic Organic
matter easily matter slowly matter hardly Gluc Ace H2S NO3- S042- NH4+ H 2O
degradable degradable degradable
(A) 1.67 0.52 0.64 0.92 1.54 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.40 1000
(B) 3.99 45.61 84.46 - - - - - - 328.19
(A) Concentration in aqueous phase, (kg/m3water); (B) Concentration in solid phase (kg/m3solid)

3.2 Landfill bioreactor LBR

For experimental investigation of anaerobic degradation and gas formation, the LBR was filled
with 5.59 kg of dry weight of shredded one year old municipal solid waste excavated from
Deiderode landfill (Göttingen). The waste had been shredded to minimum particle size of 25 mm
before it was placed in the LBR. In order to accelerate waste degradation 7.6 L of synthetic
leachate was added containing 10 % v/v anaerobically digested sewage sludge. The maximum
reaction volume filled with waste shredded dry waste was 16.5 L. The initial temperature was
30 °C and was increased to approximately 40 °C from day 32 of the experimental run. The
experimental run including recirculation of the leachate lasted 85 days whereas the leachate was
recirculated with a rate of 0.4 L per day.
The dynamics of the LBR can be described by a number of mass balance equations for a set of
components of interest in the liquid phase. The LBR was operated as a trickling bed reactor with
a downward flow of wastewater in a recycle loop operation mode. Considering that the space
between the waste particles is completely filled with water the mass balance of components si
may be stated in the following general state space form:

F
s&i = ⋅ si + r(si ) + m(si ) (1)
VR

The component si in the effluent passes down through the waste packing with a unique
recirculation rate, F/VR, and is utilized or degraded by microorganisms represented by reaction
kinetics r(si).
 Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

3.4 Mechanistic kinetic model

The mechanistic kinetic model is developed on conceptual considerations of chemical and
biological reaction processes in landfills. The model enables the details of mixed-culture
population dynamics and locally based multiple reaction schemes to be described as functions of
the chemical and physical environmental conditions.
The biological degradation processes and their corresponding reactions used in the model are
listed in Table 3, whereas the reactions of biomass growth are depicted in Table 4.
The model contains detailed formulations of the following processes: biological degradation,
formation of soluble organic compounds and gases, growth of biomass, and influence of
environmental physical (e.g., mass transfer) and physico-chemical conditions (e.g., adsorption/
desorption). In order to mirror the complexity of the biological reaction processes in the model,
high molecular organic compounds (biopolymers) have been subdivided into three types: readily,
less readily and hardly degradable. The chemical composition of the elements of the overall
organic fraction was estimated using the breakdown of the waste composition (Ehrig, 1980).

Table 3. Biological degradation processes and their corresponding reactions – continued next
page.
R1: Hydrolysis, formation of glucose
C30H65O15N + 15 H2O + H+ → 5 C6H12O6 + NH4+ + 16 H2
R2: Aerobic degradation using glucose as carbon source
C6H12O6 + 6 O2 → 6 CO2 + 6 H2O
R3: Anaerobic degradation, formation of acetate using glucose as carbon source
C6H12O6 + 2 H2O → 2 C2H4O2 + 2 CO2 + 4 H2
R4: Anaerobic degradation, desulfurication using glucose as carbon source
C6H12O6 + SO42- + 2 H+ → 2 C2H4O2 + 2 CO2 + H2S + 2 H2O
R5: Anaerobic degradation, desulfurication using acetate as carbon source
C2H4O2 + 2 SO42- + 4 H+ + 4 H2 → 2 H2S + 2 CO2 + 6 H2O
R6: Anaerobic degradation, denitrification using glucose as carbon source
C6H12O6 + 1.6 NO3- + 1.6 H+ → 2 C2H4O2 + 2 CO2 + 0.8 N2 + 2.8 H2O
R7: Anaerobic degradation, formation of methane using acetate as carbon source
C2H4O2 → CH4 + CO2
R8: Anaerobic degradation, formation of methane using carbon dioxide as carbon source
CO2 + 4 H2 → CH4 + 2 H2O
R9: Anaerobic degradation, reduction of iron using acetate as carbon source
C2H4O2 + 8 Fe3+ + 2 H2O → 2 CO2 + 8 Fe2+ + 8 H+
R10: Lysis, formation of glucose using biomass as carbon source
C5H7NO2 + 3 H2O + H+ → 5/6 C6H12O6 + NH4+

Table 4. Biomass growth in connection with reactions R1-R10 (Table 3).

B1: Biomass growth, using glucose as carbon source (connected to R2, R4, R6)
C6H12O6 + 1.2 NH4+ → 1.2 C5H7NO2 + 1.2 H+ + 3.6 H2O
B2: Biomass growth, using acetate as carbon source (connected to R3, R5, R7, R9)
C2H4O2 + 0.4 NH4+ → 0.4 C5H7NO2 + 1.2 H2O + 0.4 H+
B3: Biomass growth, using carbon dioxide as carbon source (connected to R8)
CO2 + 2 H2 + 0.2 NH4+ → 0.2 C5H7NO2 + 1.6 H2O + 0.2 H+

(2)
I
 Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

n order to combine stoichiometry with reaction kinetics, the overall stoichiometric

matrix M(mxn) has to be multiplied (Equation 2) by the reaction vector r(mx1) (Equation
3) yielding the reaction matrix B0 (m x n):

(
B 0 (m×n ) = Μ (m×n ) . ∗ r (m×1) × β (1×n ) )
For elementwise multiplication of M(mxn) with r(mx1), the dimension of r(mx1) has been made
consistent to the dimension of M(mxn) by introducing a horizontal vector β(1xn) for matrix
operations.

 R1 
 
M 
r ( m ×1 ) =   with R j = Φ j ⋅ k j ⋅ f S , j ⋅ f I , j ⋅ f T , j ⋅ f pH , j ⋅ f W , j ,
R (3)
 j
R  ϕj
 m

here, kj is the unmodified first order reaction rate for reaction j. Vector r(mx1) includes biokinetics
(Monod-type) but also environmental influence functions, which are relevant for each reaction j.
In case of parallel running reactions, the diminution of a reaction rate as the result of
competing reactions must be borne in mind. Thus, it has been assumed that the faster the
reaction, the higher its priority to use the limiting substrate available. Therefore, in the model, a
weighting factor, Φj, has been introduced (Equation 4),

ϕj
Φj = m
,
(4)
∑ϕ
j =1
j

where, ϕj represents the product of the environmental functions and the different reaction rates.
If, for example, glucose acts as a limiting substrate in reactions R2, R4 and R6, the weighting
factor Φ2 results from ϕ2 divided by the sum of ϕ2, ϕ4 and ϕ6. The same is valid for Φ4 and Φ6,
respectively.
The terms fS,j, fI,j, fT,j, fpH,j, fW,j in Equation 3 are introduced as environmental functions which
modify kj and may to a greater or lesser extent influence the biological degradation processes.
The values of the environmental functions range between zero and one, which reflects the
change between non-optimum and optimum conditions. Reaching zero means that the process
will cease due to non-optimum conditions.
In order to get the process matrix B (nxn) the following conversion of the reaction matrix B0 (mxn)
is necessary:
m
B (n× n ) with Β (i,Λ( j )) = ∑ {Β0 ( j (Λ = Λ( j )),i )} . (5)
j =1

According to Equation 5 the element B(i,Λ(j)) in the process matrix B (nxn) results from the sum
of the elements of the reaction matrix B0 (mxn), where the limiting substrates refer to Λ(j). This
means, that in reaction matrix B0 (mxn) the values which refer to the same components i involved
in different reactions j will be added. Reichel et al. (2007) report further details.
 Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

3.5 Hybrid model approach

The main idea of the present hybrid model approach is to compensate the mechanistic model´s
uncertainty with respect to observed gas formation rates. For this purpose two ANN’s have been
developed and trained. The architecture of each model consists of a three-layer feedforward
ANN with four input nodes for the independent variables Temperature (T), pH-value (pH),
dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and acetate concentration (Ace). For the hidden layer two nodes
are considered and a single output layer node for the gas formation rates of methane or carbon
dioxide (ANN[4,2,1]; Figure 2), respectively. In this case, the input layer is a layer without
neurons; it only directs the input to every neuron in the hidden layer. The hidden and the output
layers contain neurons with a nonlinear activation function.
The ANN has been trained using the four independent variables pH, T, DOC and Ace for
input to yield the residuals between experiment and the mechanistic kinetic model predictions
for CH4 (∆rCH4) and for CO2 (∆rCO2), respectively. This “training” is actually a numerical fitting
procedure applied to obtain optimal values for the ANN parameters, known as weights. Every
input xi of ANN has to be multiplied by an activation weight wi in the hidden layer. These
multiplied inputs are afterwards added giving,
pi
z j = ∑ wih, j ⋅ xi (6)
i =1

The output of the neurons in the hidden layer is posteriorly “activated” by a non-linear operator.
In the present case, sigmoidal activation functions were used for every layer (Kim and Lewis,
1998; Zell, 1994; Zupan and Gasteiger, 1993):
− ai ⋅z j
σ j ( z ) = 1 /(1 + e ) ; ai ∈ (0.5, 1, 2) (7)
The neurons in the hidden and ouput layer have biases, b, which are added to the input and to the
ouput neurons. One may view the bias as simply being added to the product w·x or as a shifting
the activation function σ to the left or right along the x-axis by an amount of b or -b,
respectively. The bias is much like a weight, except that it has a constant input of 1. The
activation function net input is the sum of the weighted input w·x and the bias b. The bias b as
well as the weight w are adjustable parameter of the neuron; both have no input character
compared to the input parameter xi. The final output y of the last layer is given by:
ph
yl = ∑ w0j ,l ⋅ σ j ( z ) (8)
j =1

The subscript j denotes the jth neuron in the hidden layer, the subscript i denotes the ith input, l
denotes the lth output, and ph the number of neurons in the hidden layer. The weights whi,j are
called the activation weights, and w0j,l the output weights. Their optimal values were obtained
applying an iterative procedure known as “Bayesian training”, minimizing the least squared sum
between the desired output (the known gas rate deviations ∆rCH4 and ∆rCO2) and the ANN output
yl given by Equation 8. Further details concerning this fitting method can be found in the works
of Foresee and Hagan (1997), MacKay (1992) and Rummelhart et al. (1986). Figure 2 explicitely
depicts a scheme of the ANN used to model the deviations of the gas production rate for
methane, ∆rCH4.
In order to improve the prediction performance, the above-described ANN has been coupled
in parallel fashion to the mechanistic model, as schematically illustrated in Figure 3. By doing
this, the mechanistic Monod-type supported simulations of the gas formation rates are taken as
 Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

input layer hidden layers output layer

(4 inputs) (4,2 nodes) (1 node)

DOC Σ / f1 Σ / f2

.. ..
. W1 . W2 W3 Σ / f3 ∆rCH 4 (DOC , Ace ,T , pH )

pH Σ / f1 Σ / f2
(
∆rCH 4 = fL W L ⋅ X L −1 )
(
X L = fL W L ⋅ X L −1 )
1 1 1
X 0 = (DOC , Ace ,T , pH ,1)
T

biases
Calculations

Figure 2:Artificial neural network with four input, two hidden, and one single output layer
[4,2,1].

fundamental or basal. The synergetic effect is achieved when the ANN-supported model is used
as correcting term of the basal model, accounting for those unknown phenomena not considered
or described by the mechanistic approaches, by using state variables and direct measured
environmental variables.
For parameter and data analysis, it is obvious that the ANN’s can also be used as “stand-alone
models”. Völkerding et al. (2007) report on detalied examples of these approaches considering
gas formation in landfill bioreactors of different sizes.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Changes of temperature and pH monitored over time were used as an input function, which
means that in every single time step values were based on the input of experimental data (Figure
4). During the experimental run, the pH was not adjusted while the temperature inside the
landfill simulation reactor was increased at a time when the gas formation rates were observed to
nearly reach zero (see Figures 4 and 6a). Therefore, at day 32 the reactor temperature was raised
by 20 °C reaching a final value of 40 °C. At day 42 the temperature was reduced to a value of 20
°C keeping this value constant for nearly 3 days. After this period, a further temperature change
was carried out finally reaching 40 °C (Figure 4).
The consequences for the gas formation rates can be observed in Figure 6a. The increase of
the rates can be attributed to slight increases of bio-availability of degradable organic
compounds on the one hand (see time period between 40 and 65 days in Figure 5) and thus to the
improvement of the reaction rates on the other hand (compare same time period in Figure 6a).
Referred to Figure 6a experimental data of gas formation rates are compared with simulated
data that result from application of the mechanistic kinetic model only. Whereas in Figures 6b-d
simulated data from the hybrid model approach are compared with experimentally obtained data
and data obtained from the mechanistic kinetic model. From these graphical presentations, it can
clearly be seen that the hybrid model approach could help to compensate the mechanistic
model´s uncertainty. In this example of a hybrid approach, only two independent variables (T,
pH) and two state variables (DOC, Ace) were applied for input data serving to train the ANN.
The independent variables were choosen according to Meima et al. (2007), who report on
parameter influences that are most sensible to landfill gas production.
 Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

50 8,5

2500
40 8

organic carbon [mgOC/L]

concentration of total
2000
30 7,5
T [°C]

total organic carbon

pH
1500 from:
20 7 acetate+propionate+
T (exp) butyrate+oxalate
1000
T (sim)
10 pH (exp) 6,5 500
pH (sim)
•••••
0 6 0 •• •

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
time [d] time [d]

Figure 4: Experimental and simulated run of Figure 5: Experimental data of total

pH and temperature (temperature organic carbon from acetate,
shift from 30 °C to 40 °C at day 32 propionate, butyrate, and oxalate.
and from 40°C to 20 °C at day 42; at
day 45 the temperature was increased
again to a maximum value of 40 °C).

The independent variables were choosen according to Meima et al. (2007), who report on
parameter influences that are most sensible to landfill gas production.
The consequences for the gas formation rates can be observed in Figure 6a. The increase of the
rates can be attributed to slight increases of bio-availability of degradable organic compounds on
the one hand (see time period between 40 and 65 days in Figure 5) and thus to the improvement of
the reaction rates on the other hand (compare same time period in Figure 6a).
Referred to Figure 6a experimental data of gas formation rates are compared with simulated
data that result from application of the mechanistic kinetic model only. Whereas in Figures 6b-d
simulated data from the hybrid model approach are compared with experimentally obtained data
and data obtained from the mechanistic kinetic model. From these graphical presentations, it can
clearly be seen that the hybrid model approach could help to compensate the mechanistic model´s
uncertainty. In this example of a hybrid approach, only two independent variables (T, pH) and two
state variables (DOC, Ace) were applied for input data serving to train the ANN. The independent
variables were choosen according to Meima et al. (2007), who report on parameter influences that
are most sensible to landfill gas production.
The ANN in this work is used in parallel mode to estimate the difference between the
mechanistic kinetic model predictions and the corresponding operational data. Thus, a practical
application supported by this model could be focused on online monitoring of important process
quantities like gas formation rates from anaerobic waste digestion.
The neural network can use data for a given period to determine single gas fractions in the
landfill gas. This method has the advantage of predicting (not measuring) gas fractions in advance,
which provides enough time to take proper action such as leachate recirculation and its
optimization as referred to as improved (maximized) gas production.
It is obvious that the number of (measurable) independent variables can be increased for the
benefit of model performance. However, not to be in danger of getting an inflation of data
sensitivity analysis and/or data from meaningful measurements would be useful tools and should
additionally be taken into consideration.
 Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

4 4
methane (exp)
total gas(exp)

gas formation rate [L/d]

gas formation rate [L/d]

methane (sim)
3 carbon dioxide (exp) 3
total gas (sim)
carbon dioxide (sim)
total gas (exp)
2 total gas (Sim+ANN)
2 total gas (sim)

1 1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
time [d] time [d]

Figure 6a: comparison of experimentally Figure 6b: comparison of experimentally

obtained with simulated gas obtained with simulated total gas
formations rates; simulation is based formations rates; simulation is
on the mechanistic kinetic model only. based on the kinetic model and on
the hybrid model (sim+ANN).

4 4
methane (exp) carbon dioxide (exp)
gas formation rate [L/d]

gas formation rate [L/d]

3 3
methane (sim) carbon dioxide (sim)

methane (Sim+ANN) CO2 (Sim+ANN)

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
time [d] time [d]

Figure 6c: comparison of experimentally Figure 6d: comparison of experimentally

obtained with simulated methane obtained with simulated CO2
formations rates obtained from the formations rates obtained from
kinetic model on the one hand and the kinetic model on the one hand
from the hybrid model (sim+ANN) on and from the hybrid model
the other hand. (sim+ANN) on the other hand.

5. CONCLUSIONS

In this article, a hybrid model approach is considered demonstrating the improvement of the
mechanistic kinetic model`s prediction of gas formation rates from a LBR. Within the hybrid
model structure, the mechanistic model specifies the basic dynamics of relevant process
variables, and the ANN, which is based on actually available data, compensates the already
mentioned shortcomings of the mechanistic model. ANNs can simply be understood as
 Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

mathematical representations of nonlinear functions in several variables in terms of of a system

of basic functions. In so far, similarity to a series expansion like the well-known Taylor
expansion is given. This similarity to a series expansion can simply be seen by the mathematical
representation of the ANN´s input/output relationship that is generally given by y = f(x). If we
consider the values at the input and output nodes as vectors x and y, the weights or parameter at
the hidden layer and output nodes as matrices wh and w0, and a sigmoidal activation function σ as
nonlinear node response function, then the ANN output can concisely be expressed as:

z = wh x x , σ = f(z) , y = w0 x σ. (9, 10, 11)

With regard to the utilization of a classical (mechanistic) model, which must also be identified
with the same data set, the question of the benefit of the hybrid approach may arise. The
comparisons given in Figures 6b-d clearly indicate that the hybrid model performs better in this
case. However, it should be underlined that the advantage of the hybrid model approach is
explained by the amount of a-priori knowledge incorporated. Usually, with the hybrid model, it
is possible to make a larger part of the knowledge available. Additionally, the hybrid model
allows the direct use of knowledge, as it becomes available and thus, avoids transformation
losses. This also means saving of development time and costs. Nevertheless, if it were possible to
provide a comparable amount of relevant knowledge in the mechanistic model, then the
difference would be diminished, naturally.
With regard to further investigations on modelling landfill degradation processes, hybrid
model applications will not be related to optimize rate descriptions only, but also to focus on
different degradation kinetics and mirco-organism growth kinetics influenced by various
environmental factors (e.g. µ = f (T, pH, water content, DOC, … etc.) and sorption processes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is part of a research project which is a constituent project of the Collaborative
Research Centre SFB 477 - Monitoring and Prediction of the Long-term Functional Security of
Municipal Landfills. This project is supported by grants from the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

REFERENCES

Ehrig, H.-J. (1980): Beitrag zum quantitativen und qualitativen Wasserhaushalt von Müll-
deponien (Contribution to the qualitative and quantitative water balance of municipal
landfills), Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Stadtbauwesen der Technischen Universität
Braunschweig, Heft 26, 2. erweiterte Auflage.
Foresee, F.D., Hagan, M.T. (1997). Gauss-Newton approximation to Bayesian regularization.
Proceedings of the 1997 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. Pp: 1930-1935.
Franco-Lara, E., Volk, N., Lübbert, A. (2000). Optimierung der Produktion rekombinanter
Proteine mit hybriden Modellen (Hybrid model based optimization of the production of
recombinant proteins), Chem.-Ing.-Tech.,72, 110-114.
Franco-Lara E, Havel J, Peterat F, Weuster-Botz D (2006): Model-supported optimization of
phototrophic growth in a stirred-tank photo-bioreactor. DOI: 10.1002/bit.21086.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering 95: 1177-1187.
 Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Henze M. et al. (1995). Wastewater Treatment – Biological and Chemical Processes, Springer
Verlag.
Kim, Y.H., Lewis, F.L. (1998). High-level feedback control with neural networks. World
Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Kinzelbach W. et al. (1991). Numerical modeling of natural and enhanced denitrification
processes in aquifers, Water Resource and Research, 27(6), 1123-1135.
Lee, D.S., Jeon, C.O., Park, J.M., Chang, K.S. (2002). Hybrid neural network modelling for a
full-scale industrial wastewater treatment process. Biotechnol. Bioeng, 78, 670-682.
Lee, D.S., Vanrollegham, P.A., Park, J.M. (2005). Parallel hybrid modeling methods for a full-
scale cokes wastewater treatment plant. Journal of Biotechnology, 115, 317-328.
Leonard, J., Kramer, M.A. (1990). Improvement of the backpropagation algorithm for training
neural networks. Comp. Chem. Eng., 14, 337-341.
MacKay, D. J. C. (1992). Bayesian interpolation. Neural Computation 4(3): 415-447.
Meima, J.A., Mora Naranjo, N., Haarstrick, A. (2007). Sensitivity analysis and literature review
of parameters controlling local biodegradation processes in municipal solid waste landfills.
Waste Management, article in press (online available www.sciencedirect.com).
Montague, G., Morris, J. (1994). Neural-network contributions in biotechnology, TIBTECH 12:
312-324.
Neural Networks: The Official Journal of the International Neural Network Society, European
Neural Network Society & Japanese Neural Network Society. Electronic Version, Elsevier.
Reichel T.; Ivanova, L.K.; Beaven, R.P.; Haarstrick, A. (2007): Modelling Decomposition of
MSW in a Consolidating Anaerobic Reactor, Environmental Engineering Science, assigned
for publicaton in 24/8, 2007.
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G.E., Williams, R.J. (1986). Learning internal representations by error
propagation. D. Rumelhart and J. McClelland, editors. Parallel Data Processing, Vol. 1,
Chapter 8, the M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, Pp: 318-362.
Schubert, J., Simutis, R., Dors, M., Havlik, I., Lübbert, A. (1994). Bioprocess optimization and
control: Application of hybrid modelling. J. Biotechnol., 35, 51-68.
Thompson, M., Kramer, M.A. (1994). Modelling chemical processes using prior knowledge and
neural networks. AIChE J., 40, 1328-1340.
Van Can, H.J.L., Te Braake, H.A.B., Hellinga, C., Luyben, K.C.A.M., Heijnen, J.J. (1997). An
efficient model development strategy for bioprocesses based on neural networks in
macroscopic balances. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 54, 549-566.
Völkerding, I.I., Franco-Lara, E., Haarstrick, A. (2007). Experimental studies on different scales
of anaerobic landfill bioreactors. 11th International Waste Management and Landfill
Symposium, Sardinia, Ref. 549p.
Zell A. (1994). Simulation Neuronaler Netze. Addison-Wesley (Deutschland) GmbH.
Zhao, H., Hao, O.J., McAvoy, T.J. (1999). Approaches to modeling nutrient dynamics: ASM2,
simplified model and neural nets. Wat. Sci. Tech., 39, 227-234.
Zupan J, Gasteiger J. (1993). Neural Networks for Chemist. An Introduction. VCH.