Coal Preperationmakale

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/233155613
On the Use of Conventional and Soft Computing Models for Prediction of

Gross Calorific Value (GCV) of Coal
Article in International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization · January 2011

DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2010.534683
CITATIONS READS
17 18,367
2 authors:
Nazan Yalçın Erik Isik Yilmaz

Sivas Cumhuriyet University Sivas Cumhuriyet University
105 PUBLICATIONS 299 CITATIONS 194 PUBLICATIONS 6,163 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Nazan Yalçın Erik on 02 January 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [yalcýn, nazan][TÜBİTAK EKUAL]
On: 24 January 2011
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 772815469]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713455898
On the Use of Conventional and Soft Computing Models for Prediction of

Gross Calorific Value (GCV) of Coal
Nazan Yalçin Erka; Işk Yilmaza
a
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Geological Engineering, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
Online publication date: 22 January 2011
To cite this Article Erk, Nazan Yalçin and Yilmaz, Işk(2011) 'On the Use of Conventional and Soft Computing Models for
Prediction of Gross Calorific Value (GCV) of Coal', International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 31: 1, 32 —
59
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2010.534683
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19392699.2010.534683
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 31: 32–59, 2011
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1939-2699 print=1939-2702 online
DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2010.534683
ON THE USE OF CONVENTIONAL AND SOFT

COMPUTING MODELS FOR PREDICTION
OF GROSS CALORIFIC VALUE (GCV) OF COAL
Downloaded By: [yalcýn, nazan][TÜBTAK EKUAL] At: 07:41 24 January 2011
NAZAN YALÇIN ERİK AND IŞİK YILMAZ

Faculty of Engineering, Department of Geological
Engineering, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
Gross calorific value (GCV) is an important characteristic of coal

and organic shale; the determination of GCV, however, is difficult,
time-consuming, and expensive and is also a destructive analysis.
In this article, the use of some soft computing techniques such as
ANNs (artificial neural networks) and ANFIS (adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference system) for predicting GCV (gross calorific value) of coals
is described and compared with the traditional statistical model of
MR (multiple regression). This article shows that the constructed
ANFIS models exhibit high performance for predicting GCV. The
use of soft computing techniques will provide new approaches and
methodologies in prediction of some parameters in investigations
about the fuel.
Keywords: ANFIS; ANN; Coal; Gross calorific value; Multiple

regression; Soft computing
Received 12 July 2010; accepted 27 September 2010.

Authors are deeply grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their very constructive
critics and suggestions that led to the improvement of the article.
Address correspondence to Işik Yilmaz, Faculty of Engineering, Department of
Geological Engineering, Cumhuriyet University, 58140 Sivas, Turkey. Tel.: þ90 346 219
1010 (1305 ext.); Fax: +þ90 346 219 1171; E-mail: iyilmaz@cumhuriyet.edu.tr
CONVENTIONAL AND SOFT COMPUTING MODELS 33
INTRODUCTION
Coal is valued for its energy content and, since the 1880s, is widely used to
generate electricity. Steel and cement industries use coal as a fuel for
extraction of iron from iron ore and for cement production. Coal mining
is one of the most important mining activities in the world and there has
been found very large terrestrial areas in different parts of the world [1, 2].
Turkey has also large coal reserves—about 9 gigatons (GT) [3]. The
low-rank coals of Turkey represent the country’s major energy source
with their relatively large geological reserves. The coal-bearing terrestrial
tertiary deposits of Turkey overlie an area of approximately 110000 km2,

with the thicknesses of the coal seams varying between 0.05 and 87 m.
The country’s total coal reserves are 8–13 billion tons of low-quality coal
and 1.3–4.0 billion tons of bituminous coal. Of the total annual lignite
production of 90 million tons, 80% is consumed by thermal power plants.
The current total amount of coal consumption of the country, including
imported coals as well, is about 60 megatons (MT) each year. Power
plants and iron-steel plants consume most of this coal.
The coals in Turkey are generally low rank (lignite or sub-bituminous)
formed in several different depositional environments at different geologic
times and have differing chemical properties. The coal-bearing deposits,
which have limnic characteristics, have relatively abundant reserves. Most
of these coals have low calorific values, high-moisture, and high-ash
contents.
Proximate and ultimate analyses characterize the chemical composition
of coals. Proximate analyses include the determination of moisture content
(TM), volatile matter (VM), ash (A), and fixed carbon (FC). While the
ultimate analyses measure various element contents such as; carbon (C),
hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), sulfur (S), and oxygen (O). The ‘‘ultimate’’
analysis’’ gives the composition of the biomass in wt.% of carbon, hydrogen,
and oxygen (the major components) as well as sulfur and nitrogen (if any).
The carbon determination includes that present in the organic coal
substance and any originally present as mineral carbonate. The hydrogen
determination includes that in the organic materials in coal and in all water
associated with the coal. All nitrogen determined is assumed to be part of
the organic materials in coal. The ‘‘proximate’’ analysis gives moisture con-
tent, volatile content, consisting of gases and vapors driven off during pyrol-
ysis (when heated to 950 C), the fixed carbon and the ash, the inorganic
residue remaining after combustion in the sample, and the high heating
34 N. YALÇIN ERİK AND I. YILMAZ
value (GCV) based on the complete combustion of the sample to carbon

dioxide and liquid water. Proximate analysis is the most often used analysis
for characterizing coals in connection with their utilization.
The calorific value is the measurement of heat or energy produced
and is measured either as gross calorific value or net calorific value.
The difference being the latent heat of condensation of the water vapor
produced during the combustion process. Gross calorific value (GCV)
assumes all vapor produced during the combustion process is fully con-
densed. Net calorific value (NCV) assumes the water leaves with the
combustion products without fully being condensed. Calorific value of
coal can be determined by employing an apparatus called the Bomb

Calorimeter. The amount of heat produced after 1 kg of a compound
has undergone complete combustion (GCV). However, this instrument
is expensive.
However, determination of gross calorific value (GCV) of a coal is
time-consuming, expensive and involves destructive tests. If reliable pre-
dictive models could be obtained between GCV with quick, cheap, and
nondestructive test results, it would be very valuable for characterization
of coals.
Correlations have been a significant part of scientific research from
the earliest days. In some cases, it is essential as it is difficult to measure
the amount directly, and in other cases it is desirable, to ascertain the
results with other tests through correlations. The correlations are gener-
ally semi-empirical based on some mechanics or purely empirical based
on statistical analysis [4].
The calorific value is an essential measure of the quality coal
burned at power plants; proximate and less common ultimate analyses
are also used to evaluate the quality of thermal coal. The calorific
value is usually expressed as the higher heating value or gross calorific
value (GCV). Estimation of GCV from the elemental composition of
fuel is one of the basic steps in performance modeling and calculations
on combustion systems [5]. A number of equations have been
developed for the prediction of gross calorific value (GCV) based on
proximate and ultimate analysis by many authors such as Schuster
[6], Spooner [7], Mazumder [8–9], Mason and Gandhi [10], Given
et al. [11], Kucukbayrak et al. [12], Demirbas [13], Cordero et al.
[14], Channiwala and Parikh [5], Parikh et al. [15], Patel et al. [16],
Majumder et al. [17], Mesroghli [18], etc., and a summary of the
literature is given in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of literature
Reference Used data Equation
Schuster (1951) Proximate data GCV ¼ 4.183 103 [8000 þ VM

(70 1.65 VM)]
Spooner (1951) Proximate and GCV ¼ 4.183 103 (8781 þ 19 VM 144 C)
ultimate data
Mason and Proximate and GCV ¼ 0.472C þ 1.48H þ 0.193S þ 0.107A 12.29
Gandhi (1983) ultimate data (MJ=kg)
Given et al. Ultimate data GCV ¼ 0.3278C þ 1.4119H þ 0.09257S
(1986) 0.1379O þ 0.637
Küçükbayrak Proximate data GCV ¼ 76.56–1.3 (VM þ A) þ 7.03 103

et al. (1991) (VM þ A)2
Demirbaş (1997) Proximate data GCV ¼ 0.196FC þ 14.119
Mazumder Proximate and GCV ¼ 13.03O þ (100 MM) {[0.238H=
(2000) ultimate data (C 0.0065)]} 0.007A
Cordero et al. Proximate data GCV ¼ 354.3FC þ 170.8VM
(2001)
Channiwala and Proximate and GCV ¼ 0.3491C þ 1.1783H þ 0.1055S 0.1034O
Parikh (2002) ultimate data 0.0151 N 0.0211A
Parikh et al. Proximate data GCV ¼ 0.3536FC þ 0.1559VM 0.0078A
(2005)
Majumder et al. Proximate data GCV ¼ 0.03(A) 0.11(M) þ 0.33(VM)
(2008) þ 0.35 (FC)
Mesroghli et al. Proximate and Predicted GCV ¼ 0.77 þ 0.97Actual GCV
(2009) ultimate
Note. Unit of GCV (calorific value) is MJ=kg; O: oxygen; C: carbon; S: sulfur; H:

hydrogen; A: ash; VM: volatile matter; FC: fixed carbon; MM: mineral matter; M: moisture.
Soft computing techniques such as fuzzy logic, artificial neural

networks, genetic algorithms, neuro-fuzzy systems, etc. that were first
used in the design of higher technology products are now being used
in many branches of sciences and technologies, and their popularity is
gradually increasing.
Earth sciences aim to describe very complex processes and need new
technologies for data analyses. The number of studies in evolutionary
algorithms and genetic programming, neural science and neural net
systems, fuzzy set theory and fuzzy systems, fractal and chaos theory,
and chaotic systems to solve problems in earth sciences (estimation of
parameters; susceptibility, risk, vulnerability and hazard mapping;
interpretation of geophysical measurement results; many kinds of mining
applications; etc.) have especially increased in the last five years.
The study presented herein aims to predict GCV of the coals from
proximate and ultimate analyses results using a traditional statistical
method (multiple regression [MR]) and two soft computing techniques
(artificial neural networks [ANN] and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference
system [ANFIS]) and compares the models as to their prediction capa-
bilities. A total of 74 coal samples were collected from various locations
in Turkey and proximate and ultimate analyses performed. These para-
meters were correlated with the determined GCV first and statistically
significant ones were selected. In order to establish predictive models,
both statistical (multiple regression) and soft computing techniques (arti-
ficial neural networks and neuro-fuzzy models) were used and prediction
performances were then analyzed.
TESTED COALS AND EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK

In this study, 74 samples were collected from the top to the base of the
seams in three coal fields (Kalburçayırı, Zile, Hafik) in Central Anatolia
in Turkey (Figure 1). These samples were taken from along 1 m lines
using the channel-sampling technique, especially from the open-cast
mine in the Kalburçayırı and Zile fields and Hafik underground mine
area. The sampling resolution for coal layers thicker than 20 cm was
10 cm; otherwise, it was equal to the thickness of the lithologically
different layers.
The analyses (proximate and ultimate) were carried out according to
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guidelines [19–23],
Figure 1. Location map of the sampling coal fields.

Table 2. Basic statistics of the results obtained from analyses
GCV TM A VM FC C H N O S Ro
Minimum 2.12 6.21 7.87 16.91 0.59 29.49 1.37 0.21 4.23 0.13 0.31
Maximum 27.65 55.37 74.26 60.08 45.09 78.52 6.56 2.54 67.63 9.12 0.57
Average 14.47 26.63 41.23 36.51 22.36 59.69 4.23 1.17 31.36 3.54 0.43
Std. Dev. 6.461 11.655 19.525 10.661 11.618 13.660 1.226 0.582 16.853 2.208 0.012
Note. Unit of GCV is MJ=kg, others are %. Ro is the reflectivity index.
and they were converted into daf (dry ash free base) by calculation.
These analyses were performed in the Turkish General Directorate of

Mineral Research and Exploration laboratory (MTA-MAT Laboratory,
Ankara, Turkey) using standard analytical procedures. Coal-quality data
(total moisture; ash; volatile matter; fixed carbon, calorific value; wt.%,
daf) were obtained using an IKA 4000 adiabatic calorimeter; sulfur
(wt.%, daf), carbon (wt.%, daf), hydrogen (wt.%, daf), and nitrogen
(wt.%, daf) contents were determined using a LECO analyzer in the same
laboratory.
The coals tested in this study have reflectivity index (Ro) between
0.31–0.57 with an average value of 0.43, and they were categorized as
‘‘sub-bituminous=low-rank B=C coal.’’ The gross calorific value of the coals
ranged between 2.12 and 27.65 MJ=kg with an average value of 14.47 MJ=
kg. The results and their basic test statistics are tabulated in Table 2.
DATA PROCESSING
Particular attention is required to select the data set having a normal
distribution. In order to characterize the variation of GCV used as an
independent value, descriptive statistics such as minimum, maximum,
mean, mode, median, variance, standard deviation, skewness, and kur-
tosis were calculated using the SPSS Version 10.0 [24] package. Table 3
shows that the independent values show almost normal distribution.
However, it is close to the normal distribution and data are skewed right
and showed a kurtosis (Figure 2). It can be seen that the respective skew-
ness and kurtosis values of 0.028 and 0.931 were very low. In conclusion,
it was evident that the regression analyses will work well in this case.
In order to establish the predictive models among the parameters
obtained in this study, simple regression analysis were performed in
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for GCV as an independent value
N Valid: 74
N Missing: 0
Mean 14.4711
Std. Error of Mean 0.7510
Median 14.4750
Mode 9.89
Std. Deviation 6.4607
Variance 41.7410
Skewness 0.028
Std. Error of Skewness 0.279

Kurtosis 0.931
Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.552
Range 25.54
Minimum 2.12
Maximum 27.66
Sum 1070.86
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of GCV values of samples used in analyses.

Table 4. Correlation coefficients (R2) obtained from the simple regressions between GCV
with other parameters
Set I (Independents) Set II (Independents)
Model TM A VM FC C H N O S
Linear .043 .85 .60 .69 .71 .62 .29 .75 .66
Logarithmic .029 .80 .66 .59 .67 .60 .29 .72 .64
Exponential .067 .76 .50 .66 .70 .62 .31 .74 .58
Power .061 .64 .53 .63 .69 .68 .34 .62 .72
Note. Gray-filled cells show the highest correlation coefficients (R2); gray-filled cells with
borders show strong correlations that were included in the models.
Table 5. Predictive models for assessment of GCV
Predictive model R2
Set I GCV – A GCV ¼ 0.306 A þ 27.089 .85

GCV – VM GCV ¼ 16.23 Ln(VM) 43.182 .66
GCV – FC GCV ¼ 0.4646 (FC) þ 4.084 .69
Set II GCV – C GCV ¼ 0.3991 (C) 9.3561 .71
GCV – H GCV ¼ 2.0542 H1.3114 .68
GCV – O GCV ¼ 0.3324 O þ 24.897 .75
GCV – S GCV ¼ 7.9544 S0.4945 .72
the first stage of the analysis. The relations between GCV with other
parameters were analyzed employing linear, power, logarithmic, and
exponential functions. Statistically significant and strong correlations
were then selected (Table 4), and regression equations were established
among GCV with proximate (Set I) and ultimate (Set II) analyses results
(Table 5). All obtained relationships were found to be statistically signifi-
cant according to the Student’s t test with 95% confidence, except nitro-
gen (N). Figures 3 and 4 show the plot of the GCV versus moisture
content (TM), ash (A), volatile matter (VM), fixed carbon (FC), carbon
(C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), sulfur (S), and oxygen (O).
MULTIPLE REGRESSION MODELS

Multiple regression is employed to account for (predict) the variance
in an interval dependent, is based on linear combinations of interval,
dichotomous, or dummy independent variables. The general purpose
Figure 3. GCV versus moisture content (TM), ash (A), volatile matter (VM), and fixed
carbon (FC) graphs for Set I.
Figure 4. GCV versus carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), and sulfur (S)
graphs for Set II.
of multiple regression is to learn more about the relationship between

several independent or predictor variables and a dependent or criterion
variable. The multiple regression equation takes the form y ¼ b1x1 þ
b2x2 þ þ bnxn þ c. The b’s are the regression coefficients, representing
the amount the dependent variable y changes when the corresponding
independent changes one unit. The c is the constant, where the
regression line intercepts the y-axis, representing the amount the depen-
dent y will be when all the independent variables are 0. The standardized
versions of the b coefficients are the beta weights, and the ratio of the
beta coefficients is the ratio of the relative predictive power of the inde-
pendent variables. Associated with multiple regression is R2, a coef-

ficient of multiple determination, which is the amount of variance in
the dependent variable explained collectively by all of the independent
variables. The major conceptual limitation of all regression techniques
is that one can only ascertain relationships but can never be sure about
the underlying causal mechanism [25].
Two multiple regression analyses carried out to correlate the mea-
sured GCV to two selected data sets, namely, Set I (volatile matter, fixed
carbon) and Set II (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, oxygen) revealed
the following results. In the multiple regression analyses of Set I, ‘‘Ash’’
was an excluded variable because of colinearity. Predictors in this model
were constant, fixed carbon (FC) and volatile matter (VM), and the
dependent variable was GCV. Model summaries of multiple regression
analyses for prediction of GCV can be seen in Table 6:
Table 6. Model summaries of multiple regressions for prediction of GCV
Independent variables Coefficient St. error t-value Sig. level
For Set I
Constant 2.894 0.695 4.167 .000
VM 0.231 0.022 10.450 .000
FC 0.408 0.022 18.900 .000
For Set II
Constant 3.274 17.450 0.188 .852
C 0.180 0.179 1.001 .320
H 1.056 0.552 1.913 .060
O 2.36 102 0.175 0.135 .893
S 0.932 0.328 2.840 .006

A is excluded because of colinearity.
Figure 5. Cross-correlation of predicted and observed values of GCV for multiple

regression model.
GCV ¼ 0:231 VM þ 0:408 FC 2:894; ð1Þ
GCV ¼ 0:180 C þ 1:056 H 2:36 102 O þ 0:932 S 3:274: ð2Þ
In fact, the coefficient of determination between the measured and pre-

dicted values is a good indicator to check the prediction performance of
the model. Figure 5 shows the relationships between measured and pre-
dicted values obtained from the models for GCV, with good coefficients
of multiple determination. In this study, variance accounts for (VAF;
Equation 3) and root mean square error (RMSE; Equation 4) indices

were also calculated to control the performance of the prediction
capacity of predictive models developed in the study as employed by
Alvarez and Babuska [26], Finol et al. [27], Yilmaz and Yüksek [25, 28]:

varðy y 0 Þ
VAF ¼ 1 100; ð3Þ
varðyÞ
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u N
u1 X
RMSE ¼ t ðy y 0 Þ2 ; ð4Þ
N i¼1
where y and y0 are the measured and predicted values, respectively. The
calculated indices are given in Table 6. If the VAF is 100 and RMSE is 0,
then the model will be excellent. The obtained values of VAF and RMSE
given in Table 7 indicate the higher prediction performances.
Table 7. Performance indices (RMSE, VAF, and R2) for models used
Model RMSE VAF (%) (R2)
Multiple Regression
Set I 1.645 93.125 .934
Set II 2.966 71.819 .782
Artificial Neural Networks
Set I 1.019 97.767 .981
Set II 1.341 96.584 .966
Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System
Set I 0.565 99.383 .994
Set II 0.717 99.053 .989
Note. RMSE ¼ root mean square error; VAF ¼ value account for.
ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK (ANN) MODELS

When the materials are natural materials, many uncertainties will be in
question and material will never be known with certainty. That’s why
some methodologies in artificial neural networks, fuzzy systems, and
evolutionary computation have been successfully combined, and new
techniques called soft computing or computational intelligence have
been developed in recent years. These techniques are attracting more
and more attention in several research fields because they tolerate a wide
range of uncertainty [29]. Artificial neural networks are data-processing
systems devised via imitating brain activity and have performance char-
acteristics like biological neural networks. ANN has a lot of important
capabilities such as learning from data, generalization, working with
unlimited number of variables [30]. Neural networks may be used as a
direct substitute for auto correlation, multivariable regression, linear
regression, trigonometric, and other statistical analysis techniques [31].
Neural networks, with their remarkable ability to derive meaning from
complicated or imprecise data, can be used to extract patterns and detect
trends that are too complex to be noticed by either humans or other com-
puter techniques. Rumelhart and McClelland [32] reported that the main
characteristics of ANN include large-scale parallel distributed proces-
sing, continuous nonlinear dynamics, collective computation, high
fault-tolerance, self-organization, self-learning, and real-time treatment.
A trained neural network can be thought of as an ‘‘expert’’ in the cate-
gory of information it has been given to analyze. This expert can then
be used to provide projections given new situations of interest and
answer ‘‘what if ’’ questions.
When a data stream is analyzed using a neural network, it is possible
to detect important predictive patterns that are not previously apparent
to a nonexpert. Thus, the neural network can act as an expert. The parti-
cular network can be defined using three fundamental components:
transfer function, network architecture, and learning law [33]. It is
essential to define these components, to solve the problem satisfactorily.
Neural networks consist of a large class of different architectures,
and there are many kinds of ANN models, among which the back propa-
gation (BP) model is the most widely used, and it is an instructive train-
ing model. The basic idea of the back propagation learning algorithm
[34] is the repeated application of the chain rule to compute the influence
of each weight in the network with respect to arbitrary error function E:
@E @E @Yi @neti
¼ ; ð5Þ
@vij @Yi @neti @vij
where vij is the weight from neuron j to neuron i, Yi is the output, and neti
is the weighted sum of the inputs of neuron i.
Once the partial derivative for each weight is known, the aim of
minimizing the error function is achieved by performing a simple
gradient descent:
@E
vij ðt þ 1Þ ¼ vij ðtÞ r ðtÞ; ð6Þ
@vij
where t denotes time, r is the learning parameter.
It is accepted that the most useful neural networks in prediction and
decision algorithms are back propagation and Radial Basis Function
(RBF) networks. In this article, back propagation algorithm, created
by generalizing the Widrow–Hoff learning rule to multiple-layer net-
works and nonlinear differentiable transfer functions, is used. A back
propagation consists of an input layer, several hidden layers, and output
layers. All of those layers may contain multiple nodes [35].
The inputs xn, n ¼ 1, . . ., n to the neuron are multiplied by weights wni
and summed up together with the constant bias term Qi. The resulting xi
is the input to the activation function y. The activation function was orig-
inally chosen to be a relay function, but for mathematical convenience a
hyperbolic tangent (tanh) or a sigmoid function are most commonly
used. Hyperbolic tangent is defined as
ex ex
f ðxÞ ¼ tanhðxÞ ¼ : ð7Þ
ex þ ex
The output of node i become
!
X
k
yi ¼ f wik xj þ Qi : ð8Þ
j¼1
Connecting several nodes in parallel and series, a multi layer percep-

tion (MLP) network is formed. The following equations explain math-
ematical notation of back propagation algorithm.
am m
0:j ¼ ðx m Þj ¼ xj ; ð9Þ
X
si1
cm
i:j ¼ wi:j;k am
i1:k þ bi:j ; i > 0; ð10Þ
k¼1
am m
i:j ¼ Fi:j ðc i:j Þ; i > 0: ð11Þ
!
X
si1
am
i:j ¼ Fi:j wi:j;k am
i1:k þ bi:j ð12Þ
k¼1
am
L:1 ¼ ym ð13Þ
1
2 1
2 2
y m t m ¼ ðym tm Þ ¼ em ¼ em ð14Þ
2 2
Learning procedure can be given as follows:
1. Selection of random and small-sized (between 0–1) numbers for all

weight and bias.
2. Calculation of network output and comparison with the destination
output.
3. If the network output is approximately equal to the desired output,
then continue with step 1, and, if not, weights are corrected according
to the correction rule and then continue with step 1.
All data were first normalized and divided into three data sets such
as training (1=2 of all data), test (1=4 of all data), and verification (1=4 of
all data). In this study MatLab 7.1 [36] software was used in neural
network analyses having a three-layer feed-forward network in both of
the two sets. They consist of an input layer (three neurons in Set I, four
neurons in Set II), one hidden layer (seven neurons in Set I, nine neurons
in Set II) and one output layer (Figure 6). In the analyses, learning and
momentum parameters, networks training, and activation (transfer)
function for all layers were respectively adjusted to 0.01, 0.9, trainLm,
and tansig. As in many other network training methods, models and
parameters were used to be able to reach minimum RMS values, and
the network goal was reached at the end of 421 and 537 iterations in
models of Set I and Set II, respectively.
Cross-correlation between predicted and observed values (Figure 7)
indicated that the ANN model constructed is highly acceptable for
prediction of GCV. RMSE, VAF, and R2 values are tabulated in Table 7.
Figure 6. Neural network structure used in the study.
ADAPTIVE NEURO-FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM (ANFIS)

MODELS
In ANFIS, both of the learning capabilities of a neural network and
reasoning capabilities of fuzzy logic were combined in order to give
enhanced prediction capabilities, as compared to using a single method-
ology alone. The goal of ANFIS is to find a model or mapping that will
correctly associate the inputs (initial values) with the target (predicted
values). The fuzzy inference system (FIS) is a knowledge representation
where each fuzzy rule describes a local behavior of the system. The
network structure that implements FIS and employs hybrid-learning
rules for training is called ANFIS.
Let X be a space of objects and x be a generic element of X. A classical
set A X is defined as a collection of elements or objects x 2 X such that
each x can either belong or not belong to the set A. By defining a charac-
teristic function for each element x in X, we can represent a classical set A
by a set of ordered pairs (x, 0) or (x, 1) that indicates x=62 A or x 2 A,
respectively. On the other hand, a fuzzy set expresses the degree to which
Figure 7. Cross-correlation of predicted and observed values of GCV for ANN

model.
an element belongs to a set. Hence, the characteristic function of a fuzzy set

is allowed to have values between 0 and 1, which denotes the degree of
membership of an element in a given set. So a fuzzy set A in X is defined
as a set of ordered pairs:
A ¼ f½x; lAðxÞjx 2 X g; ð15Þ
where lA(x) is called the membership function (MF) for the fuzzy set A.
The MF maps each element of X to a membership grade (or a value)
between 0 and 1. Usually X is referred to as the universe of discourse or

simply the universe. The most widely used MF is the generalized bell
MF (or the bell MF) for data having normal-like distribution, which is
specified by three parameters {a, b, c} and defined as [37]:
bellðx; a; b; cÞ ¼ 1=ð1 þ jx ðc=aÞj2b Þ: ð16Þ
Parameter b is usually positive. A desired bell MF can be obtained

by a proper selection of the parameter set {a, b, c}. During the learning
phase of ANFIS, these parameters are changing continuously in order to
minimize the error function between the target output values and the
calculated ones [38, 39].
The proposed neuro-fuzzy model of ANFIS is a multilayer neural
network-based fuzzy system. Its topology is shown in Figure 8, and the
system has a total of five layers. In this connected structure, the input
and output nodes respectively represent the training values and the pre-
dicted values; there are nodes functioning as membership functions
(MFs) and rules and in the hidden layers. This architecture has the bene-
fit that it eliminates the disadvantage of a normal feed forward multilayer
network, where it is difficult for an observer to understand or modify the
network.
For simplicity, we assume that the examined fuzzy inference system
has two inputs x and y and one output. For a first-order Sugeno fuzzy
model, a common rule set with two fuzzy if-then rules is defined as
Rule 1: If x is A1 and y is B1 ; then f1 ¼ p1 x þ q1 y þ r1 ; ð17Þ
Rule 2: If x is A2 and y is B2 ; then f2 ¼ p2 x þ q2 y þ r2 : ð18Þ

Figure 8. Type-3 fuzzy reasoning (a) and equivalent ANFIS (b).
As seen from Figure 8b, different layers of ANFIS have different

nodes. Each node in a layer is either fixed or adaptive [40]. Different
layers with their associated nodes are described below:
1. Layer 1. Every node I in this layer is an adaptive node. Parameters in

this layer are called premise parameters.
2. Layer 2. Every node in this layer is a fixed node labeled P, whose out-
put is the product of all the incoming signals. Each node output
represents the firing strength of a rule.
3. Layer 3. Every node in this layer is a fixed node labeled N. The ith
node calculates the ratio of the ith rules’ firing strength. Thus the out-
puts of this layer are called normalized firing strengths.
4. Layer 4. Every node i in this layer is an adaptive node. Parameters in
this layer are referred to as consequent parameters.
5. Layer 5. The single node in this layer is a fixed node labeled R, which
computes the overall output as the summation of all incoming signals.
The learning algorithm for ANFIS is a hybrid algorithm, which is a

combination of gradient descent and the least-squares method. More
specifically, in the forward pass of the hybrid-learning algorithm, node
outputs go forward until layer 4 and the consequent parameters are ident-
ified by the least-squares method [40]. In the backward pass, the error sig-
nals propagate backwards and the premise parameters are updated by
gradient descent. Table 8 summarizes the activities in each pass.
The consequent parameters are optimized under the condition that

the premise parameters are fixed. The main benefit of the hybrid
approach is that it converges much faster since it reduces the search
space dimensions of the original pure back propagation method used
in neural networks. The overall output can be expressed as a linear
combination of the consequent parameters. The error measure to train
the above-mentioned ANFIS is defined as [41]:
X
n
E ¼ ðfk fk0 Þ2 ; ð19Þ
k¼1
where fk and f 0k are the kth desired and estimated output, respectively, and
n is the total number of pairs (inputs-outputs) of data in the training set.
In this study, a hybrid intelligent system called ANFIS (the adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference system) for predicting GCV was also applied.
ANFIS was trained with the help of Matlab version 7.1 [36]; the SPSS
10.0 [24] package was used for RMSE and statistical calculations. Bell
function was used as MF type, and output MF was linear.
According to the RMSE, VAF, R2 values (Table 7) and cross-
correlation between predicted and observed values (Figure 9), the
ANFIS model constructed to predict GCV has a very high prediction
performance.
Table 8. Forward and backward pass for ANFIS
Forward pass Backward pass
Premise parameters Fixed Gradient descent

Consequent parameters Least-squares estimator Fixed
Signals Node outputs Error signals
Figure 9. Cross-correlation of predicted and observed values of GCV for ANFIS model.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this article, use of multiple regression (MR), artificial neural network
(ANN), and artificial neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) models for
prediction of gross calorific value of coals was described and compared.
It appears that there is a possibility of estimating GCV of coals by using
the proposed empirical relationships and soft computing models.
According to the results of simple regression analyses, there are stat-
istically meaningful relationships between gross calorific value with ash,
volatile matter, fixed carbon, carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, and oxygen. The
models of multiple regression, artificial neural network, artificial

neuro-fuzzy inference system for the prediction of the gross calorific
value were then constructed using three inputs for Set I (ash, volatile
matter, fixed carbon) and four inputs for Set II (carbon, hydrogen, sulfur,
oxygen) and one output (GCV).
The results of the present article and their conclusions can be drawn
as follows:
1. The results of the models for prediction of the gross calorific value
showed that the equations obtained from the multiple regression
models have high-prediction performances.
2. In order to predict the gross calorific value, ANN models having
three (for Set I) and four (for Set II) inputs, with one output was
applied successfully and exhibited more reliable predictions than
the regression models.
3. The ANFIS model for prediction of gross calorific value revealed the
most reliable predictions when compared with the multiple regression
and ANN models.
The comparison of VAF, RMSE indices, and coefficient of multiple

determination (R2) for predicting GCV revealed that prediction perfor-
mances of the artificial neuro-fuzzy inference system model are higher
than those of multiple regression equations and artificial neural networks
(Figure 10). In order to show the deviations from the observed values of
GCV, the distances of the predicted values from the models constructed
from the observed values were also calculated and graphics were drawn
(Figure 11). These graphics indicated that the deviation intervals (in Set
I: 1.00– þ1.65; in Set II: 2.21–þ2.34) of the predicted values
from ANFIS are smaller than the deviation intervals of ANN (in
Figure 10. Comparison graphics of RMSE, VAF, and R2 for the models (MR, ANN,
ANFIS).
Set I: 3.60–þ2.49; in Set II: -3.16–þ4.13) and multiple regression (in

Set I: 6.56–þ3.72; in Set II: -9.67–þ8.20).
It is shown that the constructed ANN and ANFIS models exhibit
higher performance than multiple regression models for predicting
Figure 11. Graphics showing the variation of the values predicted by MR, ANN, and
ANFIS models from the observed values.
GCV. As is known, the potential benefits of soft computing models

extend beyond the high computation rates. Higher performances of the
soft computing models were sourced from greater degree of robustness
and fault tolerance than traditional statistical models because there are
many more processing neurons, each with primarily local connections.
Patel et al. [16] had estimated gross calorific value using ANN model
and obtained high model performance; however, Mesroghli et al. [18]
had reported that ANNs were not better or much different from a
regression model.
The performance comparison also showed that the soft computing
techniques are good tools for minimizing the uncertainties, and their
use will also provide new approaches and methodologies and minimize
the potential inconsistency of correlations. The results of this article will
provide dissemination of important results of the use of soft computing
technologies in fuel sciences and will serve as an example for fuel

scientists and engineers engaged in this area of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Marschalko, M., M. Fuka, and L. Treslin. 2008. Influence of mining activity
on selected landslide in the Ostrava-Karvina coalfield. ACTA Montanistica
Slovaca 13: 58–65.
2. Marschalko, M., and L. Treslin. 2009. Impact of underground mining to
slope deformation genesis at Doubrava Ujala. ACTA Montanistica Slovaca
14: 232–240.
3. Turkish Lignite Authority (TKI). 2008. Available at http://www.tki.gov.tr (in
Turkish).
4. Yilmaz, I. 2006. Indirect estimation of the swelling percent and a new classi-
fication of soils depending on liquid limit and cation exchange capacity.
Engineering Geology 85: 295–301.
5. Channiwala, S. A., and P. P. Parikh. 2002. A unified correlation for estimat-
ing HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Fuel 81: 1051–1063.
6. Schuster, V. F. 1951. Über die berechnung des heizwertes von kohlen aus der
immediatzusammensetzung. Brennstoff – Chemie 32: 19–20.
7. Spooner, C. E. 1951. Swelling power of coal. Fuel 30: 193–202.
8. Mazumder, B. K. 1954. Coal systematics: deductions from proximate analysis
of coal. part I. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 13B: 857–863.
9. Mazumder, B. K. 2000. Theoretical oxygen requirement for coal combustion:
Relationship with its calorific value. Fuel 79: 1413–1419.
10. Mason, D. M., and K. N. Gandhi. 1983. Formulas for calculating the calor-
ific value of coal and chars. Fuel Processing Technology 7: 11–22.
11. Given, P. H., D. Weldon, and J. H. Zoeller. 1986. Calculation of calorific
values of coals from ultimate analyses: Theoretical basis and geochemical
implications. Fuel 65: 849–854.
12. Kucukbayrak, S., B. Durus, A. E. Mericboyu, and E. Kadioglu. 1991.
Estimation of calorific values of Turkish lignites. Fuel 70: 979–981.
13. Demirbas, A. 1997. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels.
Fuel 76: 431–434.
14. Cordero, T., F. Marquez, J. Rodriquez-Mirasol, and J. J. Rodriguez. 2001.
Predicting heating values of lignocellulosic and carbonaceous materials from
proximate Analysis. Fuel 80: 1567–1571.
15. Parikh, J., S. A. Channiwala, and G. K. Ghosal. 2005. A correlation for
calculating HHV from proximate analysis of solid fuels. Fuel 84: 487–494.
16. Patel, S. U., B. J. Kumar, Y. P. Badhe, B. K. Sharma, S. Saha, S. Biswas,
A. Chaudhury, S. S. Tambe, and B. D. Kulkarni. 2007. Estimation of gross
calorific value of coals using artificial neural networks. Fuel 86: 334–344.
17. Majumder, A. K., R. Jain, J. P. Banerjee, and J. P. Barnwal. 2008. Develop-

ment of a new proximate analysis based correlation to predict calorific value
of coal. Fuel 87: 3077–3081.
18. Mesroghli, S. H., E. Jorjani, and S. C. Chelgani. 2009. Estimation of gross
calorific value based on coal analysis using regression and artificial neural
networks. International Journal of Coal Geology 79: 49–54.
19. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. D5307-97, Stan-
dard Test Method for Determination of Boiling Range Distribution of Crude
Petroleum by Gas Chromatography. In 2004 Annual Book of ASTM Stan-
dards, Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke, Vol. 05.06. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
20. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. D3174, Stan-
dard Method for Ash in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke from Coal.
In 2004 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke,
Vol. 05.06. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
dard Method for Volatile Matter in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke.
In 2004 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke,
Vol. 05.06. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
dard Method for Total Moisture in Coal, in 2004 Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Gaseous Fuels: Coal and Coke, Vol. 05.06. Philadelphia, PA:
ASTM.
dard Test Methods for Instrumental Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen
and Nitrogen in Laboratory Samples of Coal and Coke, in 2004 Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, Gaseous Fuels: Coal and Coke, Vol. 05.06. Philadelphia,
PA: ASTM.
24. SPSS 10.0.1. 1999. Statistical Analysis Software (Standard Version).
Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
25. Yilmaz, I., and A. G. Yüksek. 2009. Prediction of the strength and elasticity
modulus of gypsum using multiple regression, ANN, ANFIS models and
their comparison. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 46: 803–810.
26. Alvarez, G. M., and R. Babuska. 1999. Fuzzy model for the prediction of
unconfined compressive strength of rock samples. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36: 339–349.
27. Finol, J., Y. K. Guo, and X. D. Jing. 2001. A rule based fuzzy model for the
prediction of petrophysical rock parameters. Journal of Petroleum Science
Engineering 29: 97–113.
28. Yilmaz, I., and A. G. Yüksek. 2008. An example of artificial neural network
application for indirect estimation of rock parameters. Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering 41: 781–795.
29. Jin, Y., and J. Jiang. 1999. Techniques in neural-network based fuzzy system
identification and their application to control of complex systems. In Fuzzy
Theory Systems, Techniques and Applications, ed. C. T. Leondes. New York:
Academic Press.
30. Kaynar, O., I. Yilmaz, and F. Demirkoparan. 2011. Forecasting of natural
gas consumption with neural network and neuro fuzzy system. Energy Edu-
cation Science & Technology Part A: Energy Science and Research 26: 221–238.
31. Singh, T. N., R. Kanchan, A. K. Verma, and S. Singh. 2003. An intelligent
approach for prediction of triaxial properties using unconfined uniaxial
strength. Mining Engineering Journal 5: 12–16.
32. Rumelhart, D., and J. McClelland. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing:

Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Simpson, P. K. 1990. Artificial Neural System-Foundation, Paradigm, Appli-
cation and Implementation. New York: Pergamon Press.
34. Rumelhart, D. D., G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams. 1986. Learning internal
representations by error propagation. In Parallel Distributed Processing:
Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 1, eds. D. E. Rumelhart
and J. McClelland. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Yilmaz, I. 2009. Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio,
logistic regression, artificial neural networks and their comparison: A case
study from Kat landslides (Tokat-Turkey). Computer and Geosciences 35:
1125–1138.
36. Matlab 7.1. 2005. Software for Technical Computing and Model-Based Design.
Natick, MA: MathWorks, Inc.
37. Jang, J. S. R., and S. Chuen-Tsai. 1995. Neuro-fuzzy modeling and control.
Proc. IEEE 83: 378–406.
38. Lee, C. C. 1990. Fuzzy logic in control systems: Fuzzy logic controller. I
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 20: 404–418.
39. Lee, C. C. 1990. Fuzzy logic in control systems: Fuzzy logic controller. II
40. Jang, J. R. 1993. ANFIS: Adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system.
41. Loukas, Y. L. 2001. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system: An instant and
architecture-free predictor for improved QSAR studies. Journal of Medical
Chemistry 44: 2772–2783.
View publication stats

Coal Preperationmakale

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coal Preperationmakale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

On the Use of Conventional and Soft Computing Models for Prediction of

Article in International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization · January 2011

Nazan Yalçın Erik Isik Yilmaz

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization

On the Use of Conventional and Soft Computing Models for Prediction of

Online publication date: 22 January 2011

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

ON THE USE OF CONVENTIONAL AND SOFT

NAZAN YALÇIN ERİK AND IŞİK YILMAZ

Gross calorific value (GCV) is an important characteristic of coal

Keywords: ANFIS; ANN; Coal; Gross calorific value; Multiple

Received 12 July 2010; accepted 27 September 2010.

tertiary deposits of Turkey overlie an area of approximately 110000 km2,

value (GCV) based on the complete combustion of the sample to carbon

coal can be determined by employing an apparatus called the Bomb

Table 1. Summary of literature

Reference Used data Equation

Schuster (1951) Proximate data GCV ¼ 4.183 103 [8000 þ VM

Küçükbayrak Proximate data GCV ¼ 76.56–1.3 (VM þ A) þ 7.03 103

Note. Unit of GCV (calorific value) is MJ=kg; O: oxygen; C: carbon; S: sulfur; H:

Soft computing techniques such as fuzzy logic, artificial neural

TESTED COALS AND EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 1. Location map of the sampling coal fields.

Table 2. Basic statistics of the results obtained from analyses

Note. Unit of GCV is MJ=kg, others are %. Ro is the reflectivity index.

These analyses were performed in the Turkish General Directorate of

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for GCV as an independent value

Std. Error of Skewness 0.279

Figure 2. Frequency distribution of GCV values of samples used in analyses.

Set I (Independents) Set II (Independents)

borders show strong correlations that were included in the models.

Table 5. Predictive models for assessment of GCV

Set I GCV – A GCV ¼ 0.306 A þ 27.089 .85

MULTIPLE REGRESSION MODELS

of multiple regression is to learn more about the relationship between

pendent variables. Associated with multiple regression is R2, a coef-

Table 6. Model summaries of multiple regressions for prediction of GCV

Independent variables Coefficient St. error t-value Sig. level

Figure 5. Cross-correlation of predicted and observed values of GCV for multiple

GCV ¼ 0:231  VM þ 0:408  FC 2:894; ð1Þ

GCV ¼ 0:180  C þ 1:056  H 2:36  102  O þ 0:932  S 3:274: ð2Þ

In fact, the coefficient of determination between the measured and pre-

Equation 3) and root mean square error (RMSE; Equation 4) indices

Model RMSE VAF (%) (R2)

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK (ANN) MODELS

Connecting several nodes in parallel and series, a multi layer percep-

Learning procedure can be given as follows:

1. Selection of random and small-sized (between 0–1) numbers for all

Figure 6. Neural network structure used in the study.

ADAPTIVE NEURO-FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM (ANFIS)

Figure 7. Cross-correlation of predicted and observed values of GCV for ANN

an element belongs to a set. Hence, the characteristic function of a fuzzy set

A ¼ f½x; lAðxÞjx 2 X g; ð15Þ

between 0 and 1. Usually X is referred to as the universe of discourse or

bellðx; a; b; cÞ ¼ 1=ð1 þ jx ðc=aÞj2b Þ: ð16Þ

Parameter b is usually positive. A desired bell MF can be obtained

Rule 1: If x is A1 and y is B1 ; then f1 ¼ p1 x þ q1 y þ r1 ; ð17Þ

Rule 2: If x is A2 and y is B2 ; then f2 ¼ p2 x þ q2 y þ r2 : ð18Þ

Figure 8. Type-3 fuzzy reasoning (a) and equivalent ANFIS (b).

GCV ¼ 0:231 VM þ 0:408 FC 2:894; ð1Þ

GCV ¼ 0:180 C þ 1:056 H 2:36 102 O þ 0:932 S 3:274: ð2Þ

A ¼ f½x; lAðxÞjx 2 X g; ð15Þ