4.7 Article

Response surface optimization, modeling and uncertainty analysis of mass loss response of co-combustion of sewage sludge and water hyacinth

Journal

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
Volume 125, Issue -, Pages 328-335

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.07.008

Keywords

Water hyacinth; Sewage sludge; Box-Behnken design; Data-driven modeling; Monte Carlo simulation

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technological Planning Project of Guangzhou, China [201704030109, 2016201604030058]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China [2014A050503063, 2015A020215033, 2016A040403069]
  3. Guangdong Special Support Program for Training High Level Talents [2014TQ01Z248]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study aims at quantifying mass loss percentage (MLP, %) predictions and their stochastic uncertainty when co-combustion of sewage sludge (SS) and water hyacinth (WH) are applied as alternative biomass, materials under different blend ratios (BR), heating rates (HR, degrees C/min) and temperatures (T, degrees C). Optimization and validation of experimental data through Box-Behnken design pointed to 630.9 degrees C for T, 60.1% SS for BR, and 29.9 degrees C/min for HR as the optimal co-combustion parameters to achieve the maximum MLP of 92.4%. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were used to quantify uncertainty in MLP predictions of the best-fit multiple non-linear regression (MNLR) model derived from the entire experimental data as a function of MC-generated T as the only continuous predictor of the MNLR. Mean MLP value of the MNLR predictions was higher by 19% than that of the MC-simulated T whose mean was higher by only 1% than mean measured T. Incorporating the uncertainty estimation based on Monte Carlo simulations with response surface approach for co-combustion of SS and WH was one of the main novel contributors of the present study to related literature. (C) 2017 Elsevier'Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available