6.1. Experimental Outputs of Current, Power and Thermal Efficiency
The current, power and thermal efficiency as the performance parameters of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery are experimentally tested with the hot gas inlet temperatures of 315.12 °C, 419.26 °C, 521.70 °C and 621.61 °C and the voltage load range of 0 to 10 V. During the experiments, the voltage load is varied with time for each hot gas inlet temperature. Two experimental data sets for the development of a numerical method, ANN models and ANFIS models are considered as the training data set and testing data set of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery. The training data set (first) with variations of the current, power and thermal efficiency of thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery for hot gas inlet temperatures of 315.12 °C, 419.26 °C, 521.70 °C and 621.61 °C and voltage load range of 0 to 10 V is selected and the testing data set (second) with the variation of current, power and thermal efficiency of thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery for hot gas inlet temperature of 419.26 °C and voltage load range of 0 to 5.5 V is selected based on the experiments.
Figure 5 shows the variations of the current, power and thermal efficiency for the training and testing data sets. For all hot gas inlet temperatures, the current of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery is linearly decreased and the power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery show the parabolic variations with the voltage load of range 0 to 10 V for the training data set and 0 to 5.5 V for the testing data set, respectively. The current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery increase with the increase of the hot gas inlet temperature from 315.12 °C to 621.61 °C. Therefore, the maximum and average values of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery are increased with the increase of the hot gas inlet temperature. For the training data set, the maximum current of 4.1, 7.13, 9.42 and 10.95 A and average current of 2.28, 3.90, 4.99 and 5.95 A, the maximum power of 3.40, 9.75, 17.55 and 24.8 W and average power of 1.94, 5.93, 11.10 and 15.22 W and the maximum efficiency of 1.28, 2.16, 2.87 and 3.39% and average efficiency of 0.72, 1.30, 1.81 and 2.07% are selected experimentally at the hot gas inlet temperatures of 315.12 °C, 419.26 °C, 521.70 °C and 621.61 °C, respectively. For the testing data set, the hot gas inlet temperature of 419.26 °C is the same as the training data set, but the voltage load condition is different with time as shown in
Figure 5. Thus, for the testing data set at the hot gas inlet temperatures of 419.26 °C, the maximum current is 8.1 A and the average current is 4.41 A. The maximum power is 11.4 W and the average power is 6.95 W. The maximum efficiency is 2.35% and the average efficiency is 1.43%. As a result, the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery at the hot gas inlet temperature of 419.26 °C are different for the training and testing data sets because of the different voltage loads.
6.2. Prediction Results from the Numerical Method
The numerical simulation of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery at the hot gas inlet temperatures of 419.26 °C, cold water temperature of 30 °C, hot gas mass flow rate of 0.018 kg/s and cold-water mass flow rate of 0.075 kg/s is performed. From the numerical simulation of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery with various boundary conditions of the hot gas and cold water, the hot and cold surfaces of the thermoelectric modules are simulated.
The temperature of the hot gas decreases with the direction from the inlet to the outlet of the heat exchanger, but the temperature of the cold water increases as the cold water flows from the inlet to the outlet of the cold-water channel. This is because the hot gas transfers the heat and the cold water absorbs the heat from the thermoelectric modules. Therefore, the hot surface and cold surface temperatures of the thermoelectric module are varied with locations because the temperature distributions of the hot gas and cold water depend on the locations.
The temperature distributions of the hot and cold surfaces of the thermoelectric modules with locations (
x and
y coordinates) at the hot gas inlet temperature of 419.26 °C are showed in
Figure 6.
Figure 6 shows the temperature distributions of the hot and cold surfaces of the top six thermoelectric modules and the corresponding bottom six thermoelectric modules. In addition, the hot surface temperatures of the thermoelectric module near the inlet of the heat exchanger show higher than those of the thermoelectric modules near the outlet of the heat exchanger. Thus, the current, power and thermal efficiency results of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery are simulated using the temperature distributions of the hot and cold surfaces of the thermoelectric modules and the voltage load conditions of the testing data set.
The comparisons of experimental and numerical results of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery for the testing data set are shown in
Figure 7. The error between the experimental and numerical values for the current of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery is validated within 2% except for the initial and end voltage conditions. In addition, the error between the experimental and numerical results for the power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery is validated within 4% except for the initial and end voltage conditions.
The accuracy of numerical method for the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery is shown in
Table 2. The numerical results of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery show a good agreement with the corresponding experimental results [
3]. The selection of the accurate boundary condition, meshing configuration with conduction and inflation effects, discretization method and suitable solver result in closer agreement between the numerical and experimental results of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery. Therefore, the experimental approach of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery with high manufacturing and installation costs, higher complexity and higher level of efforts could be replaced with a numerical approach of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery.
6.4. Prediction Results from ANN Models
The comparison of experimental and ANN predicted results of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using an LM-TanSig algorithm with the various numbers of the hidden neurons is shown in
Figure 9a. The increase of the hidden neurons number from 10 to 25 increases the prediction accuracy of the ANN model with an LM-TanSig algorithm. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV of LM-TanSig algorithm with 25 hidden neurons are 0.99998, 0.02163 and 0.49061, respectively for the current, 0.99997, 0.04111 and 0.59192, respectively, for the power and 0.99996, 0.01050 and 0.73183, respectively, for the thermal efficiency.
The comparison of experimental and ANN predicted results of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using an LM-LogSig algorithm with the various numbers of the hidden neurons is shown in
Figure 9b. The ANN model for the current and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery with LM-LogSig algorithm and 25 hidden neurons shows the peak prediction accuracy and this prediction accuracy decreases in an order with LM-LogSig algorithm of 20, 15 and 10 hidden neurons, respectively. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for LM-LogSig algorithm and 25 hidden neurons are 0.99998, 0.02370 and 0.53755, respectively for the current and 0.99994, 0.01225 and 0.85347, respectively for the thermal efficiency. For the power of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery, LM-LogSig algorithm with 20 hidden neurons shows higher prediction accuracy than that with 25, 15 and 10 hidden neurons, respectively. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for LM-LogSig algorithm with 20 hidden neurons are 0.99997, 0.04632 and 0.66686, respectively for the power.
The comparison of experimental and ANN predicted results of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using SCG-TanSig algorithm with the various numbers of the hidden neurons is shown in
Figure 9c. The ANN model for the current of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery with SCG-TanSig algorithm and 25 hidden neurons shows the peak prediction accuracy and this prediction accuracy decreases in an order with SCG-TanSig algorithm of 10, 25 and 15 hidden neurons, respectively. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for SCG-TanSig algorithm with 25 hidden neurons are 0.99992, 0.04524, 1.02613, respectively for the current of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery. The power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using the SCG-TanSig algorithm with 20 hidden neurons shows higher prediction accuracy than that with 10, 25 and 15 hidden neurons, respectively. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for SCG-TanSig algorithm with 20 hidden neurons are 0.99971, 0.13652 and 1.96554, respectively, for the power and 0.99929, 0.04377 and 3.05105, respectively, for the thermal efficiency.
The comparison of experimental and ANN predicted results of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using an SCG-LogSig algorithm with the various numbers of the hidden neurons is shown in
Figure 9d. The prediction accuracy for the current of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery with the SCG-LogSig algorithm decreases with 25, 15, 20 and 10 hidden neurons. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for SCG-LogSig algorithm with 25 hidden neurons are 0.99996, 0.03138 and 0.71178, respectively, for the current. The prediction accuracy for the power of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery with SCG-LogSig algorithm decreases with 15, 10, 25 and 20 hidden neurons but prediction accuracy for the thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery with SCG-LogSig algorithm decreases with 15, 25, 10 and 20 hidden neurons. The values of SCG-LogSig with 15 hidden neurons are 0.99980, 0.11376 and 1.63783, respectively, for the power and 0.99958, 0.03359 and 2.34133, respectively, for the thermal efficiency.
The comparison of experimental and ANN predicted results of current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using the CGP-TanSig algorithm with various numbers of hidden neurons is shown in
Figure 9e. The prediction accuracy of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery with the CGP-TanSig algorithm decreases with 20, 25, 10, and 15 hidden neurons for the current but 20, 10, 15 and 25 hidden neurons for the power, respectively. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for CGP-TanSig algorithm with 20 hidden neurons are 0.99989, 0.05377 and 1.21965, respectively, for the current and 0.99945, 0.18629 and 2.68213, respectively, for the power. In addition, the prediction accuracy for the thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using CGP-TanSig algorithm with 25 hidden neurons is the most accurate and decreases with 15, 20 and 10 hidden neurons, respectively. The values of CGP-TanSig algorithm with 25 hidden neurons are 0.99875, 0.05805 and 4.04596, respectively, for the thermal efficiency.
The comparison of experimental and ANN predicted results of current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using the CGP-LogSig algorithm with various numbers of hidden neurons is shown in
Figure 9f. The CGP-LogSig algorithm with 25 hidden neurons predicts current values of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery closer to the corresponding experimental current values of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery with R
2, RMSE and COV values of 0.99989, 0.05354 and 1.21437, respectively. The CGP-LogSig algorithm with 20, 15, and 10 hidden neurons shows the decreasing order of prediction accuracy for the current of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery. The CGP-LogSig algorithm with 15, 20, 25 and 10 hidden neurons, respectively, shows the decreasing order of prediction accuracy for the power of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery and CGP-LogSig algorithm with 15, 25, 10 and 20 hidden neurons, respectively, shows the decreasing order of prediction accuracy for the thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery. The R
2, RMSE and COV values for CGP-LogSig algorithm with 15 hidden neurons are 0.99953, 0.17188 and 2.47463, respectively, for power and 0.99848, 0.06391 and 4.45470, respectively, for the thermal efficiency.
The comparison of ANN models with various combinations of the training variants, transfer functions and number of the hidden neurons is shown. The combination of LM training variant with TanSig and LogSig transfer functions and all numbers of the hidden neurons show better accuracy than that of SCG and CGP training variants with TanSig and LogSig transfer functions and all numbers of hidden neurons to predict current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery. In particular, the ANN model with LM-TanSig training algorithm and 25 hidden neurons shows the best prediction accuracy [
29,
39] and is suggested as the optimum model for predicting the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery for the hot gas temperature ranges of 315.12 to 621.61 °C and voltage load ranges of 0 to 10 V. The accuracy of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using the ANN model with the LM-TanSig algorithm and 25 hidden neurons are 0.99998, 0.99997 and 0.99996, respectively, as shown in
Table 3.
Table 3 shows the prediction accuracy of the optimum ANN model with the LM-TanSig algorithm and various numbers of the hidden neurons for the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery.
6.5. Prediction Results from ANFIS Models
The comparison of experimental and ANFIS predicted results of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using the triangular membership function is shown in
Figure 10a. The triangular with 4-membership function shows higher prediction accuracy with R
2, RMSE and COV of 0.99998, 0.02209 and 0.50106, respectively and the prediction accuracy decreases in order of triangular with 5-, 2- and 3-membership functions for the current of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery. For the power of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery, the triangular with 4-membership function shows a good agreement with the experimental results with R
2, RMSE and COV of 0.99973, 0.13024 and 1.87522, respectively. The prediction accuracy of the triangular with 5- and 3-membership functions shows a good agreement within ±5%, but the prediction accuracy of the triangular with 2-membership function shows over ±15% from the corresponding experimental which are not a permissible limit. In the case of the thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using the triangular with 4-membership function shows the peak prediction accuracy and this prediction accuracy decreases in an order with the triangular with 5- and 3-membership functions. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for the thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using the triangular with 4-membership function are 0.99968, 0.02955 and 2.05980, respectively. The thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using the triangular with a 2-membership function shows the errors over
15% from the corresponding experimental thermal efficiency as shown in
Figure 10a.
The comparison of experimental and ANFIS predicted results of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using trapezoidal membership function is shown in
Figure 10b. The prediction accuracy for the current and power of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using the trapezoidal with 5-membership function shows the best. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for the trapezoidal with 5-membership function are 0.99998, 0.02333 and 0.52922, respectively, for the current and 0.99982, 0.10528 and 1.51577, respectively, for the power. In the case of the thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery, the trapezoidal with a 4-membership function shows higher prediction accuracy than the trapezoidal with 5-membership function and the values of R
2, RMSE and COV for the trapezoidal with 4-membership function are 0.99978, 0.02424 and 1.68948, respectively, for thermal efficiency. However, the current, power and thermal efficiency predicted by the trapezoidal with 2- and 3-membership functions show the errors above ±15% from the experimental which are not within permissible limit.
The comparison of experimental and ANFIS predicted results of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using a gbell membership function is shown in
Figure 10c. The prediction accuracy of the gbell with a 4-membership function for the current of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery shows the best and decreases with 5-, 3- and 2-membership functions. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for gbell with 4-membership function are 0.99998, 0.02266 and 0.51393, respectively, for the current. For the power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery, the gbell with 3-membership function shows a better agreement than gbell with 5- and 4-membership functions. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for gbell with 3-membership function are 0.99996, 0.04812 and 0.69281, respectively, for the power but 0.99994, 0.01241 and 0.86506, respectively for the thermal efficiency. However, the prediction accuracy of the power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using gbell with a 2-membership function show the errors above ±15% from the corresponding experimental which are not the permissible limit.
The comparison of experimental and ANFIS predicted results of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using a gauss membership function is shown in
Figure 10d. For the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery, the prediction accuracy of the gauss with a 5-membership function shows the best and decreases with 4-, 3- and 2-membership functions. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for the gauss with 5-membership function are 0.99998, 0.02165 and 0.49110, respectively for the current, 0.99997, 0.04429 and 0.63770, respectively, for the power and 0.99997, 0.00911 and 0.63516, respectively, for the thermal efficiency. However, the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using gauss with 2-membership function show the errors above ±15% from the corresponding experimental which are not a permissible limit.
The comparison of experimental and ANFIS predicted results of the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using a gauss 2-membership function is shown in
Figure 10e. For the current and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery, the gauss2 with 4-membership function shows higher prediction accuracy than gauss2 with a 5-membership function, but the gauss2 with 5-membership function shows higher prediction accuracy than gauss2 with 4-membership function for the power. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for the gauss2 with 4-membership function are 0.99998, 0.02377 and 0.53902, respectively, for the current and 0.99992, 0.01437 and 1.0012, respectively, for the thermal efficiency. In addition, the values of R
2, RMSE and COV for gauss2 with a 5-membership function are 0.99992, 0.06965 and 1.00285, respectively, for the power. However, the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using gauss2 with 2- and 3-membership function show the errors above ±15% from the corresponding experimental which are not the permissible limit.
The comparison of experimental and ANFIS predicted results of current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using a pi membership function is shown in
Figure 10f. For the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery, the pi with 5-membership function shows higher prediction accuracy than pi with a 4-membership function. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for pi with a 5-membership function are 0.99998, 0.02469 and 0.55991, respectively, for the current, 0.99997, 0.04029, and 0.58006, respectively, for the power and 0.99997, 0.00931, and 0.64890, respectively, for the thermal efficiency. However, the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using pi with 2 and 3-membership functions show the errors above ±15% from the corresponding experimental which are not a permissible limit.
The comparison of experimental and ANFIS predicted results of current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using a dsig membership function is shown in
Figure 10g. For the current of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery, dsig with a 4-membership function shows higher prediction accuracy than dsig with a 5-membership function. In addition, for the power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery, dsig with a 5-membership function shows higher prediction accuracy than dsig with 4-membership function. The values of R
2, RMSE and COV for dsig with a 4-membership function are 0.99998, 0.02360 and 0.53534, respectively, for the current. In addition, the values of R
2, RMSE and COV for dsig with a 5-membership function are 0.99990, 0.07853 and 1.13067, respectively, for the power and 0.99989, 0.01704 and 1.18732, respectively, for the thermal efficiency. However, the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery using dsig with 2 and 3-membership functions show the errors above ±15% from the corresponding experimental, which are not a permissible limit.
The same number of the membership functions results in almost the same prediction cost. As the number of the membership functions increases, it results in a higher prediction cost. When the prediction accuracy plays a crucial role, the ANFIS model with a pi-5-membership function or a gauss-5-membership function could be recommended to predict the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery [
40]. The prediction accuracy of the ANFIS model for the current, power and thermal efficiency is shown in
Table 4a for pi membership function and
Table 4b for gauss membership function, respectively. When the prediction cost plays a crucial role, the ANFIS model with gbell-3-membership function could be suggested to predict the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery as shown in
Table 4c.
Table 4c shows the prediction accuracy of an ANFIS model with a gbell membership function for the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery. The proposed ANFIS model with pi-5 or gauss-5 and gbell-3 show better prediction accuracy than the coupled numerical approach for the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery [
41].
Additionally, the developed ANN and ANFIS models could accurately predict the performances like the current, power and thermal efficiency of the thermoelectric generator system for waste heat recovery with less computational time and cost because the experimental and coupled numerical approaches could be expensive and time consuming. Therefore, the proposed methodology to develop the ANN and ANFIS models could be applicable to accurately predict the performances of the various physical systems like solar based systems, refrigeration systems, heat exchanger systems, thermoelectric coolers, etc.