energies

Article
Power Plant Energy Predictions Based on Thermal Factors Using
Ridge and Support Vector Regressor Algorithms
Asif Afzal 1,2, * , Saad Alshahrani 3 , Abdulrahman Alrobaian 4 , Abdulrajak Buradi 5, * and Sher Afghan Khan 6

1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, P. A. College of Engineering (Affiliated to Visvesvaraya

Technological University, Belagavi), Mangaluru 574153, India
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Technology, Glocal University, Delhi-Yamunotri Marg,
SH-57, Mirzapur Pole, Saharanpur District, Uttar Pradesh 247121, India
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 394,
Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia; saadayed@kku.edu.sa
4 Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Qassim University,
Buraydah 51452, Saudi Arabia; alrobaian@qu.edu.sa
5 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nitte Meenakshi Institute of Technology, Bangalore 560064, India
6 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, International Islamic University,
Kuala Lumpur 50728, Malaysia; sakhan06@gmail.com or sakhan@iium.edu.my
* Correspondence: asif.afzal86@gmail.com or asif_mech@pace.edu.in (A.A.);
abdulrajak.buradi@nmit.ac.in (A.B.)

Abstract: This work aims to model the combined cycle power plant (CCPP) using different algorithms.
The algorithms used are Ridge, Linear regressor (LR), and upport vector regressor (SVR). The
CCPP energy output data collected as a factor of thermal input variables, mainly exhaust vacuum,
ambient temperature, relative humidity, and ambient pressure. Initially, the Ridge algorithm-based





 modeling is performed in detail, and then SVR-based LR, named as SVR (LR), SVR-based radial
basis function—SVR (RBF), and SVR-based polynomial regression—SVR (Poly.) algorithms, are
Citation: Afzal, A.; Alshahrani, S.;
Alrobaian, A.; Buradi, A.; Khan, S.A.
applied. Mean absolute error (MAE), R-squared (R2 ), median absolute error (MeAE), mean absolute
Power Plant Energy Predictions Based percentage error (MAPE), and mean Poisson deviance (MPD) are assessed after their training and
on Thermal Factors Using Ridge and testing of each algorithm. From the modeling of energy output data, it is seen that SVR (RBF) is the
Support Vector Regressor Algorithms. most suitable in providing very close predictions compared to other algorithms. SVR (RBF) training
Energies 2021, 14, 7254. https:// R2 obtained is 0.98 while all others were 0.9–0.92. The testing predictions made by SVR (RBF), Ridge,
doi.org/10.3390/en14217254 and RidgeCV are nearly the same, i.e., R2 is 0.92. It is concluded that these algorithms are suitable for
predicting sensitive output energy data of a CCPP depending on thermal input variables.
Academic Editor: Tek Tjing Lie

Keywords: CCPP; modeling; ridge; SVR; linear regression; R-squared; algorithm

Received: 11 October 2021
Accepted: 28 October 2021
Published: 3 November 2021

1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Electricity is the leading driving soul of current civilization and is the key essential
published maps and institutional affili- resource to human accomplishments. We require a considerable amount of electrical
ations. power for the proper functioning of the economy and our society. Due to the continuous
demand for electricity, the number of combined cycle power plants (CCPP) increases day
by day. Power plants are established on a large scale to provide the needed amount of
electricity. The critical concern is producing electrical power by maintaining a reliable
power generation system. In thermal power plants generally, thermodynamical methods
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
are used to analyze the systems accurately for their operation. This method uses many
This article is an open access article
assumptions and parameters to solve thousands of nonlinear equations; its elucidation
distributed under the terms and
takes too much effort and computational time. Sometimes, it is not easy to solve these
conditions of the Creative Commons equations without these assumptions [1,2]. To eradicate this barrier, machine learning
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// (ML) methods are common substitutes for thermodynamical methods and mathematical
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ modeling to study random output and input patterns [1]. In the ML approach, envisaging
4.0/). an actual value called regression is the most common problem. The ML approach uses

Energies 2021, 14, 7254. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14217254 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2021, 14, 7254 2 of 22

ML algorithms to control the system response and predict an actual numeric value. Many
realistic and everyday problems can be elucidated as regression problems to improve
predictive models [3].
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are one of the methods of ML. Using ANNs, the
environmental conditions and nonlinear relationships are considered inputs of the ANNs
model, and the power generated is considered the model’s output. Using the ANNs model,
we can calculate the power output of the power plant by imputing various environmental
conditions. ANNs were proposed originally in the mid 20th century as a human brain
computational model. At that time, their use was restricted due to the availability of
limited computational power and a few theoretically unsolved problems. They have been
applied and studied increasingly recently due to availability of computational power and
datasets [4]. In modern thermal power plants, a massive quantity of parametric data is
kept over long periods; hence, big data created on the active data is continuously readily
available without extra cost [2]. Using the ANNs model in [1], various effects such as wind
velocity and its direction, relative humidity, ambient pressure, and the ambient temperature
of the power plant are examined based on the measured information from the power plant.
For varying local atmospheric conditions, in [5], the ANNs model is used to calculate
the performance and operational parameters of a Gas Turbine (GT). In [6], researchers
compare different ML methods to calculate the total load output of electrical power of
a baseload operated CCPP. The modeling of stationary GT is also done by using ANNs.
In [7], the ANNs system is developed and effectively used for studying the behaviors of
GT for different ranges of working points starting from full speed full load and no-load
situations. The Radial Basis Function (RBF) and Multi-Layer Perception (MLP) networks
are effectively used in [8] for finding the startup stage of stationary GT. In [9,10], the
authors used different designs of the MLP method to estimate the electrical power output
and performance of the CCPP by using variable solvers, hidden layer configurations, and
activation functions.
The output power of GT mainly depends on atmospheric parameters such as relative
humidity, atmospheric pressure, and atmospheric temperature. The output power of a
steam turbine (ST) has a direct correlation with exhaust vacuum. The effects of atmospheric
disorders are considered in the literature to calculate electrical power (PE) using ML intelli-
gence systems, i.e., ANNs [1,5]. For identification of GT, in [11], the Feed Forward Neural
Networks (FFNNs) and dynamic linear models are compared and found Neural Networks
(NNs) as a prognosticator model to pinpoint special enactments than the vigorous lin-
ear models. The ANNs models are also effectively employed in isolation, fault detection,
anomaly detection, and performance analysis of GT engines [2,12–14]. In [12,15,16], CCPP’s
total electrical energy power output is predicted using FFNNs entirely based on a novel
trained particle swarm optimization method. Atmospheric pressure, vacuum, relative
humidity, and ambient temperature are used as input factors to calculate the hourly av-
erage power output of the CCPP. An ANNs-based ML processing tool and its predictive
approach are successfully used in [17] CCPPs to study and analyze the environmental
impact on CCPP generation. In [18], the Internet of Things (IoT) based micro-controller
automatic information logger method is employed to accumulate environmental data in
CCPPs. In [19], the researchers estimate the electrical power output by employing the
Genetic Algorithm (GA) method for the design of multi-layer perception (MLP) for CCPPs.
Yu et al. [20] developed an enhanced combined power and heat economic dispatch
(CPHED) model for natural gas CCPP. In addition, the authors examined the effect of
heat load ramp rates on CPHED, which can deliver guidance and theoretical support for
field operation. The study shows that the error among the field operational data and
short term loads deviation model are less than 1 s on heat load and less than 2.6 s on
power load, which proves the model’s accuracy. The authors also suggested that the
enhanced CPHED model improves the operational reliability and improves the economic
performance of plants. Wood [21] used the transparent, open box (TOB) ML technique
or algorithm to calculate an accurate electrical output power (EOP) and to calculate the
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 3 of 22

errors for a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant. Using the TOB algorithm, the
authors revealed that a ML tool could produce exact calculations. To optimize using the
TOB algorithm, the authors revealed that an ML tool is more capable of producing exact
calculations optimizing CCGT performance and its efficiency. Hundi and Shahsavari [22]
performed different proportional studies between ML models assess performance and
monitor the health of CCPP. The authors modeled the full load O/P power of the plant by
using atmospheric pressure (AP), exhaust vacuum pressure (EVP), ambient temperature
(AT), and relative humidity (RH) as I/P variables by applying support vector machines,
ANNs, random forests, and linear regression. The authors suggested that the methods
used in their study help in allowing better control over day-to-day processes and reliable
forecasting and monitoring of hourly energy O/P. Aliyu et al. [23] performed a detailed
thermodynamic (exergy and energy) analysis of a CCPP using the design data. The authors
used a triple pressure CCPP furnished with reheat facilities and determined the exergy
destruction and temperature gradient through each heat retrieval steam generator device.
The authors also revealed that the steam quality, reheat pressure, and superheat pressure
at the outlet of the low-pressure ST expressively disturbs the efficiencies and O/P of
the turbine.
Karacor et al. [24] used and generated life performance models to enhance the effective
use of energy for a CCPP of 243 MW using ANNs and the fuzzy logic (FL) technique. The
study results revealed that the estimation of energy relative error produced among the
years estimated in modeling by using ANNs varies between 0.001% and 0.84% and is
found to vary variesbetween 0.59% and 3.54% in modeling using ANNs. The study also
revealed that the ANNs model is more appropriate for estimating the lifetime performance
of a nonlinear system. Rabby Shuvo et al. [25] successfully used the four different ML
regression methods to predict and forecast the total energy O/P in CCPPs hourly. The
study shows that the linear regression (LR) model executes more proficiently than random
forest, Linear, and decision tree ML methods in performing the data sets. The authors
also found that the value of R2 for LR is about 0.99910896 (99.91%). Zaaoumi et al. [26]
used ANNs and analytical models to predict a parabolic trough solar thermal power plant
(PTSTPP). The study results revealed that the ANNs model achieves better results than the
analytical models. The results of the ANNs model reveal that the predicted yearly electrical
energy is about 42.6 GWh/year, whereas the operational energy is around 44.7 GWh/year.
Additionally, in the literature, numerous studies [27–32] have been performed to
envisage consumption of electrical energy by using ML intelligence tools; also tiny studies,
i.e., [1] have been carried out related to the calculation of overall electrical power of a CCPP
with a heating system, one ST, and three GTs. In [33], the authors used an Extreme Learning
Machine (ELM) as the base regression model to analyze the power plant’s performance
in a vibrant atmosphere that can update regression models autonomously to react with
abrupt or gradual environmental changes. In [34], the authors used Cuckoo Search-based
ANNs to predict the output electrical energy of GT and combined steam mechanisms to
yield more reliable mechanisms.
Many investigators have conveyed the reliability and feasibility of ANNs models as
analysis and simulation tools for different power plant components and processes [35–42].
Comparatively limited studies have considered the use of ST in a CCPP [2,6,43]. this review
shows that researchers often modeled power plant data to predict the energy output. Most
commonly used algorithms can be briefed as ANNs, MLP, and sometimes combined with
GA algorithm. However, the use of SVR-based algorithms to predict the CCPP output
energy is not reported. Multiple regression and Ridge algorithms are also limitedly used in
literature pertinent to energy data modeling. The current work is aimed to fill this gap by
proposing a regression model based on SVR and Ridge algorithm.
Moreover, the different types of SVR algorithms and the effect of the alpha parameter
in the Ridge algorithm are rarely seen, which is also covered in this work. Hence, this work
comparatively analyzes different algorithms pertinent to the classification and regression
part of machine learning to predict CCPP energy output data based on thermal factors as
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 4 of 22

its input. Ridge and SVR-based algorithms are used to model data, and their performance
is accessed using different matrics in this work.

2. CCPP System
For the production of electrical energy, a CCPP system is mainly comprised of a gas
turbine (GT), steam heat recovery generators (SHRGs), and a steam turbine (ST). In CCPP,
the generated electricity in ST by gas in a single combined cycle is repositioned from one ST
to another [6]. In CCPP, a GT produces both hot gasses and electrical power (EP). These hot
gasses from GT are allowed to pass over the water-cooled heat exchanger (HE) to generate
steam and can be used to produce the EP with the help of ST and coupled generator. Over
the world, CCPPs are being installed in increasing amounts where a considerable amount
of renewable natural gas is available [10]. Figure 1 illustrates the layout of CCPP. For the
present study, all the critical data were taken from CCPP-1. The CCPP-1 is deliberated as a
small ST generating a capacity of 480 MW and comprises two 160 MW ABB 13E2 GTs and
one 160 MW ABB ST with dual pressure SHRGs. In GT, the applied load is very sensitive
to atmospheric conditions, mainly atmospheric pressure (AP), relative humidity (RH), and
ambient temperature (AT). Also, the load on ST is very sensitive to the vacuum or exhaust
steam pressure (ESP). For the present study, both gasses and ST features are interrelated
with ambient conditions, and ESP is used as data set and I/P variables. In the data set, the
production of EP by gas and STs is considered a critical variable.
All the I/P and critical variables defined below are associated with average hourly
data are taken from the measurement at different sensor points are represented in Figure 1.
Atmospheric Pressure (AP): These I/P variable data are measured in millibar (mbar) units
with a deviation of 992.89 mbar to 1033.30 mbar. Relative Humidity (RH): These I/P
variable data being measured in percentage (%) with a deviation of 25.56% to 100.16%.
Exhaust Steam Pressure (ESP) or Vacuum (V): ese I/P variable data are measured in cm
Hg witha deviation of 25.36 cm Hg to 81.56 cm Hg. Full load EP output: This variable is
employed as a primary variable in the dataset and is measured in MW with a deviation of
420.26 MW to 495.76 MW. Ambient Temperature (AT): ese I/P variable data are measured
in degrees Celsius (◦ C) witha deviation of 1.81 ◦ C to 37.11 ◦ C.
The pre-processing of data is a critical process in ML algorithms to obtain quality
data that contains reduction, transformation, cleaning, and data integration methods. The
data set may vary from 2 to 1000 s of topographies in measurements, which could be
irrelevant or redundant. The dataset selection for subset topographies is decreased by
removing the irrelevant and redundant topographies from an initial data set. The main
aim of the selection of the feature subset is to attain the smallest set of new features.
Using the decreased set of new features allows ML algorithms to work faster and more
effectively. Therefore, it supports predicting more correctly by rising learning correctness
of ML algorithms and edifying result simplicity [20]. The selection of feature subsets by
giving a new feature set that involves ‘n’ number of I/P features. A creation or generation
of subsets is the main stage in the section of subsets. The search approach can be employed
for creating possible subsets features. Theoretically, the current top subset of the new
features set may be achieved by measuring all the prospective subset features competing
for ‘2n’ likely subsets. This investigation is known as a comprehensive investigation, which
is too costly and unrealizable if the new features set contains vast features [21]. Several
search procedures are employed to calculate the best subset of the sole features set, which is
more realistic, practical, and accessible. Although in the current study, the inclusive search
is used as the best technique. Therefore, each mixture feature is tried and marked with
a score using ML regression approaches those counterparts a value of the extrapolation
accuracy, the best subset.
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 5 of 22

Figure 1. The simple layout of CCPP (reprinted with permission from Elsevier 2017 [44]).

3. Power Plant Energy Output Data Modeling

3.1. Ridge Regression (RR)
The RR is a technique dedicated to examining multiple regression datathat is multi-
collinearity in nature. The RR is also a critical method employed for investigating multiple
regression data that suffer from multi-collinearity. When multi-collinearity arises, least-
squares appraisals are unbiased, but their alterations are more so they may be distant
from the actual value. By totaling a grade of bias to the regression evaluations, RR re-
duces the standard errors. It is expected that the net result will be to provide more
consistent evaluations.
Following the usual representation, assume our regression equation is engraved in its
matrix form as:
Y = XB + e (1)
Y = λ + λ1 X1 + λ2 X2 . . . .. + λ p X p (2)
where, X and Y represent the independent and dependent variables, respectively, e repre-
sents the errors as residuals, B represents the regression coefficients to be measured, and p
represents the number of data points.
Once we include the lambda (λ) function in Equation (1), the modified estimated
model becomes Equation (2), the model takes account of variance, which is not consid-
ered by the general model. After the data is recognized and prepared to be part of L2
regularization, there are stages that one can accept, which are bias, variance trade-off, and
standardization and expectations of RR, which are comparable to direct regression.
Additionally, RR model handles a regression problem in which the loss function is the
linear least square’s function, and the L2-norm is used for regularization. The strength of
regularization; must be a positive float. Regularization enhances the problem’s condition-
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 6 of 22

ing and lowers the variance of the estimates. In this model, the alpha parameter determines
whether the model responds to regularization; for example, as alpha is increased or de-
creased, the model responds, and error is reduced. If the visualization exhibits a jagged or
erratic plot, the model may not be sensitive to that form of regularization, and a different
one is necessary. This alpha (α) value is varied from 0 to 1 in the modeling to understand
its effects, in this work.

3.2. Multiple Linear Regression (MLR)

The MLR is also simply called multiple regressions, an arithmetic method that applies
numerous descriptive variables to calculate the consequence of a reaction variable. The key
aim of MLR is to model the true correlation among dependent and independent variables.
In principle, MLR that allows standard minimum squares regression as it comprises more
than one descriptive variable. The simplicity of linear regression’s representation makes
it an appealing model. We use a linear equation to describe the input values (x) and one
projected output value (y). As a result, the input (x) and the output (y) are both numeric.
Each input value or column in the linear equation is given one scale factor, termed a
coefficient, symbolized by the capital letter A. One more coefficient is also added, giving
the line an additional degree of freedom (e.g., going up and down on a 2D plot) and is
commonly known as the bias coefficient or as intercept.
The model in Linear regression of a simple problem having a single y and single x, the
equation is:
y = A0 + A1 ∗ x (3)
A line in higher dimensions is a plane or a hyper-plane with more than one input (x).
So, the representation is made up of the equation appropriate values of A0 and A1 in the
above equation.

3.3. Support Vector Regression (SVR)

The support vector regression (SVR) proposes a regression algorithm that supports
nonlinear and linear regressions. This technique works on the code of Support Vector
Machine (SVM). The SVR varies SVM because SVM is a classifier applied for calculating
discrete definite markers. At the same time, SVR is a regressor employed for calculating
constant systematic variables. The SVR uses the same idea as SVM for regression issues.
The challenge of regression is to create a function that approximates the mapping from
an input domain to real numbers based on a training sample. Finding a hyperplane that
optimally divides the characteristics into distinct domains is at the heart of SVR. The main
premise here is that the further SV points are from the hyperplane, the more likely it is that
the points in their respective regions or values will be appropriately fitted (see Figure 2).
Because the location of the vectors affects the hyperplane’s position, SV points are vital for
computing it.
In SVR, kernel functions are often adopted to transfer the original dataset
(linear/nonlinear) onto a higher-dimensional space to make it a linear dataset. As a
result, kernel functions are frequently referred to as “generalized dot products.” The linear,
polynomial, and RBF (radial basis function) or Gaussian kernels must be differentiated. In
general, linear and polynomial kernels take less time and give less accuracy than RBF or
Gaussian kernels to draw the hyperplane decision border across classes. Gaussian RBF
is another common Kernel technique used in SVR models. The value of an RBF kernel
fluctuates with its distance from the origin or a given location.
The RBG Kernel format is mentioned below in the form as:
 
K ( A1 , A2 ) = exponent −σ ∥ A1 − A2 ∥2 (4)

∥ A1 − A2 ∥ is the distance between A1 and A2 of Euclidean type. Adopting the original

space, the calculation of similarity (dot product) of A1 and A2 .
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 7 of 22

σ is used for RBF kernel whose increasing value indicates the model being overfitted
and decrease in its values indicates model being under fitted.

Figure 2. Concept of SVR modeling.

4. Performance Assessment
Different performance metrics are selected. Each metrices is individually calculated
for training, and testing the model provided numerical values to access the quality of
training calculations and algorithm predictions during testing [45–49].

4.1. Mean Absolute Error (MAE)

MAE is a measure of errors among corresponding observations articulating the equiv-
alent phenomenon. The MAE is the absolute variance among the values that are calculated
and the actual values. Absolute variance means that it is ignored if the outcome has an
undesirable (-ve) sign. Also, the MAE is the average of all absolute errors and gives the
O/P. The examples of X versus Y contain evaluations of witnessed versus expected, one
method of measurement versus another, and initial time versus subsequent time. The MAE
is calculated by:
1 n
MAE = ∑ | x a − x | (5)
p i =1
where:
p = Number of errors
∑ = Add them all absolute errors
| x a − x | = Absolute errors.

4.2. R-Square (R2 )

The R-square (R2 ) is an arithmetical measure of fit that specifies how much deviation
of a dependent variable is described by the independent variable in a regression model.
The R2 is also called the coefficient of determination. This metric offers a sign of in what
mANNser good a model fits a given dataset. It specifies how close the calculated values
are plotted (i.e., the regression line) to the actual data values. The value of R2 lies between
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 8 of 22

0 and 1, where 0 shows that this modelis not suitable for the given data, and one shows
that the model hysterics seamlessly to the provided dataset. The R2 is measured as:
v

2
∑nx=1 Vot − Vop
u
u
t1 −
R=u  2 (6)
∑nx=1 Vot(mean) − Vop

In the above R2 equation, n is the number of data points, Vot and Vop indicate the
calculated predictions from the regressors and actual output from CCPP measured from
the experiment, respectively. In the statistical study, the negative (–ve) value must be more
significant enough to signify a superior precise model that can go up to a maximum equal
to 1.

4.3. Median Absolute Error (MeAE)

As the name proposes, the MeAE is a weighted average of the total errors, with the
comparative occurrences as the weightage features. The MeAE is mainly interesting since
it is vigorous to outliers. The loss is considered by compelling the average of all absolute
variances among the expectation and the target. If ŷ is the expected value of the ith sample
and y1 is the equivalent actual value, then the average absolute error predicted over n
samples are restricted as follows:

MeAE (y, ŷ) = median(|y1 − ŷ1 |, . . . ., |yn − ŷn |) (7)

4.4. Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)

The MAPE is a measure of how accurate a prognosis system is. The MAPE is usually
used as a loss function for regression complications and in the classic calculation due to its
actual instinctive explanation in terms of relative error. The MAPE is the supreme collective
measure employed to prognosis error and works best if there are no limits to the data and
no zeros. It measures the correctness as a percentage and can be deliberated as the median
absolute percent error for all periods minus actual values separated by absolute values.
The MAPE is as follows:
1 n  At − Ft 
 
MAPE = ∑  (8)
n t =1 At 
where:
n = Number of fitted points,
At = Actual value,
Ft = Forecast value, and
∑ = Summation notation.

4.5. Mean Poisson Deviance (MPD)

The MPD measures how well a statistical model fits the data. In MPD, the mean is
equivalent to the variance, but in actual practice, the variance is regularly less than the
mean (under-dispersed) or greater (overdispersed). It extends the notion of employing the
sum of squares of residuals (RSS) in conventional least squares to situations where model-
fitting may be done with the greatest certainty. Exponential dispersion and generalized
linear models both use it extensively.
The Poisson deviance is given as:
p  
Au
PD = 2 ∑ { Au log − ( Au − θu )} (9)
u =1
θu

In this equation if Au = 0, then the term ( A
u − θu ) = 0.

The term θu = exp δ0 + δ1 B1 + . . . + δp B p indicates the calculated mean for obser-
vation u represented by the value θu Which represents the estimated model parameters.
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 9 of 22

The deviation is a measure of how well the model fits the data; if the model fits well, the
observed values Au will be near to their projected means mu i, leading both components in
PD to be small and, therefore, the deviance to be modest.

5. Results and Discussion

The modeling results were obtained using regression algorithms: Ridge (with different
alpha α values), linear regression (LR), support vector regressor (SVR) based LR—SVR (LR),
SVR based radial basis function—SVR (RBF), and SVR based polynomial regression—SVR
(Poly.). The performance assessing parameters like MAE, R2 , MeAE, MAPE, and MPD are
analyzed comparatively. It should be noted that the regression Ridge is analyzed in detail,
and RidgeCV (Ridge cross-validated) model is used only in the last part of this section. The
predictor parameter here is the output of electrical energy power (PEO) from the CCPP
affected by VE (exhaust vacuum), ABT (ambient temperature), REH (relative humidity),
and ABP (ambient pressure). These readings of CCPP were recorded experimentally,
and the entire data set is openly available in the UCI machine learning repository made
available by the work reported in [50].
In Figure 3, the Ridge regressor used for modeling PEO data with alpha α = 0, con-
sidering only the training output. The training data set of PEO is chosen randomly with a
state of 42 for all the models. The training of the Ridge regressor indicates that the obtained
output from the algorithm conveniently matches the experimental readings. The trendline
shown in the figure indicates that the maximum data obtained from the regressor output
is in line with the recorded data. The prime indicator R2 = 0.9283 shows that the training
is successful as the value is close to unity. Upon this comfortable training of the Ridge
regressor, an attempt is made to test the ability of this model to predict the testing data.
From Figure 4, the predictions made by the regressor indicate the output is in an excellent
match with the experimental readings. The predictions are even better than the trained
output from the regressor. The compactness and closeness with the trendlines indicate
this algorithm’s ability to predict power plant energy output based on thermal parameters.
Though the data is highly nonlinear, the Ridge model is successful in its predictions. The
R2 = 0.9297 during testing is obtained from this regressor, indicating closeness to its perfect
unity. For α = 0.2 to 1.0, the training and testing results are avoided for brevity purposes.
In Figure 5, a better elucidation of predictions made by the Ridge regressor for selected
data points is provided. A comparative analysis is shown between the experimental
readings and Ridge regressor training outputs with α values ranging from 0 to 1.0. Only
the first 30 data points are considered for the demonstration purpose. The figure shows
that the trend line of experimental readings with data points and the Ridge regressor
trends with α values ranging from 0 to 1.0 are closely placed. The trendlines are sometimes
overlapped, making it challenging to make a note of the difference. However, from a close
view of the figure, it can be seen that during the high and low peaks, the most closeness
between experimental data and predictions from Ridge regressor is at α = 0. As the α value
is increased from 0 to 1.0, the tendency to predict the PEO slightly diminishes, i.e., moves
slightly away from the actual values. The main reason for this is that the data shrinkage
increases with an increase in α value, impacting the coefficients to zero. Figure 6 shows the
trends of experimental data opted for testing the trained Ridge regressor, which provides
predictions at different α values. Each vertical line represents a data point along which
the experimental data and Ridge regressor predictions in the form of scattered data points
are shown at different α values. It is seen that the empty circles representing experimental
points and diamond in red (α = 0) are very close to other models.
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 10 of 22

Figure 3. Training results of Ridge regressor with α = 0 with R2 = 0.9283.

Figure 4. Ridge regressor (α = 0) predicting the PEO with R2 = 0.9297 during testing.
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 11 of 22

Figure 5. The trend of experimental readings and predictions made by Ridge regressor for the first 30 data points during
training with different α values ranging from 0 to 1.0.

Figure 6. Scatter data plot of predictions by Ridge regressor at different α values during testing.

In Figure 7, the performance metrics (MAE, R2 , MeAE, MAPE, and MPD) of the Ridge
regressor at different α values are shown. This performance of the Ridge regressor is
obtained from the training data set computed following experimental data. From the figure,
the MAE value is seen rising linearly with the α values. As discussed, the increase in α
values impacts the data shrinkage growth; the MAE tends to increase accordingly. The
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 12 of 22

R2 value also indicates that the increase in α values hampers the accuracy of the Ridge
regressor. However, the best closet value of R2 obtained is at α = 0. The R2 looks to be
a very uniform thought, but a closer look reveals that its value is decreasing, which is
unacceptable. The MaAE, MAPE, and MPD metrics also increase with an increase in α
values as the training ability of the regressor deteriorates. In Figure 8, the trend of all
the metrics is shown with an increase in α values obtained from the testing session. As
expected, the performance of the Ridge regressor has worsened with the α values, as also
observed from the training data set. However, the metrics are seen to linearly increase with
the α values, not in the previous metrics.

Figure 7. Performance of Ridge regressor at different α values from the training computations (R2 is
shown as R2 in the graph legends).

Figure 8. Ridge regressor performance metrics change linearly with α values in the tested dataset (R2
is shown as R2 in the graph legends).

Figure 9 shows the Linear regressor obtained output during the training of PEO data
of a CCPP. The comparison along the trendline between Linear regressor calculated output
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 13 of 22

and experimental readings are along a line that clearly shows a match among them. The
training can be appropriate and successful as the data points are compact, except that a few
are outside the region. Such outliers are common in data modeling, which is acceptable as
the value of R2 is above 0.9. This training is performed using 90% of the total data available
for training purposes. The remaining 10% of data being used to test the model, which
is trained using this 90% data. The testing of the Linear regressor model is carried out
with the 10% of data, and a comparative plot obtained with experimental data is shown in
Figure 10. Significantly few data points fall outside the clustered region, where most of
the data points are close to the trendline. The testing of the Linear regressor model depicts
that it is also as suitable as the Ridge model in the prediction of PEO of a CCPP. The R2
is above 0.9 in testing results, clearly showing that the Linear regressor model can give a
very close result. This indicates that more computational cost and time can be saved by
adopting this simple model than other models. In Figure 11, the performance evaluation of
the trained and tested Linear regressor is shown in a 3D bar graph for better illustration.
The metrics are very close to each other from training and testing. IN BOTH CASES, the
MAE, R2, MeAE, MAPE, and MPD are approximately the same, which is usually rare in
most modeling processes. A very close value to zero from MAPE and MPD indicates that
the error is less and the difference in predicted and the actual value is also significantly less
irrespective of whether the data point numerical value involved is large or less.

Figure 9. Training output from Linear regressor and experimental output compared along a line
where the R2 is 0.904 from the trendline.
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 14 of 22

Figure 10. Testing predictions from Linear regressor and experimental output plotted along a line
where the R2 is 0.907 from the trendline.

Figure 11. The different forms of errors were analyzed in the Linear regressor obtained from the
training and testing points (R2 is shown as R2 in the horizontal x-axis).

In Figure 12, the training and testing of PEO data using support vector regressor
(SVR) based LR—SVR (LR) algorithm. The R2 for both cases is shown in the graphs at
the top left corner. The densely packed data points indicate the training computations
performed successfully, and the testing results also show a comfortable prediction from the
SVR (LR) trained. The R2 value for both is above 0.91, indicating a good regression of the
power plant energy data. In Figure 13, using the SVR-based RBF—SVR (RBF) algorithm,
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 15 of 22

the training of the data set is most successful in this study. The R2 for SVR (RBF) based
training is above 0.98, which is the closest unity obtained. The testing of this regressor is
shown in Figure 13b, which also indicates a good prediction. However, these predictions
during SVR (RBF) testing are not dominant to other algorithms as the R2 is close to 0.93 as
in other cases.

Figure 12. (a) Training and (b) testing of PEO using support vector regressor (SVR) based LR—SVR (LR) algorithm.

Figure 13. SVR-based radial basis function—SVR (RBF) algorithm (a) Training and (b) testing results for the CCPP
energy output.
The superior performance of SVR (RBF) is the excellent generalization nature of this
algorithm. It is robust to outliers and has tolerance to noise in input data based on the
confronted mapping. This algorithm s equivalent in performance to neural networks and
neuro inference systems. In Figure 14, the Polynomial regression-based SVR (SVR Poly.)
algorithm training and testing results. Figure 14a shows that the training of SVR Poly.
The model also is trained well with the given actual data. However, this algorithm is not
as competent as the R2 is 0.91, also obtained from previous models. The main drawback
observed during the training is the excessive computational time taken by this model for
1 degree of polynomial functions. For 3 degrees polynomial functional, the time was not
tolerable and did not continue with the training process. Surprisingly, during the testing of
this data, the closeness with actual values predicted was slightly better than the training.
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 16 of 22

Figure 14. Polynomial regression-based SVR (SVR Poly.) algorithm used for (a) Training and (b) testing of PEO data.

In Figure 15, a relative variation of CCPP output energy data from experimental
recordings and computed readings using SVR (LR), SVR (RBF), and SVR (Poly.) algorithms
is shown. For demonstration, only the first 20 data points are chosen arbitrarily. The circled
marker data scattered in the plot shows the experimental values for reference. The reaming
empty square boxes show the respective readings computed during the training session
of the three SVR algorithms. The SVR (RBF) for most data points completely overlapped,
while the other two algorithm readings are seen to deviate but still slightly match the trend
of actual values. In Figure 16, the predictions provided by the SVR algorithms during
the testing session are comparatively provided. Each vertical line in the figure represents
a single data point on which the values from the experiment and SVR algorithms lie.
The actual values in an empty brown circle lie in the mid of the SVR readings, majorly
predicted data. The closer values seen are from empty yellow triangles, i.e., by SVR (RBF)
algorithm. Figure 17a,b the training output computed, and the prediction made from the
trained algorithm, respectively. SVR (LR), SVR (RBF), SVR (Poly.), and RidgeCV algorithms
are used for comparative analysis. The bars in Figure 17a indicate that the least error is
obtained from SVR (RBF). However, during testing Figure 17b, RidgeCV and SVR (RBF)
have nearly the same error values.
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 17 of 22

Figure 15. Comparison between the actual readings of CCPP energy output (PEO) and trained values produced from
computations of SVR (LR), SVR (RBF), and SVR (Poly.) algorithms during the training indicating first 20 data points only.

Figure 16. The predicted data of CCPP using SVR (LR), SVR (RBF), and SVR (Poly.) algorithms were obtained after testing
in comparison with experimental readings.
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 18 of 22

Figure 17. Assessment of SVR (LR), SVR (RBF), and SVR (Poly.) algorithms compared with RidgeCV
used for (a) training and (b) testing of energy output data. (R2 is shown as R2 in the graph legend).
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 19 of 22

6. Conclusions
A comparative analysis of modeling of power plant output energy data is examined
in this work. Ridge, Linear regression, SVR (LR), SVR (RBF), and SVR (Poly.) algorithms
are explored in their capabilities to predict the energy output that depends upon the
thermal factors of the power plant. To access the performance of these algorithms, relevant
metrics are selected, and the errors in the predictions of these algorithms are comparatively
studied. Initially, using Ridge algorithm modeling indicated that it can easily be used for
the prediction of energy data. However, for increasing values of α, the Ridge algorithm
does not accurately predict the energy data. Linear regression is also equivalently capable
of predictions of the data. SVR models have provided an exciting modeling output. SVR
linear model has the inline ability with Ridge and Linear regression models. The SVR (RBF)
model has given the best training computations, while RBF (Poly.) is a good predictor of
this nonlinear sensitive data. The Ridge cross-validated (RidgeCV) algorithm just used
for comparison has proved that SVR (RBF) and RidgeCV algorithms are the best among
the chosen models in predicting power plant output energy. The performance metrics
such as MAE, R2 , MeAE, MAPE, and MPD analysis also revealed that the SVR (RBF) is
the best algorithm that gives very close predictions to actual values. The following stands
are RidgeCV, SVR (Poly.) Ridge, SVR (LR), and then last is the Linear regression model in
predictions. This finally indicates that the selected algorithms are well suited for modeling
CCPP output energy based on thermal input parameters.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.A. (Asif Afzal); Data curation, A.A. (Abdulrahman
Alrobaian) and S.A.K.; Formal analysis, A.A. (Asif Afzal) and A.B.; Funding acquisition, S.A.K.;
Investigation, S.A., A.A. (Abdulrahman Alrobaian) and S.A.K.; Methodology, A.A. (Asif Afzal) and
A.A. (Abdulrahman Alrobaian); Resources, S.A. and A.B.; Validation, A.B.; Writing—original draft,
A.A. (Asif Afzal) and A.B.; Writing—review & editing, S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University grant no. R.G.P. 1/132/42.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at
King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia, for funding this work through the Research Group Program
under grant no. R.G.P. 1/132/42.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
Symbols Description Symbols Description
CCPP Combined cycle power plant α Alpha
LR Linear regressor SHRGs Steam heat recovery generators
SVR Support vector regressor/regression EP Electrical power
RBF Radial basis function HE Heat exchanger
MAE Mean absolute error MW Mega watt
R2 R-squared AP Atmospheric pressure
MeAE Median absolute error RH Relative humidity
MAPE Mean absolute percentage error AT Ambient temperature
MPD Mean poison deviance ESP Exhaust steam pressure
CV Cross-validated I/P Input
ML Machine learning O/P Output
ANNs Artificial neural networks RR Ridge regression
GT Gas turbine MLR Multiple linear regression
MLP Multi-layer perception VE Exhaust vacuum
ST Steam turbine RidgeCV Ridge cross-validated
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 20 of 22

PE Electrical power ABT Ambient temperature

FFNNs Feed forward neural networks REH Relative humidity
NNs Neural networks MLP Multi-layer perception
IoT Internet of things ELM Extreme learning machine
GA Genetic algorithm SVM Support vector machines
EEP Electrical energy power |xa − x| Absolute errors
X Independent variable n Number of data points
Y Dependent variable Vot Calculated predictions from
regressors
e Errors Vot Calculated actual O/P
B Regression coefficient ŷ Expected value of ith sample
x Input value y1 Equivalent actual value
y Output value At Actual value
A 0 , A1 Scale factors Ft Forecast value
σ Radial basis function kernel θu Calculated mean
A 1 , A2 Linear datasets Au Observed value
p Number of errors PD Poisson deviance
∑ Summation of all absolute errors

References
1. Kesgin, U.; Heperkan, H. Simulation of thermodynamic systems using soft computing techniques. Int. J. Energy Res. 2005, 29,
581–611. [CrossRef]
2. Dehghani Samani, A. Combined cycle power plant with indirect dry cooling tower forecasting using artificial neural network.
Decis. Sci. Lett. 2018, 7, 131–142. [CrossRef]
3. Altay Guvenir, H.; Uysal, I. Regression on feature projections. Knowl. Based Syst. 2000, 13, 207–214. [CrossRef]
4. Hagan, M.T.; Demuth, H.B.; De Jesús, O. An introduction to the use of neural networks in control systems. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear
Control 2002, 12, 959–985. [CrossRef]
5. Fast, M.; Assadi, M.; De, S. Development and multi-utility of an ANN model for an industrial gas turbine. Appl. Energy 2009, 86,
9–17. [CrossRef]
6. Tüfekci, P. Prediction of full load electrical power output of a base load operated combined cycle power plant using machine
learning methods. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 60, 126–140. [CrossRef]
7. Rahnama, M.; Ghorbani, H.; Montazeri, A. Nonlinear identification of a gas turbine system in transient operation mode using
neural network. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Thermal Power Plants; IEEE, Teheran, Iran, 18–19 December 2012;
pp. 1–6.
8. Refan, M.H.; Taghavi, S.H.; Afshar, A. Identification of heavy duty gas turbine startup mode by neural networks. In Proceedings
of the 4th Conference on Thermal Power Plants, Teheran, Iran, 18–19 December 2012; pp. 1–6.
9. Lorencin, I.; Car, Z.; Kudláček, J.; Mrzljak, V.; And̄elić, N.; Blažević, S. Estimation of combined cycle power plant power output
using multilayer perceptron variations. In Proceedings of the 10th International Technical Conference—Technological Forum
2019, Hlinsko, Czech Republic, 18–20 June 2019.
10. Islikaye, A.A.; Cetin, A. Performance of ML methods in estimating net energy produced in a combined cycle power plant.
In Proceedings of the 6th International Istanbul Smart Grids and Cities Congress and Fair (ICSG), Istanbul, Turkey, 25–26 April
2018; pp. 217–220. [CrossRef]
11. Yari, M.; Aliyari Shoorehdeli, M.; Yousefi, I. V94.2 gas turbine identification using neural network. In Proceedings of the First
RSI/ISM International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (ICRoM), Teheran, Iran, 13–15 February 2013; pp. 523–529.
[CrossRef]
12. Sina Tayarani-Bathaie, S.; Sadough Vanini, Z.N.; Khorasani, K. Dynamic neural network-based fault diagnosis of gas turbine
engines. Neurocomputing 2014, 125, 153–165. [CrossRef]
13. Kumar, A.; Srivastava, A.; Banerjee, A.; Goel, A. Performance based anomaly detection analysis of a gas turbine engine by
artificial neural network approach. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society,
Minneapolis, MN, USA, 23–27 September 2012; pp. 450–457.
14. Rashid, M.; Kamal, K.; Zafar, T.; Sheikh, Z.; Shah, A.; Mathavan, S. Energy prediction of a combined cycle power plant using a
particle swarm optimization trained feedforward neural network. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechanical
Engineering, Automation and Control Systems (MEACS), Tomsk, Russia, 1–4 December 2015; pp. 27–31. [CrossRef]
15. Akdemir, B. Prediction of hourly generated electric power using artificial neural network for combined cycle power plant. Int. J.
Electr. Energy 2016, 4, 91–95. [CrossRef]
16. Elfaki, E.A.; Ahmed, A.H. Prediction of electrical output power of combined cycle power plant using regression ANN model. J.
Power Energy Eng. 2018, 6, 17–38. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 21 of 22

17. Hassanul Karim Roni, M.; Khan, M.A.G. An artificial neural network based predictive approach for analyzing environmental
impact on combined cycle power plant generation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Electrical & Electronic
Engineering (ICEEE), Rajshahi, Bangladesh, 27–29 December 2017; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
18. Uma, K.; Swetha, M.; Manisha, M.; Revathi, S.V.; Kannan, A. IOT based environment condition monitoring system. Indian J. Sci.
Technol. 2017, 10, 1–6. [CrossRef]
19. Lorencin, I.; Andelić, N.; Mrzljak, V.; Car, Z. Genetic algorithm approach to design of multi-layer perceptron for combined cycle
power plant electrical power output estimation. Energies 2019, 12, 4352. [CrossRef]
20. Yu, H.; Nord, L.O.; Yu, C.; Zhou, J.; Si, F. An improved combined heat and power economic dispatch model for natural gas
combined cycle power plants. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2020, 181, 115939. [CrossRef]
21. Wood, D.A. Combined cycle gas turbine power output prediction and data mining with optimized data matching algorithm. SN
Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1–21. [CrossRef]
22. Hundi, P.; Shahsavari, R. Comparative studies among machine learning models for performance estimation and health monitoring
of thermal power plants. Appl. Energy 2020, 265, 114775. [CrossRef]
23. Aliyu, M.; AlQudaihi, A.B.; Said, S.A.M.; Habib, M.A. Energy, exergy and parametric analysis of a combined cycle power plant.
Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2020, 15, 100450. [CrossRef]
24. Karaçor, M.; Uysal, A.; Mamur, H.; Şen, G.; Nil, M.; Bilgin, M.Z.; Doğan, H.; Şahin, C. Life performance prediction of natural gas
combined cycle power plant with intelligent algorithms. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47. [CrossRef]
25. Rabby Shuvo, M.G.; Sultana, N.; Motin, L.; Islam, M.R. Prediction of hourly total energy in combined cycle power plant using
machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics
(CAIDA), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 6–7 April 2021; pp. 170–175. [CrossRef]
26. Zaaoumi, A.; Bah, A.; Ciocan, M.; Sebastian, P.; Balan, M.C.; Mechaqrane, A.; Alaoui, M. Estimation of the energy production of
a parabolic trough solar thermal power plant using analytical and artificial neural networks models. Renew. Energy 2021, 170,
620–638. [CrossRef]
27. AlRashidi, M.R.; EL-Naggar, K.M. Long term electric load forecasting based on particle swarm optimization. Appl. Energy 2010,
87, 320–326. [CrossRef]
28. Che, J.; Wang, J.; Wang, G. An adaptive fuzzy combination model based on self-organizing map and support vector regression for
electric load forecasting. Energy 2012, 37, 657–664. [CrossRef]
29. Leung, P.C.M.; Lee, E.W.M. Estimation of electrical power consumption in subway station design by intelligent approach. Appl.
Energy 2013, 101, 634–643. [CrossRef]
30. Kavaklioglu, K. Modeling and prediction of Turkey’s electricity consumption using Support Vector Regression. Appl. Energy 2011,
88, 368–375. [CrossRef]
31. Azadeh, A.; Saberi, M.; Seraj, O. An integrated fuzzy regression algorithm for energy consumption estimation with non-stationary
data: A case study of Iran. Energy 2010, 35, 2351–2366. [CrossRef]
32. Tso, G.K.F.; Yau, K.K.W. Predicting electricity energy consumption: A comparison of regression analysis, decision tree and neural
networks. Energy 2007, 32, 1761–1768. [CrossRef]
33. Xu, R.; Yan, W. Continuous modeling of power plant performance with regularized extreme learning machine. In Proceedings of
the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), Budapest, Hungary, 14–19 July 2019; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
34. Chatterjee, S.; Dey, N.; Ashour, A.S.; Drugarin, C.V.A. Electrical energy output prediction using cuckoo search based artificial
neural network. Smart Trends Syst. Secur. Sustain. 2018, 18, 277–285. [CrossRef]
35. Bettocchi, R.; Spina, P.R.; Torella, G. Gas Turbine Health Indices Determination by Using Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the
ASME Turbo Expo 2002: Power for Land, Sea, and Air. Volume 2: Turbo Expo 2002, Parts A and B, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
3–6 June 2002; pp. 1083–1089. [CrossRef]
36. Khosravi, A.; Nahavandi, S.; Creighton, D. Prediction intervals for short-term wind farm power generation forecasts. IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy 2013, 4, 602–610. [CrossRef]
37. Mahmoud, T.; Dong, Z.Y.; Ma, J. An advanced approach for optimal wind power generation prediction intervals by using
self-adaptive evolutionary extreme learning machine. Renew. Energy 2018, 126, 254–269. [CrossRef]
38. Wan, C.; Xu, Z.; Pinson, P.; Dong, Z.Y.; Wong, K.P. Optimal prediction intervals of wind power generation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
2014, 29, 1166–1174. [CrossRef]
39. Boccaletti, C.; Cerri, G.; Seyedan, B. A neural network simulator of a gas turbine with a waste heat recovery section. J. Eng. Gas
Turbines Power 2001, 123, 371–376. [CrossRef]
40. Bizzarri, F.; Bongiorno, M.; Brambilla, A.; Gruosso, G.; Gajani, G.S. Model of photovoltaic power plants for performance analysis
and production forecast. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2013, 4, 278–285. [CrossRef]
41. Huang, H.; Wang, H.; Peng, J. Optimal prediction intervals of wind power generation based on FA-ELM. In Proceedings of the
IEEE Sustainable Power and Energy Conference (iSPEC), Chengdu, China, 23–25 November 2020; pp. 98–103.
42. Erdem, H.H.; Sevilgen, S.H. Case study: Effect of ambient temperature on the electricity production and fuel consumption of a
simple cycle gas turbine in Turkey. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2006, 26, 320–326. [CrossRef]
43. Niu, L.X.; Liu, X.J. Multivariable generalized predictive scheme for gas turbine control in combined cycle power plant.
In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems, Chengdu, China, 21–24 September 2008;
pp. 791–796. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 7254 22 of 22

44. Kilani, N.; Khir, T.; Ben Brahim, A. Performance analysis of two combined cycle power plants with different steam injection
system design. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2017, 42, 12856–12864. [CrossRef]
45. Afzal, A.; Khan, S.A.; Islam, T.; Jilte, R.D.; Khan, A.; Soudagar, M.E.M. Investigation and back-propagation modeling of base
pressure at sonic and supersonic Mach numbers. Phys. Fluids 2020, 32, 096109. [CrossRef]
46. Afzal, A.; Aabid, A.; Khan, A.; Afghan, S.; Rajak, U.; Nath, T.; Kumar, R. Response surface analysis, clustering, and random forest
regression of pressure in suddenly expanded high-speed aerodynamic flows. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2020, 107, 106318. [CrossRef]
47. Afzal, A.; Navid, K.M.Y.; Saidur, R.; Razak, R.K.A.; Subbiah, R. Back propagation modeling of shear stress and viscosity of
aqueous Ionic-MXene nanofluids. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2021, 145, 2129–2149. [CrossRef]
48. David, O.; Waheed, M.A.; Taheri-Garavand, A.; Nath, T.; Dairo, O.U.; Bolaji, B.O.; Afzal, A. Prandtl number of optimum biodiesel
from food industrial waste oil and diesel fuel blend for diesel engine. Fuel 2021, 285, 119049. [CrossRef]
49. Mokashi, I.; Afzal, A.; Khan, S.A.; Abdullah, N.A.; Bin Azami, M.H.; Jilte, R.D.; Samuel, O.D. Nusselt number analysis from a
battery pack cooled by different fluids and multiple back-propagation modelling using feed-forward networks. Int. J. Therm. Sci.
2021, 161, 106738. [CrossRef]
50. Kaya, H.; Tüfekci, P.; Gurgen, F. Local and global learning methods for predicting power of a combined gas & steam turbine.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Trends in Computer and Electronics Engineering ICETCEE, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates, 24–25 March 2012; pp. 13–18.