基于PMHA的CNN-BiLSTM-XGBoost催化裂化装置产率预测
PMHA-Based CNN-BiLSTM-XGBoost Catalytic Cracking Unit Yield Prediction
摘要: 催化裂化装置是石油炼制过程中至关重要的设备之一,其石油产品产率的准确预测对于优化生产和资源利用至关重要。针对传统的机理模型方式存在的建模困难、参数估计困难、对复杂系统的局限性以及难以处理非线性关系和高维数据等劣势,数据驱动的建模方式更灵活适应复杂系统和大量数据,能够有效处理非线性关系和高维数据,具有更强的预测准确性和实时性。因此,采用并行结构多头注意力机制,构建了一种基于CNN-BILSTM-XGBoost的催化裂化装置产率预测模型,以应对这些挑战。实验结果表明,该模型的预测准确率能达到98%,显著优于SVR、RF、AdaBoost等传统回归模型,为催化裂化过程的智能化升级提供新的思路。
Abstract: The catalytic cracking unit is one of the most crucial equipment in the petroleum refining process, and accurate prediction of its petroleum product yield is crucial for optimizing production and resource utilization. In view of the disadvantages of traditional mechanism model methods such as modeling difficulties, parameter estimation difficulties, limitations in complex systems, and difficulty in processing nonlinear relationships and high-dimensional data, data-driven modeling methods are more flexible and adaptable to complex systems and large amounts of data. It can effectively handle nonlinear relationships and high-dimensional data, and has stronger prediction accuracy and real-time performance. Therefore, a parallel structure multi-head attention mechanism was used to construct a catalytic cracking unit yield prediction model based on CNN- BILSTM-XGBoost to address these challenges. Experimental results show that the prediction accuracy of this model can reach 98%, which is significantly better than traditional regression models such as SVR, RF, and AdaBoost, and provides new ideas for the intelligent upgrade of the catalytic cracking process.
文章引用:姚拙成, 王亚刚. 基于PMHA的CNN-BiLSTM-XGBoost催化裂化装置产率预测[J]. 建模与仿真, 2024, 13(3): 3998-4008. https://doi.org/10.12677/mos.2024.133363

参考文献

[1] Santander, O., Kuppuraj, V., Harrison, C.A., et al. (2022) An Open Source Fluid Catalytic Cracker-Fractionator Model to Support the Development and Benchmarking of Process Control, Machine Learning and Operation Strategies. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 164, 107900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[2] Bollas, G.M., Lappas, A.A., Iatridis, D.K., et al. (2007) Five-Lump Kinetic Model with Selective Catalyst Deactivation for the Prediction of the Product Selectivity in the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Process. Catalysis Today, 127, 31-43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[3] John, Y.M., Mustafa, M.A., Patel, R., et al. (2019) Parameter Estimation of a Six-Lump Kinetic Model of an Industrial Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit. Fuel, 235, 1436-1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[4] Nazarova, G., Ivashkina, E., Ivanchina, E., et al. (2021) A Predictive Model of Catalytic Cracking: Feedstock-Induced Changes in Gasoline and Gas Composition. Fuel Processing Technology, 217, 106720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[5] Yang, F., Dai, C., Tang, J., et al. (2020) A Hybrid Deep Learning and Mechanistic Kinetics Model for the Prediction of Fluid Catalytic Cracking Performance. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 155, 202-210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[6] Jia, C., Rohani, S. and Jutan, A. (2003) FCC Unit Modeling, Identification and Model Predictive Control, a Simulation Study. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 42, 311-325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[7] Abou-Jeyab, R.A. and Gupta, Y.P. (2001) Constrained Multivariable Control of Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Process Using Linear Programming. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 79, 274-282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[8] Jerez, J.L., Goulart, P.J., Richter, S., et al. (2014) Embedded Online Optimization for Model Predictive Control at Megahertz Rates. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 59, 3238-3251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[9] Chen, C., Zhou, L., Ji, X., et al. (2020) Adaptive Modeling Strategy Integrating Feature Selection and Random Forest for Fluid Catalytic Cracking Processes. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 59, 11265-11274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[10] 肖强, 国庆, 李义一, 等. RBF神经网络在催化裂化汽油加氢装置中的应用[J]. 石油化工, 2018, 47(1): 37-42.
[11] 陈延展, 胡浩, 任紫畅, 等. 基于XGBoost和改进灰狼优化算法的催化裂化汽油精制装置的辛烷值损失模型分析[J]. 石油学报(石油加工), 2022, 38(1): 208-219.
[12] Jiang, H., Zhang, S., Yang, W., et al. (2023) Integration of Encoding and Temporal Forecasting: Toward End-to-End NOx Prediction for Industrial Chemical Process. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 35, 2984-2996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[13] Khaldi, M.K., Al-Dhaifallah, M. and Taha, O. (2023) Artificial Intelligence Perspectives: A Systematic Literature Review on Modeling, Control, and Optimization of Fluid Catalytic Cracking. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 80, 294-314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[14] Soni, A.N. (2018) Feature Extraction Methods for Time Series Functions Using Machine Learning. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 7, 8661-8665.
[15] Yuan, Z., Yang, Z., Ling, Y., et al. (2021) Spatiotemporal Attention Mechanism-Based Deep Network for Critical Parameters Prediction in Chemical Process. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 155, 401-414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[16] Pinheiro, C.I.C., Fernandes, J.L., Domingues, L., et al. (2012) Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) Process Modeling, Simulation, and Control. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 51, 1-29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[17] Kadlec, P., Gabrys, B. and Strandt, S. (2009) Data-Driven Soft Sensors in the Process Industry. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 33, 795-814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[18] Michalopoulos, J., Papadokonstadakis, S., Arampatzis, G., et al. (2001) Modelling of an Industrial Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit Using Neural Networks. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 79, 137-142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[19] Yang, F., Sang, Y., Lv, J., et al. (2022) Prediction of Gasoline Yield in Fluid Catalytic Cracking Based on Multiple Level LSTM. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 185, 119-129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef