| Literature DB >> 28786957 |
Kun Chen1, Yu Liang2, Zengliang Gao3, Yi Liu4.
Abstract
Development of accurate data-driven quality prediction models for industrial blast furnaces encounters several challenges mainly because the collected data are nonlinear, non-Gaussian, and uneven distributed. A just-in-time correntropy-based local soft sensing approach is presented to predict the silicon content in this work. Without cumbersome efforts for outlier detection, a correntropy support vector regression (CSVR) modeling framework is proposed to deal with the soft sensor development and outlier detection simultaneously. Moreover, with a continuous updating database and a clustering strategy, a just-in-time CSVR (JCSVR) method is developed. Consequently, more accurate prediction and efficient implementations of JCSVR can be achieved. Better prediction performance of JCSVR is validated on the online silicon content prediction, compared with traditional soft sensors.Entities:
Keywords: industrial blast furnace; local learning; outlier detection; silicon content; soft sensor; support vector regression
Year: 2017 PMID: 28786957 PMCID: PMC5579503 DOI: 10.3390/s17081830
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Main implemented steps of the proposed soft sensor modeling method integrating both of offline implements and online JCSVR method.
Figure 2(a) The normal probability plot of the top pressure variable in the training set; and (b) the normal probability plot of the top temperature variable in the training set.
Figure 3The spatial relationship of several process input variables in the training set.
Figure 4The trained CSVR model for fitting data with the normalized weights . As an affiliated product, those data with can be simply identified as candidate outliers.
Fitting results comparison of CSVR and LSSVR soft sensor models for the training set.
| Soft Sensor Model | RMSE | RE (%) | HR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSVR [ | 0.116 | 21.49 | 73.33 |
| LSSVR [ | 0.122 | 23.04 | 66.25 |
Figure 5Comparison results of online silicon content prediction using JCSVR and JLSSVR models (test set).
Figure 6Comparison results of online silicon content prediction error using JCSVR and JLSSVR models (test set).
Brief description of four different prediction models.
| Prediction Model | Brief Description | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local and Unfixed | Outlier Detection | Main Pros | Main Cons | |
| JCSVR | Yes | Yes | More suitable for noisy and uneven distributed data | Model selection is relatively difficult |
| JLSSVR [ | Yes | No | Suitable for online modeling of nonlinear processes | Not robust for outliers |
| CSVR [ | No | Yes | Suitable for construction of a global model with noisy data | Prediction accuracy for some local regions may not be enough |
| LSSVR [ | No | No | A simple nonlinear modeling method | Not robust for outliers and relatively inaccurate for some local regions |
Comparison results of online silicon content prediction for the test set using four different models.
| Prediction Model | RMSE | RE (%) | HR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| JCSVR | 0.079 | 17.70 | 80.5 |
| JLSSVR [ | 0.105 | 22.51 | 64.5 |
| CSVR [ | 0.123 | 28.16 | 61.5 |
| LSSVR [ | 0.141 | 31.29 | 52.5 |
Figure 7Comparison results of silicon content prediction relative error distribution with JCSVR, JLSSVR, CSVR, and LSSVR models (test set).