| Literature DB >> 35877894 |
Guobi Ling1, Zhiwen Wang1,2,3, Yaoke Shi1, Jieying Wang1, Yanrong Lu1,2,3, Long Li1,4.
Abstract
In view of the difficulty in obtaining the membrane bioreactor (MBR) membrane flux in real time, considering the disadvantage of the back propagation (BP) network in predicting MBR membrane flux, such as the local minimum value and poor generalization ability of the model, this article introduces tent chaotic mapping in the standard sparrow search algorithm (SSA), which improves the uniformity of population distribution and the searching ability of the algorithm (used to optimize the key parameters of the BP network). The tent sparrow search algorithm back propagation network (Tent-SSA-BP) membrane fouling prediction model is established to achieve accurate prediction of membrane flux; compared to the BP, genetic algorithm back propagation network (GA-BP), particle swarm optimization back propagation network (PSO-BP), sparrow search algorithm extreme learning machine(SSA-ELM), sparrow search algorithm back propagation network (SSA-BP), and Tent particle swarm optimization back propagation network (Tent-PSO-BP) models, it has unique advantages. Compared with the BP model before improvement, the improved soft sensing model reduces MAPE by 96.76%, RMSE by 99.78% and MAE by 95.61%. The prediction accuracy of the algorithm proposed in this article reaches 97.4%, which is much higher than the 48.52% of BP. It is also higher than other prediction models, and the prediction accuracy has been greatly improved, which has some engineering reference value.Entities:
Keywords: MBR; SSA; Tent-SSA-BP model; membrane flux prediction; tent chaotic mapping
Year: 2022 PMID: 35877894 PMCID: PMC9318055 DOI: 10.3390/membranes12070691
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1BP network 6-12-1 structure diagram.
Figure 2Tent chaotic sequence. (a) Histogram; (b) Distribution map.
Figure 3Logistic chaotic sequence. (a) Histogram; (b) Distribution map.
The SPSS analysis results.
| Principal Component | Eigenvalues | Contribution Rate | Cumulative Contribution Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2.331 | 53.752 | 53.752 |
|
| 1.252 | 21.121 | 74.873 |
|
| 1.007 | 14.435 | 89.308 |
|
| 0.774 | 3.704 | 93.012 |
Figure 4Membrane fouling prediction model.
Figure 5Flowchart of Tent-SSA-BP algorithm.
Test function.
| Test Function | Range of Values | Dimension | Optimum Solution |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test function results.
| Benchmark Function | SSA | Tent-SSA | PSO | WOA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. Deviation | Mean | Std. Deviation | Mean | Std. Deviation | Mean | Std. Deviation | |
|
| 1.73 × 10−06 | 2.66 × 10−05 |
|
| 5.26 × 10−04 | 7.32 × 10−04 | 2.01 × 10−27 | 1.11 × 10−26 |
|
| 6.32 × 10−25 | 1.35 × 10−24 |
|
| 2.35 × 10−03 | 1.61 × 10−03 | 2.44 × 10−19 | 4.56 × 10−19 |
|
| −1.39 × 10−06 | 2.73 × 10−05 |
|
| 6.52 × 10+02 | 4.83 × 10+02 | 6.55 × 10+03 | 1.76 × 10+03 |
|
| −3.74 × 10−06 | 1.02 × 10−05 |
|
| 6.13 × 10+00 | 2.25 × 10+00 | 6.36 × 10+01 | 2.53 × 10+01 |
|
| 2.43 × 10−02 | 1.01 × 10−01 |
|
| 4.84 × 10−02 | 1.74 × 10−02 | 6.13 × 10−03 | 8.20 × 10−03 |
|
| 9.95 × 10−02 | 1.13 × 10+00 |
|
| 6.22 × 10+01 | 1.75 × 10−01 | 6.04 × 10+00 | 2.00 × 10+01 |
|
| −1.11 × 10−07 | 3.31 × 10−06 |
|
| 8.04 × 10−01 | 8.01 × 10−01 | 8.25 × 10−06 | 2.52 × 10−06 |
|
| 9.37 × 10−03 | 8.33 × 10−03 |
|
| 8.26 × 10−01 | 8.83 × 10−01 | 9.28 × 10−02 | 6.24 × 10−02 |
Figure 6Iterative convergence curves for different test functions. (a–h) – iterative convergence curves.
Figure 7Optimizing algorithm to improve the comparison chart of prediction results. (a) Prediction contrast map. (b) Error comparison diagram.
Figure 8Prediction results of different soft measurement models. (a) GA-BP prediction contrast map. (b) PSO-BP prediction contrast map. (c) SSA-ELM prediction contrast map. (d) SSA-BP prediction contrast map. (e) Tent-PSO-BP prediction contrast map. (f) Tent-SSA-BP prediction contrast map.
Prediction error comparison.
| Model | EVA | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| MAPE/% | RMSE | MAE | |
| BP | 0.0216 | 0.3917 | 0.5148 |
| GA-BP | 0.0051 | 0.0344 | 0.1249 |
| PSO-BP | 0.0053 | 0.0484 | 0.1333 |
| SSA-ELM | 0.0046 | 0.0317 | 0.1157 |
| SSA-BP | 0.0024 | 0.0204 | 0.0574 |
| Tent-PSO-BP | 0.0025 | 0.0211 | 0.0606 |
| Tent-SSA-BP | 0.0007 | 0.0009 | 0.0226 |
Figure 9Prediction error curve.
Prediction accuracy of different methods under different noise conditions.
| Diagnostic Method | SNR/dB | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 8 | 12 | |
| BP | 46.52% | 63.82% | 45.23% |
| GA-BP | 82.51% | 90.76% | 79.96% |
| PSO-BP | 84.67% | 89.26% | 80.42% |
| SSA-ELM | 82.43% | 88.17% | 78.17% |
| SSA-BP | 90.26% | 92.28% | 86.73% |
| Tent-PSO-BP | 88.36% | 90.23% | 85.18% |
| Tent-SSA-BP | 93.74% | 94.16% | 91.22% |