4.8 Article

Hybrid-Model-Based Intelligent Optimization of Ironmaking Process

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
卷 67, 期 3, 页码 2469-2479

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2019.2903770

关键词

Optimization; Logic gates; Production; Genetic algorithms; Deep learning; Iron; Sociology; Blast furnace ironmaking; hybrid model; intelligent optimization; production indices

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61290321]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2012AA041709]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to the limits on market requirements, material conditions, and production situations in manufacturing process, conventional optimization approaches are difficult to obtain optimal economical and technical indices with physical constraints. To optimize several conflicting objects such as production rate, economic benefits, and gas emission, a hybrid-model-based intelligent optimization method that consists of an improved genetic algorithm and derived deep learning is put forward in this paper. Integration of the hybrid model has made modeling and optimizing an indivisible whole, in which the fitness of the genetic algorithm comes from deep neural networks by weighted sum of the output variables that correspond to the input solutions. The recurrent neural network (RNN) with disposition-gated recurrent unit (dGRU) is applied to capture the dynamics of blast furnace by training the model over datasets recorded in the production scene. Meanwhile, the self-adaptive population genetic algorithm (SAPGA) with a varied population size depending on the fitness distribution is used to locate the optimal solutions under current working conditions. The hybrid intelligent optimization model, validated by both numerical tests and practical data, has been running in an ironmaking plant for one year. It has proved to be successful in meeting industry demands by optimizing multiproduction indices simultaneously.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据