Catalytic Cracking Multi-Objective Optimization With SPEA2 Guidance

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing catalytic cracking optimization technologies in the petrochemical field primarily focus on single-objective optimization, failing to meet the requirements of multi-objective optimization, which results in long optimization times, poor quality, and unstable optimization results.

Innovation Solution

A multi-objective optimization method using the SPEA2 algorithm to adjust process decision variables within constraint ranges, determining operation data as guide values for process decision variables to meet multi-objective optimization requirements, improve efficiency, and enhance the quality and stability of optimization results.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If single-objective optimization technology is used for catalytic cracking process, then the optimization process is simple, but the optimization time is long, quality is poor, and stability is low

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoptimization efficiencyVSAvoidoptimization time
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the optimization process into multiple independent objective functions (economic benefit, energy consumption, emission reduction) that can be evaluated separately but simultaneously optimized. This segmentation allows the use of multi-objective optimization algorithms to handle each objective independently while finding balanced solutions, thereby improving optimization efficiency and reducing time compared to sequential single-objective approaches.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent transforms the multi-objective optimization problem into a parameter optimization problem by defining weighted objective functions that combine multiple goals. By changing the weighting parameters, the system can dynamically adjust the balance between different objectives (economic benefit, energy consumption, emissions), enabling faster convergence and more stable results without requiring multiple separate optimization runs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Adaptability or versatility

If existing multi-objective optimization technologies from other fields are applied, then multiple objectives can be considered, but useful information generated during individual evolution is ignored, requiring large numbers of iterations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemulti-objective optimization capabilityVSAvoiditeration complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements feedback mechanisms where the results from individual objective evaluations are fed back into the overall optimization process. The algorithm uses feedback from each objective function's evaluation to adjust the search direction and converge faster. This feedback loop prevents the need for large numbers of iterations by continuously refining solutions based on accumulated information from all objectives, reducing computational complexity while maintaining multi-objective capability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs preliminary actions by pre-defining the objective functions, constraints, and evaluation criteria before the optimization process begins. This preliminary setup includes establishing the mathematical models for economic benefit, energy consumption, and emission reduction, which guides the optimization algorithm from the start and reduces the number of iterations needed compared to approaches that explore objectives without prior structuring.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Ease of operation

If single-objective optimization is performed, then the optimization process is straightforward, but it cannot meet the actual needs of comprehensive multi-objective optimization

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoptimization process simplicityVSAvoidoptimization result quality
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent creates a universal optimization framework that can handle multiple objectives (economic benefit, energy consumption, emission reduction) within a single integrated system. This multi-functional approach maintains ease of operation by providing a unified interface and process flow, while simultaneously improving reliability by considering all objectives together rather than separately, ensuring comprehensive and reliable optimization results.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent combines multiple objective functions into a composite optimization model that integrates economic, energy, and environmental considerations. This composite approach maintains the simplicity of a unified optimization process while enhancing result quality by ensuring that solutions satisfy multiple competing objectives simultaneously, rather than optimizing for a single objective in isolation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #40Composite materials

Data Source

PatentUS20250155872A1Multi-objective optimization method and device for catalytic cracking process
Publication Date: 2025.05.15 EAST CHINA UNIV OF SCI & TECH
  • US20250155872A1 patent drawing
  • US20250155872A1 patent drawing
  • US20250155872A1 patent drawing

AI summary

The present invention provides a multi-objective optimization method and a device for catalytic cracking process, and a computer-readable storage medium. The multi-objective optimization method comprises following steps: determining a plurality of optimization objectives, a plurality of process decision variables corresponding to the plurality of optimization objectives, and a constraint range of each of the process decision variables; determining an objective function according to the plurality of optimization objectives and the plurality of process decision variables; adjusting a value of each of the process decision variables within the constraint range by SPEA2 algorithm, which improves filial generation evolution process through a path-based reproduction operator, thereby determining an operation data of the objective function on each of the process decision variables; determining an optimization objective value of each of the optimization objectives according to the operation data of each of the process decision variables; and determining the operation data as guide values of the plurality of process decision variables, corresponding to the plurality of optimization objectives, according to an optimal optimization objective value solution set.