Modeling the Tennessee Eastman chemical process reactor using bio-inspired feedforward neural network (BI-FF-NN)

  • Alaa ShetaEmail author
  • Malik Braik
  • Heba Al-Hiary


This study explores the application of bio-inspired algorithms (BIAs) in training artificial neural networks (ANNs) in the area of the nonlinear chemical process modeling. Motivated by the increasing complexity and operational efficiency of chemical processes, the need for schemes that can improve model identification of highly nonlinear systems is demanded. As a case study, the Tennessee Eastman (TE) chemical reactor problem is considered. The key issue is to find a particular architecture for an ANN that best model the TE chemical process. We propose the use of BIAs of bat algorithm (BA), firefly algorithm (FA), and artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm as mechanisms to automatically update the synaptic weights of ANN. These algorithms were conducted to increase the ability of ANN to adapt the dynamic aspect of the TE process and prevent trapping into a local optimum. The proposed modeling framework was devised with extensive experiments and statistical analysis to illustrate the usability and suitability of the entire modeling and identification procedures. The results were explored with a discussion using the mean square error (MSE) and the variance account for (VAF) criteria to assess the degree of identification performance of the TE case study model. The reliability of the presented models was compared with previously developed models for the same subsystems of the TE reactor using competitive, intelligent approaches. The comparative results show that the proposed approach provides superior modeling performance and outperforms its competitors.


Tennessee Eastman process Neural networks Bat algorithm Firefly algorithm Artificial bee colony algorithm 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Tennessee eastman challenge archive. Accessed 17 Jan 2018
  2. 2.
    Al-Hiary H, Braik M, Sheta A, Ayesh A (2008) Identification of a chemical process reactor using soft computing techniques. In: IEEE International conference on fuzzy systems, 2008. FUZZ-IEEE 2008. (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence). IEEE, pp 845–853Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Hiary H, Sheta A (2006) Identification and model predictive controller design of the Tennessee Eastman chemical process using ANN. In: Proceeding of 4th international multi-conference on computer science and information technology (CSIT 2006), Amman, Jordan, April 5-7, vol 2, pp 189–198Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bathelt A, Ricker N, Jelali M (2015) Revision of the Tennessee Eastman process model. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(8):309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braik M, Sheta A, Arieqat A (2008) A comparison between GAs and PSO in training ANN to model the TE chemical process reactor. In: Proceedings of the AISB 2008 convention in communication, interaction and social intelligence, vol 1, p 24Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen H, Tiňo P, Yao X (2014) Cognitive fault diagnosis in Tennessee Eastman process using learning in the model space. Comput Chem Eng 67:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen TB, Dong YL, Jiao YC, Zhang FS (2006) Synthesis of circular antenna array using crossed particle swarm optimization algorithm. J Electromagn Waves Appl 20(13):1785–1795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dong J, Zhang K, Huang Y, Li G, Peng K (2015) Adaptive total pls based quality-relevant process monitoring with application to the Tennessee Eastman process. Neurocomputing 154:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Downs JJ, Vogel EF (1993) A plant-wide industrial process control problem. Comput Chem Eng 17 (3):245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eldem V, Yildizbayrak N (1988) Parameter and structure identification of linear multivariable systems. Automatica 24(3):365–373MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faris H, Sheta A (2013) Identification of the Tennessee Eastman chemical process reactor using genetic programming. Int J Adv Sci Technol 50:121–140Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ge Z (2017) Review on data-driven modeling and monitoring for plant-wide industrial processes. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory SystemsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haykin S (1994) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. Prentice Hall PTRGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jia Q, Zhang Y (2016) Quality-related fault detection approach based on dynamic kernel partial least squares. Chem Eng Res Des 106:242–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jockenhövel T, Biegler LT, Wächter A (2003) Dynamic optimization of the Tennessee Eastman process using the OptControlCentre. Comput Chem Eng 27(11):1513–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karaboga D (2010) Artificial bee colony algorithm. Scholarpedia 5(3):6915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karaboga D, Basturk B (2007) A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: artificial bee colony (abc) algorithm. J Global Optim 39(3):459–471MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li W, Hongbo S (2014) Improved kernel pls-based fault detection approach for nonlinear chemical processes. Chin J Chem Eng 22(6):657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu D, Michalski KA (2016) Comparative study of bio-inspired optimization algorithms and their application to dielectric function fitting. J Electromagn Waves Appl 30(14):1885–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ljung L (1987) Theory for the user. Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mish MJR (2009) Swarm intelligence techniques and its applications in water resources management ISH. J Hydraul Eng 15(1):151–169Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reddy MJ, Kumar DN (2007) An efficient multi-objective optimization algorithm based on swarm intelligence for engineering design. Eng Optim 39(1):49–68MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ricker N (1995) Optimal steady-state operation of the Tennessee Eastman challenge process. Comput Chem Eng 19(9):949–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ricker N, Lee J (1995) Nonlinear modeling and state estimation for the Tennessee Eastman challenge process. Comput Chem Eng 19(9):983–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ricker N, Lee J (1995) Nonlinear model predictive control of the Tennessee Eastman challenge process. Comput Chem Eng 19(9):961–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1985) Learning internal representations by error propagation. Tech. rep., California Univ San Diego La Jolla Inst for Cognitive ScienceGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schalkoff RJ (1997) Artificial neural networks, vol 1. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sheta A (2005) Modeling the Tennessee Eastman chemical reactor using fuzzy logic. ISE Book Series on Fuzzy System Engineering-Theory and Practice published by Nova ScienceGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sheta AF, Braik M, Al-Hiary H (2009) Identification and model predictive controller design of the Tennessee Eastman Chemical Process using ANN. In: Proceedings of the international conference on artificial intelligence (ICAI’09), July 13-16, USA, vol 1, pp 25–31Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sheta AF, Braik M, Öznergiz E, Ayesh A, Masud M (2013) Design and automation for manufacturing processes: an intelligent business modeling using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems. In: Business intelligence and performance management. Springer, pp 191–208Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang G, Tang W, Xia J, Chu J, Noorman H, Gulik WM (2015) Integration of microbial kinetics and fluid dynamics toward model-driven scale-up of industrial bioprocesses. Eng Life Sci 15(1):20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Webb B (2002) Swarm intelligence: from natural to artificial systems. Connect Sci 14(2):163–164MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wei Y, Qiu J, Lam HK, Wu L (2017) Approaches to t–s fuzzy-affine-model-based reliable output feedback control for nonlinear ito stochastic systems. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 25(3):569– 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yang XS (2009) Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization. In: International symposium on stochastic algorithms. Springer, pp 169–178Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yang XS (2010) Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimisation. Int J Bio-Inspired Comput 2(2):78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yang XS (2010) A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm. Nature inspired cooperative strategies for optimization (NICSO 2010), pp 65–74Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yin S, Wang G, Gao H (2016) Data-driven process monitoring based on modified orthogonal projections to latent structures. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 24(4):1480–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zweiri YH, Seneviratne LD, Althoefer K (2005) Stability analysis of a three-term backpropagation algorithm. Neural Netw 18(10):1341–1347CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computing SciencesTexas A& M University-Corpus ChristiCorpus ChristiUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceAl-Balqa Applied UniversitySaltJordan
  3. 3.Department of Computer Information SystemAl-Balqa Applied UniversitySaltJordan

Personalised recommendations