Optimization and Engineering

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 5–24 | Cite as

Simultaneous Solution Strategies for Inclusion of Input Saturation in the Optimal Design of Dynamically Operable Plants

Article

Abstract

Recent work has considered the inclusion of input saturation in optimization-based integrated plant and control system design. Two mathematical formulations have been derived which allow saturation to be included within a simultaneous optimization framework; these are mixed-integer and bilinear formulations. The MIP formulation applied within an integrated design and control framework was found to be computationally intensive. This paper reviews these formulations and proposes an alternative solution strategy that uses an interior point approach to handle the complementarity constraints present in the bilinear formulation. A solution algorithm is presented and applied to an example problem.

input saturation complementarity constraints interior point method optimal design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. P. A. Bahri, J. A. Bandoni, and J. A. Romagnoli, “Integrated flexibility and controllability analysis in design of chemical processes,” AIChE Journal vol. 43,no. 4, pp. 997–1015, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. R. Baker, “Inclusion of Input Saturation in the Design of Dynamically Operable Plants,” Master's thesis, University of Cape Town, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. M. S. Bazaraa, H. D. Sherali, and C. M. Shetty. Nonlinear Programming. Theory and Algorithms, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1993.Google Scholar
  4. L. T. Biegler, A. M. Cervantes, and A. Wächter, “Advances in simultaneous strategies for dynamic process optimization,” Chemical Engineering Science vol. 57,no. 4, pp. 575–593, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. A. Brooke, D. Kendrick, A. Meerhaus, and R. Raman, GAMS. A User's Guide. GAMS Development Corporation, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. A. Cervantes and L. T. Biegler, “Optimization strategies for dynamic systems,” in C. Floudas and P. Pardalos (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Optimization, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001, vol. 4, pp. 216–227.Google Scholar
  7. J. E. Cuthrell and L. T. Biegler, “On the optimization of differential-algebraic process systems,” AIChE Journal vol. 33,no. 8, pp. 1257–1270, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. M. C. Ferris and C. Kanzow, “Complementarity and related problems: A survey,” in P. M. Pardalos and M. G. C. Resende (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Optimization, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 514–530.Google Scholar
  9. R. S. Gajulapalli and L. S. Lasdon, “Computational experience with a safeguarded barrier algorithm for sparse nonlinear programming,” Computational Optimization and Applications vol. 19, pp. 107–120, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. GAMS Development Corporation. GAMS—The Solver Manuals, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. I. E. Grossmann, J. Viswanathan, A. Vecchietti, R. Raman, and E. Kalvelagen, DICOPT: A Discrete Continuous Optimization Package. GAMS Development Corporation, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. T. E. Marlin, Process Control: Designing Processes and Control Systems for Dynamic Performance, 2nd edition, McGraw Hill, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. M. J. Mohideen, J. D. Perkins, and E. N. Pistikopoulos, “Optimal design of dynamic systems under uncertainty,” AIChE Journal vol. 42,no. 8, pp. 2251–2272, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. B. A. Ogunnaike and W. H. Ray, Process Dynamics, Modeling and Control. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. J. M. G. van Schijndel and E. N. Pistikopoulos, “Towards the integration of process design, process control & process operability—Current status & future trends,” in M. F. Malone, J. A. Trainham, and B. Carnahan (Eds.), Foundations of Computer-Aided Process Design, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2000, pp. 99–112.Google Scholar
  16. R. J. Vanderbei and D. F. Shanno, “An interior-point algorithm for nonconvex nonlinear programming,” Computational Optimization and Applications vol. 13, pp. 231–252, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. S. J. Wright, Primal-Dual Interior Point Methods, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. J. C. C. Young, “On Constraint Proximity in Optimizing Control.” PhD thesis, University of Cape Town, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. J. C. C. Young and C. L. E. Swartz, “Input saturation effects in optimizing control,” AIChE Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, Paper 194g, November 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations