Advertisement

Abstract

A hybrid framework that uses Mathematical and Constraint Programming for the scheduling of batch chemical processes is proposed. Mathematical programming is used for the high-level optimization decisions (number and type of tasks, and assignment of equipment units to tasks), and Constraint Programming is used for the low-level sequencing decisions. The original problem is decomposed into an MILP master problem and a CP subproblem. The master MILP is a relaxation of the original problem, and given a relaxed solution, the CP subproblem checks whether there is a feasible solution and generates integer cuts. The proposed framework is based on the hybrid algorithm of Maravelias and Grossmann ([1],[2]), and can be used for different objective functions and different plant configurations. In this paper we present the simplifications and enhancements that allow us to use the proposed framework in a variety of problems, and report computational results.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Maravelias, T.C., Grossmann, I.E.: A Hybrid MILP/CP Decomposition Approach for the Scheduling of Batch Plants. In: Proceedings of CP-AI-OR 2003, Montreal, Canada (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maravelias, C.T., Grossmann, I.E.: A Hybrid MILP/CP Decomposition Approach for the Short Term Scheduling of Multipurpose Batch Plants. To appear in Comput Chem. Eng. (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pinedo, M.: Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reklaitis, G.V.: Overview of scheduling and planning of batch process operations. In: NATO Advanced Study Institute- Batch Process Systems Engineering, Antalya, Turkey (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rippin, D.W.T.: Batch process systems engineering: a retrospective and prospective review. Comput. Chem. Eng. 17, S1–S13 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pinto, J., Grossmann, I.E.: Assignment and Sequencing Models for the Scheduling of Chemical Processes. Annals of Operations Research 81, 433–466 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shah, N.: Single- and multisite planning and scheduling: Current status and future challenges. In: AIChE Symposium Series, vol. 94, p. 75 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kondili, E., Pantelides, C.C., Sargent, R.: A General Algorithm for Short-Term Scheduling of Batch Operations - I. MILP Formulation. Comput. Chem. Eng. 17, 211–227 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pantelides, C.C.: Unified Frameworks for the Optimal Process Planning and Scheduling. In: Proceedings on the Second Conference on Foundations of Computer Aided Operations, pp. 253–274 (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schilling, G., Pantelides, C.C.: A Simple Continuous-Time Process Scheduling Formulation and a Novel Solution Algorithm. Comput. Chem. Eng. 20, S1221–1226 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang, X., Sargent, R.W.H.: The Optimal Operation of Mixed Production Facilities - General Formulation and Some Approaches for the Solution. Comput. Chem. Eng. 20, 897–904 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mockus, L., Reklaitis, G.V.: Continuous Time Representation Approach to Batch and Continuous Process Scheduling. 1. MTNLP Formulation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 38, 197–203 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castro, P., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P.F.D., Matos, H.: An Improved RTN Continuous-Time Formulation for the Short-term Scheduling of Multipurpose Batch Plants. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40, 2059–2068 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maravelias, C.T., Grossmann, I.E.: A New General Continuous-Time State Task Network Formulation for the Short-Term Scheduling of Multipurpose Batch Plants. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42(13), 3056–3074 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ILOG OPL Studio 3.5: The Optimization Language, ILOG Inc. (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ILOG OPL Studio 3.5 :The User’s Manual, ILOG Inc. (2001) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adams, J., Balas, E., Zawack, D.: The Shifting Bottleneck Procedure for Job Shop Scheduling. Management Science 34, 391–401 (1988)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Balas, E., Vazacopoulos, A.: Guided Local Search with Shifting Bottleneck for Job Shop Scheduling. Management Science 44(2), 262–275 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jain, V., Grossmann, I.E.: Resource-constrained Scheduling of Tests in New Product Development. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 38, 3013–3026 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bockmayr, A., Pisaruk, N.: Detecting Infeasibility and Generating Cuts for MTP Using CP. In: Proceedings of CP-AI-OR 2003, Montreal, Canada (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Balas, E.: Facets of the Knapsack Polytope. Mathematical Programming 8, 146–164 (1975)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolsey, L.A.: Faces for a Linear Inequality in 0-1 Variables. Mathematical Programming 8, 165–178 (1975)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harjunkoski, I., Grossmann, I.E.: Decomposition Techniques for Multistage Scheduling Problems Using Mixed-Integer and Constrained Programming Methods. Comput. Chem. Eng. 26, 1533–1552 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christos T. Maravelias
    • 1
  • Ignacio E. Grossmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations