Process Optimization via Conventional Factorial Designs and Simulated Annealing on the Path of Steepest Ascent for a CSTR

  • Pongchanun Luangpaiboon
Conference paper
Part of the Operations Research Proceedings 2002 book series (ORP, volume 2002)


This work determines the efficiency of sequential algorithms for automatic optimization of a chemical process. A method of steepest ascent and an integrated approach between the method of steepest ascent and Simulated Annealing, are compared on a simulated continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) with various levels of signal noise. The results suggest that the method of steepest ascent seems to be the most efficient on the CSTR surface at the lower levels of noise. However, the integrated approach with the Simulated Annealing element works well when the standard deviation of the noise is at higher levels. Although the average, the standard deviation of the greatest actual concentration of the product and percentage of sequences ended at the optimum from the integrated algorithm are better, it needs more runs, on average, to converge to the optimum when compared.


Genetic Algorithm Simulated Annealing Response Surface Methodology Sequential Algorithm Continuous Stir Tank Reactor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bohachevsky IO, Johnson ME, Stein ML (1986) Generalized simulated annealing for function optimization. Technometrics: 209–217Google Scholar
  2. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search optimization and machine learning. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  3. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Jennison C, Franconi L, Sheehan N (1995) Stochastic optimization: simulated annealing and the genetic algorithm. Institute of Mathematics and its Applications Conference Series 54: 209–213Google Scholar
  5. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220: 671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Luangpaiboon P (1995) Dynamic process layout planning. Published Master of Engineering Thesis, Kasetsart Uiversity, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  7. Luangpaiboon P (2000) A comparison of algorithms for automatic process optimization. Published Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Luangpaiboon P (2001) Proposed finishing strategies based on experimental designs for process optimization. Thammasat International Journal of Science and Technology: 39–45Google Scholar
  9. Luangpaiboon P, Metcalfe AV, Rowlands RJ, Tham MT, Willis MJ (2000) Comparison of a modified simplex and a genetic algorithm for optimizing a chemical process. Proceedings of the Ist International Conference on Industrial Statistics in Action 2000, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Myers RH, Montgomery DC (1995) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pongchanun Luangpaiboon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringThammasat University (Rangsit Campus)KlongLuang, PathumthaniThailand

Personalised recommendations